Content uploaded by Aleksandra Huic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aleksandra Huic on Jul 30, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psihologijske teme, 33 (2024), 2, 417–437
Izvorni znanstveni rad
https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.33.2.9
UDK: 378.14
37.091.3
159.953.5.072
Aleksandra Huić https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7818-487X
Nina Pavlin-Bernardić https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8194-5668
Aleksandra Huić, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
University of Zagreb, Ivana Lučića 3, 10 000 Zagreb. E-mail: ahuic@ffzg.hr
417
Investigating the Circumplex Model
of (De)Motivating Teaching Styles
in Higher Education
Aleksandra Huić, Nina Pavlin-Bernardić,
and Vesna Vlahović-Štetić
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Department of Psychology, Zagreb, Croatia
Abstract
A new circumplex model of (de)motivating teaching styles distinguishes not only between
autonomy support and controlling behaviors which lead to basic need support/thwarting in
students, but between the level of direction in teaching/learning. The latter are described by two
styles - structure and chaos. However, investigations of this model are still rare, especially in the
context of higher education. This study extends previous literature by examining the proposed
circular nature of the model in a new higher education context and investigating teaching
experience, education, identity, and teaching approaches as possible determinants of higher
education teachers’ (de)motivating styles. A total of 130 university teachers participated in an
online survey and filled out Croatian versions of the SIS-HE Questionnaire, the Psychologically
Controlling Teaching Questionnaire, part of the Teacher as a Social Context Questionnaire and the
Approaches to Teaching Questionnaire. Multidimensional scaling analysis and correlational
patterns confirmed the assumed circularity of the model. Correlational patterns with other
instruments measuring teaching styles were in line with expectations. Out of all the examined
teacher characteristics, only prior teacher education and teaching approaches were important
determinants of higher education teachers’ (de)motivating styles. Those with higher levels of
teacher education used structure more and chaos less often. Having a student-centered teaching
approach was related to using more motivating styles of autonomy support and structure and less
chaos as a demotivating style, while a teacher-centered approach was related to the use of control
and chaos as demotivating styles.
Keywords: circumplex model, (de)motivating teaching styles, higher education, teaching
approaches
PSIHOLOGIJSKE TEME, 33 (2024), 2, 417–437
418
Introduction
When students’ basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and
competence are met in an educational context, students receive multiple benefits like
higher levels of well-being and resilience, stronger motivation and engagement, and
greater academic achievement (Ryan et al., 2023). The style teachers use to satisfy
these needs and motivate students is crucial for shaping either the learning
environments which lead to need support and better academic outcomes, or to need
thwarting and lesser academic outcomes (Reeve, 2009; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020).
Recently, a new circumplex model of (de)motivating teaching styles (Aelterman et
al., 2019) was proposed, differentiating not only between autonomy supportive and
controlling behaviors which lead to need support/thwarting, but between structure
and chaos as the difference between the level of direction in teaching/learning. It
seems that this model can be applied to describe behaviors and strategies of higher
education teachers as well (Vermote et al., 2020). However, with only one study done
in the context of higher education, further investigation is needed. In this research we
extend previous literature by examining the circular nature of the circumplex model
for higher education teachers in Croatia, and by exploring some new possible
determinants of teachers’ (de)motivating styles.
Circumplex Model of Teachers’ (De)Motivating Styles
The circumplex model was proposed to provide an integrative and fine-grained
investigation of different behaviors and strategies aimed to satisfy students’ basic
psychological needs (Aelterman & Vansteenkiste, 2023). Building upon previous
work in distinguishing between autonomy support and controlling teaching (see
Reeve, 2009 for a review), the circumplex model has an additional dimension of
high/low directiveness, and is described by four styles, with eight subdimensions
(Aelterman et al., 2019). Autonomy support and structure are styles aimed toward
student need satisfaction and are considered motivating. On the other hand, control
and chaos are considered demotivating styles since they are associated with basic
needs thwarting. At the same time, control and structure are considered highly
directive strategies, while autonomy support and chaos are considered strategies with
low direction in teaching.
As Aelterman et al. (2019) describe, a teacher who supports autonomy shows
interest in their students, and makes sure they volitionally engage in learning
activities. A participative teacher invites students to provide suggestions, share their
interests and gives meaningful choices to students. When the autonomy supportive
teacher is being attuned, they accept negative feelings and students’ point of view
and provide meaningful reasons for activities tying them to students’ personal
interests. A teacher who uses structure is aware of students’ proficiency level and
progressively helps students to achieve learning goals. Guiding behaviors include
providing appropriate step by step help and reflecting on mistakes so that students
Huić, A., Pavlin-Bernardić, N., Vlahović-Štetić, V.:
(De)Motivating Teaching Styles in Higher Education
419
become more independent and know how to improve. Clarifying behaviors include
communicating expectations, giving detailed instructions and being transparent.
Controlling teaching comprises of demanding and domineering behavior. Overall
tone is one of pressure and insisting students behave in prescribed ways. While being
demanding means that the teacher points out duties, threatens with sanctions and
does not tolerate deviations from prescribed tasks, a domineering teacher takes it a
step further by inducing feelings of guilt and shame, and exerting power over
students. The chaotic teacher leaves students on their own. The abandoning teacher
allows students to do whatever they want, rationalizing this with the belief that
students need to learn to take responsibility for themselves. The awaiting teacher
does not plan much and leaves initiative to the students.
From the above descriptions one can see how both controlling and structuring
behaviors involve clear guidelines and instructions for students, in other words,
higher levels of direction, but the difference is in the communication style and
provision of help (vs. just giving answers to students). On the other hand, autonomy
support and the chaotic style involve low levels of direction and giving students more
freedom. However, the autonomy supportive teacher focuses on student needs and
interests, while the chaotic teacher focuses on less work for himself leaving students
confused and not knowing what to do or how to behave (Vermote et al., 2020).
Hence, autonomy support and chaos are closer in the circumplex space than
autonomy support and control, just as control and structure are closer than structure
and chaos (Aelterman & Vansteenkiste, 2023).
Aelterman et al. (2019) proposed a vignette-based instrument (Situations in
School Questionnaire) to operationalize their model. Several studies confirmed the
validity of this instrument and the circular nature of the model on middle- and high-
school teachers in Belgium (Aelterman et al., 2019), Italy (Moè & Katz, 2020) and
China (Wang, 2023). The instrument was also successfully adapted for physical
education teachers in Belgium and France (Escriva-Boulley et al., 2021), and Spain
(Burgueño et al., 2023).
Vermote et al. (2020) adapted the same instrument for higher education teachers
in Belgium (Situations in Schools Questionnaire – Higher Education). However,
theirs is the only study to date focusing on higher education teachers. At the same
time, there are several differences between higher education teachers and teachers of
other levels which make this population especially interesting for studying
(de)motivating styles. Teaching might not be the most prominent part of their
professional identity given that teaching fills out only part of their working time and
assignments. In addition, formal teacher education is not obligatory for higher
education teachers in some countries (e.g., in Croatia). Although the European higher
education space is structured similarly, there are still differences between contexts
regarding teacher training, teaching time and levels of support available which all
call for further validation of the circumplex model for higher-education teachers.
PSIHOLOGIJSKE TEME, 33 (2024), 2, 417–437
420
Determinants and Outcomes of Teachers’ (De)Motivating Styles
Numerous previous studies attest to the positive benefits of providing autonomy
support to students (see Reeve & Cheon, 2021), and to the negative effects of
controlling teaching (see Soenens et al., 2012). Framed by the circumplex model,
Aelterman et al.’s (2019) study confirmed that teachers who use more autonomy
support and structure have students with higher levels of autonomous motivation and
self-regulated learning, lower levels of amotivation and oppositional defiance, and
their students rate them as high-quality teachers. Opposite patterns were found for
control and chaos as demotivating styles. In an observational study, Cents-Boonstra
et al. (2021) confirmed the benefits of autonomy support and structure for students’
engagement, while chaotic teaching behaviors led to low levels of student
engagement. Given the encouraging results from these studies it is not surprising
scholars began to focus on determinants of (de)motivating styles.
Several studies focused on teacher motivation due to the assumption that
teachers need to have enough capability to achieve motivating behaviors such as
autonomy support and structure. It seems that when teachers’ own basic
psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and competency are satisfied they are
more likely to use motivating styles, while thwarted/frustrated needs are associated
with the use of demotivating styles (Aelterman et al., 2019; Moè et al., 2022; Vermote
et al., 2022). In line with the bright and dark pathways of motivation (Haerens et al.,
2015), those with an intrinsic/autonomous motivation for teaching also use more
motivating styles, while those with extrinsic/controlled types of motivation use more
demotivating styles (Aelterman et al., 2019; Vermote et al., 2020).
When experiencing higher levels of burnout, usually associated with lower
capacity for adequate job performance (Saloviita & Pakarinen, 2021), teachers seem
to use demotivating styles more often (Aelterman et al., 2019; Moè & Katz, 2020).
Similarly, higher levels of adaptive emotional regulation (Moè & Katz, 2021), self-
compassion (Moè & Katz, 2020) and teaching enthusiasm (Moè & Katz, 2022) seem
to create higher capability for teachers to focus on autonomy supportive and
structuring behavior in their classrooms. Focusing on higher-education teachers
Vermote et al. (2020) found that having a growth mindset, i.e., believing students
can grow their capacities through learning, is also associated with more frequent use
of motivating styles. Croatian studies involving elementary, middle and high school
teachers confirm the role of teachers’ intrinsic motivation, need satisfaction and job
satisfaction for more frequent use of autonomy support and structure as motivating
styles (Čižić, 2023; Golešić, 2022), and add teacher self-efficacy as an important
determinant of using more motivating and less demotivating styles (Balaško, 2023).
One study focused on contextual factors shaping teachers’ (de)motivating
styles. Vermote et al. (2022) investigated pressures coming from students, colleagues
and the principal, and found that only perceiving a lack of understanding and
unfriendly relationships with their students was linked to using more control and
chaos, and less autonomy support and structure during teaching. As shown by this
Huić, A., Pavlin-Bernardić, N., Vlahović-Štetić, V.:
(De)Motivating Teaching Styles in Higher Education
421
short review, available research framed by the circumplex model is still very scarce,
and further studies are needed to investigate other determinants of teachers’
(de)motivating styles. To do so, in this study we focus on some teaching-related
individual factors such as teaching experience, teacher education, prominence of
teaching in the professional identity, and approaches to teaching.
Teaching Related Characteristics as Determinants of (De)Motivating Styles
Previous research, which only focused on autonomy supportive and controlling
teaching, found that years of teaching experience are an important factor, with
younger teachers being more controlling than more senior teachers considering the
increased stress levels and burnout they tend to experience at the beginning of their
career (Reeve, 2009). However, a recent study of physical education teachers, framed
by the circumplex model, found teachers at the end of their career to be more
controlling, while younger teachers were less structuring (Hellebaut et al., 2023).
Nevertheless, we were not able to find studies focusing on higher education teachers
in the context of (de)motivating styles as defined by the circumplex model, so further
investigation is needed.
Many behaviors and reactions describing a specific (de)motivating style come
to light either during preparing for and delivering instructions or during situations
which require classroom management. Optimal instructional strategies, quality
classroom management as well as teachers’ knowledge on how to best motivate
students to learn are all integral parts of teacher education and teaching competencies
(e.g., see González Ferrera & Yarosh, 2018). However, higher-education teachers, at
least in some countries, are not obligated to undergo any formal teacher education,
although some of them decide to as part of their life-long learning process. We argue
that those who had training in teaching will be prone to use more motivating than
demotivating styles while interacting with their students.
Similarly, we argue that higher education teachers who value teaching as a more
important part of their professional identity will also report on using more motivating
than demotivating styles. Some authors have shown that research activities can
conflict with teaching activities, impacting higher education teachers’ job
performance (Geschwind & Broström, 2015). Since teaching is only one aspect of
their university job, higher education teachers who value this aspect of their job more
might also be more intrinsically motivated for teaching, which has been linked to
using more motivating styles in a previous study (Vermote et al., 2020).
Having a student-centered focus is theorized to be an important antecedent of
both autonomy-supportive behaviors (Reeve & Cheon, 2021; Vansteenkiste et al.,
2019) and structuring behaviors (Aelterman & Vansteenkiste, 2023). However, we
did not find previous studies which empirically investigated the relationship.
Trigwell et al. (1994) distinguish between two broad approaches to teaching in higher
education. A student-centered approach focuses on students’ needs and interests, and
the teacher’s role is to facilitate a conceptual change in learning, and not just to
PSIHOLOGIJSKE TEME, 33 (2024), 2, 417–437
422
disseminate information (Trigwell et al., 1999). Teachers favoring this approach give
meaningful choices to students, emphasize the relevance of tasks in everyday life and
future, and invite students to articulate their own opinions, interests, and offer critique
(Assor et al., 2002; Pedersen & Liu, 2003). The teacher-centered approach focuses
on the teacher disseminating knowledge to students (Trigwell et al., 1999). Teachers
expect students to reproduce the material in a similar manner, and they value good
planning and students who accept new information without question (Trigwell &
Prosser, 2020). Mladenovici and Ilie (2023), in their longitudinal study, found that
teaching approaches precede other teaching beliefs and behaviors, giving credence
to investigating teaching approaches as a factor determining their (de)motivating
styles.
Teachers’ use of student-centered approaches has been linked to higher student
engagement and better academic outcomes, while the opposite was found for
teacher-centered approaches (Uiboleht et al., 2018). The student-focused approach
involves meeting student needs and facilitating independent learning, while the
teacher-focused approach involves disseminating information and making sure
students understand the material (Kember & Kwan, 2000). Although there are clear
conceptual similarities between the student-centered approach and autonomy-
supportive teaching behaviors, and the teacher-centered approach and controlling
teaching behaviors, structuring behaviors, as described by the circumplex, seem to
map onto both a student-centered and a teacher-centered approach. Because of this
overlap, investigating the relationship between teaching approaches and
(de)motivating styles can provide findings which further confirm this model.
Present Study
In this study we extend previous literature by examining the circumplex model
in Croatian higher education setting. Our study had two goals: (1) to examine the
circular nature of the model, and (2) to examine teaching approaches, experience,
importance of teaching for their professional identity, and levels of teacher education
as determinants of higher education teachers’ (de)motivating styles. Given that the
Situations in Schools Questionnaire – Higher Education (SIS-HE; Vermote et al.,
2020) was first developed for use within the context of EU higher education, we
expected to confirm the circular nature of the model in the Croatian context. In
addition, we expected teachers’ motivating styles of autonomy support and structure
to be positively related to similar instruments used to operationalize teachers’
structuring and autonomy supportive behaviors, while being negatively related to
controlling behaviors. We expected the opposite pattern for teachers’ demotivating
styles of control and chaos. As described earlier, we expected teachers with more
experience, higher levels of teacher education, who value teaching as an important
part of their professional identity, and with a student-focused teaching approach to
report using more autonomy support and structure as motivating styles, and less
control and chaos as demotivating styles.
Huić, A., Pavlin-Bernardić, N., Vlahović-Štetić, V.:
(De)Motivating Teaching Styles in Higher Education
423
Method
Participants
A total of 130 university teachers (from research assistants to full professors;
72.2% women) from several Croatian universities and colleges participated in the
study. They were 23 to 66 years of age (M = 44.6), with an average of 16.52 years of
working experience (SD = 10.11; range: 1 to 40 years). They had backgrounds in
social sciences (37.7%) and humanities (22.3%), natural sciences (22.3%), technical
sciences (4.6%), biomedicine and interdisciplinary areas (7.7%). Most were
employed at public faculties (87.7%) with the rest working at private faculties or
colleges. Additional 17 university teachers from different scientific fields (from
research assistants to full professors) and working experience participated in two
focus groups used to translate the instrument (see Procedure).
Measures
Situations in Schools Questionnaire – Higher Education (SIS-HE; Vermote et
al., 2020). The original questionnaire consists of 10 vignettes and multiple responses
to each vignette (56 responses in total). First, we translated and back-translated the
original questionnaire. Additionally, an English language expert checked the
translation and proposed changes. Since the original questionnaire was developed in
a different higher education context (Belgium), we additionally examined the clarity
of the items and their appropriateness for the Crotian context by using a participatory
approach (Formea et al., 2014) and involving higher education teachers directly in
the translation process through two focus groups. We found that items are clear and
understandable. Teachers from STEM backgrounds found the situations and the
described teacher reactions just as appropriate for their classes as did social sciences
and humanities teachers. While going through individual response options for each
situational vignette, participants agreed that each described teacher behavior is
representative of a reaction in higher education in Croatia. In addition, our
participants found that some teacher reactions, typical for higher education teachers
in Croatia, were lacking in certain situational vignettes, so we added a total of 7
responses to 3 vignettes and added a new vignette with 9 responses describing an
assessment situation with the goal of clarifying and broadening the questionnaire.
The adapted Croatian version consists of 11 vignettes and 72 items. An example of
the situation described in the vignette is You are covering a difficult subject that
requires a lot of effort from the students, you… after which the participants are
presented with multiple responses. They need to indicate to what degree each of these
responses describes their own behavior while teaching, ranging from 1 (does not
describe me at all) to 7 (describes me extremely well) – (a) … seek new or different
ways to make the lesson more interesting and meaningful for the students (autonomy
supportive – attuning); (b) … simply command them: “Stay attentive during this
PSIHOLOGIJSKE TEME, 33 (2024), 2, 417–437
424
class! If not, you won’t make it!” (control – domineering); (c) … divide the lesson
content into pieces and ensure that there is sufficient time for repetition (structure –
guiding); (d) … offer students the option to go through an introductory text in
preparation for the lesson (autonomy support – participative); (e) … don’t worry too
much in advance. You wait and see if any difficulties arise (chaos – awaiting); (f) …
make it clear to the students that they have to pay attention or otherwise they have to
leave the classroom (control – demanding). The results on the teaching approach
subscales were calculated using the scoring key Vermote et al. (2020) provided,
extended with the added responses and the 11th vignette. Number of items and
reliabilities of the subscales are reported in Table 1.
Psychological Controlling Teaching Questionnaire (PCTQ; Soenens et al., 2012)
consists of 7 items designed to measure self-reported teacher behaviors aimed to
control student behaviors in their classrooms (e.g., I am less friendly with my students
if they don’t see things my way.). The answers were given on a Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was .67.
Teacher as Social Context Questionnaire (TASC; Belmont et al., 1988) is used
to operationalize teacher behaviors aimed to support students’ autonomy, involve
students in lectures, and structure the teaching activities. In this study we used two
subscales: Autonomy support (Cronbach’s α = .70; 12 items, e.g., I try to give this
student a lot of choices about classroom assignments.) and Structure (Cronbach’s
α = .73; 15 items, e.g., I try to be clear with this student about what I expect of him/her
in class.). The answers were given on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4
(very true).
Approaches to Teaching Questionnaire (Vizek Vidović et al., 2005) consists of
10 items which measure teacher-centered teaching (5 items, Cronbach’s α = .53, e.g.,
Students in class should listen carefully and not interrupt the teacher with questions,
so that they can learn successfully.) and student-centered teaching (5 items, α = .63.,
e.g., Students should participate in evaluating their own progress.). The answers
were given on a scale from 1 (I completely disagree) to 4 (I completely agree).
Together with socio-demographic data, participants were asked additional
questions about their teaching experience (how many years they have been working
in higher education) and the prominence of teaching in their professional identity (on
a visual analog scale ranging from 0 to 100 participants indicated the importance that
being an excellent teacher held for their professional identity). We asked them
whether they received teacher training during their initial studies (yes/no), whether
they had completed any additional education or programs focused on the
development of teaching competencies after obtaining their degree where they
indicated all that applies to them (no, one or more one-day training programs, at least
a three-day program without a degree, couple of weeks/months-long program with
an official assessment and a degree), and whether any of the above was specially
focused on teaching in higher education (yes/no). Their level of teacher training was
Huić, A., Pavlin-Bernardić, N., Vlahović-Štetić, V.:
(De)Motivating Teaching Styles in Higher Education
425
defined as a composite of yes responses to the five described options, ranging from
1 to 5, with a higher numerical value indicating higher levels of teacher training.
Procedure
The participants were invited to participate in the survey through official e-mail
notices at their faculties, or by e-mails sent directly by the authors. After reading and
signing an informed consent, participants completed an online questionnaire in
Croatian. First, they filled out the SIS-HE, while other scales were randomly rotated,
with socio-demographic questions always being last. At the end, participants were
given the researchers’ contacts in case of questions about the study or its results. The
study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology,
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb.
Results
Descriptives
The reliability of each (de)motivating style was satisfactory and in accordance
with previous studies (see Table 1). Higher education teachers reported on using
more autonomy supportive and structuring behaviors than behaviors describing
controlling and chaotic styles (F = 410.97, p < .0001). Autonomy support and
structure, as motivating styles, were highly positively related, as were control and
chaos as demotivating styles. In line with expectations, correlations between
motivating styles (autonomy support and structure) and chaos as a demotivating style
were negative. We did not find significant correlations between the demotivating
style of control and other motivating styles (see Table 2).
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of the SIS-HE Subscales (N = 130)
Subscales
M
SD
α
k
Autonomy support (AS)
5.01
0.937
.86
17
Participative
4.41
1.130
.77
9
Attuning
5.61
0.873
.75
8
Structure (ST)
5.38
0.848
.86
19
Guiding
5.56
0.907
.78
8
Clarifying
5.20
0.928
.78
11
Control (CON)
2.30
0.783
.82
19
Demanding
2.92
1.002
.70
7
Domineering
1.70
0.657
.75
12
Chaos (CH)
2.28
0.764
.80
17
Abandoning
2.08
0.796
.73
9
Awaiting
2.36
0.845
.66
8
Note. α = Cronbach alpha; k = number of items.
PSIHOLOGIJSKE TEME, 33 (2024), 2, 417–437
426
Circular Nature of the Model
To examine the circular nature of the model we first performed a
multidimensional scaling analysis (MDS, Borg et al., 2013) using the ALSCAL
procedure in SPSS with Euclidian distance measures. This type of analysis yields a
graphical representation in which questionnaire items that are highly correlated are
represented close to each other in a geographical space, with negatively correlated
items displayed opposite each other. Results confirmed the expected two-dimensional
nature of the data (see Figure 1). S-stress indices declined from .144 for the one-
dimensional representation to .109 for the two-dimensional representation, with
further very small declines for three- and four-dimensional representations
(improvement between .00019 and .00049). When withholding two dimensions, 96%
of the distances were represented in the model. One dimension (X-axis) can be
interpreted in terms of need-thwarting and need-supportive teacher behaviors, with
controlling and chaotic items (except one) yielding negative correlations and
autonomy-supportive and structuring items (except two) yielding positive coordinates
on this dimension. The second dimension (Y-axis) can be interpreted in terms of high
vs. low directiveness. Controlling items (expect two) loaded on the high directiveness
side of the geographical space, and chaotic items (expect two) loaded on the low
directiveness side. Patterns for the autonomy-supportive and structuring items were
less clear, however most of the structuring items loaded on the high directiveness side,
and most autonomy-supportive items loaded on the low directiveness side.
