Diagnostics of Motivating and Demotivating Styles of Teachers: “Situations-in-School” Questionnaire



There is a certain lack of of instruments for assessing the relationship between learning outcomes and the teacher’s communication style with students which determines children’s involvement in the learning process and their motivation.The article presents the results of adapting the self-determination theory-based questionnaire, Situations-in-School, for Russian-speaking educational environments on a sample of primary and secondary school teachers (N = 1400) from nine regions of Russia.This questionnaire assesses the four basic styles of teacher-student interaction (autonomy support, structure, control, and chaos) and their subtypes.The results of multidimensional scaling and confirmatory factor analysis indicate that the structure of the questionnaire at the level of items and subscales corresponds to a circular model (circumplex).The presence of eight subscales in the structure of the questionnaire is confirmed by CFA.The correlations of the scales with indicators of resilience and professional self-efficacy indicate construct validity.The questionnaire can be used both for research purposes and in the practice of school psychologists to assess the style of communication between teachers and students.

General Information

Keywords: assessing the teachers’ motivating style, motivating and demotivating styles, Situations-in-School questionnaire, self-determination theory, autonomy, structure, chaos, control

Journal rubric: Educational Psychology

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2021260103

Funding. The reported study was funded by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), project number 18-013-00386.

For citation: Gordeeva T.O., Sychev O.A. Diagnostics of Motivating and Demotivating Styles of Teachers: “Situations-in-School” Questionnaire. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2021. Vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 51–65. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2021260103. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. Leont’ev D.A., Rasskazova E.A.Test zhiznestoikosti: novaya metodika psikhologicheskoi diagnostiki lichnosti [Resilience test: new method of psychological diagnostics of personality].Moscow: Smysl, 2006.63 p.(In Russ.).
  2. Fomichenko A.S.Osobennosti vliyaniya kharaktera vzaimodeistviya v sisteme «uchitel’- uchenik» na protsessy obucheniya i razvitiya shkol’nikov (po materialam zarubezhnykh publikatsii) [Elektronnyi resurs] [The influence of interaction in the «teacher-pupil» system on schoolchildren’s learning and development (based on foreign publications)].Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2019.Vol. 8, no.1, pp. 76—83.(In Russ.).DOI:10.17759/ jmfp.2019080108
  3. Shvartser R., Erusalem M., Romek V.Russkaya versiya shkaly obshchei samoeffektivnosti R.Shvartsera i M.Erusalema [The Russian version of general selfefficacy scale of R.Schwarzer and M.Erusalem].Inostrannaya psikhologiya = Inostrannaya Psikhologiya, 1996, no.7, pp.71—77.(In Russ.).
  4. Aelterman N., Vansteenkiste M., Haerens L., Soenens B., Fontaine J.R., Reeve J.Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach.Journal of Educational Psychology, 2019.Vol. 111, no.3, pp.497—521.DOI:10.1037/edu0000293
  5. Assor A., Kaplan H., Kanat-Maymon Y., Roth G.Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety.Learning and Instruction, 2005.Vol.15, no.5, pp.397—413.DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008
  6. Gordeeva T.O., Sychev O.A., Sidneva A.N., Pshenichniuk D.V.Academic Motivation of Elementary Schoolchildren in Two Educational Systems: Еffects of Developmental Education.Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 2018.Vol.11, no.4, pp.22—39.DOI:10.11621/pir.2018.0402
  7. Haerens L., Aelterman N., Vansteenkiste M., Soenens B., Van Petegem S.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.Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2015.Vol.16, pp.26—36.DOI:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013
  8. Jang H., Reeve J., Deci E.Engaging Students in Learning Activities: It Is Not Autonomy Support or Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure.Journal of Educational Psychology, 2010.Vol.102, no.3, pp. 588—600.DOI:10.1037/a0019682
  9. Kaap-Deeder J.van der, Vansteenkiste M., Soenens B., Mabbe E.Children’s daily well-being: The role of mothers’, teachers’, and siblings’ autonomy support and psychological control.Developmental Psychology, 2017.Vol.53, no.2, pp.237—251.DOI:10.1037/ dev0000218
  10. Kenny D.A.Measuring Model Fit [Elektronnyi resurs].URL: http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm (Accessed 22.08.2020).
  11. Mouratidis A., Vansteenkiste M., Michou A., Lens W.Perceived structure and achievement goals as predictors of students’ self-regulated learning and affect and the mediating role of competence need satisfaction.Learning and Individual Differences, 2013.Vol.23, pp. 179—186.DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.001
  12. Reeve J.Autonomy-Supportive Teaching: What It Is, How to Do It.W.C.Liu, J.C.K.Wang, R.M.Ryan eds.Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice using Self-Determination Theory.Singapore: Springer, 2016, pp.129—152.
  13. Reeve J., Jang H., Carrell D., Jeon S., Barch J.Enhancing Students’ Engagement by Increasing Teachers’ Autonomy Support.Motivation and Emotion, 2004.Vol.28, no.2, pp.147—169.DOI:10.1023/ B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f
  14. Reeve J., Vansteenkiste M., Assor A., Ahmad I., Cheon S.H., Jang H., Kaplan H., Moss J.D., Olaussen B.S., Wang C.K.J.The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching: A multinational investigation.Motivation and Emotion, 2014.Vol.38, no.1, pp.93—110.DOI:10.1007/s11031-013-9367-0
  15. Reeve J.Why Teachers Adopt a Controlling Motivating Style Toward Students and How They Can Become More Autonomy Supportive.Educational Psychologist, 2009.Vol.44, no.3, pp.159—175.DOI:10.1080/00461520903028990
  16. Ryan R.M., Deci E.L.Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness.Self-determination theory.Guilford Publications, 2017.756 p.
  17. Sierens E., Vansteenkiste M., Goossens L., Soenens B., Dochy F.The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2009.Vol.79, no.1, pp.57– 68.DOI:10.1348/000709908X304398
  18. Soenens B., Sierens E., Vansteenkiste M., Dochy F., Goossens L.Psychologically Controlling Teaching: Examining Outcomes, Antecedents, and Mediators.Journal of Educational Psychology, 2012.Vol.104, no. 1, pp.108—120.DOI:10.1037/a0025742
  19. Wang J., Wang X.Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2020.512 p.

Information About the Authors

Tamara O. Gordeeva, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychologiy, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Leading Research Fellow, International Laboratory of Positive Psychology of Personality and Motivation, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3900-8678, e-mail: tamgordeeva@gmail.com

Oleg A. Sychev, PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor, Senior Researcher of Research Departament, Shukshin Altai State University for Humanities and Pedagogy, Biysk, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0373-6916, e-mail: osn1@mail.ru



Total: 2015
Previous month: 23
Current month: 25


Total: 1392
Previous month: 12
Current month: 15