Administrative pressures and teachers' interpersonal behaviour in the classroom

Abstract

The purpose of the present article is to review the contextual conditions that lead teachers to be more controlling rather than autonomy supportive with their students. Research indicates that the more teachers perceive that school administration thwarts their autonomy by imposing pressures on them, the less autonomous they are in their motivation for teaching, the more they become controlling in their teaching, and the more students demonstrate a controlled motivation orientation. At this point an element of reciprocity is introduced: teachers may be affected by the lack of students' motivation and their low performance because this reinforces the administration's perception that something needs to be done. Then teachers may perceive a pressure to behave in a controlling manner to be sure that the administration's standards are achieved.

Teachers’ Motivation in the Classroom

“…Since a teacher's ultimate purpose is to work with the students, a large majority of this research has continued to examine teachers within the context of their behavior and interactions with their students. More specifi cally, motivation researchers have turned their attention to several aspects of the complex educational environment to determine if some of the factors associated with that environment could have a positive or a negative impact on teachers' interpersonal behaviors with their students and ultimately on student's motivation (Pelletier & Patry, 2006 ;Pelletier & Sharp, 2009 ).…”

Self-determination, Self-efficacy and Self-regulation in School: A Longitudinal Intervention Study With Primary School Pupils

“…Although the main aim of the intervention was to help teachers to create opportunities for self-determined learning, some pupils reported that they perceived less autonomy support. One reason might be that these teachers felt under pressure by the intervention itself, an assumption that is stressed by research documenting that perceived pressure increases controlling teacher behaviour (Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque, and Legault 2002;Pelletier and Sharp 2009). The authors' programme included daily learning sessions outside the class context organised by the school team.…”

Autonomy support in Physical Education: Evidence to improve the teaching process

“…Son numerosas las razones que pueden llevar a un docente de EF a utilizar un estilo más controlador o un estilo basado en el soporte de autonomía, a pesar de los beneficios mostrados en numerosos estudios y que se confirman también en este trabajo (Roth & Weinstock, 2013;Sun & Chen, 2014;Taylor et al, 2009). El uso de un estilo con mayor o menor soporte de autonomía ha sido justificado por la disposición hacia la autonomía de los propios docentes (Feucht & Bendixen, 2010;Van den Berghe et al, 2013); su motivación por enseñar (Roth, Assor, Kaplan, & Kannat-Mayman, 2007); elementos de presión laboral como la falta de tiempo o la exigencia de conseguir ciertos resultados limitan el uso del soporte de autonomía (Pelletier & Sharp, 2009), así como las características de los alumnos o la percepción personal de la motivación de los alumnos, cediendo mayor autonomía sobre aquellos alumnos que los profesores creían más motivados intrínsecamente y cediendo menos autonomía a aquellos que los profesores percibían como extrínsecamente motivados (Pelletier, SeguinLevesque, & Legault, 2002;Taylor et al, 2008). Igualmente, razones como la pérdida del control de la clase (Vera, 2010), la falta de experiencia (Lamote & Engels, 2010), la falta de formación inicial o permanente sobre estos aspectos (Su & Reeve, 2011) se han identificado como razones importantes para no facilitar situaciones que fomenten el soporte hacia la autonomía.…”