Skip to main content
NCBI home page
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2024 Mar 7;13:159. [Version 1] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.144919.1

Development of competencies in secondary education through the motivational style of autonomy support

Miguel Llorca-Cano 1,a, Juan Antonio Moreno-Murcia 1, Julio Barrachina-Peris 2, Elisa Huéscar 1
PMCID: PMC11380078  PMID: 39246822

Abstract

Background

The aim of the study was to test the effect of a meta-disciplinary intervention based on the motivational style of autonomy support on the development of competencies in secondary school students. It was carried out by means of a quasi-experimental design and lasted for three months.

Methods

A total of 62 students between the ages of 12 and 16 (M = 13.61; SD = 1.16) participated, with 33 in the experimental group and 29 in the control group, along with 12 teachers (7 in the intervention group and 5 in the control group). The study measured teaching motivational style, satisfaction of basic psychological needs, motivation, and key competencies.

Results

The results demonstrate improvements in the autonomy-supportive motivational style, satisfaction of the basic psychological need for autonomy, autonomous motivation, and competencies in the experimental group, while the control group exhibited an increase in the chaos style.

Conclusions

These findings reveal the positive impact of the supportive motivational style on the development of key competencies establishing it as an active, valid, and reliable methodology to motivate secondary school students.

Keywords: motivation, basic psychological needs, active methodologies, learning, commitment.

Introduction

The data and figures published by the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training on educational outcomes ( MEFP, 2021) position Spain with the highest repetition rate in Compulsory Secondary Education (ESO) in the European Union and with an early school dropout rate (not concluding ESO) only surpassed by Malta. The PISA Report (2018) revealed that students with strong attachment to their school received greater emotional support from their families and were less likely to be absent from school.

The analysis of school climate found that most students considers very positive to help their peers, and more than a third said that Spanish teachers waited a long time for classmates to calm down. Students scored higher in reading when they perceived their teachers to be enthusiastic, to show interest in the subject and to enjoying teaching. These data suggest that creating a learning climate in which students feel motivated to complete academic tasks is now a priority for teachers.

Recent studies show the relationship between the autonomy-supportive motivational style and a learning climate that fosters student involvement through its impact on mediators, regardless of the content addressed ( Cheon, Reeve and Vansteenkiste, 2020; Gómez Rijo et al., 2023; Niemiec and Ryan, 2009; Reeve and Cheon, 2021; Reeve and Shin, 2020; Ryan and Deci, 2020). Thus, the use of a positive communicative style in class, (e.g. autonomy support), which extols the value of the student’s personal progress and is accompanied by explanations, has been shown to positively predict academic performance and task engagement, as these messages satisfy basic psychological needs ( Santana-Monagas et al., 2021, 2022a, 2022b).

Current research on classroom climate is adopting a new perspective supported by a multidimensional or circumplex approach ( Aelterman et al. 2019; Escriva-Boulley et al., 2021; Cohen et al., 2022; Moé et al., 2022; Vermote et al., 2020, 2022), with the aim of interpreting more accurately the relationships between oscillations in student-perceived motivational climate and changes in teacher motivational style.

In summary, the circumplex model ( Aelterman et al. 2019) adopts a multidimensional structure based on the degree of support or frustration of basic psychological needs and the greater or lesser directivity of the teaching intervention, integrating four major styles. Two of them are on the axis of basic psychological needs (Control and Chaos vs Autonomy Support and Structure) and the other two on the directivity axis (Control and Structure vs Chaos and Autonomy Support). These styles are concretized around eight subdimensions and associated in pairs to the styles: autonomy support (participative and attuned) and structure (guiding and clarifying) on the basic psychological-needs axis, and chaos (waiting and abandoning) and control (demanding and demanding) on the directivity axis ( Figure 1).

Figure 1. Circumflex model ( Aelterman et al., 2019).

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The model has been implemented through the Situations-in-School (SIS) questionnaire ( Aelterman et al., 2019), enabling the simultaneous analysis of the effect of the four styles and their adjacencies in different contexts ( Burgueño et al., 2023; Cohen et al. 2022; Delrue et al. 2019; Escriva-Boulley et al., 2021; Franco et al., 2023; Van Doren et al., 2023). It also provides evidence that when teacher intervention during instruction is adaptive, learning demands are more effectively met and quality motivation develops ( Van Doren et al., 2023).

In this sense, given the affinities between the demands of competency learning and the strategies presented by an adaptive motivational style (Autonomy Support and Structure) ( Hamodi, Moreno-Murcia, and Barba, 2018; Moreno-Murcia, Llorca-Cano, and Huéscar, 2020; Moreno-Murcia, Ruiz, and Vera, 2015), it is expected that this approach can help boost the development of students’ competencies, as postulated in the educational system ( LOMLOE, 2020). The literature has shown that adequate student functioning in class is related to the optimization of their autonomy, through the support of student autonomy ( Pérez-González et al., 2019; Van Doren et al. 2023) and that such functioning requires satisfying the mediators (autonomy, competence, and relationship with others), bringing numerous benefits at all levels (cognitive, behavioural and emotional) ( Ryan and Deci, 2020; Tian and Shen, 2023).

Competency-based learning ( Bolívar, 2010; Valle and Manso, 2013) emphasizes student involvement in terms of performance or performance requirements, giving relevance to autonomy, reflection, and responsibility. It also emphasizes the importance of the teacher as a mediator or facilitator in the process of acquisition and development of the competencies established in the exit profile ( Royal Decree, 217/2022). Thus, since the development of competencies requires the activation of adaptive behavioural patterns, in terms of performances with progressive autonomy, the teacher’s intervention should be adjusted to the demands posed by the process. This involves supporting the student’s autonomy, clarifying, and guiding their learning, empathizing, and providing emotional support ( Zang, 2022) to generate a positive classroom climate that stimulates their involvement and, therefore, motivates them to continue learning.

In this direction, Gómez Rijo et al. (2023) conclude that strategies such as the promotion of student participation in the evaluation and the establishment of standards, peer learning, or the design and co-direction of tasks are methodological alternatives that encourage the support of student autonomy in the classroom, as previously demonstrated by other studies ( Cheon, Reeve and Vansteenkiste, 2020; Cents-Boonstra et al., 2022; Reeve and Shin, 2020). These findings demonstrate that employing learner-centered methodologies predicts autonomous motivation and improves learner engagement in class ( Leo et al. 2020; Tian and Shen, 2023).

However, despite the existing synergies between the autonomy-supportive motivational style and the development of competencies, there are hardly any studies that provide evidence of the impact of an intervention based on the autonomy-supportive motivational style on the development of competencies ( Barrachina, 2017; Barrachina-Peris et al., in press). Considering the importance acquired by competencies in the educational profile of 21 st-century students ( European Commission, 2018; Royal Decree, 2017/2022) and the relevance given to teachers in this process, the present study is proposed. Its main purpose was to test the effect of the motivational style of autonomy support on the development of competencies, Basic Psychological Needs satisfaction and autonomous motivation.

Self-determined motivation

Deci Ryan’s (2000, 2002) Self-Determination Theory (SDT) aims to explain human behaviour through various motivational styles, contextual influences, and interpersonal perceptions. According to SDT, there are three basic psychological needs directly linked to motivation and personal well-being: autonomy, which refers to the level of independence and control that a person experiences over his or her decisions (feeling an active part); competence, related to the ability to feel capable of successfully developing a task (perception of self-efficacy); and relatedness to others, associated with the establishment of socio-affective bonds with peers (developing a group identity) ( Ryan and Deci, 2017).

Motivation, according to Ryan and Deci (2017), can manifest itself in different gradients that fluctuate based on the degree of self-determination (intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and demotivation).

In this sense, if a teacher can provide a context that encourages active involvement in decision-making among students, focuses on the process rather than the outcome and acts as a facilitator, students will develop a more self-determined motivational orientation towards the content presented in class ( Moreno-Murcia et al., 2012). For this reason, interventions that guide teachers towards improving their interpersonal style are considered fundamental.

Autonomy support

The motivational teaching style can influence the motivation of students during their classes and can be situated along a spectrum ranging from a controlling style to the support of student autonomy ( Tessier et al., 2010). Regarding the latter, the aim is to satisfy the three basic psychological needs and consequently, achieve self-determined motivation. On the contrary, extreme control, which relies on pressuring students without their active participation in the process, may lead them to act from a more extrinsic perspective ( Cheon and Reeve, 2015; Escriva-Boulley et al., 2018; Fin et al., 2019; Haerens et al., 2015; Reeve, 2010; Yew and Wang, 2016).

There is evidence that using an autonomy-supportive interpersonal teaching style can be an effective trigger for the development of intrinsic motivation, which is the most valuable for learning as it elicits student engagement based on interest, enjoyment, and willingness to learn ( Chang et al., 2016; Moreno-Murcia et al., 2012; Ntoumanis and Standage 2009). A teacher’s ability to foster self-determined motivation in their students is crucial for achieving goals set ( Taylor et al., 2010). As demonstrated by Reeve (2016), the use of an autonomy-supportive interpersonal style by the teacher promotes a classroom climate in which students become more proactive, d increase their commitment to the task, and take more responsibility in the learning process as they have a more prominent role ( Hamodi et al., 2018; Moreno-Murcia et al., 2020).

Competency-based education and motivation

Today, a versatile educational paradigm is emerging, structured around key and life-long competencies ( OECD, 2005). A competency is demonstrated when an action results from reflection and the appropriate application of practical skills, knowledge, motivation, values and attitudes required by the task itself ( OECD, 2002, 2005). Bolívar (2010) states that the competency-based approach represents a paradigm shift compared to previous models that were based on the fragmentation, accumulation and reproduction of knowledge. Itgives importance to the mobilization of knowledge in a specific context and the autonomy of students to manage their own learning. In this approach, according to Royal Decree 217/2022 of March 19, the role of the teacher is fundamental in the transfer process, as they act as a facilitators of learning by using active, contextualized methodologies, and maintaining levels of motivation in students. Such approach promotes meaningful and functional learning prioritizes the applicability of knowledge, its transfer to different contexts and emphasizes a globalizing and transversal approach (order ECD/65/2015; Bolivar, 2010; OECD, 2005). Even though it has become an entrenched model ( LOE, 2006; LOMCE, 2013; LOMLOE, 2020), difficulties are still encountered in its practical implementation ( Pérez-Pueyo et al., 2013; Barrachina and Blasco, 2012; Zapatero-Ayuso et al., 2017). In this context of change, there is a need for successful initiatives aimed at the development of key competencies in students. Principles such as self-regulation, autonomy and interaction underlie the competency-based approach and have been widely addressed in the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) ( Deci and Ryan, 2000). Supported by this theory, different studies have described the positive relationship between the interpersonal style of autonomy support and student involvement, interest, and enjoyment in their classes, as well as the development of a favorable classroom climate and more meaningful and functional learning ( Moreno-Murcia and Sánchez-Latorre, 2016; Fin et al., 2019; Jang et al., 2016). Research has shown that the nature of teacher optimization on student motivational factors is a crucial factor in improving educational quality and student success ( De Jong et al., 2022; Monarca and Rappoport, 2013; Schuster et al., 2021; Hargreaves, 2019).

So far, there have been limited studies that have evaluated the impact of collaborative interventions on key competencies. Additionally, it is also challenging to find studies that analyse the relationship of these competencies with other variables that can predict active and self-determined learning such as the motivational teaching style ( Barrachina-Peris, 2017; Moreno-Murcia et al., 2020).

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 62 Spanish students from compulsory secondary education with ages between 12 and 16 years old (M = 13.61; SD = 1.16). The female to male ratio was 50/50:, female (n = 31) and male (n = 31). They were divided into an intervention group (n = 33), of which 18 were boys and 15 girls, and a control group (n = 29), composed of 13 boys and 16 girls. On the other hand, 12 teachers between 28 and 57 years of age (M = 40.66; SD = 10.50) participated, 58% of whom were male (n = 7) and 42% female (n = 5). The participating teachers were divided into two groups, experimental (n = 7) and control (n = 5).

Measures

Autonomy support. The Situations-in-School (SIS) questionnaire ( Aelterman et al., 2019), validated in the Spanish context by Moreno-Murcia et al. (2023) and composed of a total of 60 items, was used. This questionnaire determines the interpersonal style used by the teacher, looking at how the teacher acts in 15 possible situations or scenarios that occur during the sessions and, in turn, 4 ways of acting are presented for each of these situations (one for each teaching style: autonomy support, structure, control and chaos). Therefore, there would be 15 situations with 4 ways of resolution, totalling 60 answers when completing the questionnaire (e.g. for autonomy “When presenting the rules in class, the teacher invites us students to give our opinions about the rules, so that they help us feel comfortable in class”; for control “the teacher tells us students that we must follow them all as he says, even warning us that there will be sanctions if we do not comply”; for structure “the teacher announces his expectations to start cooperating with us”; for chaos “the teacher does not care at all about the rules or our opinions”). It was measured through a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ( does not describe me at all) to 7 ( describes me extremely well). Cronbach’s Alpha for the pre-test and post-test of the different dimensions that make up the questionnaire were as follows: autonomy (.89 and .90), structure (.85 and .88), control (.83 and .88) and chaos (.87 and .90).

Basic psychological needs in the academic environment. The Spanish translation of the Échelle de Satisfacción des Besoins Psychologiques in the educational context ( León et al., 2011) by Gillet et al. (2008) was used. This scale consists of 15 items to measure three dimensions: perception of autonomy (e.g. “I have a say in the development of the programs of my subjects.”), perception of competence (e.g. “I often feel that I can do well.”) and perception of relatedness (e.g. “I feel at ease with others.”). Responses are rated on a Likert-type scale from 1 ( strongly disagree) to 5 ( strongly agree) points. The Crombach’s Alpha of the different dimensions in the pre-test and post-test of the intervention were in: Autonomy (.75 and .76), competence (.77 and .77), and relatedness (.80 and .79).

Academic motivation. The Spanish version of the Échelle de Motivation en Éducation, Escala de Motivación Académica (EMA) by Núñez, Martín-Albo and Navarro (2005) was used. The EMA is composed of 28 items distributed in seven subscales of four items each: demotivation (e.g. “I don’t know why I go to high school and, honestly, I don’t care.”), external regulation (e.g. “Because I want to live well once I finish my studies.”), introjected regulation (e.g. “Because it will help me make a better decision regarding my career direction.”), identified regulation (e.g. “Because when I do well in class I feel important.”), intrinsic knowledge motivation (e. g. “Because my studies allow me to continue learning many things that interest me.”), intrinsic achievement motivation (e.g. “Because of the satisfaction I feel when I overcome difficult academic activities.”) and intrinsic motivation to stimulating experiences (e.g. “Because for me, high school is fun.”). They were preceded by the pre-question “Why do you study this subject?”, and were measured using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ( Does not correspond at all) to 7 ( corresponds completely). The consistency of each dimension was for: autonomous motivation (.94 in the pre-test and .93 in the post-test) and for controlling motivation (.78 in the pre-test and .75 in the post-test). Intrinsic motivation to knowledge (.82 at pre-test and .79 at post-test), intrinsic motivation to achievement (.82 at pre-test and .87 at post-test), intrinsic motivation to stimulating experiences (.82 at pre-test and .76 at post-test), identified regulation (.80 at pre-test and .75 at post-test), introjected regulation (.78 at pre-test and .75 at post-test), external regulation (.85 at pre-test and .85 at post-test), and demotivation (.90 at pre-test and .90 at post-test).

Student competences. The “Key Competences Perception Scale” (ECC) developed by Moreno-Murcia et al. (2015) was used, which is composed of 9 items that measure the students’ perception of the acquisition of the different key competences. These items (e.g. “Expressing my ideas and respecting those of others”) are preceded by the previous sentence “What my teacher is teaching me allows me to be able to…”. Responses were rated by means of a Likert scale ranging from 1 ( Strongly disagree) to 7 ( Strongly agree). The internal consistency of this dimension was .88 in the pre-test and .84 post-test.

Design and procedure

The project was approved by the Project Evaluation Body of the Miguel Hernández University (2017.06.259.E.OEP). This study was developed according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki; First, the school administration was contacted to explain the objective of the study, and participation was approved through the school council. The parents/guardians of the students were asked for written authorization to participate and the treatment of the data was guaranteed in accordance with the institutional ethical guidelines regarding consent, confidentiality and anonymity. Questionnaires were completed at the beginning and end of the intervention.

A quasi-experimental design was used for sample selection, given that the participants could not be randomly selected because they were previously divided into groups. The sample was distributed into 13 groups, of which 7 had a teacher who followed an intervention model with a motivational style of autonomy support and the remaining 6 did not follow differentiated methodological guidelines.

Before starting the intervention, the teachers of the experimental group were asked to film themselves teaching to evaluate the initial individual motivational style. Subsequently, they received training in an Autonomy Support Intervention Program (PIAA) ( Moreno-Murcia et al., 2019a; Huéscar et al., 2022) for 40 hours, which included several face-to-face sessions aimed at understanding the motivational style of autonomy support and being able to transfer it to the context of their classes effectively. The training took place in two phases from October to December and combined face-to-face and virtual teaching. In the former, theoretical seminars were held, interspersed with practical workshops, in which the models and strategies shown in the literature to implement more autonomous styles and differentiate them from controllers were analysed ( Niemiec and Ryan, 2009; Reeve 2009, 2016; Reeve and Halusic 2009; Reeve and Jang, 2006; Reeve and Cheon, 2015). Videos in which teachers applied strategies were shown and analysed. The aim was to identify the key points of the strategies presented and to establish consensus on their implementation. Group discussion was used to increase the degree of reliability and validity of the measure among participants. This phase was complemented with synchronous and asynchronous virtual training.

In the second phase, based on the proposal of Moreno-Murcia et al. (2021) and Huéscar et al. (2022), the autonomy support strategies were applied in a graded manner through practical workshops. Thus, the week prior to the implementation of each strategy, the teachers of the experimental group analysed them and wrote examples for their subject, which were reviewed and approved by the group of experts. For training in the autonomy-supportive motivational style, the Measuring Interpersonal Teaching Style (MEID) scale was used ( Barrachina-Peris et al. 2022). The same scale was used during the intervention to analyse the motivational style displayed by the participating teachers (control and experimental). Three moments were recorded throughout the intervention: at the beginning, during its development and at the end. According to the literature ( Sarrazin et al., 2006; Aelterman et al., 2014; Haerens et al., 2013; Reeve and Jang, 2006), the use of a given motivational style was determined when the teacher oriented a minimum of 80% of his/her classroom interactions to its application. Thus, in the experimental group, 80% of the interactions had to be directed to the autonomy-supportive motivational style (implementing the strategies by giving autonomy) while in the control group, this percentage had to represent the controlling teaching intervention (applying the strategies by encouraging control).

The indicators obtained by each group in the study are show in Table 1.

Table 1. Record of teacher motivational style interactions obtained during the PIAA.

Moment 1 Moment 2 Moment 3
Intervention group Control group Intervention group Control group Intervention group Control group
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Autonomy support 77 60.63 20 23.26 136 95.77 20 22.47 123 94.61 16 17.70
Control style 37 29.13 54 62.79 3 2.11 53 59.55 2 1.53 52 57.77
Neutral style 13 10.24 12 13.95 3 2.11 16 17.98 5 3.84 22 24.44
Total 127 100 86 100 142 100 89 100 130 100 90 100
Open in a new tab

Note. Freq. (Frequency). At moments two and three the experimental group exceeds 90% in autonomy-supportive interactions while the control group remains below 25% and exceeds 55% of interactions in the controlling style.

Preliminary analysis

First, to test the homogeneity of the two groups before the intervention, a one-factor analysis of variance was performed. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to verify the internal consistency of each factor. To ensure the homogeneity of all dependent variables, a Levene’s test was performed on the pre-test and post-test. The effect of the intervention was assessed through a 2×2 (group × time) repeated measures analysis (ANOVA). To answer the research questions, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with all dependent variables (autonomy supportive style, structure style, controlling style and chaos style; psychological need for autonomy, psychological need for competence, psychological need for relatedness; autonomous motivation and controlling motivation and competencies). Cohen’s d was calculated to estimate the effect size. Data analysis was performed with the SPSS 52.0 statistical package.

Results

To test the homogeneity of the two groups before the intervention, a one-factor analysis of variance was performed, considering as dependent variables (autonomy support style, structure style, controlling style and chaos style; psychological need for autonomy, psychological need for competence, psychological need for relationship; self-determined motivation, controlling motivation and competence) and as a fixed factor (the group), finding significant differences in the controlling motivation variable (p < .05).

Intervention effect

The repeated measures analysis ( Table 2) revealed significant differences in the variable support for teacher autonomy in the intervention group, improving in the post-test with respect to the pre-test (p < .05). Autonomous motivation significantly improved in the experimental group (p < .05) in the post-test, as did the basic psychological need for autonomy (p < .05) and relationship (p < .05). In relation to the competencies, the final measure showed a significant improvement in the experimental group (p < .05) with respect to the initial measurement, decreasing its value in the control group. In the control group, significant differences were only obtained in the teaching motivational style variable Chaos (p < .05).

Table 2. Repeated measures analysis and Cohen's d.

Intervention Control
M Pre M Post d M Pre M Post d
A. support style 4.49 4.93 * -0.38 4.66 4.84 -0.15
Structure style 5.06 5.26 -0.21 5.19 5.26 -0.09
Control style 3.87 3.75 0.12 4.07 4.37 -0.25
Chaos style 2.68 2.86 -0.15 2.90 3.44 * -0.46
Autonomy 3.65 3.97 * -0.41 3.50 3.56 -0.06
Competence 3.84 3.94 -0.13 3.80 3.83 -0.03
Relation 4.20 4.31 -0.14 4.04 3.90 0.18
Self-motivation 5.11 5.61 * -0.49 5.07 5.06 0
Control motivation 4.17 4.41 -0.26 4.81 4.64 0.19
Competences 5.16 5.72 * -0.52 5.38 5.30 0.07
Open in a new tab

Note. A. (Autonomy).

*

p < .05.

Discussion

The aim of the study was to test the effect of the motivational style of autonomy support on psychological needs, motivation and competence development in secondary school students. The intervention was carried out for three months and included previous teacher training in autonomy support (PIAA). After analysing the data, a generalized positive effect was observed in the experimental group, which supports the initial hypothesis. Thus, students who received their classes through the autonomy-supportive motivational style presented better indicatorss in the satisfaction of basic psychological needs and self-determined motivation, the results being aligned with previous studies ( Reeve, 2011; Chang et al., 2016; Conesa et al., 2022; Reeve and Cheon, 2021; Hosseini et al., 2022; Aelterman et al., 2014; Cheon and Reeve, 2015; Trigueros, et al., 2019; Fin et al., 2019; Moreno-Murcia and Sánchez-Latorre, 2016; Yew and Wang, 2016; Barkoukis et al. 2020).

Regarding basic psychological needs, a significant improvement is observed in the autonomy variable, which is important since, according to De Muynck et al. (2017) and Cheon et al. (2020), it acts independently on well-being factors ( Baten et al., 2020) and is positively associated with agentic commitment, active participation and persistence in their own learning, producing improvement in the student’s academic performance ( Reeve and Shin, 2020) and well-being ( Santana-Monagas et al. 2022a). In this sense, the study reveals the importance of adopting a teaching perspective that contemplates the student’s interests and gives them responsibility so that they feel an active part of the development of the tasks, as already pointed out by some recent studies ( Cuevas et al., 2018; Cook-Sather et al., 2021; Jiang and Zang, 2021; Reeve and Shin, 2020) reaffirming existing contributions in the literature ( Niemiec and Ryan, 2009; Reeve, 2006, 2011, 2016). Although significant improvements on competence and relationship needs were expected in the experimental group, the results obtained could be explained around several factors. Firstly, due to the duration of the intervention and its effects on the teaching behavioural pattern, which could have been insufficient for the teacher to reach a self-regulated mastery of the style ( Huéscar et al. 2022), revealing some discrepancies between the perception of the application of the style and reality, as previous studies ( Reeve and Jang 2006; Aguado-Gómez et al. 2016) pointed out. In this sense, the studies conducted show the existence of a wide variability around the duration and contents for training in the motivational teaching style ( Su and Reeve 2011; Pérez-González et al. 2019) with disparate results in the application of the style. Taking into account the time availability of the intervention and with the aim of facilitating its more effective practical application, the PIAA model was followed ( Moreno-Murcia et al., 2021; Huéscar et al., 2022) since it presents a proposal structured in phases that facilitates its application in practice that has demonstrated its validity in the educational context ( Moreno-Murcia et al., 2019a). Another factor could be related to the degree of group and social cohesion of the experimental groups and the management performed by the teacher in class through his motivational style. It has been shown that group cohesion is positively related to the satisfaction of basic needs, autonomous motivation and involvement in class ( Bosselut et al., 2018) and for this purpose the establishment of task climate and the use of interpersonal styles of support for basic psychological needs are of utmost importance ( Leo et al., 2020), since good cohesion has shown its importance in confidence for the resolution of group tasks and collective efficacy, being key in motivational processes ( Leo et al., 2021). The factors described above may have influenced the results obtained with respect to the structure and relationship mediators and coincide with the findings of Waterschoot et al. (2019), which highlights the importance of lesson planning so that students feel an active part and are involved in the teaching and learning process.

In relation to the development of competencies, an improvement was observed in the intervention group with respect to the control group. These results coincide with previous studies that showed that active styles improve motivation and the development of competencies ( Moreno-Murcia et al. 2020) and that the autonomy-supportive style positively predicts competencies in adolescent students ( Barrachina-Peris, 2017; Moreno-Murcia et al., 2015). Therefore, the autonomy-supportive motivational style can become a facilitator of active learning ( Reeve, 2006; Reeve and Cheon, 2021), basis on which competency learning is built ( Order ECD/65/2015) and competencies are developed ( Bolivar, 2010; Royal Decree 217/2022; EU, 2018). The study shows a positive relationship between the autonomy-supportive motivational style and self-determined motivation, which is consistent with the results of other works ( Abula et al., 2020; Barkoukis et al., 2020; Fin et al., 2019 and Sánchez-Oliva et al., 2017) that support the transfer of the benefits obtained in class to other personal and social contexts of the student, such application process being a determining factor for the development of competencies ( Bolívar, 2010; European Union, 2018).

Framed in SDT ( Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000) the study follows the line of works showing that autonomously motivated students present a greater willingness to put more effort into different tasks and a higher perceived competence ( Feng et al., 2019; Mouratidis et al., 2011; Ryan and Frederick, 1997; Vansteenkiste et al., 2018), helping to extrapolate it to different tasks of daily life ( Komarraju and Nadler, 2013; Jiang et al., 2019). In this line, Johansen et al. (2023) indicate that an autonomously motivated student is more likely to show emotional engagement that leads them to participate in a more active way in various situations where they have to solve tasks due to involvement and enthusiasm and when a context that supports autonomy is posed, people become actively involved ( Ryan and Deci, 2000; Skinner and Pitzer, 2016).

In terms of pedagogical contributions, this study suggests that providing autonomy support in the classroom is fundamental for fostering students’ competencies, thus expanding the practical implications of autonomy support and its relationships with correlates of motivation. Affirming the validity and usefulness of implementing strategies to support autonomy already validated ( Huéscar et al., 2022) such as: giving students a choice of content among different possibilities, offering level options within the tasks themselves, favouring participation and cooperative work, promoting a positive climate in class, guiding the student towards the search for answers without facilitating the solution to the problems posed or the use of non-controlling language, etc. When students perceive that their autonomy is supported through an optimal learning climate, they are more likely to mobilize their internal motivational resources and decide to engage voluntarily in the different tasks, thus facilitating their perception of competence ( Moreno-Murcia and Barrachina Peris, 2022).

The study has promoted teacher collaboration, revealing it to be a key factor in improving the quality of education in schools. Based on these findings, if similar studies are proposed in the future, the variable teacher collaboration could be further regulated and the impact exerted on the teaching and learning process could be analysed, as pointed out by studies that confirm the positive effect on student academic performance ( Hargreaves, 2019; Reeves et al., 2017; Moolenaar et al., 2012; Main and Bryer, 2005; Goddard et al., 2007; Westheimer, 2008), on teacher motivation and satisfaction and the development of innovative practices ( Kolleck, 2019; Vangrieken et al., 2015; Vangrieken et al., 2017; Donmoyer et al., 2012).

The study has several limitations. On the one hand, the sample size. Despite having 12 groups and 62 students, an increase in the sample would allow comparison of the results at the trans-contextual level. Another limitation is associated with the duration of the intervention. To improve the reliability of the data, longitudinal studies covering longer periods (one or more school years) are proposed in order to analyse the long-term effect, especially on the development of competencies at the end of the basic education stage (6-16 years). Another limiting factor would be associated with the specific context of the application process of the autonomy support strategies and their supervision, which could have minimized the effect that other factors may have had on the results (time of the course, group cohesion, among others), factors that we suggest should be considered in future studies that delve deeper in this direction.

In conclusion, this study supports the results obtained in previous works and opens lines of future work aimed at applying the motivational style of autonomy support using specific training programs (PIAA). The work has shown that, if teachers are trained collaboratively, the quality of teaching is increased and improvements are produced in the development of competencies in secondary education, satisfying basic psychological needs, improving self-determined motivation. This study is the first to investigate how the implementation of autonomy support in an educational context of adolescent students is related to the different competencies through the promotion of autonomous motivation, making it necessary for researchers to highlight the importance of building optimal learning environments that support student autonomy.

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the call for “Projects of innovation and research in education” of the Conselleria d’educació de la Generalitat valenciana. (DOCV 7823/07.07.2016).

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved

Data availability

Figshare: Dates of PIIE, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24542071.v1 ( Moreno-Murcia, 2023).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

  1. Abula K, Beckmann J, He Z, et al. : Autonomy support in physical education promotes autonomous motivation towards leisure-time physical activity: Evidence from a sample of Chinese college students. Health Promot. Int. 2020;35(1):e1–e10. 10.1093/heapro/day102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aelterman N, Vaanstenkiste M, Soenens B, et al. : Towards an integrative fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a Circumplex approach. J. Educ. Psychol. 2019;111:497–521. 10.1037/edu0000293 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aelterman N, Vansteenkiste M, Van den Berghe L, et al. : Fostering a nedd-supportive teaching style: Intervention effects on physical education teacher’s beliefs and teaching behaviors. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2014;36(6):595–609. 10.1123/jsep.2013-0229 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Aguado-Gómez R, Díaz-Cueto M, Hernández-Álvarez JL, et al. : Apoyo a la autonomía en las clases de educación física: percepción versus realidad. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte/International Journal of Medicine and Science of Physical Activity and Sport. 2016;16(62):183–202. [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrachina-Peris J, Blasco Mira JE: Análisis del desarrollo de las competencias básicas en el currículum de la Educación Física en la ESO en la Marina Baixa: un estudio de caso. Apunts. Educación Física y Deportes. 2012;110:36–44. 10.5672/apunts.2014-0983.es.(2012/4).110.04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrachina-Peris J: Efecto del apoyo a la autonomía en el enfoque por competencias en educación física [Tesis doctoral, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche]. 2017. Reference Source
  7. Barrachina-Peris J, Moreno-Murcia JA, Huéscar E: Design and validation of a scale for measuring motivational teaching style. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte. 2022;22(1):67–80. [Google Scholar]
  8. Barrachina-Peris J, Fin G, Moreno-Murcia JA: Mejora de las competencias en educación física: intervención basada en las preferencias de práctica de los estudiantes y en el apoyo a la autonomía. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estudos em Educaçao. Araraquara. in press;18. [Google Scholar]
  9. Barkoukis V, Chatzisarantis NLD, Hagger MS: Effects of a school-based intervention on motivation for out-of-school physical activity participation. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 2020;92:477–491. 10.1080/02701367.2020.1751029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Baten E, Vansteenkiste M, De Muynck GJ, et al. : How can the blow of math difficulty on elementary school children’s motivational, cognitive, and affective experiences be dampened? The critical role of autonomy-supportive instructions. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020;112(8):1490–1505. 10.1037/edu0000444 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bolivar A: Competencias básicas y currículo. Madrid: Síntesis;2010. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bosselut G, Heuzé JP, Castro O, et al. : Using Exploratory Structure Equation Modeling to validate a new measure of cohesion in the university classroom setting: The University Group Environment Questionnaire (UGEQ). Int. J. Educ. Res. 2018;89:1–9. 10.1016/j.ijer.2018.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Burgueño R, Abós Á, Sevil-Serrano J, et al. : A Circumplex Approach to (de) motivating Styles in Physical Education: Situations-In-School–Physical Education Questionnaire in Spanish Students, Pre-Service, and In-Service Teachers. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci. 2023;1–23. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cents-Boonstra M, Lichtwarck-Aschoff A, Lara MM, et al. : Patterns of motivating teaching behaviour and student engagement: A microanalytic approach. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2022;37(1):227–255. 10.1007/s10212-021-00543-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chang YK, Chen S, Tu KW, et al. : Effect of autonomy support on self-determined motivation in elementary physical education. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2016;15(3):460–466. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cheon SH, Reeve J: A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease students’ amotivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2015;40:99–111. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cheon SH, Reeve J, Vansteenkiste M: When teachers learn how to provide classroom structure in an autonomy-supportive way: Benefits to teachers and their students. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2020;90:103004. 10.1016/j.tate.2019.103004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Comisión Europea: Recomendación del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 22 de mayo de 2018 sobre las competencias clave para el aprendizaje permanente. 2018.
  19. Cohen R, Katz I, Aelterman N, et al. : Understanding shifts in students’ academic motivation across a school year: the role of teachers’ motivating styles and need-base experiences. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2022;38:963–988. 10.1007/s10212-022-00635-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cook-Sather A, Allard S, Marcovici E, et al. : Fostering agentic engagement: working toward empowerement and equity through pedagogical partnership. Int. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2021;15(2). 10.20429/ijsotl.2021.150203 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Conesa PJ, Onandia-Hinchado I, Dunabeitia JA, et al. : Basic psychological needs in the classroom: A literature review in elementary and middle school students. Learn. Motiv. 2022;79:101819. 10.1016/j.lmot.2022.101819 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cuevas R, Gacía-Calvo T, González J, et al. : Necesidades psicológicas báscias, motivación y compromiso en educación física. Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2018;27(1):97–104. [Google Scholar]
  23. De Muynck G-J, Vansteenkiste M, Delrue J, et al. : The effects of feedback valence and style on need satisfaction, self-talk, and perseverence among tennis players: An experimental study. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2017;39:67e80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Deci EL, Ryan RM: The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000;11:227–268. 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Deci EL, Ryan RM: Handbook of Self-Determination Research. New York: The University of Rochester Press;2002. [Google Scholar]
  26. De Jong L, Meirink J, Admiraal W: School-based collaboration as a learning context for teachers: A systematic review. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2022;112:101927. 10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101927 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Delrue J, Reynders B, Vande Broek G, et al. : Adopting a helicopter-perspective towards motivating and demotivating coaching: A circumplex approach. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019;40:110–126. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Donmoyer R, Yennie-Donmoyer J, Galloway F: The search for connections across principal preparation, principal performance, and student achievement in an exemplary principal preparation program. J. Res. Leadersh. Educ. 2012;7(1):5–43. 10.1177/1942775112440631 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Escriva-Boulley G, Tessier D, Ntoumanis N, et al. : Need-supportive professional development in elementary school physical education: Effects of a cluster-randomized control trial on teachers’ motivating style and student physical activity. Sport Exerc. Perform. Psychol. 2018;7(2):218–234. 10.1037/spy0000119 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Escriva-Boulley G, Guillet-Descas E, Aelterman N, et al. : Adopting the Situation in School Questionnaire to examine physical education teacher’s motivating and demotivating styles using a circumplex approach. Res. Public Health. 2021;18:7342. 10.3390/ijerph18147342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Feng X, Xie K, Gong S, et al. : Effects of parental autonomy support and teacher support on middle school students’ homework effort: Homework autonomous motivation as mediator. Front. Psychol. 2019;10:612. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00612 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fin G, Moreno-Murcia JA, León J, et al. : Interpersonal autonomy support style and its consequences in physical education classes. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(5):e0216609. 10.1371/journal.pone.0216609 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Franco E, González-Peño A, Trucharte P, et al. : Challenge-based learning approach to teach sports: exploring perceptions of teaching styles and motivational experiences among student teachers. J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 2023;32:100432. 10.1016/j.jhlste.2023.100432 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gillet N, Rosnet E, Vallerand RJ: Développement d’une échelle de satisfaction des besoins fondamentaux en contexte sportif. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. 2008;40(4):230–237. 10.1037/a0013201 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Goddard YL, Goddard RD, Tschannen-Moran M: A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2007;109(4):877–896. 10.1177/016146810710900401 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Gómez Rijo A, Jiménez-Jiménez F, Fernández Cabrera JM: El apoyo a la autonomía en Educación Física en Educación Primaria desde la percepción del profesorado. Retos. 2023;48:575–583. 10.47197/retis.v48.97484 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Haerens L, Aelterman N, Van der Berghe L, et al. : Observing physical education teacher’s need-supportive interactions in classroom settings. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2013;35:3–17. 10.1123/jsep.35.1.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Haerens L, Aelterman N, Vansteenkiste M, et al. : Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2015;16(3):26–36. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hargreaves A: Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature, forms, limitations and effects. Teach. Teach. 2019;25(19):603–621. 10.1080/13540602.2019.1639499 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hamodi C, Moreno-Murcia JA, Martín RB: Medios de evaluación y desarrollo de competencias en educación superior en estudiantes de Educación Física. Estudios pedagógicos (Valdivia). 2018;44(2):241–257. 10.4067/S0718-07052018000200241 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Hosseini FB, Ghorbani S, Rezaeeshirazi R: Autonomy Support, Needs Satisfaction, Motivation, and Intention to Do Physical Activities in Adolescents: A Validation study. Int. J. Pediatr. 2022;10(2):15399–15411. [Google Scholar]
  42. Huéscar E, Barrachina-Peris J, Moreno-Murcia JA: En búsqueda de la autonomía en educación física. Barcelona: Ediciones Octaedro;2022. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jang H, Reeve J, Halusic M: A new autonomy-supportive way of teaching that increases conceptual learning: Teaching in students’ preferred ways. J. Exp. Educ. 2016;84(4):686–701. 10.1080/00220973.2015.1083522 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Jiang AL, Zhang LJ: University teachers’ teaching style and their students’ agentic engagement in EFL Learning in China: A Self-Determination Theory and Achievement Goal Theory integrated perspective. Front. Psychol. 2021;12:704269. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.704269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Jiang J, Vauras M, Volet S, et al. : Autonomy- supportive and controlling teaching in the classroom: A video-based case study. Educ. Sci. 2019;9:1–19. 10.3390/educsci9030229 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Johansen MO, Eliassen S, Jeno LM: The bright and dark side of autonomy: How autonomy support and thwarting relate to student motivation and academic functioning. Front. Educ. 2023;8:1153647. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1153647 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kolleck N: Motivational Aspects of Teacher Motivation. Front. Educ. 2019;4:85. 10.3389/feduc.2019.00122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Komarraju M, Nadler D: Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learn. Individ. Differ. 2013;25:67–72. 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Leo FM, Mouratidis A, Pulido JJ, et al. : Perceived teachers’ behavior and students’ engagement in physical education: The mediating role of basic psychological needs and self-determined motivation. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2020;27:59–76. 10.1080/17408989.2020.1850667 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Leo FM, López-Gajardo MA, Fernández-Río J, et al. : Desarrollo de la cohesión y las relaciones sociales en clase para optimizar la motivación e implicación en educación física. García-González L, coord. Cómo motivar en Educación Física. Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Zaragoza;2021;131–145. [Google Scholar]
  51. León J, Domínguez E, Núñez JL, et al. : Traducción y validación de la versión española de la Échelle de Satisfacción des Besoins Psychologiques en el contexto educativo. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology. 2011;27(2):405–411. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ley Orgánica: de 3 de mayo, de Educación. 2/2006.
  53. Ley Orgánica: de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa. 8/2013.
  54. Ley Orgánica: de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación. 3/2020.
  55. Main K, Bryer F: What does a ‘good’ teaching team look like in a middle school classroom? Bartlett B, Bryer F, Roebouck D, editors. Stimulating the “action” as participants in participatory research. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Cognition. Language, and Special Education;2005. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional: Datos y cigras. Curso Escolar 2021/2022. Secretaría General Técnica. Gobierno de España. 2021.
  57. Moé A, Consiglio P, Katz I: Exploring the circumplex model f motivating and demotivating teaching styles: the role of teacher need satisfaction and need frustration. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022;118(103823):103823. 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103823 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Monarca H, Rappoport S: Investigación sobre los procesos de cambio educativo: El caso de las competencias básicas en España. Ministerio de Educación;2013. [Google Scholar]
  59. Moolenaar NM, Sleegers PJC, Daly AJ: Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2012;28(2):251–262. 10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Moreno-Murcia JA: Dates of PIIE.Dataset. figshare. 2023. 10.6084/m9.figshare.24542071.v1 [DOI]
  61. Moreno-Murcia JA, Barrachina-Peris J: Motivar en educación física. No lo dudes aplica la ciencia. Barcelona. Inde. 2022.
  62. Moreno-Murcia JA, Ferriz A, Barrachina-Peris J: Estilos motivadores docentes y directividad en Educación Física. Apunts. Educación Física y Deportes;2023. [Google Scholar]
  63. Moreno-Murcia JA, Huéscar E, Cervelló E: Prediction of adolescents doing physical activity after completing secondary education. Span. J. Psychol. 2012;15(1):90–100. 10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n1.37288 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Moreno-Murcia JA, Huéscar E, Nuñez JL, et al. : Quasi-experimental study protocol to promote an interpersonal style of autonomy support in physical education teachers. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte. 2019a;19(2):83–101. 10.6018/cpd.337761 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Moreno-Murcia JA, Ruiz M, Vera JA: Predicción del soporte de autonomía, los mediadores psicológicos y la motivación académica sobre las competencias básicas en estudiantes adolescentes. Revista de Psicodidáctica. 2015;20(2):359–376. 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.11655 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Moreno-Murcia JA, Sánchez-Latorre F: Efectos del soporte de autonomía en clases de educación física. RICYDE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte. 2016;12:79–89. 10.5232/ricyde2016.04305 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Moreno-Murcia JA, Huéscar E, Nuñez JL, et al. : Protocolo de estudio cuasi-experimental para promover un estilo interpersonal de apoyo a la autonomía en docentes de educación física. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte. 2019b;19(2):83–101. 10.6018/cpd.337761 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Moreno-Murcia JA, Llorca-Cano M, Huéscar E: Teaching Style, Autonomy Support and Competences in Adolescents. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y el Deporte. 2020;20(80):563–576. 10.15366/rimcafd2020.80.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Moreno-Murcia JA, Barrachina-Peris J, Ballester Campillo M, et al. : Proposal for Modeling Motivational Strategies for Autonomy Support in Physical Education. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021;18(14):7717. 10.3390/ijerph18147717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Mouratidis A, Vansteenkiste M, Sideridis G, et al. : Vitality and interest-enjoyment as a function of class-to-class variation in need-supportive teaching and pupils’ autonomous motivation. J. Educ. Psychol. 2011;103:353–366. 10.1037/a0022773 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Ntoumanis N, Standage M: Motivation in physical education classes: A self-determination theory perspective. Theory Res. Educ. 2009;7(2):194–202. 10.1177/1477878509104324 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Niemiec CP, Ryan RM: Autonomy, competence and relatedness in the classroom: applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory Res. Educ. 2009;7(32):133–144. 10.1177/1477878509104318 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Núñez Alonso JL, Martín-Albo Lucas J, Navarro Izquierdo JG: Validación de la versión española de la Échelle de Motivation en Éducation. Psicothema;2005. [Google Scholar]
  74. OECD: Definition and Selection of Competencies: Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations. OCDE;2002. [Google Scholar]
  75. OECD: The definition and Selection of key Competencies. Executive Summary. OCDE;2005. [Google Scholar]
  76. OECD: PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing;2019. 10.1787/5f07c754-en [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Orden: de 21 de enero, por la que se describen las relaciones entre las competencias, los contenidos y los criterios de evaluación de la educación primaria, la educación secundaria obligatoria y el bachillerato. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. ECD/65/2015.
  78. Pérez-Pueyo A, (coord.), Casado OM, Heras C, et al. : Programar y evaluar competencias básicas en 15 pasos. Barcelona: Grao;2013. [Google Scholar]
  79. Pérez-González AM, Valero-Valenzuela A, Moreno-Murcia JA, et al. : Revisión sistemática del apoyo a la autonomía en educación física. Apunts Educación Física y Deportes. 2019;35(138):51–61. 10.5672/apunts.2014-0983.es.(2019/4).138.04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Real Decreto: de 29 de marzo, por el que se establece la ordenación y las enseñanzas mínimas de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. 217/2022.
