Changes in need-supportive teaching over the course of one school year: differences between students with special educational needs and typically developing students

Figures & data

Table 1. Coding scheme for need-supportive teaching (based on Stroet (2014)).

Autonomy support	Autonomy thwart	Examples of references	Example need-supportive teaching behaviour
Choice Fostering relevance Showing respect	Control Forcing meaningless activities Showing disrespect	(Reeve and Jang 2006; Niemiec and Ryan 2009) (Assor, Kaplan, and Roth 2002; Skinner and Belmont 1993) (Reeve and Jang 2006; Hyungshim, Reeve, and Deci 2010)	Creating opportunities for students to work in their own ways Providing a meaningful and realistic rationale when choice is constrained Listening carefully to students and acknowledging their feelings, thoughts, and perspectives
Provision of structure	Chaos
Clarity Guidance Encouragement Informational feedback	No clarity No guidance Discouragement Evaluative feedback	(Hyungshim, Reeve, and Deci 2010; Vansteenkiste et al. 2012) (Niemiec and Ryan 2009; Ryan and Moller 2019; Hyungshim, Reeve, and Deci 2010) (Ryan and Moller 2019; Alfi, Assor, and Katz 2004) (Hyungshim, Reeve, and Deci 2010; Niemiec and Ryan 2009; Alfi, Assor, and Katz 2004)	Communicating clear, detailed, and consistent guidelines and expectations Providing step-by-step directions when needed, thereby adjusting to the student Fostering non-competitive, cooperative, learning structures Providing students with feedback in the form of cues on how to proceed
Involvement	Disaffection or rejection
Affection Attunement Dedication of resources Dependability	Disaffection No attunement No dedication of resources No dependability	(McHugh et al. 2013; Sparks et al. 2015; Niemiec and Ryan 2009) (Sparks et al. 2015) (Skinner and Belmont 1993) (Sparks et al. 2015; McHugh et al. 2013)	Talking in a friendly tone Demonstrating understanding of students regarding what is important to them Being available Demonstrating commitment to students’ learning

Table 2. Interactions with students with SEN and with typically developing students (N = 6,089).

	Number of interactions	Percentage of interactions	Percentage of students
Typically developing students	4,667	76.65%	76.51%
Students with learning problems	656	10.77%	11.45%
Students with behavioural problems	394	6.47%	7.23%
Students with both learning and behavioural problems	222	3.65%	3.01%

Table 3. Explained variance in the empty multilevel models.

Variable	NST total		Autonomy support		Structure		Involvement
	Variance	ICC	Variance	ICC	Variance	ICC	Variance	ICC
Level 3: student	.060	.091	.053	.055	.017	.028	.104	.109
Level 2: lesson	.055	.084	.070	.073	.034	.056	.077	.081
Level 1: interaction	.542	.825	.840	.872	.557	.916	.774	.810
Total	.657		.963		.608		.955

Figure 1. Levels of need-supportive teaching in interactions with students with SEN and with typically developing students.

Note. LP = learning problems, BP = behavioural problems. Interactions were coded within a range from −3 to +3.

Table 4. Multilevel models of need-supportive teaching provided to students with SEN and to typically developing students.

	NST total		Autonomy support		Structure		Involvement
	β	SD	β	SD	β	SD	β	SD
Fixed effects
Intercept	.236	.026	.071	.027	.428	.019	.367	.033
LP	.080	.072	.041	.074	.064	.053	.115	.091
BP	.237**	.090	.239*	.093	.033	.068	.341**	.113
LP+BP	.233+	.128	.142	.131	.203*	.092	.397*	.163
Random effects
Level 3: student	.056	.009	.050	.010	.015	.005	.095	.015
Level 2: lesson	.055	.008	.071	.011	.032	.009	.076	.011
Level 1: interaction	.543	.011	.842	.017	.557	.014	.774	.016
Log likelihood	13,862.792		16,355.801		9,248.990		15,955.136

Note. LP = learning problems, BP = behavioural problems.

**p < .10, * p < .05, + p < .10.

Figure 2. Need-supportive teaching over the school year.

Interactions were coded within a range from −3 to +3. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Table 5. Multilevel models of need-supportive teaching over the school year for students with SEN and for typically developing students.

