Skip to Main Content

Psychological-Educational Studies
2025. Vol. 17, no. 4, 147–161
doi:10.17759/psyedu.2025170409
ISSN: 2587-6139 (online)

Demotivating teacher behavior strategies and their connection with the learning motivation of the class

 
Audio is AI-generated
1

, , ,

PDF (RUS)
Online translation in english
GS
Information
in Google Scholar
Metrics

Abstract

Context and relevance. The present study is devoted to investigating teachers' demotivating and motivating interaction strategies related to the academic motivation and persistence of primary school students. Objective. The objective of the study is to identify certain strategies of teachers and their links to children's learning motivation. Hypothesis. It was assumed that the motivation of schoolchildren depends on the strategies of interaction of the teacher, differing in the level of frustration or support of the basic psychological needs of children. Methods and materials. Using the method of observation, supporting and frustrating strategies of interaction of primary school teachers (N = 18; 30-55 years) were assessed. In addition, using self-report questionnaires, the academic motivation, persistence and satisfaction with relationships with the teacher and school of students of the corresponding classes were assessed (N = 390, M = 9,38, SD = 0,67, 196 girls, 190 boys, 4 children did not fill their gender). Results. Different teaching strategies have different consequences. Demotivating strategies are associated with several negative outcomes, namely, frustration of the basic psychological needs of the class and low satisfaction with the relationship with the teacher, which in turn are related to students’ autonomous motivation. In contrast, interactions that support students’ needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy are associated with higher satisfaction in the teacher-student relationship, as well as with autonomous academic motivation and persistence. Conclusions. It has been shown that motivating and demotivating strategies of teacher, assessed by observers based on self-determination theory, are associated with the motivation of the classes. The results provide recommendations for teachers, including strategies for supporting basic psychological needs.

General Information

Keywords: (de)motivating styles of teacher interaction, educational motivation, persistence, basic psychological needs, self-determination theory, primary school students

Journal rubric: Psychology of Education

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/psyedu.2025170409

Funding. The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project number 24-28-01076, https://rscf.ru/en/project/24-28-01076/.

Acknowledgements. The authors thank V.V. Pazynin for assistance in data collection and general support of the study.

Received 01.09.2025

Revised 08.10.2025

Accepted

Published

For citation: Gordeeva, T.O., Nechaeva, D.M., Mokhova, E.S., Ivenskaya, P.R. (2025). Demotivating teacher behavior strategies and their connection with the learning motivation of the class. Psychological-Educational Studies, 17(4), 147–161. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/psyedu.2025170409

© Gordeeva T.O., Nechaeva D.M., Mokhova E.S., Ivenskaya P.R., 2025

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

References

  1. Гордеева, Т.О., Сычев, О.А. (2021). Диагностика мотивирующего и демотивирующего стилей учителей: методика «Ситуации в школе». Психологическая наука и образование, 26(1), 51—65. https://doi.org/17759/pse.2021260103
    Gordeeva, T.O., Sychev, O.A. Diagnostics of Motivating and Demotivating Styles of Teachers: «Situations-in-School» Questionnaire. Psychological Science and Education, 26(1), 51—65. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2021260103
  2. Гордеева, Т.О., Сычев, О.А. (2025). Мотивация выполнения домашних заданий: предикторы и поведенческие следствия. Национальный психологический журнал, 4. В печати.
    Gordeeva, T.O., Sychev, O.A. (2025). Motivation for homework: predictors and behavioral consequences. National Psychological Journal, 4. In print. (In Russ.).
  3. Гордеева, Т.О., Сычев, О.А. (2024a). Что стоит за мотивирующими и демотивирующими стилями взаимодействия с учащимися: роль личностного потенциала учителя. Сибирский психологический журнал, 92, 44—63. https://doi.org/17223/17267080/92/3
    Gordeeva, T.O., Sychev, O.A. (2024a). What Is Behind Motivating and Demotivating Styles of Interaction with Students: The Role of the Teacher's Personal Potential. Siberian journal of psychology, 92, 44—63. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17223/17267080/92/3
  4. Гордеева, Т.О., Сычев, О.А. (2024b). Методика диагностики удовлетворенности базовых психологических потребностей у школьников. Экспериментальная психология, 17(4), 222—236. https://doi.org/17759/exppsy.2024170415
    Gordeeva, T.O., Sychev, O.A. (2024b). Development of the Basic Psychological Needs at School Scale. Experimental Psychology (Russia), 17(4), 222—236. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2024170415
  5. Сычев, О.А., Гордеева, Т.О., Лункина, М.В., Осин, Е.Н., Сиднева, А.Н. (2018). Многомерная шкала удовлетворенности жизнью школьников. Психологическая наука и образование, 23(6), 5—15. https://doi.org/17759/pse.2018230601
    Sychev, O.A., Gordeeva, T.O., Lunkina, M.V., Osin, E.N., Sidneva, A.N. (2018). Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale. Psychological Science and Education, 23(6), 5—15. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2018230601
  6. Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J.R., Reeve, J. (2019). Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 497—521. https://doi.org/1037/edu0000293
  7. Ahmadi, A., Noetel, M., Parker, P., Ryan, R.M., Ntoumanis, N., Reeve, J., Beauchamp, M., Dicke, T., Yeung, A., Ahmadi, M., Bartholomew, K., Chiu, T.K.F., Curran, T., Erturan, G., Flunger, B., Frederick, C., Froiland, J.M., González-Cutre, D., Haerens, L. (2023). A classification system for teachers’ motivational behaviors recommended in self-determination theory interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(8), 1158—1176. https://doi.org/1037/edu0000783
  8. Bureau, J.S., Howard, J.L., Chong, J.X.Y., Guay, F. (2022). Pathways to Student Motivation: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents of Autonomous and Controlled Motivations. Review of Educational Research, 92(1), 46—72. https://doi.org/3102/00346543211042426
  9. Chen, C., Gong, X., Wang, J., Gao, S. (2021). Does need for relatedness matter more? The dynamic mechanism between teacher support and need satisfaction in explaining Chinese school children's regulatory styles. Learning and Individual Differences, 92. https://doi.org/1016/j.lindif.2021.102083
  10. Cohen, R., Katz, I., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M. (2023). Understanding shifts in students’ academic motivation across a school year: The role of teachers’ motivating styles and need-based experiences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38(3), 963—988. https://doi.org/1007/s10212-022-00635-8
  11. Gordeeva, T.O., Sychev, O.A., Lynch, M.F. (2020). The construct validity of the Russian version of the Modified Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A) among elementary and middle school children. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 13(3), 113—131. https://doi.org/11621/PIR.2020.0308
  12. Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S. (2015). 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, 16, 26—36. https://doi.org/1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013
  13. Haerens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., De Meester, A. (2018). Different combinations of perceived autonomy support and control: Identifying the most optimal motivating style. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(1), 16—36. https://doi.org/1080/17408989.2017.1346070
  14. Howard, J.L., Bureau, J.S., Guay, F., Chong, J.X.Y., Ryan, R.M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1300—1323. https://doi.org/1177/1745691620966789
  15. Jang, H., Reeve, J., Halusic, M. (2016). A new autonomy-supportive way of teaching that increases conceptual learning: Teaching in students' preferred ways. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(4), 686—701. https://doi.org/1080/00220973.2015.1083522
  16. Pelletier, L.G., Séguin-Lévesque, C., Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers' motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 186—196. https://doi.org/1037/0022-0663.94.1.186
  17. Reeve, J., Cheon, S.H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54—77. https://doi.org/1080/00461520.2020.1862657
  18. Reeve, J., Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209—218. https://doi.org/1037/0022-0663.98.1.209

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, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3900-8678, e-mail: tamgordeeva@gmail.com

Darina M. Nechaeva, Postgraduate Student, Department of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Researcher, Laboratory of Childhood and Digital Socialization, Federal Scientific Centre for Psychological and Multidisciplinary Research, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5850-4242, e-mail: dnechaeva@bk.ru

Ekaterina S. Mokhova, Graduate, Department of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2705-0798, e-mail: mokhovakate96@gmail.com

Polina R. Ivenskaya, Sixth-Year Student, Department of Psychology, Laboratory Assistant, Chair of Educational Psychology and Pedagogy, Department of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7439-327X, e-mail: polina.ivenskaja@gmail.com

Contribution of the authors

Gordeeva T.O. — idea and planning of the study; supervision of the study and data processing; writing the article and abstract.

Nechaeva D.M. — data coding and processing of observation results; analysis of questionnaire data; writing the first version of the text; design of the manuscript.

Mokhova E.S. — idea of the study; collection and primary analysis of data.

Ivenskaya P.R. — data coding and processing of observation results.

All authors took part in the discussion of the results and agreed on the final version of the article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Metrics

 Web Views

Whole time: 10
Previous month: 0
Current month: 10

 PDF Downloads

Whole time: 1
Previous month: 0
Current month: 1

 Total

Whole time: 11
Previous month: 0
Current month: 11