The present research complements extant variable-centered research that focused on the dimensions of autonomous and controlled motivation through adoption of a person-centered approach for identifying motivational profiles. Both in high school students (Study 1) and college students (Study 2), a cluster analysis revealed 4 motivational profiles: a good quality motivation group (i.e., high autonomous, low controlled); a poor quality motivation group (i.e., low autonomous, high controlled); a low quantity motivation group (i.e., low autonomous, low controlled); and a high quantity motivation group (i.e., high autonomous, high controlled). To compare the 4 groups, the authors derived predictions from qualitative and quantitative perspectives on motivation. Findings generally favored the qualitative perspective; compared with the other groups, the good quality motivation group displayed the most optimal learning pattern and scored highest on perceived need-supportive teaching. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.Keywords: motivational profiles, autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, self-determination theory, quality of motivation Most motivation psychologists, teachers, and parents would agree that students' study behavior is multidetermined. Multiple reasons might drive study behavior, such as a spontaneous interest in the learning material, a desire to prove oneself by getting high grades, external expectations, or future professional goals. Nevertheless, some motives might be more dominant for some students, whereas different motives might be of greater importance to others. Also, some students might combine some motives in a relatively unique manner, so that they, for instance, study both because they need to meet external demands and because they find learning enjoyable as such. Thus, different groups or types of students might exist that are characterized by different motivational profiles.To identify motivational profiles, one must adopt a personcentered approach (Magnusson, 1998). Such an approach complements the dimensional or variable-centered approach that is typically used in motivational research (but see Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005;Pintrich, 2000; Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Senécal, in press;Wang & Biddle, 2001). Whereas the primary aim in person-centered analyses (e.g., cluster analysis; Gore, 2000) is to categorize individuals into groups whose members have similar motivational profiles, the focus of the variable-centered approach is on the effects of motivational dimensions on students' learning and performance. The two approaches are likely to yield complementary information (Fortunato & Goldblatt, 2006), but little prior attention has been devoted to the person-centered approach by motivational researchers. Our aims in the present research were (a) to map out the motivational profiles of students on the basis of their scores for autonomous and controlled study motivation, as distinguished within self-determination theory (SDT; Vansteenkiste, Lens, & De...

The interaction suggests that structure was associated with more self-regulated learning under conditions of moderate and high autonomy support only. Therefore, when teachers want their students to evaluate themselves, to plan their study activities, and to think about themselves as learners, the teachers are encouraged to provide help, instructions, and expectations in an autonomy-supportive way.

No abstract

Psychologically controlling teaching (PCT) refers to the use of intrusive behaviors that pressure students to act, think, and feel in particular ways. The goal of the present research was to examine the dynamics involved in PCT. Study 1 examined self-regulated leaming and achievement outcomes of PCT, whereas Study 2 examined antecedents (i.e., individual and environmental pressures). In Study 1, we found that PCT was related negatively to students' use of self-regulation strategies, which, in tum, was positively related to academic achievement. Students' relative autonomy for studying played an intervening role in these associations. Findings of Study 2 revealed that both pressure from above (i.e., a pressuring school environment) and pressure from within (i.e., teachers' low relative autonomy for teaching) were related to PCT, whereas pressure from below (i.e., students' low relative autonomy for studying) was not. These associations could be accounted for by depersonalization, one component of teacher bumout. The discussion focuses on how PCT represents one aspect of the "dark side" of teaching, which is understudied in educational psychology.

This study addresses the hypothesis that the relationship between parental psychological control and autonomy‐support depends on how autonomy‐support is conceptualized, that is, in terms of promotion of independence or in terms of promotion of volitional functioning. Questionnaires tapping into psychological control and these two types of autonomy‐support were administered to a sample of 495 emerging adults. Cluster analysis revealed that, whereas parental promotion of independence may or may not co‐occur with psychological control, high parental promotion of volitional functioning systematically goes together with low psychological control and vice versa. Differences between clusters in terms of adjustment were mainly driven by differences in psychological control and promotion of volitional functioning and to a lesser extent by differences in promotion of independence.