Advanced search
1 file | 1.65 MB Add to list

The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating teaching style in higher education : a circumplex approach

Branko Vermote (UGent) , Nathalie Aelterman (UGent) , Wim Beyers (UGent) , Leen Aper (UGent) , Fanny Buysschaert (UGent) and Maarten Vansteenkiste (UGent)
(2020) MOTIVATION AND EMOTION. 44(2). p.270-294
Author
Organization
Abstract
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.
Keywords
School Psychology, Social Psychology, Teaching styles, Motivation to teach, Fixed and growth mindset, Higher education, Self-determination theory, SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY, PERCEIVED AUTONOMY-SUPPORT, PHYSICAL-EDUCATION, IMPLICIT THEORIES, UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS, NEED SATISFACTION, INTRINSIC MOTIVATION, GOAL CONTENTS, BELIEFS, ENGAGEMENT

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 1.65 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Vermote, Branko, et al. “The Role of Teachers’ Motivation and Mindsets in Predicting a (de)Motivating Teaching Style in Higher Education : A Circumplex Approach.” MOTIVATION AND EMOTION, vol. 44, no. 2, 2020, pp. 270–94, doi:10.1007/s11031-020-09827-5.
APA
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
Chicago author-date
Vermote, Branko, Nathalie Aelterman, Wim Beyers, Leen Aper, Fanny Buysschaert, and Maarten Vansteenkiste. 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): 270–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09827-5.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Vermote, Branko, Nathalie Aelterman, Wim Beyers, Leen Aper, Fanny Buysschaert, and Maarten Vansteenkiste. 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. doi:10.1007/s11031-020-09827-5.
Vancouver
1.
Vermote B, Aelterman N, Beyers W, Aper L, Buysschaert F, Vansteenkiste M. The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating teaching style in higher education : a circumplex approach. MOTIVATION AND EMOTION. 2020;44(2):270–94.
IEEE
[1]
B. Vermote, N. Aelterman, W. Beyers, L. Aper, F. Buysschaert, and M. Vansteenkiste, “The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating teaching style in higher education : a circumplex approach,” MOTIVATION AND EMOTION, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 270–294, 2020.
@article{8666792,
  abstract     = {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.},
  author       = {Vermote, Branko and Aelterman, Nathalie and Beyers, Wim and Aper, Leen and Buysschaert, Fanny and Vansteenkiste, Maarten},
  issn         = {0146-7239},
  journal      = {MOTIVATION AND EMOTION},
  keywords     = {School Psychology,Social Psychology,Teaching styles,Motivation to teach,Fixed and growth mindset,Higher education,Self-determination theory,SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY,PERCEIVED AUTONOMY-SUPPORT,PHYSICAL-EDUCATION,IMPLICIT THEORIES,UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS,NEED SATISFACTION,INTRINSIC MOTIVATION,GOAL CONTENTS,BELIEFS,ENGAGEMENT},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {270--294},
  title        = {The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating teaching style in higher education : a circumplex approach},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09827-5},
  volume       = {44},
  year         = {2020},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: