Motivating and demotivating teaching styles: A comparison among planned, adopted, and perceived

Grounded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), this study aimed at comparing autonomy-supportive (e.g., the teacher allows students to choose a project they are interested in from several options), structuring (e.g., the teacher breaks down problem-solving steps into manageable parts to help students understand), controlling (e.g., the teacher strictly enforces classroom rules and punishes non-compliance), and chaotic (e.g., despite some students being disruptive in class, the teacher does not intervene) planned, adopted, and student-perceived (de)motivating teaching styles. A mixed method was adopted by involving 20 secondary school teachers and their 38 students in focus group interviews and in filling in a measure of (de)motivating teaching styles. While the questionnaire data did not reveal significant differences, the focus group interviews uncovered noteworthy distinctions. The data from focus group interviews with teachers and students revealed that the proportion of teachers adopting a controlling teaching style is higher than those who had initially planned to use this style. Simultaneously, the proportion of teachers adopting a controlling style is lower than the proportion of students perceiving this style. Thematic analysis of data gathered from focus group interviews with teachers identified five main themes influencing teachers’ adoption of teaching styles: “teacher factors”, “school factors”, “student factors”, “management and relationships”, and “teaching methods and design”. Overall, this study provides a more comprehensive understanding of (de)motivating teaching styles in China. Educational implications are discussed.