Exploring (de-)motivating teaching profiles from a fine-grained directiveness approach: Differences in students’ need-based experiences

The aim was to examine how structuring and controlling approaches (high directiveness), and autonomy-supportive and chaotic approaches (low directiveness) were combined and related to students’ needs in physical education. In a sample of 1124 secondary school students, this cross-sectional study conducted two sets of profile analyses, respectively for high and low directiveness, were conducted. The latent profile analyses (LPA) revealed four high-directiveness profiles, with “very high structure-very high control” being the most adaptive and “low structure–low control” the most maladaptive in terms of need-based experiences. Four low directiveness profiles were identified, with “very high autonomy support-very low chaos” being the most adaptive and “low autonomy support-moderate chaos” the most maladaptive. • Structure and control can be simultaneously used when teachers take the lead in lessons. • Autonomy-support and chaos can be combined when allowing students to take initiative. • Four high-directiveness profiles were retained, each specifically differing in need-based experiences. • Four low-directiveness profiles were identified, each specifically contributing to need-based experiences.