Does observed controlling teaching behavior relate to students’ motivation in physical education?

By J. D. Meyer, Isabel B Tallir, Bart Soenens, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Nathalie Aelterman, L. Van den Berghe, Lise Speleers, L. Haerens. 2014

253 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Safety Research, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c9dc87f3def099f464ca72583050c7e0a102c727

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Safety Research

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Do students with different motives for physical education respond differently to autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching? (2016, background): “…basic and universal needs through a controlling style (i.e., ignoring students' perspective and by pressuring students to make them think, feel, and act in particular ways); (Reeve, 2009), students are more likely to display maladaptive outcomes (e.g., De Meyer et al., 2014; Haerens et al., 2015).”
Toward an Integrative and Fine-Grained Insight in Motivating and Demotivating Teaching Styles: The Merits of a Circumplex Approach (2019, background): “Congruent with a presumed dual process model, previous studies have found teacher control to be especially predictive of amotivation (e.g., De Meyer et al., 2014), oppositional defiance (Haerens et al., 2015), and disengagement (Jang et al., 2016), whereas teacher autonomy support simultaneously…”
Teachers’ psychological functioning in the workplace: Exploring the roles of contextual beliefs, need satisfaction, and personal characteristics (2016, unknown): “It has been used extensively to guide research about students’ experiences in the classroom and among employees in business settings (e.g., De Meyer et al., 2014; Gagné, Chemolli, Forest, & Koestner, 2008; Gillet, Gagné, Sauvagére, & Fouquereau, 2013; Haerens, Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, &…”
Daily Autonomy Supporting or Thwarting and Students’ Motivation and Engagement in the High School Science Classroom (2017, background): “While there are examples of researchers using observation to determine teachers’ autonomy supporting or thwarting practice (e.g., De Meyer et al., 2014; Reeve et al., 2004), we know of no research in which individual components of autonomy relevant practice were observed as separate coding…”
The role of teachers’ controlling behaviour in physical education on adolescents’ health-related quality of life: test of a conditional process model* (2019, background): “This finding supports previous research that students can be highly sensitive to controlling behaviour and its effects can be highly influential even in cases where teachers using controlling behaviours sparingly (De Meyer et al., 2014).”
Personality-based antecedents of teachers’ autonomy-supportive and controlling motivating styles (2018, background): “…strongly predicted students' need frustration and maladaptive functioning but only weakly predicted (low) need satisfaction and adaptive functioning (Bartholomew et al., 2011; Cheon, Reeve, & Song, 2016; De Meyer et al., 2014; Gunnell, Crocker, Wilson, Mack, & Zumbo, 2013; Haerens et al., 2015).”
Dynamics of need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching behavior: the bidirectional relationship with student engagement and disengagement in the beginning of a lesson (2016, methodology): “To do so, this study uses the lens of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan 1985, 2000), a widely used, accepted and scientifically supported theory on human motivational dynamics that has been the theoretical framework for numerous studies on motivation in PE (Van den Berghe,…”
Different combinations of perceived autonomy support and control: identifying the most optimal motivating style (2018, background): “Secondly, future studies could rely on observations of instructors’motivating style (e.g. De Meyer et al. 2014; Haerens et al. 2013) to investigate whether a motivating style not only exists in the eye of the beholder (i.e. youngsters’ perception), but instead, can be traced back to real observable…”
Need-Supportive Professional Development in Elementary School Physical Education: Effects of a Cluster-Randomized Control Trial on Teachers’ Motivating Style and Student Physical Activity (2018, background): “Future 10 studies could improve this TPD program by giving more attention to the reduction of a need-11 thwarting motivating style, given that this style has negative effects on student motivation 12 (e.g., De Meyer et al., 2014; Bartholomew et al., in press).”
Beware of your teaching style: A school-year long investigation of controlling teaching and student motivational experiences (2018, background): “…compliance techniques are problematic as they impede the internalization of the underlying values of the action (e.g., the health, social, and psychological gains associated with physical activity) and, therefore, undermine optimal student motivation (De Meyer et al., 2014; Deci & Ryan, 2000).”