	NST		Autonomy support		Structure		Involvement
	β	SD	β	SD	β	SD	β	SD
Fixed effects
Intercept	.266	.034	.037	.037	.464	.030	.443	.042
Time	−.003	.002	.003	.002	−.003	.002	−.007**	.002
LP	.068	.094	.075	.104	.004	.082	.093	.116
BP	.158	.120	.231+	.133	−.025	.109	.222	.147
LP+BP	.068	.167	−.151	.183	.237	.145	.278	.207
LP*Time	.001	.005	−.003	.007	.005	.006	.002	.006
BP*Time	.007	.007	.001	.008	.005	.007	.010	.008
LP+BP*Time	.015	.010	.027*	.012	−.003	.010	.010	.011
Random effects
Level 3: student	.056	.009	.049	.010	.015	.005	.095	.015
Level 2: lesson	.054	.008	.069	.011	.031	.009	.074	.011
Level 1: interaction	.543	.011	.843	.017	.557	.014	.774	.016
Log likelihood	13,858.799		16,347.152		9,246.038		15,945.579

LP = learning problems, BP = behavioural problems.

+p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Figure 3. Need-supportive teaching over the school year for students with SEN and for typically developing students.

LP = learning problems, BP = behavioural problems. Interactions were coded within a range from −3 to +3.

Stroet, K. 2014. Studying Motivation in Classrooms: Effects of Teacher Practices on Early Adolescents’ Motivation. Groningen: University of Groningen.

 Google Scholar

Reeve, J., and H. Jang. 2006. “What Teachers Say and Do to Support Students’ Autonomy During a Learning Activity.” Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (1): 209–218. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Niemiec, C. P., and R. M. Ryan. 2009. “Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in the Classroom: Applying Self-Determination Theory to Educational Practice.” Theory and Research in Education 7 (2): 133–144. doi:10.1177/1477878509104318.

 Google Scholar

Assor, A., H. Kaplan, and G. Roth. 2002. “Choice is Good, but Relevance is Excellent: Autonomy-Enhancing and Suppressing Teacher Behaviours Predicting Students’ Engagement in Schoolwork.” The British Journal of Educational Psychology 72 (2): 261–278. doi:10.1348/000709902158883.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Skinner, E. A., and M. J. Belmont. 1993. “Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Behavior and Student Engagement Across the School Year.” Journal of Educational Psychology 85 (4): 571–581. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hyungshim, J., J. Reeve, and E. L. Deci. 2010. “Engaging Students in Learning Activities: It is Not Autonomy Support or Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure.” Journal of Educational Psychology 102 (3): 588–600. doi:10.1037/a0019682.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vansteenkiste, M., E. Sierens, L. Goossens, B. Soenens, F. Dochy, A. Mouratidis, N. Aelterman, L. Haerens, and W. Beyers. 2012. “Identifying Configurations of Perceived Teacher Autonomy Support and Structure: Associations with Self-Regulated Learning, Motivation and Problem Behavior.” Learning and Instruction 22 (6): 431–439. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.04.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ryan, R. M., and A. C. Moller. 2019. ”Competence as Central, but Not Sufficient, for High-Quality Motivation. A Self-Determination Theory Perspective.” In Handbook of Competence and Motivation. Theory and Application. 2nded., edited by A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, and D. S. Yeager, 214–231. New York: The Guilford Press.

 Google Scholar

Alfi, O., A. Assor, and I. Katz. 2004. “Learning to Allow Temporary Failure: Potential Benefits, Supportive Practices and Teacher Concerns.” Journal of Education for Teaching 30 (1): 27–41. doi:10.1080/0260747032000162299.

 Google Scholar

McHugh, R. M., C. Galletta Horner, J. B. Colditz, and T. LeBaron Baron Wallace. 2013. “Bridges and Barriers: Adolescent Perceptions of Student–Teacher Relationships.” Urban Education 48 (1): 9–43. doi:10.1177/0042085912451585.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sparks, C., J. Dimmock, P. Whipp, C. Lonsdale, and B. Jackson. 2015. “‘Getting Connected’: High School Physical Education Teacher Behaviors That Facilitate Students’ Relatedness Support Perceptions.” Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology 4 (3): 219–236. doi:10.1037/spy0000039.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar