CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 73Motivation and Self-Concept in SportsEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Differentiated need support by teachers: Student‐specific provision of autonomy and structure and relations with student motivation

Open access
Domen, Janneke, Hornstra, Lisette, Weijers, Desirée, van der Veen, Ineke, Peetsma, Thea·2020·British Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1111/bjep.12302PMC PMC7318603
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: According to self‐determination theory, teachers can support their students’ engagement in learning by providing autonomy support and structure. Within classes, however, there appears to be great diversity in the extent to which students experience autonomy and structure. Aims: This study aimed to investigate the degree to which teachers’ perceptions of student‐specific autonomy support and structure differ between students in their class and whether differentiated need support predicts students’ motivation. Sample: Twenty‐four elementary school teachers and their students ( n = 506) participated in this study. Method: Teachers completed a short questionnaire assessing their perceptions of autonomy support and structure for each student. Students completed two questionnaires assessing perceptions of need support and their motivation. Multilevel analyses were conducted. Results: The results showed that the within‐classroom variation in both teacher perceptions and student perceptions of need support was considerably larger than the between‐classroom variation. Teacher perceptions of student‐specific autonomy support were positively associated with students’ autonomous motivation and negatively with students’ controlled motivation. However, teacher perceptions of student‐specific structure were positively associated with students’ controlled motivation. Conclusions: These findings suggest that teachers differentiate in need support. The positive association between teacher perceptions of structure and students’ controlled motivation might suggest that teachers may offer structure in controlling rather than autonomy‐supportive ways. Furthermore, the relations between need support and students’ motivation differed between the class‐level and the within‐class (student) level highlighting the need for disentangling the effects of need‐supportive teaching at different levels and adopting a multilevel approach.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjep.12302

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The literature has described teacher autonomy support and provision of structure as opposite, equal, and independent but mutually supportive.

    “In the literature, teacher autonomy support and provision of structure have been described as opposite (e.g., Vansteenkiste et al., 2012), equal (e.g., Domen et al., 2020;Wang et al., 2024), and independent but mutually supportive (e.g., Jang et al., 2010).”

    From Blending Teacher Autonomy Support and Provision of Structure in the Classroom for Optimal Motivation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Domen et al., 2020

    The Discussion reports that students did not distinguish autonomy support from structure as separate factors, which supports the 'equal' characterization attributed to Domen et al. But the finding is specific to students’ perceptions: the same section says teachers perceived the two as opposite dimensions, while the Need-supportive teaching section describes them as independent dimensions in self-determination theory. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The positive effect of autonomy support is found across school levels and cultural contexts.

    “This positive effect was found across school levels-elementary (Domen et al., 2020), secondary (Cheon et al., 2012), and post-secondary education (Jang et al., 2016) and cultural contexts (Guay et al., 2013;Haerens et al., 2015;Hagger et al., 2015;Yoo, 2015).”

    From Blending Teacher Autonomy Support and Provision of Structure in the Classroom for Optimal Motivation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Domen et al., 2020

    The Method > Participants section identifies the sample as upper elementary school students, and the Discussion reports a positive association between teacher-perceived autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation at the student level. The Discussion > Limitations says the cross-sectional design does not allow causal inferences, so this source supports an elementary-school association, not a demonstrated positive effect. The other school levels and cultural contexts are attributed to other citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Eight studies in the sample found teacher autonomy support and provision of structure negatively correlated.

    “Mirroring sparse prior research, eight studies in our sample found teacher autonomy support and provision of structure negatively correlated (e.g., Archambault et al., 2020;Domen et al., 2020;Haerens et al., 2013;Hornstra et al., 2020Hornstra et al., , 2021)).”

    From Blending Teacher Autonomy Support and Provision of Structure in the Classroom for Optimal Motivation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Domen et al., 2020

  • In the literature, teacher autonomy support and provision of structure have been described as opposite, equal, and independent but mutually supportive.

    “In the literature, teacher autonomy support and provision of structure have been described as opposite (e.g., Vansteenkiste et al., 2012), equal (e.g., Domen et al., 2020;Wang et al., 2024), and independent but mutually supportive (e.g., Jang et al., 2010).”

    From Blending Teacher Autonomy Support and Provision of Structure in the Classroom for Optimal Motivation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Domen et al., 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Alonso‐Tapia, J., & Simón, C. (2012). Differences between immigrant and national students in motivational variables and classroom‐motivational‐climate perception. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 61– 74. 10.5209/rev_sjop.2012.v15.n1.37284 22379698 · DOI
  2. Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat‐Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15, 397– 413. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Babad, E. (2005). Guessing teachers’ differential treatment of high‐ and low‐achievers from thin slices of their lecturing behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 125– 134. 10.1007/s10919-005-2744-y · DOI
  4. Bieg, S., Backes, S., & Mittag, W. (2011). The role of intrinsic motivation for teaching, teachers' care and autonomy support in students' self‐determined. Journal for Educational Research Online, 3, 122– 140.
  5. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within‐group agreement, non‐independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis In Klein K. J. & Kozlowski S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349– 381). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
  6. Cole, D. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Manifest variable path analysis: Potentially serious and misleading consequences due to uncorrected measurement error. Psychological Methods, 19, 300– 315. 10.1037/a0033805 24079927 · DOI
  7. Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self‐system processes In Gunnar M. R. & Sroufe L. A. (Eds.), The Minnesota symposia on child psychology, Vol. 23. Self processes and development (pp. 43– 77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  8. Danielsen, A. G., Wiium, N., Wilhelmsen, B. U., & Wold, B. (2010). Perceived support provided by teachers and classmates and students' self‐reported academic initiative. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 247– 267. 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.02.002 20380949 · DOI
  9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self‐determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
  10. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331– 362. 10.1002/job.322 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890– 898. 10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.890 3585701 · DOI
  12. Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self‐determination in education. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49, 233– 240. 10.1037/a0012758 · DOI
  13. Guay, F., Roy, A., & Valois, P. (2017). Teacher structure as a predictor of students’ perceived competence and autonomous motivation: The moderating role of differentiated instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 224– 240. 10.1111/bjep.12146 28211046 · DOI
  14. Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta‐analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363– 386. 10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.363 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Hornstra, L., Mansfield, C., Van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M. (2015). Motivational teacher strategies: The role of beliefs and context. Learning Environments Research, 18, 363– 392. 10.1007/s10984-015-9189-y · DOI
  16. Hornstra, L., Stroet, K., van Eijden, E., Goudsblom, J., & Roskamp, C. (2018). Teacher expectation effects on need‐supportive teaching, student motivation, and engagement: A self‐determination perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24, 324– 345. 10.1080/13803611.2018.1550841 · DOI
  17. Hornstra, L., van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M. (2013). Developments in motivation and achievement during primary school: A longitudinal study on group‐specific differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 195– 204. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.004 · DOI
  18. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1– 55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 798– 811. 10.1037/a0012841 · DOI
  20. Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self‐fulfilling prophecy. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 281– 388. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60240-3 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self‐fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131– 155. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3 15869379 · DOI
  22. Katz, I., Kaplan, A., & Gueta, G. (2009). Students’ needs, teachers’ support, and motivation for doing homework: A cross‐sectional study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 246– 267. 10.1080/00220970903292868 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  24. Lam, S. F., Cheng, R. W. Y., & Ma, W. Y. (2009). Teacher and student intrinsic motivation in project‐based learning. Instructional Science, 37, 565– 578. 10.1007/s11251-008-9070-9 · DOI
  25. Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and American University students: A comparative study based on self‐determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 68– 84. 10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.68 · DOI
  26. Lietaert, S., Roorda, D., Laevers, F., Verschueren, K., & De Fraine, B. (2015). The gender gap in student engagement: The role of teachers’ autonomy support, structure, and involvement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 498– 518. 10.1111/bjep.12095 26446905 · DOI
  27. Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 120– 131. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001 · DOI
  28. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 85– 91. 10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.85 · DOI
  29. McNeish, D., & Stapleton, L. M. (2016). Modeling clustered data with very few clusters. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 495– 518. 10.1080/00273171.2016.1167008 27269278 · DOI
  30. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
  31. Opdenakker, M.‐C., Maulana, R., & den Brok, P. (2012). Teacher–student interpersonal relationships and academic motivation within one school year: Developmental changes and linkage. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23, 95– 119. 10.1080/09243453.2011.619198 · DOI
  32. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209– 233. 10.1037/a0020141 20822249 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self‐determination theory: A dialectical framework for understanding the socio‐cultural influences on student motivation In McInerney D. & Van Etten S. (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (Vol. 4, pp. 31– 59). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.
  34. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147– 169. 10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f · DOI · Paper page
  35. Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 765– 781. 10.1037/a0012840 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Snijder, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
  37. Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of self‐determination in 3 life domains: The role of parents' and teachers' autonomy support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 589– 604. 10.1007/s10964-005-8948-y · DOI
  38. Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need‐supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 9, 65– 87. 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.003 · DOI
  39. Su, Y. L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta‐analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159– 188. 10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Taylor, I. M., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). Teacher motivational strategies and student self‐determination in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 747– 760. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.747 · DOI
  41. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self‐determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41, 19– 31. 10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4 · DOI
  42. Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis, A., … Beyers, W. (2012). Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self‐regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior. Learning and Instruction, 22, 431– 439. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.04.002 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy‐supportive versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development, 76, 483– 501. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00858.x 15784095 · DOI
  44. Zimmer‐Gembeck, M. J., Lees, D., Bradley, G., & Skinner, E. A. (2009). Use of an analogue method to examine children’s appraisals of threat and emotion in response to stressful events. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 136– 149. 10.1007/s11031-009-9123-7 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Domen, J., Hornstra, L., Weijers, D., van der Veen, I., & Peetsma, T.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Kohnstamm Institute University of Amsterdam The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Domen, Janneke
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-02
Volume
90
Issue
2
Pages
403-423
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
DOI
10.1111/bjep.12302
PMC
PMC7318603
OpenAlex
W2955721560
Cited by
73
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
need support, autonomy support, structure, self-determination theory, student motivation, autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, teacher perceptions, intra-class variation, elementary school students, differentiated instruction
MeSH terms
School Teachers, Adult, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Social Perception, Students, Teaching, Personal Autonomy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review