  81. Reeve J: Teachers as facilitators: what autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students Benefit. Elem. Sch. J. 2006;106(3):225–236. 10.1086/501484 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Reeve J: How do I motivate others? The concept of motivating style. Motivacion y Emocion: Investigaciones Actuales. 2010;15–28. [Google Scholar]
  83. Reeve J: Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they become more autonomy supportive. Educ. Psychol. 2009;44(3):159–175. 10.1080/004615220903028990 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Reeve J: Teaching in ways that support students’ autonomy. Mashek D, Hammer EY, editors. Empirical research in teaching and learning: Contributions from social psychology. Wiley Blackwell;2011; pp.90–103. 10.1002/978144395341.ch5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Reeve J: Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. Building Autonomous Learners. 2016; pp.129–152. 10.1007/978-981-287-630-0_7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Reeve J, Cheon SH: Teachers become more autonomy supportive after they believe it is easy to do. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2015;22:178–189. 10.1016/j.psychosport.2015.08001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Reeve J, Cheon SH: Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educ. Psychol. 2021;56(1):54–77. 10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Reeve J, Halusic M: How K-12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles into practice. Theory Res. Educ. 2009;7(2):145–154. 10.1177/1477878509104319 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Reeve J, Jang H: What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. J. Educ. Psychol. 2006;98(1):209–218. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Reeve J, Shin S: How teachers can support students’ agentic engagement. Theory Pract. 2020;59(2):150–161. 10.1080/00405841.2019.1702451 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Reeves PM, Pun WH, Chung KS: Influence of teacher collaboration on job satisfaction and student achievement. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2017;67:227–236. 10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Ryan RM, Deci EL: La Teoría de la Autodeterminación y la Facilitación de la Motivación Intrínseca, el Desarrollo Social, y el Bienestar. Am. Psychol. 2000;55(1):68–78. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Ryan RM, Deci EL: Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications;2017. [Google Scholar]
  94. Ryan R, Deci E: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020;61:101860. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Ryan RM, Frederick C: On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J. Pers. 1997;65:529–565. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Sánchez-Oliva D, Pulido-Gonzalez JJ, Leo FM, et al. : Effects of an intervention with teachers in the physical education context: A Self-Determination Theory approach. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0189986. 10.1371/journal.pone.0189986 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Santana-Monagas E, Nuñez JL, Loro JF, et al. : Teachers’ engaging messages: the role of percieved autonomy, competence and relatedness. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022a;109:103556. 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103556 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Santana-Monagas E, Nuñez JL, Loro JF, et al. : What makes a student feel vital? Links between teacher-student relatedness and teachers’ engaging messages. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2022b;38:1201–1226. 10.1007/s10212-022-00642-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Santana-Monagas E, Putwain D, Nuñez JL, et al. : ¿Predicen los mensajes del profesorado la motivación para aprender y el rendimiento? Revista de Psicodidáctica. 2021;27:86–95. 10.1016/j.psioe2021.11.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. Sarrazin PG, Tessier DP, Pelletier LG, et al. : The effects of teachers’ expectations about students’ motivation on teachers’ autonomy-supportive and controlling behaviors. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2006;4(3):283–301. 10.1080/1612197X.2006.9671799 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  101. Skinner EA, Pitzer JR: Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. Handbook of research on student engagement. Christenson SL, editor. Berlin: Springer Science;2016. [Google Scholar]
  102. Schuster J, Hartmann U, Kolleck N: Teacher collaboration networks as a function of type of collaboration and schools’ structural environment. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021;103:103372. 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103372 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Su YL, Reeve J: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2011;23:159–188. 10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  104. Taylor I, Ntoumanis N, Standage M, et al. : Motivational predictors of physical education students’ effort, exercise intentions, and leisure-time physical activity: A multilevel linear growth analysis. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2010;32(1):99–120. 10.1123/jsep.32.1.99 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Tessier D, Sarrazin P, Ntoumanis N: The effect of an intervention to improve newly qualified teachers’ interpersonal style, students motivation and psychological need satisfaction in sport-based physical education. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2010;35(4):242–253. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.05.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. Tian L, Shen J: The effect of perceived teachers’ interpersonal behavior on students’ learning in physical education: a sistemati review. Front. Psychol. 2023;14:1233556. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1233556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Trigueros R, Mínguez LA, González-Bernal JJ, et al. : Influence of teaching style on physical education adolescents’ motivation and health-related lifestyle. Nutrients. 2019;11(11):2594. 10.3390/nu11112594 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Unión Europea: Recomendación del Consejo, de 22 de mayo de 2018, relativa a las competencias clave para el aprendizaje permanente. 2018. Reference Source
  109. Valle J, Manso J: Competencias clave como tendencia de la política educativa supranacional de la Unión Europea. Revista de Educación. 2013;12–33. 10.44381/1988-592X-RE-2013-EXT-255 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  110. Vangrieken K, Dochy F, Raes E, et al. : Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educ. Res. Rev. 2015;15:17–40. 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. Vangrieken K, Meredith C, Packer T, et al. : Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2017;61:47–59. 10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  112. Vansteenkiste M, Aelterman N, Muynck GD, et al. : Fostering personal meaning and self-relevance: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization. J. Exp. Educ. 2018;86:30–49. 10.1080/00220973.2017.1381067 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  113. Van Doren N, De Cocker K, Flamant N, et al. : Observing physical education tearcher’s need-supportive and need thwarting styles using a circumplex approach: how does it relate to student outcomes? Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2023;1–25. 10.1080/17408989.2023.2230256 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Vermote B, Aelterman N, Beyers W, et al. : The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de) motivating teaching style in higher education: a circumplex approach. Motiv. Emot. 2020;44:270–294. 10.1007/s11031-020-09827-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  115. Vermote B, Vansteenkiste M, Aelterman N, et al. : Teacher’s psychological needs link social pressure with personal adjustment and motivating teaching style. J. Exp. Educ. 2022;91:696–717. 10.1080/00220973.2022.2039584 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  116. Westheimer J: Learning among colleagues: Teacher community and the shared enterprise of education. Cochran-Smith M, Feiman-Nemser S, McIntyre J, editors. Handbook of research on teacher education. Reston, VA and Lanham, MD: Association of Teacher Educators and Rowman;2008; pp.756–782. [Google Scholar]
  117. Waterschoot J, Vansteenkiste M, Soenens B: The effects of experimentally induced choice on elementary school children’s intrinsic motivation: The moderating role of indecisiveness and teacher-student relatedness. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2019;188:104692. 10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104692 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Yew M, Wang K: The effectiveness of an Autonomy-Supportive Teaching Structure in Physical Education. RIDYCE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte. 2016;12(43):5–28. [Google Scholar]
  119. Zang Z: Towards the role of teacher empathy in student’s engagement in english language classes. Front. Psychol. 2022;13:880935. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.880935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Zapatero-Ayuso JA, González-Ribera MD, Campos-Izquierdo A: Dificultades y apoyos para enseñar por competencias en educación física en secundaria: un estudio cualitativo. RICYDE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte. 2017;13:5–25. 10.5232/ricyde2017.04701 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2024 Sep 6. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.158786.r273445

