PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 21, 2026Studies In Educational Evaluation0 citationsOpen Access

Evaluating longitudinal, reciprocal, and cross-sectional effects of (de)motivating teaching styles on students’ psychological and educational outcomes in physical education

View Full Paper
JGJavier García-CazorlaÁAÁngel AbósLMLennia Matos

Key Points

  • This research aims to explore the relationship between teaching styles and students' psychological and educational outcomes over time.
  • Three-wave longitudinal study involving 637 secondary students
  • Analysis of teaching styles and student outcomes using structural equation modeling
  • Assessment of basic psychological needs satisfaction and frustration at multiple times
  • Autonomy-supportive teaching at T1 led to higher basic psychological needs satisfaction at T2
  • Controlling teaching at T1 resulted in increased frustration and poorer outcomes at T3
  • BPN satisfaction positively influenced perceptions of supportive teaching styles at T3
  • BPN frustration correlated with higher perceptions of controlling teaching at T3

Abstract

Grounded in Self-Determination Theory and the circumplex model of teaching behaviors, this three-wave study (N = 637 secondary students) analyzed longitudinal, reciprocal, and cross-sectional relations among (de)motivating teaching styles, basic psychological needs (BPN), and student outcomes using a structural equation model. Perceived autonomy-supportive and structuring styles at Time 1 (T1) predicted higher BPN satisfaction at Time 2 (T2), which, in turn, related to more positive experiences and perceived learning in class and greater intention for physical activity beyond class at Time 3 (T3). Conversely, controlling and chaotic styles at T1 were linked to BPN frustration at T2 and poorer outcomes at T3. BPN satisfaction (frustration) at T2 also showed a longitudinal associations with higher (lower) perceptions of autonomy-supportive/structuring, and lower (higher) controlling/chaotic styles at T3. Findings highlight long-term, bidirectional dynamics with implications for teacher education. The findings indicate that teacher training programs should foster autonomy-supportive and structuring styles while reducing controlling and chaotic ones to promote adaptive motivational patterns and improve student outcomes. • Autonomy-supportive teaching at T1 predicted BPN satisfaction at T2, which enhanced PE experiences, learning, and PA intention at T3. • Controlling and chaotic teaching at T1 predicted BPN frustration at T2, which reduced PE experiences, learning, and PA intention at T3. • BPN satisfaction at T2 positively predicted later perceptions of autonomy-supportive and structuring styles. • BPN frustration at T2 predicted increased perceptions of controlling and chaotic teaching at T3. • Autonomy-supportive and structuring styles were cross-sectionally linked to positive PE outcomes, while controlling style was negatively linked to students’ PE experiences.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

García-Cazorla et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69be34af6e48c4981c672c8dhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2026.101597
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper