THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT MOTIVATION AND
INTERPERSONAL TEACHER BEHAVIOUR
BACHELORTHESIS 2014- 2015
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES 200600207
____________________________________________________________________
Student: Linda Evers (3978516)
Supervisor: Frans Prins
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
Abstract
In this study the relationship between student motivation and interpersonal teacher
behaviour is investigated based on a sample of 6029 students and 144 teachers from
secondary education in the Netherlands. The research question is: ‘To what extent does the
type of motivation of the students predict the students’ perceptions of the interpersonal
teacher behaviour?’ Motivation is studied based on two motivation theories: the Self
Determination Theory (SDT) and the Goal Achievement Theory (AGT). Teacher
interpersonal behaviour will be measured by means of the students’ perceptions of this
behaviour, collected with the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI). Some factors that
might influence the relationship between motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour, the
experience of the teacher and the school level of the student, were also taken into account.
The results showed that most of the motivation categories have a significant influence on the
student’s perception, although the effect sizes are small to medium. The experience of the
teacher was a significant moderator in this relationship, school level of the students only for
the subscales of the SDT. For the AGT, the results were not significant in predicting the
perceptions on the dimension proximity.
2
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
Introduction
Motivation is a complex part of human psychology and behaviour that influences how
individuals choose to invest their time, how much energy they exert in any given task, how
they think and feel about the task and how long they persist at it (Urdan & Schoenfelder,
2006). Students have different amounts of motivation. Highly motivated students are easy to
identify: they are enthousiastic, interested, involved, curious and they actively cope with
challenges and setbacks (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).
In general research on motivation is focused on how teacher behaviour influences the
motivation of the students. It is one of the most important roles a teacher should fulfil:
motivating students (Wubbels, Brekelmans, Den Brok & Van Tartwijk, 2006). Interpersonal
relationships between students and teachers have been shown to affect student motivation
(Patrick, Ryan & Kaplan, 2007). The perceptions students have of their teachers and the
classroom environment define how they learn and which attitudes they have towards school
(Nanhekhan, 2014).
Since most of the research on motivation has been focused on how behaviour of the
teacher influences motivation, the goal of the present study is to further explore motivation
by investigating the connection between interpersonal teacher behaviour and motivation in the
opposite direction. By doing this we will be able to see whether motivation of the students
influences teacher behaviour. Skinner and Belmont (1993) were one of the scarce researchers
that also investigated motivation in this direction. Their research showed that students that are
motivated are more likely to receive teacher behaviour focused on developing autonomy than
students that are less motivated.
One of the factors that influences the interpersonal perceptions is the experience of the
teacher. Novice teachers have other relations with their students than teachers with more
experience. The teachers with more job experience have a more cooperative way of teaching.
3
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
It is for starting teachers more difficult to manage the classroom and it is seems to be that they
learn this during the years (Wubbels et al., 2006). Although this has not been extensively
investigated in previous research, the current research will also take into account school level.
There is a possibility that the school level of the students influences the relationship between
motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour. It is expected that students at a higher school
level have other perceptions of interpersonal teacher behaviour than students studying at a
lower school level. Before reviewing the empirical research on interpersonal teacher
behaviour, motivation will be described in more detail.
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of students
To be motivated means ‘to be moved’ to do something (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Research
has shown that people do not only have a different amount, but also different kinds of
motivation. The most basic distinction in different kinds of motivation is in intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivation refers to doing something
because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation
refers to doing something because it leads to a separable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Intrinsic motivation leads to high- learning and creativity compared to individuals that are
more extrinsically motivated (Bouffard, Marcoux, Vezeou, & Bordeleau, 2003). Two
motivation theories that consider the distinction in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are the
Self-Determination Theory and the Achievement Goal Theory.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT). The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is based
on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation because of different reasons or
goals that give rise to an action (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The SDT proposes that human beings
have three innate needs that must be fulfilled in order to achieve self-regulation, motivation
and personal wellbeing (Deci & Ryan, 1985). These needs are the need for relatedness,
competence and autonomy (Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). The need for relatedness consists
4
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
of feelings of security and belonging in the social environment that motivate individuals to
follow norms and rules. The second need, the need for competence, is an important
component in developing self-worth. The last need, the need for autonomy, is critical in
fostering motivation because of an individual’s perception of control and success (Urdan &
Schoenfelder, 2006).
Apart from these intrinsic motivation needs, the SDT distinguishes several types of
extrinsic motivation which can vary greatly in the degree to which it is autonomous (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). The least autonomous is external regulation. These behaviour types are
performed to satisfy an external demand or obtain an externally imposed reward consistency.
A second type of extrinsic motivation is introjection. Introjection describes a type of internal
regulation that is still quite controlling because people perform such actions with the feeling
of pressure in order to avoid guilt or anxiety. Identification is a more autonomous, selfdetermined form of extrinsic motivation, because the person has identified with the personal
importance of a behaviour. The most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation is integration
(Ryan & Deci, 2000) Integration is the process by which individuals more fully transform the
regulation into their own.
To increase intrinsic motivation SDT proposes a solution by fostering the
identification and integration of values and behavioural regulations (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Teacher behaviour is thought to be an important factor to stimulate this process. Reeve and
Jang (2006) found that activities such as providing rationales and listening positively affected
internalization whereas other activities, such as giving commands and telling the right answer,
demonstrated external control and thwarted the internalization of self-regulation.
Achievement Goal Theory (AGT). The Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) is a
motivation theory that distinguishes several types of motivation based on the goals that give
an activity purpose or meaning. It recognizes the influence of the classroom environment on
5
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
motivation. When the relationships in the classrooms are positive they will contribute to
motivation (Nanhekhan, 2014). In the AGT two goal orientations can be distinguished,
namely mastery goals and performance goals.
Mastery goals. Mastery goals strive for expanding the competence (Elliot, McGregor,
& Gable, 1999). Mastery goals can be separated into mastery-approach goals and masteryavoidance goals. Within the mastery-approach goal orientation students want to learn as much
as possible to improve competence. When students have a mastery-avoidance goal orientation
they want to avoid a lack of or lose of their competence and ability (Nanhekhan, 2014).
Performance goals. Performance goals strive for getting positive feedback and
avoiding negative feedback (Dweck, 1986). Performance goals can be separated into
performance- approach goals and performance- avoidance goals (Elliot et al., 1999). When
students have a performance-approach goal orientation they want to prove their abilities
compared to their classmates. When students have a performance avoidance goal orientation
they want to prevent that they seem incompetent according to their classmates (Finney,
Pieper, & Barron, 2004; Nanhekhan, 2014).
Based on these goal orientations Elliot and McGregor (2001) constructed a 2x2
framework for goal orientations, see figure 1.
Figure 1. The 2 x 2 framework of goal orientations (Elliot & McGregor, 2001)
6
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
When classifying the goal orientations in a 2x2 framework, first a difference is made
in definition. There can be three different standards: absolute, which means that a person has
to meet the requirements of the task, intrapersonal, whereby the potential of the person is the
key element or normative, in which there is made a comparison to the performances of other
persons. Absolute and intrapersonal competence are also seen as belonging together instead of
different standards (figure 2). Then the valence is categorized. The valence can be positive
and desirable in terms of success or negative and undesirable in terms of failure (Elliot &
McGregor, 2001).
Every goal orientation has positive as well as negative consequences for affective,
cognitive and behavioural outcomes (Finney et al., 2004; Nanhekhan, 2014). The choice for a
particular goal orientation can be influenced by contextual factors. Important contextual
factors are the character and quality of the relationship between the teacher and student, just
as the interactions between the students (Nanhekhan, 2014).
Interpersonal relationships with the teacher
Interpersonal relationships in the classroom can be conceptualized in terms of
interpersonal perceptions (Mainhard, Brekelmans & Wubbels, 2011). The interpersonal
perspective studies interpersonal perceptions, by describing and analysing teaching in terms
of the relationship between teacher and student (Wubbels et al., 2006). The interpersonal
perspective offers a model to look at interpersonal teacher behavior.
The model for interpersonal teacher behaviour. This model examines the
interpersonal relationships by studying the students’ perceptions about the interpersonal
relationship with their teacher (Wubbels et al., 2006). The model contains two dimensions:
influence and proximity, as can be seen in figure 2 (Wubbels et al., 2006).
7
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
Figure 2. Model for interpersonal teacher behaviour (Wubbels et al., 2006)
Influence and proximity can be seen as independent and uncorrelated dimensions, they
are two separated aspects of teacher behaviour. The dimensions offer a possibility to examine
teacher behaviour, by representing them as axes. Each axe consists of two contrary behaviour
types. Influence consists of dominance on one side and submission on the other side. The
dimension influence describes the amount of control the teacher has in the classroom
(Mainhard et al., 2011). When there is a matter of dominance the teacher determines the
student activities and when there is a matter of submission the students can determine their
own activities (Wubbels et al., 2006).
Proximity consists of opposition and on the other side cooperation. The dimension
proximity describes the amount of affiliation the teacher has in the classroom, defined by the
connection the teacher has with the students (Mainhard et al., 2011). Opposition means the
teacher shows disapproval of the students and their behaviour. When there is a matter of
cooperation the teacher shows approval of the students and their behaviour (Wubbels et al.,
2006).
8
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
The dimensions help categorize eight interpersonal profile types of teacher behaviour:
leadership, helping/friendly, understanding, student responsibility/freedom, uncertain,
dissatisfied, admonishing, strict (Wubbels et al., 2006). Each type of teacher behaviour has a
specific description and is labelled with two letters. The letters represent the axes where they
belong to in the model. So SC stands for submission and co-operation.