Reviewer response for version 1

Gavin R Slemp 1, Andrew Napier 2

I completed this review with the with a PhD student. We reviewed the article separately, and I include my comments first and their comments after mine:

My comments:

The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of an intervention based on motivating styles and SDT to see if it yielded beneficial outcomes in secondary school students, using a quasi-experimental design. Results suggested some improvements in autonomy support, autonomy, autonomous motivation, whereas these were generally not observed in the control group.  Authors conclude that they found a positive effect of their intervention.

Overall, there are some things to like about this paper. It is good we are seeing more interventions like the current study and the intervention seems to be based on solid foundations covered in the SDT literature. That said, I do have some concerns that temper my enthusiasm, which I also outline below. 

- The introduction gives a lot of background information about SDT and related concepts, such as the circumplex model and motivation subtypes, but it does little to problematize the need for the study. I think you could do more here as there is only a few lines of text at the end of the introduction to say a few interventions exist.  Why do we need more interventions? What will they contribute to knowledge? I think more could be done to elaborate on these points.

- After reading the method, it was not clear to me how participants were allocated to conditions, and only several pages later did we learn it was a quasi-experimental trial. Please make this important point more salient early in the paper.

- Not much information is really provided about the intervention. Can you please be clearer about what participants experienced? How many sessions were involved and for how long? What was the focus of each session? Why was the intervention design in the way it was? etc. There is some information provided here but it could be considerably more substantial to give complete information. 

- Please include a consort diagram that shows the flow of participants from screening all the way through to last measurement. It is useful for readers to understand the extent and effect of attrition. 

- In preliminary analyses and results sections, the first 2 sentences of each section are verbatim. I would suggest rephrasing given each section should be incorporating different information, which would allow you to better distinguish the preliminary analyses from the actual results presented later.

- Refer to measurements as time 1, time 2, and time 3, rather than moments, which is the current language used to describe them. Also, frequency should be N? It is not really clear whether table 1 includes N, which makes it very confusing.  Please also ensure to report means, SDs, N for each time point for each group for each variable.

- Report the actual p-values, rather than thresholds as they are presented in the section "Intervention Effect". Please also give more information, such as the means of both groups and an effect size that compares/quantifies the group by time interactions, which will allow readers to better understand how strong these effects are. Also, a problem with the results section, as well as the paper overall, is that it is generally unclear who the intervention group is. Is it the group who received the training? Or is it the group who studied under those who received the training? I think it would be beneficial to provide two sets of metrics to capture the different layers/cohorts for your intervention effects. 

- A clear limitation that has not been mentioned is the fact that this study was a quasi-experiment rather than a randomized controlled trial, limiting inferences about causality.

PhD student:

  • The 5 th paragraph (pg. 3), when discussing the circumplex model, has a typo. It says, “demanding and demanding”, when this should say “domineering and demanding”

  • Definition of autonomy on pg. 4 is not accurate. Autonomy is different from independence. Suggest correcting this.

  • Suggest also using the correct term “amotivation” rather than “demotivation” (pg. 4)

  • The justification for the current study (pg. 5) was fairly short and abrupt. It was unclear what this study offers that previous autonomy-supportive school-based programs have not already investigated. I would suggest giving some extra information regarding this. The use of a clear hypothesis would help clarify the aims of the study.

  • It’s a bit unclear why this is a quasi-experimental design. Why were students and teachers not randomly assigned into control/experimental groups? The participant section simply states that they were divided into groups. This doesn’t seem to preclude randomisation. Authors should clarify.

  • At the bottom of page six it states that “The sample was distributed into 13 groups, of which 7 had a teacher who followed an intervention model with a motivational style of autonomy support and the remaining 6 did not follow differentiated methodological guidelines”. Should this say 5 not 6 teachers, given in the methods section, only 5 were in the control group.

  • I commend the authors on the use of the MEID to measure the autonomy and controlling styles of teachers during the PIAA training. Was this process done blinded or by the researchers who knew which condition the teachers were in? If not blinded, this may lead to bias in rating the experimental group teachers as more autonomy supportive. I would recommend clarifying how this was done and any biases that might affect the rating of teachers motivational style.

  • Under Intervention Effect it states: “In relation to the competencies, the final measure showed a significant improvement in the experimental group (p < .05) with respect to the initial measurement, decreasing its value in the control group.” I suggest changing wording around ‘decreasing its value in the control group’ as this sounds as though competences decreased significantly in the control group, when according to table 2 they did not.

  • Given the large number of dependent variables that may be related, would it be advised to perform a MANOVA to see if any significant omnibus effects are present before exploring each individual variable

  • Limitations of the present study should also mention the lack of randomisation and need for true RCT in the future.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

SDT, motivation, psychology, wellbeing

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2024 Aug 30. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.158786.r261426

Reviewer response for version 1

Pedro Saenz-Lopez Bunuel 1

-An approval status which summarizes your views on the article and helps directly determine whether an article will complete peer review.

The manuscript has the structure is right, the sample is good enough, the analysis is adequate, the references are updated.

-A peer review report which supports your answers and approval status, with more detail where necessary. Please also include one or two sentences to summarize the article.

The objective of this article is to measure the effect of an intervention in secondary school students. The design is a quasi-experimental study in which the experimental group develop a motivational style of autonomy support. The tested variables have been satisfaction of basic psychological needs, motivation, and key competencies. the findings demonstrate a positive impact of the supportive motivational style on the satisfaction of the basic psychological need for autonomy, autonomous motivation, and competencies.

In the study some limitations are shown such as the sample size or the duration of the intervention. They suggest this and other aspects to be considered in future studies.

Some details to improve the manuscript:

- INTRODUCTION

-Competency-based education and motivation

1st paragraph. Erratum: It gives (It gives)

-REFERENCES

Add doi  link and references (if it is possible). For example:

[1]

-INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION

The aim is very clear in the abstract. I suggest including more clearly in the text (at the end of the introduction and at the end of the discussion to conclude answering it).

- INTRODUCTION

2ND Paragraph. It seems that positive climate depends on emotional aspects (emotional, support, calm down, enthusiastic). After this shows up this sentence: “These data suggest that creating a learning climate in which students feel motivated to complete academic tasks is now a priority for teachers”. It would be necessary to explain the relation between emotional and motivational climate.

  • Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes, the manuscript is very clear, and the structure and the information has been presented accurately. Most of the references has been published in the last 6 years

  • Is the study design appropriate and does the work have academic merit?

Yes, the aim of the research was to measure the effect of an intervention. Thus, the cuasi-experimental design is appropriate to achieve it.

  • Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

I think so, because the methodology explain the procedure and through some cited references, other researchers could replicate the study.

  • If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes, firstly they have tested the homogeneity of the two groups, then they have verified the internal consistency of each factor and the homogeneity of all variables. Secondly, they have assessed the effect of the intervention and estimate the effect size. Everything through adequate analysis.

  • Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes, on the one hand the explanation is clear to reliquiae. On the other hand the data are available through a link

  • Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes, the findings are clearly shown and the discussion is developed adequately supported by the results of this study and others research's looking for useful conclusions.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Teaching training

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

References

  • 1. : Diseño y validación de una escala observacional sobre el estilo motivador docente. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte .2022;22(1) : 10.6018/cpd.430321 67-80 10.6018/cpd.430321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2024 May 7. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.158786.r261430

Reviewer response for version 1

Estelio H M Dantas 1

This review provides an evaluation of the research article titled ‘Development of competencies in secondary education through the motivational style of autonomy support’.

The article presents a significant contribution to the field of educational psychology, particularly in understanding the role of teaching styles in fostering student motivation and competency development.

Strengths:

  • Rigorous Methodology: The study employs a quasi-experimental design and includes a significant sample of students and teachers, which strengthens the validity of the results.

  • Evidence-Based Intervention: The meta-disciplinary intervention based on the autonomy-supportive motivational style is well-grounded in self-determination theory, a recommended practice in educational literature.

Area for Improvement:

  • Intervention Detailing: It would be beneficial to provide more details about the specific activities carried out during the intervention to allow for replication in future studies.

Overall, this is a valuable contribution to the field of educational psychology, providing insights into the role of teaching styles in fostering student motivation and competency development. However, further research is needed to fully understand the long-term impacts of such interventions.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Gerontology, Fitness

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

RESOURCES