Figure 1
Multidimensional Scaling Analysis
Huić, A., Pavlin-Bernardić, N., Vlahović-Štetić, V.:
(De)Motivating Teaching Styles in Higher Education
427
Note. Autonomy support - Participative: (Invite_input1, Invite_input2, Offer_choice1, Invite_input3,
Invite_input4, Invite_input5, Invite_input6, Offer_choice2; Offer_choice3new); Attuning:
(Provide_rationale1, Foster_enjoyment1, Foster_enjoyment2, Identify_benefits1, Follow_pace1,
Interest_taking1, Interesttaking_2new); Structure - Guiding: (Communicate_trust1, Helpful_strategy1,
Helpful_strategy2, Adjust1, Adjust2, Adjust3, Offer_help1, Helpfulstrategy_3new); Clarifying:
(Set_expectations1, Overview1, Set_expectations2, Overview2, Overview3, Overview4, Overview5,
Set_expectations3new; Set_expectations4new; Set_expectations5new, Overview_6new); Control -
Demanding: (Insist_firmly1, Push_compliance1, Insist_firmly2, Insist_firmly3, Insist_firmly4,
pushcompliance_2new, pushcompliance_3new); Domineering: (Shame1, Shame2, Exert_power1,
Exert_power2, Shame3, Shame4, Command1, Shame5, Shame6, shame_7new, exertpower_3new,
command_1new); Chaos - Abandoning: (Indifference1, Indifference2, Indifference3, Ignore1, Ignore2,
Ignore3, Indifference4, ignore_1new, indifference_4new); Awaiting: (Wing_it1, Wing_it2, Lax1,
Wing_it3, Lax2, Lax3, Wing_it4, lax_4new)
Following Aelterman et al. (2019) and Vermote et al. (2020) we analyzed
correlational patterns between all eight subdimensions (see Table 2). The highest
correlations were observed between the subdimensions of the same broader teaching
style. Subdimensions of autonomy support and structure, both considered motivating
styles, were positively related to each other. We found the same for demotivating
styles of control and chaos, except for no correlation between demanding and
abandoning subdimensions. Furthermore, we observed negative correlations
between motivating styles subdimensions, and demotivating styles subdimensions.
In line with the circumplex model, we observed an ordered pattern of correlations
with adjacent dimensions being more strongly and positively correlated, with
correlations decreasing and becoming more negative with moving along the
circumplex.
Table 2
Pearson Correlations Between the Subdimensions and Between the Dimensions of the
Circumplex Model
ST
CON
CH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Participative
.746**
.670**
.626**
.078
-.128
-.323**
-.348**
2. Attuning
.729**
.679**
.206*
-.096
-.452**
-.284**
3. Guiding
.684**
.192*
-.074
-.445**
-.316**
4. Clarifying
.232**
-.032
-.417**
-.347**
5. Demanding
.634**
.064
.244**
6. Domineering
.420**
.334**
7. Abandoning
.602**
8. Awaiting
-
Autonomy
support (AS)
.786**
-.005
-.430**
Structure (ST)
.073
-.463**
Control (CON)
.318**
Chaos (CH)
-
*p < .05. **p < .01.
PSIHOLOGIJSKE TEME, 33 (2024), 2, 417–437
428
Correlational Patterns With Other Measures of Teaching Behaviors
Observed correlational patterns (see Table 3) are in line with our expectations.
Only the controlling and chaotic demotivating styles, but not motivating styles, were
related to a different measure of controlling teaching. Other measures of teacher
autonomy and structure were positively related to SIS-HE autonomy support and
structure, and negatively with SIS-HE control and chaos. Non-significant correlation
between control and another measure of structure was an exception. However, this
result mirrors the non-significant correlation between control and structure as
measured by the SIS-HE. Observed correlational patterns speak in favor of
convergent and discriminant validity of the Croatian version of the SIS-HE.
Table 3
Correlations of SIS-HE Dimensions With Other Measures of Teaching Behaviors (N = 130)
Psychologically
controlling
teaching
Teacher as a
social context -
autonomy
Teacher as a
social context -
structure
Autonomy support
-.129
.490**
.599**
Structure
-.096
.267**
.622**
Control
.300**
-.306**
-.045
Chaos
.341**
-.449**
-.475**
**p < .01.
Determinants of Teachers’ (De)Motivating Styles
For our second research goal, we performed a series of hierarchical regression
analyses, one for each motivating style, to examine whether individual teacher
characteristics in the first step, and their teaching approaches in the second step, are
possible determinants of their (de)motivating styles. Results are shown in Tables 4
and 5. On the bivariate level, teachers with more teaching experience also had more
teacher training, but teaching experience was unrelated to other teacher
characteristics. Interestingly, higher levels of teacher training were unrelated to a
student-centered teaching approach but were negatively related to a teacher-centered
teaching approach. Valuing teaching as an important part of their professional
identity was unrelated to our study variables.
Regression results show that teaching experience, levels of teacher training, and
valuing teaching as an important part of professional identity hardly played a role for
teachers’ (de)motivating styles. Having more teacher training was a significant
determinant of using more structure and less chaos. In accordance with our
expectation, having a student-centered teaching approach was related to having more
pronounced autonomy support and structure as motivating styles, and a less
pronounced chaotic demotivating style. Having a more pronounced teacher-centered
style was related to having more pronounced demotivating styles of control and
chaos but was unrelated to motivating styles. These sets of predictors were more
successful in explaining the variance of autonomy support and chaos, than the
variance of structure and control.