The influence of motivation on perceptions about interpersonal teacher behaviour
The research of Wijsman (2012) focused on the Self-Determination Theory and has
shown that motivation of the students influences the perceptions about interpersonal teacher
behaviour. There is a difference in type of motivation and the perception about the
relationship with the teacher. Students who are more extrinsically motivated perceive the
teacher as higher in influence compared to students that are more intrinsically motivated. In
addition, a teacher who is perceived as having a high teacher interpersonal trait on influence
evokes more extrinsic motivated in students than a teacher with a low interpersonal trait on
influence. In general, high perceived influence enhances, while high perceived proximity
decreases extrinsic motivation. Influence and proximity should be interpreted together to
determine the effect on motivation. This aligns with the idea that influence in interpersonal
teacher model is a neutral dimension (Wijsman, 2012).
Research on the Achievement Goal Theory also shows that the motivation of the
students is influenced by the character and quality of the relationship between the teacher and
student (Nanhekhan, 2014). When students have a high score on the performance approach
goal orientation, this is often related to the dissatisfied teacher type in the model for
interpersonal teacher behaviour. The performance approach goal orientations are focused on
motivation with a basic thought to show abilities and competences compared to classmates
(Nanhekhan, 2014).
The current study
9
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
The current study relates the motivation of students to the perceptions they have about
interpersonal teacher behaviour. Based on the conducted empirical research it is expected that
there will be a significant influence of motivation on students’ perceptions about the
interpersonal teacher behaviour. Previous research showed that the biggest part of variance in
as well intrinsic as extrinsic motivation is on student level (Wijsman, 2012). Therefore, the
present study will focus on student level as well and it is expected that the influence of the
interpersonal teacher behaviour is significant on this level.
The goal of the current study is to find out the relationship between student motivation
and the perception of interpersonal teacher behaviour. Therefore, the two previous discussed
motivation theories will be related to the students’ perceptions about the interpersonal
relationship with their teacher. Since these two motivation theories have a different approach
on types of motivation, it is interesting to investigate how these different types of motivation
predict the students’ perceptions about the interpersonal teacher behaviour. This results in the
following main research question:
‘To what extent does the type of motivation of students predict the students’ perceptions of the
interpersonal teacher behaviour?’
In the field of the student motivation the most suitable teacher- student relationship is
characterized by a high degree of teacher influence and proximity (Den Brok et al., 2004). It
is expected that intrinsic motivation leads to this profile type of teacher behaviour, which
research has shown to lead to better academic results (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It is expected that
a goal orientation based on mastery, should have a positive influence on the perceptions
students have about the relationship with the teacher. Research has shown that masteryapproach and mastery-avoidance goal orientations lead to more positive academic outcomes
than performance oriented goal orientations (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). It will be interesting
10
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
to analyse whether a specific type of motivation leads to a specific sort of interpersonal
relationship with the teacher.
Empirical research showed that teacher experience influences the interpersonal
perceptions of students, so it is expected that this is a moderating factor. The school level will
also be taken into account, since there was no existing literature about the influence of this
variable investigating the influence of this variable can lead to new insights.
Method
Participants
Participants were 144 teachers and 6209 students from secondary education in the
Netherlands. The students were scattered over 276 classes. Students ages varied between 12
and 18 years. The school level of the students consists of practical pre-vocational (N = 520),
pre-vocational (N = 1482), senior general secondary (N = 1052), and pre-university (N =
2270) education. Teachers (46% male, Mage = 42.38, SDage = 11.17) taught on average per
week 18.24 hours (SD = 5.35, range between 3 and 32 hours). They had on average a
teaching experience of 12.64 years (SD = 10.74, range between 1 and 38 years).
Measures
Types of motivation. The Self-Determination Theory was tested by using the SelfRegulation Questionnaire-Academic (SRQ-A, Ryan & Connell, 1989). 2792 students
completed this test. In this study the questionnaire contained three topics: reasons for doing
homework, class work and answering hard questions in class. Using this questionnaire
external (i.e. ‘Because I get in trouble if I not do so’), introjected (i.e. ‘Because I want others
to think I am smart’), identified self-regulation (i.e. ‘Because I think it is important’) and
intrinsic motivation (i.e. ‘Because I like to do my homework’), were measured. Students
indicated items on a 4-point scale from completely not true to completely true.
11
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
Achievement goals. The Achievement Goal Theory was examined with the
Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ). 2865 students completed this test. The AGQ
consisted of twelve statements about achievement. Because the AGQ focuses on four
different achievement goals, each achievement goal belongs to three statements in the
questionnaire. Using this questionnaire mastery-approach (i.e. ‘I want to learn as much as
possible about this subject’), performance-approach (i.e. ‘I think it is important to perform
better than other students at this subject’), mastery-avoidance (‘Sometimes I am afraid that I
do not understand this subject good enough’) and performance-avoidance (i.e. ‘I will do my
best at this subject, because I am often afraid to perform poorly’) goal orientations were
measured. Students indicated on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly agree or strongly
disagree (Elliot & McGregor, 2001).