Table 4
Correlations of the Individual Teacher Characteristics, Teacher’s Approaches, and (De)Motivating Styles (N = 130)
Level of
teacher
training
Teacher
professional
identity
Student-centered
teaching
approach
Teacher-centered
teaching
approach
Autonomy
support Structure Control Chaos
Teaching experience
.305**
-.122
-.031
-.088
.098
.043
-.013
-.035
Level of teacher training
.083
.113
-.300**
.159
.222*
-.025
-.287**
Teacher professional identity
.000
-.017
-.006
.049
.024
-.007
Student-centered teaching approach
-.237**
.466**
.304**
-.212*
-.415**
Teacher-centered teaching approach
-.214*
-.059
.320**
.431**
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 5
Hierarchical Regression Analyses’ Results for Teacher (De)Motivating Styles (N = 130)
Autonomy support
β
Structure
β
Control
β
Chaos
β
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Teaching experience
.054
.093
-.015
.022
.011
-.011
.056
.024
Level of teacher training
.148
.040
.212*
.170
-.033
.110
-.279**
-.120
Teacher professional identity
-.010
.006
.019
.032
.006
-.012
-.070
-.093
Student-centered teaching approach
.430**
.309**
-.144
-.344**
Teacher-centered teaching approach
-.119
.045
.333**
.305**
R
.177
.495**
.208
.364**
.030
.370**
.277*
.563**
R2
.031
.245**
.043
.132**
.001
.137**
.077*
.317**
Adjusted R2
.005
.210**
.016
.091**
-.027
.096**
.051*
.284**
ΔR²
.213**
.089**
.136**
.240**
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Huić, A., Pavlin-Bernardić, N., Vlahović-Štetić, V.:
(De)Motivating Teaching Styles in Higher Education
429
PSIHOLOGIJSKE TEME, 33 (2024), 2, 417–437
430
Discussion
Results of this study confirm the circular nature of the circumplex model for
higher education teachers in the Croatian context. Multidimensional scaling results
and the observed correlational patterns were in accordance with our expectations and
with Aelterman et al.’s (2019) original study and Vermote et al.’s (2020) study on
higher education teachers. Teacher reactions/behaviors added to the SIS-HE
vignettes, just like the newly added vignette describing an assessment preparation
situation seem to be non-problematic, and even add to the reliability of
(de)motivating styles. Given the goal and scope of this study, we did not focus on the
internal structure of the instrument. Since high correlations between adjacent
(sub)dimensions of the circumplex model are theoretically expected, it might not be
possible to factor-analytically separate them (Aelterman & Vansteenkiste, 2023), as
some studies on coaches and athletes found (Delrue et al., 2019). However,
correlational patterns with similar instruments used to operationalize teachers’
provision of autonomy and structure, as well as teachers’ controlling behavior, were
in line with our expectations and previous studies, contributing to the conclusion
about both convergent and discriminant validity of the Croatian version of the SIS-
HE. Further studies are needed to confirm the stability of these results.
We expected that styles and subdimensions closer in the circumplex space will
be correlated, however we did not find significant bivariate correlations between
structure and control, and this seems to be because of nonsignificant associations
between the domineering subdimension and other structuring teaching behaviors.
Although not in accordance with results from the Aelterman et al. (2019) study, our
results are in line with Italian studies on high-school teachers (Moè & Katz, 2020,
2022) and Vermote et al. (2020) study on higher education teachers. One explanation
for these results could lie in the low variability of responses indicating the
domineering approach, which could be due to socially desirable responding or to
inherent differences in teacher behaviors enacted at the higher education levels.
Future studies should look into the similarities and differences between structuring
and controlling behaviors, and investigate them in more depth.
Out of all teacher characteristics investigated in this study, only prior teacher
education and teaching approaches seem to be important determinants of higher
education teachers’ (de)motivating styles. Higher education teachers with higher
reported levels of teaching competencies reported using more structuring and less
chaotic behaviors while teaching. In other words, having some sort of formal teacher
training seems to be associated only with the directiveness dimensions of
(de)motivating styles, and not with the dimension of need support/thwarting. It is
plausible that teacher education programs focus more on topics of instruction and
effective teaching, and less on topics of learning motivation and how to support it in
students, which is why teacher training levels were related more to the directiveness
dimension of the circumplex. However, numerous studies show that it is possible for
Huić, A., Pavlin-Bernardić, N., Vlahović-Štetić, V.:
(De)Motivating Teaching Styles in Higher Education
431
teachers to learn how best to enact need supportive behaviors (Ahmadi et al., 2022)
and that such interventions can be highly effective (Reeve et al., 2022). Our findings
have important practical implications for teacher interventions and teacher training
programs aimed at higher education teachers.
Teachers who put students in the center of their teaching are more likely to use
motivating styles of autonomy support and structure, and less likely to use the chaotic
demotivating style. On the other hand, teachers who put themselves and knowledge
transfer in the center of their teaching are more likely to use both control and chaos
as demotivating styles, and not motivating styles. These results are in line with
theoretical assumptions which state that a student-centered teaching approach
provides a base for the teacher to adopt a motivating style (Aelterman &
Vansteenkiste, 2023) and conceptual similarities between autonomy supportive
behaviors and the student-centered teaching approach. Our results confirm these
theoretical assumptions, and further extend the literature by showing that having a
student-centered teaching approach is related to using more structuring and less
chaotic behaviors, lending further credence to the notion that student-centered
teaching should be a gold standard in higher education. However, we are mindful of
a relatively low reliability of our measure of teaching approaches and call for future
studies to use other operationalizations before firm conclusions are drawn.
The present study has several other limitations. We used a self-report
questionnaire; therefore, future studies should also include student assessments of
their teachers’ styles, which could additionally help with the problem of social
desirability. The self-selection of participants in this study should also be
acknowledged, as our data indicate that the majority of them have teacher training
and indicated that teaching is an important aspect of their professional identity.
Future studies should try to employ more representative samples, or at least aim, as
we did, towards a heterogenous sample regarding various scientific backgrounds of
higher education teachers who participated.
The sets of predictors we used were more successful in explaining the variance
of autonomy support and chaos than in explaining the variance of structure and
control. Thus, in future studies, the relationship of other constructs to de(motivating)
styles should be examined. This includes teachers’ needs for autonomy, support, and
relatedness, as well as teachers’ emotions and emotional regulation strategies (see
also Moè & Katz, 2022). The broader context should also be explored, considering
both behaviors of students and how the system in which university teachers work
enables their autonomy and how much their job’s teaching aspect and their
investment in it are valued at their faculties. Also, longitudinal studies are desirable
in this field.
PSIHOLOGIJSKE TEME, 33 (2024), 2, 417–437
432
Conclusion
Our results speak in favor of the verified theoretical model and findings of
previous research on teachers in higher education. In addition, we observed the
expected correlations of SIS-HE with other similar instruments in the Croatian
sample. Our findings show that prior teacher education and teaching approaches are
determinants of the motivating styles of university teachers. More experienced and
educated teachers report using more structuring and less chaotic motivation styles
during teaching but at the same time they do not provide greater support for student
autonomy. A student-centered teaching approach leads to more frequent use of
motivating styles of autonomy support and structure and less chaotic demotivating
style, while a teacher-centered approach leads to the use of control and chaos as
demotivating styles.
From these findings, it is possible to draw some practical guidelines for future
education of university teachers: in parallel with the development of teaching skills
special attention should be paid to the development of their motivating styles
indicating how to encourage student autonomy and ensure appropriate structure in
teaching. At the same time, it is important to clearly point out the consequences of
using control and chaos while teaching. Based on self-determination theory research,
teachers can support autonomy by providing meaningful rationale and choices for
learning activities (e.g., free choice of topics for projects; using choice boards during
assessment), openly communicating with students (e.g., inviting student feedback),
creating a safe environment (e.g., for students to express differing opinions), and
using non-controlling language (e.g., avoiding demands and threats). Teaching
university teachers how to give constructive feedback, scaffold learning activities,
give clear instructions, and assessment criteria will enable them to use more structure,
without necessarily using more control in their lectures. Available research shows
that such educational interventions based on self-determination theory can be largely
effective (Ahmadi et al., 2023; Su & Reeve, 2011).
References
Aelterman, N., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2023). Need-supportive and need-thwarting
socialization: A circumplex approach. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
self-determination theory (pp. 236–258). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.013.21
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J. R. 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(3), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293
Huić, A., Pavlin-Bernardić, N., Vlahović-Štetić, V.:
(De)Motivating Teaching Styles in Higher Education
433
Ahmadi, A., Noetel, M., Parker, P., Ryan, R. M., Ntoumanis, N., Reeve, J., Beauchamp, M.,
Dicke, T., Yeung, A., Ahmadi, M., Bartholomew, K., Chiu, T. K. F., Curran, T., Erturan,
G., Flunger, B., Frederick, C., Froiland, J. M., González-Cutre, D., Haerens, L., ...
Lonsdale, C. (2023). A classification system for teachers’ motivational behaviors
recommended in self-determination theory interventions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 115(8), 1158–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000783
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
Balaško, L. (2023). (De)motivirajući nastavnički stilovi: uloga temeljnih psiholoških potreba
i nastavničke samoefikasnosti [(De)motivating teaching styles: the role of basic
psychological needs and teachers’ self-efficacy] [Unpublished master thesis].
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.
https://repozitorij.ffzg.unizg.hr/islandora/object/ffzg%3A9008
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.
Borg, I., Groenen, P. J. F., & Mair, P. (2013). Applied multidimensional scaling. Springer
Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31848-1
Burgueno, R., Abos, A., Sevil-Serrano, J., Haerens, L., De Cocker, K., & Garcia-Gonzalez,
L. (2023). A circumplex approach to (de)motivating styles in physical education:
Situations-in-School-Physical Education Questionnaire in Spanish students, pre-
service, and in-service teachers. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise
Science, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2023.2248098
Cents-Boonstra, M., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Denessen, E., Aelterman, N., & Haerens, L.
(2021). Fostering student engagement with motivating teaching: An observation study
of teacher and student behaviours. Research Papers in Education, 36(6), 754–779.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1767184
Čižić, N. (2023). Povezanost zadovoljenja potreba i zadovoljstva poslom kod učitelja i
nastavnika: medijacijska uloga motivirajućih stilova [The relationship between needs
satisfaction and job satisfaction among teachers: the mediating role of motivational
styles] [Unpublished master thesis]. University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and
Social Sciences. https://zir.nsk.hr/islandora/object/ffzg%3A8806
Delrue, J., Reynders, B., Broek, G. V., Aelterman, N., De Backer, M., Decroos, S., De
Muynck, G.-J., Fontaine, J., Fransen, K., Van Puyenbroeck, S., Haerens, L., &
Vansteenkiste, M. (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
PSIHOLOGIJSKE TEME, 33 (2024), 2, 417–437
434
Escriva-Boulley, G., Guillet-Descas, E., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Doren, N.,
Lentillon-Kaestner, V., & Haerens, L. (2021). Adopting the situation in school
questionnaire to examine physical education teachers’ motivating and demotivating
styles using a circumplex approach. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 18(14), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147342
Formea, C. M., Mohamed, A. A., Hassan, A., Osman, A., Weis, J. A., Sia, I. G., & Wieland,
M. L. (2014). Lessons learned: cultural and linguistic enhancement of surveys through
community-based participatory research. Progress in Community Health Partnerships:
Research, Education, and Action, 8(3), 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2014.0037
Geschwind, L., &, Broström, A. (2015). Managing the teaching-research nexus: Ideals and
practice in research-oriented universities. Higher Education Research & Development,
34, 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934332
Golešić, M. (2022). Individualne i kontekstualne odrednice nastavničkih motivirajućih
stilova. [Individual and contextual determinants of teachers’ motivating styles]
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University
of Zagreb. https://zir.nsk.hr/islandora/object/ffzg:5911
González Ferrera, J. M., & Yarosh, M. (Eds.) (2018). TUNING guidelines and reference
points for the design and delivery of degree programmes in teacher education.
University of Groningen, Groningen.
Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do
perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education
students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between
the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 26–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013
Hellebaut, S., Haerens, L., Vanderlinde, R., & De Cocker, K. (2023). Burnout, motivation,
and (de-)motivating teaching style in different phases of a teaching career. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 129, Article 104168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104168
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship
to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469–490. https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1026569608656
Mladenovici, V., & Ilie, M. D. (2023). A cross-lagged panel model analysis between
academics’ conceptions of teaching and their teaching approaches. Studies in Higher
Education, 48(11), 1767–1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2213716
Moè, A., Consiglio, P., & Katz, I. (2022). Exploring the circumplex model of motivating and
demotivating teaching styles: The role of teacher need satisfaction and need frustration.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 118, Article 103823.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103823
Moè, A., & Katz, I. (2020). Self-compassionate teachers are more autonomy supportive and
structuring whereas self-derogating teachers are more controlling and chaotic: The
mediating role of need satisfaction and burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 96,
Article 103173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103173
Huić, A., Pavlin-Bernardić, N., Vlahović-Štetić, V.:
(De)Motivating Teaching Styles in Higher Education
435
Moè, A., & Katz, I. (2021). Emotion regulation and need satisfaction shape a motivating
teaching style. Teachers and Teaching, 27(5), 370–387.
https://doi.org./10.1080/13540602.2020.1777960
Moè, A., & Katz, I. (2022). Need satisfied teachers adopt a motivating style: The mediation
of teacher enthusiasm. Learning and Individual Differences, 99, Article 102203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102203
Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a
student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 51(2), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504526
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how
they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–
175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990
Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits,
and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657
Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., Cheon, S. H., Matos, L., & Kaplan, H. (2022). Supporting students’
motivation: Strategies for success. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003091738
Ryan, R. M., Reeve, J., Kaplan, H., Matos, L. & Cheon, S. H. (2023). Education as
flourishing: Self-determination theory in schools as they are and as they should be. In
R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 591–618).
Oxford University Press.
Saloviita, T., & Pakarinen, E. (2021). Teacher burnout explained: Teacher-, student-, and
organisation-level variables. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, Article 103221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103221
Soenens, B., Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Dochy, F., & Goossens, L. (2012).
Psychologically controlling teaching: Examining outcomes, antecedents, and mediators.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025742
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
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2020). Exploring university teaching and learning: Experience
and context. Springer Nature.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to
teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75–84.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383761
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches
to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3448046
PSIHOLOGIJSKE TEME, 33 (2024), 2, 417–437
436
Uiboleht, K., Karm, M., & Postareff, L. (2018). The interplay between teachers’ approaches
to teaching students’ approaches to learning and learning outcomes: A qualitative multi-
case study. Learning Environments Research, 21(3), 321–347.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9257-1
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 E. N. Gonida & M. S. Lemos (Eds.),
Motivation in education at a time of global change: Theory, research, and implications
for practice (pp. 53–80). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-
742320190000020004
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory:
Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1),
1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1
Vermote, B., Aelterman, N., Beyers, W., Aper, L., Buysschaert, F., & Vansteenkiste, M.
(2020). The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating
teaching style in higher education: A circumplex approach. Motivation and Emotion,
44(2), 270–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09827-5
Vermote, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., & Beyers, W.
(2022). Teachers’ psychological needs link social pressure with personal adjustment and
motivating teaching style. The Journal of Experimental Education, 91(4), 696–717.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2022.2039584
Vizek Vidović, V., Vlahović-Štetić, V., Pavin, T., Rijavec, M., Miljević-Riđički, R., & Žižak,
A. (2005). Cjeloživotno obrazovanje učitelja i nastavnika: višestruke perspektive (No.
15) [Teacher lifelong learning: Multiple perspectives]. Institut za društvena istraživanja
u Zagrebu.
Wang, J. (2023). The characteristics, predictors, and outcomes of (de) motivating teaching
styles: A cross-cultural investigation. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Università
degli Studi di Padova.
Huić, A., Pavlin-Bernardić, N., Vlahović-Štetić, V.:
(De)Motivating Teaching Styles in Higher Education
437
Ispitivanje kružnoga modela (de)motivirajućih
nastavničkih stilova u visokome obrazovanju
Sažetak
Novi kružni model (de)motivirajućih nastavničkih stilova opisuje ponašanja nastavnika pomoću
dviju dimenzija – jedna se odnosi na stupanj podržavanja/frustracije osnovnih psiholoških potreba
studenata, a druga na stupanj usmjeravanja u poučavanju/učenju. Nastavnička ponašanja koja
podržavaju potrebe studenata i usmjeravaju studente opisana su stilom koji podržava autonomiju i
strukturirajućim stilom, koji se smatraju motivirajućim stilovima. S druge strane, ponašanja koja su
povezana s frustriranim potrebama i niskim usmjeravanjem studenata opisana su kontrolirajućim i
kaotičnim stilovima te se smatraju demotivirajućima. Dosadašnja su istraživanja toga modela još
uvijek rijetka, posebno u kontekstu visokoga obrazovanja. Ovo istraživanje proširuje dosadašnje
spoznaje provjeravajući model u kontekstu hrvatskoga visokog obrazovanja te ispitujući
nastavničko iskustvo, obrazovanje, identitet i pristupe poučavanju kao potencijalne odrednice
nastavničkih (de)motivirajućih stilova. U online istraživanju sudjelovalo je ukupno 130 sveučilišnih
nastavnika koji su ispunili hrvatsku verziju Upitnika o situacijama u školama – visokome
obrazovanju, Upitnik o psihološki kontrolirajućem poučavanju, dio Upitnika o nastavniku kao
socijalnome kontekstu te Upitnik o nastavničkim pristupima poučavanju. Multidimenzionalno
skaliranje i analiza korelacijskih obrazaca potvrdili su kružnu prirodu modela. Povezanosti s drugim
instrumentima koji mjere nastavničke stilove bile su u skladu s očekivanjima. Od ispitanih su se
varijabli samo prethodno nastavničko obrazovanje i pristupi poučavanju pokazali značajnim
odrednicama nastavničkih (de)motivirajućih stilova. Sveučilišni nastavnici s više prethodnoga
obrazovanja u području nastavničkih kompetencija izjavljuju da više koriste strukturirajući i manje
kaotični stil. Nastavnici koji koriste pristup poučavanju usmjeren na studente koriste i više
motivirajućih stilova podržavanja autonomije i strukture te manje kaotičnoga stila, dok je pristup
poučavanju usmjeren na nastavnika povezan s više korištenja kontrole i kaosa kao demotivirajućih
stilova.
Ključne riječi: kružni model, (de)motivirajući nastavnički stilovi, visoko obrazovanje, pristupi
poučavanju
Primljeno: 01. 12. 2023.