Interpersonal perception of the teacher. Student perceptions of the teacher were
mapped with the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI, Wubbels et al., 2006). The QTI
contains 24 items (3 items per octant) about how a student perceives a teacher in the
classroom. Students answered on a 5-point Likert scale from never to always. These answers
provide scores on eight behaviour types, represented in a circle. Influence and proximity were
also measured based on the eight subscales (Den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2006).
Using this questionnaire eight interpersonal profile types of teacher behaviour were measured,
namely: leadership (i.e. ‘This teacher is a good leader’), helping/friendly (i.e. ‘This teacher is
someone you can trust’), understanding (i.e. ‘This teacher sympathize with students’), student
responsibility/freedom (i.e. ‘This teacher let students go their own way’), uncertain (i.e. ‘This
teacher seems to be uncertain’), dissatisfied (i.e. ‘This teacher is dissatisfied’), admonishing
(i.e. ‘This teacher threatens with punishment’) and strict (i.e. ‘This teacher maintains strict
order’).
12
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
Procedure
All teachers received the student questionnaires together with an instruction about how
the students had to fill in the questionnaire. Thereby all teachers followed the same procedure.
The questionnaires were conducted in the normal classroom setting during a lesson. All
students completed the QTI, half of the students completed the SRQ-A and the other half
completed the AGQ. The students were randomly assigned to the condition SRQ-A or AGQ,
each teacher received a package with the questionnaires mixed up and the assignment was
given to expand these in this way.
Results
As preliminary analysis descriptive statistics were computed, after checking the
missing values. In the SDT (n=2792) items were scored on a 4 point Likert scale, with a mean
of 2.32 (SD=.49). In the AGQ (n= 2865) the items were scaled on a 5 point Likert scale, with
a mean of 3.09 (SD=.67). In the QTI (N=6188) items were scored on a 5 point Likert scale
with a mean of 3.00 (SD=.26).
Data were distributed normally and no univariate outliers were detected. For the
SRQ-A internal consistency was sufficient for external regulation (α = .62), and good for
introjected regulation (α = .73), identified regulation (α = .79), and intrinsic motivation (α =
.83). For the AGQ internal consistency was sufficient for performance-avoidance (α = .60)
and mastery-avoidance (α = .68) and good for performance-approach (α = .80) and masteryapproach (α = .82).
Factor analysis
A factor analysis has been conducted to investigate the underlying structure of both
motivation questionnaires. Since several of the correlations were above .3 the data were
suitable for the factor analysis. Because both motivation theories contain four categories, a
fixed factor analysis with four existing presumed factors was conducted. Varimax rotation
13
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
was selected to get the simplest possible structure of factor loadings, which enhance
interpretations of the results.
For the SRQ- A a principal axes factoring with Varimax rotation was used. The SRQ-A
consists of 24 items total, six items for each motivation category. A cutoff point of .35 was
used. One item (item 19) loaded highly on two factors instead of one. For the percentage of
variance at each factor, see table 1. The total percentage of explained variance for the four
factors at the SRQ-A is 42.96%.
Table 2
Principal Axes Varimax Rotated Factor Structure of the Four Factor SRQ-A
Item
1. Because I want that the teacher thinks I
am a good student (introjected).
4. Because I get bad feelings about myself
when I am doing not my homework
(introjected).
10. Because I want that the teacher thinks I
am a good student (introjected).
12. Because I feel ashamed when I do not
finish my work at the end of the lesson
(introjected).
17. Because I want that the other students
think I am clever (introjected).
18. Because I feel ashamed when I am not
trying (introjected).
Factor 1
Loadings
Factor 2 Factor 3
.567
Factor 4
.481
.642
.387
.479
.459
3. Because it is fun (intrinsic).
7. Because I like to do my homework
(intrinsic).
13. Because it is fun (intrinsic).
15. Because I like to make the assignments
during the lesson (intrinsic).
19. Because I like to answer difficult
questions (intrinsic).
22. Because it is fun to answer difficult
questions (intrinsic).
.782
.703
.680
.358
.385
.747
.769
2. Because I get in trouble when I am not
doing my homework (extrinsic).
6. Because it is supposed (extrinsic).
.846
.614
14
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
9. In order to avoid the teacher yelling at
me (extrinsic).
14. Because it is agreed (extrinsic).
20. Because it is supposed (extrinsic).
23. Because I want that the teacher says
nice things about me (extrinsic).
5. Because I want to understand the content
of the lesson (identified).
8. Because I think it is important to do my
homework (identified).
11. Because I want to learn new things
(identified).
16. Because I think it is important to do my
work during the lesson (identified).
21. Because I want to see if I am right or
not (identified).
24. Because I think it is important
(identified).
Percentage of variance:
.363
.538
.407
.589
.639
.707
.607
.639
.458
.534
15.52%
9.85%
9.54%
8.05%
For the AGQ a Varimax rotation with principal components has been conducted. The
AGQ contains 12 items total, three items for each goal orientation. A cutoff point of .40 was
used. For the percentage of variance of each factor, see table 2. In total, these factors
accounted for around 69.13 % of the variance in the questionnaire data.
Table 2.
Principal Components Varimax Rotated Factor Structure of the Four Factor AGQ
Item
1.I want to learn as much as possible for this
subject (mastery- approach).
5. It is important for me to understand the
content of this subject as thoroughly as
possible (mastery- approach).
9. I desire to completely master the material
presented in this subject (mastery- approach).
Factor 1
.805
Loadings
Factor 2 Factor 3
.823
.810
2. It is important for me to do better than other
students (performance- approach).
6. It is important for me to do well compared to
others in this subject (performance- approach).
10. My goal in this subject is to a better grade
than most of the students (performanceapproach).
15
.846
.683
.868
Factor 4
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
3. Sometimes I’m afraid that I may not
understand the content of this subject as
thoroughly as I would like (mastery
avoidance).
7. I worry that I may not learn all that I
possibly could in this subject (masteryavoidance).
11. I am often concerned that I may not learn
all that there is to learn in this subject
(mastery- avoidance).
.417
.678
.827
.850
4. I just want to avoid doing poorly in this
subject (performance- avoidance).
8. My goal in this class is to avoid performing
poorly (performance- avoidance).
12. My fear of performing poorly in this
subject is often what motivates me
(performance- avoidance).
Percentage of Variance:
.486
.520
.532
.473
.662
22.66%
18.63%
14.69%
13.15%
For the SDT the factor analysis did not confirm the expected underlying structure
based on the for subscales of motivation. For the AGQ the factor analysis confirmed most of
the underlying factors. Except for the performance-avoidance and mastery-approach
subscales. Several items loaded on a different factor than they belonged to according to the
theory.
Although the theoretical subscales for the motivation theories were not completely
confirmed in the factor analysis the decision was made to continue with these. Preliminary
analysis showed that the internal consistency of the subscales are sufficient or good, so we
expect this to do no harm to the results.
Correlations
Correlations were used to assess the size and direction of the linear relationship
between the dimensions influence and proximity from the QTI and the motivation categories
of both the SDT and the AGT. Prior to calculating Pearson correlation coefficients (r), the
assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity were assessed, and found to be
16
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
supported. Specifically, a visual inspection of the normal Q-Q and detrended Q-Q plots for
each variable confirmed that both were normally distributed.
Every correlation was found to be significant at p < .001, see table 3 and 4.
Table 3
Pearson correlations SDT
Variable
Introjected
Intrinsic
identified
extrinsic
Influence
.140**
.071**
.217**
.276**
Proximity
.149**
.196**
.274**
.046**
Note: ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 4
Pearson correlations AGQ
Variable
mastery-
performance-
mastery-
performance-
approach
approach
avoidance
avoidance
Influence
.180**
.043*
-.132**
.144**
Proximity
.244**
.060**
-.250**
.076**
Note: ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * = Correlation is significant
at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
Regression
To test the hypothesis that the type of motivation from students influences the
perceptions students’ have about the interpersonal relationship with the teacher a standard
multiple regression analysis (MRA) was performed. The MRA was conducted between the
subscales of both motivation theories and the dimensions of the QTI.
Before interpreting the results of the MRA, a number of assumptions were tested and
checks were performed. First, stem- and- leaf plots indicated that each variable in the
regression analysis was normally distributed and free from univariate outliers. There were
17
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
some outliers, but they had no influence on the regression analyses. Second, an inspection of
the normal probability plot of standardized residuals and the scatterplot of standardized
residuals against standardized predicted values indicated that the assumptions of normality,
linearity and homoscedasticity of residuals were met.
The regression analysis between the subscales of the SDT and the influence dimension
of the QTI found that the subscales of the SDT accounted for a significant 9% of the
variability in students’ perception on influence of the teacher, R² = .090, adjusted R² = .089,
F(4, 2787) = 69.33,p < .001. Almost every subscale was a significant predictor at p < . 01
with the exception of introjected, β = -.029, t (3155) = -1.167, p = .243. The results are
summarized in table 5, where model 1 contains SDT and influence. The regression analysis
between the subscales of the SDT and the proximity dimension of the QTI found that the
subscales of SDT accounted for a significant 10% of the variability in students’ perception on
proximity of the teacher, R² = .101, adjusted R² = .099, F(4, 2787)= 77.94, p < .001. Every
subscale found to be a significant predictor at p < .05. The results are summarized in table 6,
where model 1 contains SDT and proximity.
The regression analysis between the subscales of the AGT found that the subscales of
AGT accounted for a significant 7% of the variability in students’ perception on influence of
the teacher, R² = .069, adjusted R² = .068, F(4, 2856)= 53,15, p < .001. Every subscale was a
significant predictor at p < . 05. The results are summarized in table 7, where model 1
contains influence and AGT. The regression analysis between the subscales of the AGT and
proximity found that the subscales of AGT accounted for a significant 13% of the variability
in students’ perception on influence of the teacher, R² = .132, adjusted R² = .131, F(4, 2856)=
108.58, p < .001. Almost every subscale was a significant predictor at p < . 05 with the
exception of performance avoidance, β = .027, t (3044) = 1.201, p = .230. The results are
summarized in table 8, where model 1 contains proximity and AGT.
18
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
Multiple regression
A hierarchical multiple regression analyses (MRA) was employed to test the
hypothesis that experience of the teacher and school level of the students can account for a
significant proportion of the variance in the perceptions students have about their
interpersonal relationship with the teacher. Every variability turned out to be significant.
Each MRA contains 3 models, the first model is the previous discussed regression
analysis between the SDT or the AGQ and the dimensions from the QTI. In the second model
school level of the students has been added to investigate whether this variable moderates the
relationship between motivation and perceptions of teacher behavior. In the third model
school level was replaced by experience of the teacher. The results are summarized in table 5,
6, 7 and 8.
School level. The regression analysis with school level added to the subscales of the
SDT and influence found that the subscales of SDT and school level accounted for a
significant 10% of the variability in students’ perception on influence of the teacher, R² =
.099, adjusted R² = .097, F(5, 2395)= 52.72, p < .001. The regression analysis between the
subscales of the SDT and school level and proximity found that the subscales of SDT
accounted for a significant 10% of the variability in students’ perception on proximity of the
teacher, R² = .098, adjusted R² = .096, F(5, 2395)= 52.09, p < .001.
The regression analysis with school level added to the subscales of the AGT and
influence found that the subscales of AGT and school level accounted for a significant 8% of
the variability in students’ perception on influence of the teacher, R² = .081, adjusted R² =
.079, F(5,2457)= 43.08, p < .001. School level together measured with the subscales of AGT
were only for the students’ perception on influence of the teacher a significant predictor, β = .072, t(3044) = -3.713, p < .001.
19
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
The regression analysis between school level added to the subscales of the AGT and
proximity found that the subscales of AGT and school level accounted for a significant 13%
of the variability in students’ perception on influence of the teacher, R² = .134, adjusted R² =
.132, F(5, 2457)= 76.00, p < .001.
Teacher experience. The multiple regression with teacher experience added to the
subscales of SDT found that these account for a significant 12% of the variability in students’
perception on influence of the teacher, R² = .121, adjusted R² = .119, F(5, 2763)= 76.10, p <
.001. The regression analysis between the subscales of the SDT and teacher experience and
proximity found that the subscales of SDT accounted for a significant 9% of the variability in
students’ perception on proximity of the teacher, R² = .094, adjusted R² = .093, F(5, 2763)=
57.61, p < .001. Teacher experience together measured with the subscales of SDT were a
significant predictor for the students’ perception on influence of the teacher, β = .170, t(3155)
= 9.504, p < .001.
The regression analysis between the subscales of the AGT and teacher experience and
influence found that the subscales of AGT accounted for a significant 10% of the variability
in students’ perception on proximity of the teacher, R² = .101, adjusted R² = .099, F(5,2839)=
63.73, p < .001. The regression analysis between the subscales of the AGT and teacher
experience and proximity found that the subscales of AGT and teacher experience accounted
for a significant 13% of the variability in students’ perception on proximity of the teacher, R²
= .130, adjusted R² = .129, F(5, 2839)= 85.18, p < .001. Teacher experience together
measured with the subscales of AGT were a significant predictor for the students’ perception
on influence of the teacher, β = .174, t(3044) = 9.765, p < .000.
Unstandardised Regression Coefficients (B) for each predictor for every motivation
theory and dependent variable are summarized in table 5, 6, 7 and 8.
20
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
Table 5
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Students’ Perception on Influence of the Teacher
with Subscales Self Determination Theory
Students’ perception on influence of teacher
Model 2
Variables
Model 3
Model 1 B
B
95% CI
B
95% CI
Constant
-.070
-.081
[-.112 , -.049]
-.097
[-.123 , -.071]
Introjected
-.007
-.012
[-.025 , .002]
-.007
[-.019 , .005]
Extrinsic
.064
.066
[.053 , .079]
.062
[.050 , .074]
Intrinsic
-.015
-.013
[-.023 , -.002]
-.015
[-.026 , -.006]
Identified
.032
.035
[.008 , .004]
.033
[.022 , .043]
.002
[.002 , .003]
Teacher experience
School level
-.002
[-.008 , .004]
R²
.090
.099
.121
F
69.33
52.72
76.10
.009
.031
∆R²
Note. N = 3160. CI = confidence interval. Model 1 = SDT + Influence. Model 2 = SDT +
Influence + School level. Model 3 = SDT + Influence + Teacher experience.
Table 6
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Student’s Perception on Proximity of the Teacher
with Subscales Self Determination Theory
Students’ perception on proximity of teacher
Model 2
21
Model 3
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
Variables
Model 1 B
B
95% CI
B
95% CI
Constant
-.016
-.015
[-061 , .030]
.002
[-.036 , .039]
Introjected
.018
.021
[.002 , .041]
.015
[-.002 , .032]
Extrinsic
-.066
-.066
[-.085 , -.047]
-.065
[-.082 , -.047]
Intrinsic
.027
.029
[.014 , .045]
.025
[.011 , .039]
Identified
.099
.096
[.079 , .133]
.097
[.082 , .112]
.000
[-.001 , .001]
Teacher experience
School level
-.002
[-.010 , .007]
R²
.101
.098
.094
F
77.94
52.09
57.61
-.003
-.007
∆R²
Note. N = 3160. CI = confidence interval. Model 1 = SDT + Proximity. Model 2 = SDT +
Proximity + School level. Model 3 = SDT + Proximity + Teacher experience.
Table 7
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Students’ Perception on Influence of the Teacher
with Subscales Goal Achievement Theory
Students’ perception on influence of teacher
Model 2
Variables
Model 1
Model 3
B
95% CI
B
95% CI
B
Constant
.053
.078
[.049 , .108]
.020
[-.005 , .046]
Mastery approach
.024
.026
[.018 , .034]
.024
[.017 , .031]
Performance approach
-.009
-.010
[-.016 , -.003]
-.009
[-.015 , -.003]
22
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
Mastery avoidance
-.027
-.030
[-.036 , -.023]
-.025
[-.031 , -.019]
Performance avoidance
.024
.023
[.015 , .032]
.024
[.016 , .031]
.002
[.002, .003]
Teacher experience
School level
-.011
[-.016 , -.005]
R²
.069
.081
.101
F
53.15
43.08
63.73
.012
.032
∆R²
Note. N = 3049. CI = confidence interval. Model 1 = AGT + Influence. Model 2 = AGT +
Influence + School level. Model 3 = AGT + Influence + Teacher experience.
Table 8
Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Students’ Perception on Proximity of the Teacher
with Subscales Goal Achievement Theory
Students’ perception on proximity of teacher
Model 2
Variables
Model 1
Model 3
B
95% CI
B
95% CI
B
Constant
.129
.105
[.066 , .145]
.145
[.110 , .179]
Mastery approach
.059
.059
[.049 , .070]
.057
[.047 , .066]
Performance approach
-.009
-.010
[-.019 , -.001]
-.008
[-.016 , .000]
Mastery avoidance
-.058
-.057
[-.066 , -.049]
-.059
[-.067 , -.051]
Performance avoidance
.006
.008
[.003 , .020]
.007
[-.003 , .018]
-.007
[-.001, .000]
Teacher experience
School level
-.007
[.000 , .015]
23
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
R²
.132
.134
.130
F
108.58
76.00
82.18
.002
-.002
∆R²
Note. N = 3049. CI = confidence interval. Model 1 = AGT + Proximity. Model 2 = AGT +
Proximity + School level. Model 3 = AGT + Proximity + Teacher experience.
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between students’ motivation
and the perceptions they have of interpersonal teacher behaviour. Based on existing literature
the hypothesis was that all different motivation subscales from both motivation theories have
a significant influence in predicting the perceptions about interpersonal teacher behaviour. For
most of the motivation subscales this hypothesis was confirmed. The results showed that the
subscale introjected motivation from the SDT was not a significant predictor for the influence
dimension on the QTI. At the subscales from the AGT, the hypothesis was not confirmed for
the performance- avoidance goal orientation in predicting the perceptions about the proximity
of the teacher.
School level and experience of the teacher were thought to moderate the relationship
between motivation and the students’ perception. The moderating effect of these variables
turned out to be very low. For the subscales of the SDT the total percentage of explained
variance even declined in predicting proximity after adding these variables. This was the same
for adding teacher experience to the subscales of the AGT in predicting proximity. Once these
variables were added to the subscales of the SDT and the AGT in predicting the perceptions
on influence, the proportion of explained variance slightly increased. The exact increase can
24
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
be found in table 5,6,7 and 8 by taking a look at the differences in the adjusted R (R²) for the
three models.
Discussion
Limitations
Because of the size of the sample, it is quite remarkable that some of the results were
not significant. Apart from this, the effect sizes from most of the results are small. Except for
the subscales of the AGT in predicting proximity (R²=.132) and the subscales of the AGT
with the moderating variable school level in predicting influence (R².=134), these effect sizes
are considered as medium based on the guidelines of Cohen (Jacob Cohen, 1988).
The obtained results can be biased by the fact that some of the students did not
complete the questionnaires. This could be related to the motivation of the students. It is
possible that students that are not motivated for school, also were not motivated to fill in the
questionnaire in the classroom. Since these missing values were left out, it is possible that a
very important group of the participants was not included in our research.
Apart from this there is another limitation of the conducted research related to the used
questionnaires. The questionnaires based on the SDT and AGT consist of some items that are
very general, for example ‘omdat ik de lesstof wil begrijpen’ or ‘omdat ik graag opmerkingen
maak tijdens de les’. This items are focused on motivation in general and not motivation that
is related to a specific teacher or specific subject. Maybe there are other questionnaires that
measure motivation more specifically.
The research design separated the students in a classroom in a SRQ-A condition and in
a AGQ condition. This design has advantages, since it offered possibilities to investigate the
relationship with motivation measured on two different questionnaires. A disadvantage of this
design is that is very difficult to compare the results of both motivation questionnaires since
they are based on different theories and subscales. Although intrinsic motivation has some
25
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
similarities with mastery approach orientated goal orientations, they cannot be combined.
This required caution with interpreting the results since the relationship between motivation
and perceptions of interpersonal teacher behaviour was different for the subscales of the two
motivation theories.
Suggestions for further research
Although the conducted research has a big sample size, the motivation and perception
about the interpersonal relationship with the teacher were only measured once for each
student. In the future it would be interesting to conduct a more longitudinal research that
includes several measures. With several measure moments it is possible to demonstrate
whether there is some sort of causal relationship between motivation and perceptions of
interpersonal teacher behaviour.
Another suggestion for future research is to investigate motivation at a different level.
This research has been focused on a student level. It would also be interesting to look at
students’ motivation at a classroom level. Research has shown that besides the influence of
the relationship with the teacher, motivation is also influenced by the relationships students
have with their peers (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Future research has to further explore the
influence these relationships have on the different subscales of motivation.
Practical importance
Although the effect sizes are not outstanding, the findings are still interesting for
teachers. Teachers often report that motivation for school is lacking during secondary
education (van der Veen & Peetsma, 2009).
It seems to be that there is a reciprocal
relationship between motivation and students’ perceptions of interpersonal teacher behaviour.
Specific types of motivation distinguished by the motivation theories lead to teacher profile
types based on the two dimensions influence and proximity. These teacher profile types on
their turn evoke specific types of motivation. As the research of Nanhekhan (2014) showed
26
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
for the AGT that the character and quality of the relationship between the teacher and student
influences the motivation of the students. Students’ perceptions of the teacher as promoting
performance goals were related to negative changes in student motivation and engagement
(Ryan & Patrick, 2001). So teachers have to apply goal orientations that are based on mastery
goals to improve motivation. These insights offer possibilities for teachers to influence the
motivation students.
27
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
References
Bouffard, T., Marcoux, M. F., Vezeou, C., & Bordeleau, L. (2003). Changes in selfperceptions of competence and intrinsic motivation among elementary school children.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 171- 186.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, second edition.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self- determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour
and Student Outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 407– 442.
doi: 10.1080/09243450512331383262.
Den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2006). Multilevel issues in research using
students’ perceptions of learning environments: The case of the questionnaire on
teacher interaction. Learning Environments Research, 9, 199-213.
doi:10.1007/s10984-006-9013-9
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040- 1048.
Elliot, A. J. & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2x 2 Achievement Goal Framework. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (3), 501-519.
Elliot, A., McGregor, H. & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam
performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549563.
Finney, S. J., Pieper, S.L. & Barron, K.E. (2004). Examining the Psychometric Properties of
the Achievement Goal Questionnaire in a General Academic Context. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 64, 365- 382. doi:10.1177/0013164403258465
28
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
Mainhard, M. T., Brekelmans, M. & Wubbels, T. (2011). Coercive and supportive teacher
behaviour: Within and across lesson associations with the classroom social climate.
Learning and instruction, 21, 345- 354.
Nanhekhan, R. (2014). De relatie tussen het sociale klasklimaat en de motivatie van
brugklasleerlingen (Doctoral dissertation).
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the
classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 83- 98. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy
during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209-218.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
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, 749-761.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25.
doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Ryan, A. M. & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 38 (2), 437-460.
Skinner, E. A. & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effects of
teacher behaviour and student engagement across the school year. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 571- 581.
Urdan, T. & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal
structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School
29
Student motivation and interpersonal teacher behaviour
Psychology, 44, 331 – 349. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.003.
Wijsman, L.A. (2012). Stimulating autonomous motivation in the classroom: the role of
teacher control and affiliation (Master's thesis, University of Utrecht).
Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., Brok, P. & Tartwijk, J. (2006). An interpersonal
perspective on Classroom Management in Secondary Classrooms in the Netherlands.
Handbook of classroom management: Research practice and contemporary issues (pp.
1161-1191). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30