Does it matter whether physical education teachers combine structure with autonomy support rather than control? Differences in motivation for teaching and work-related outcomes

Background In the Physical Education (PE) lesson, structure is crucial, as its impact on students can vary depending on how the PE teacher combine it with other (de)motivating teaching styles, leading to either positive or negative outcomes. The circumplex approach to (de)motivating teaching sustains that PE teachers may combine the provision of structure in their lessons, with autonomy support and/or control, as structure is positioned in between. However, how these three teaching styles are combined has not been empirically examined via a person-centered approach so far. Purpose This study aims, therefore, to identify (de)motivating teaching profiles using structuring, autonomy-supportive, and controlling approaches, and to examine which profile is more (mal)adaptive in terms of teachers’ motivation to teach, job satisfaction, and professional performance. Method In a sample of 640 PE teachers (Mage = 36.70 ± 7.87; 63% male), four profiles were identified: 1 = ‘highly structuring – highly autonomy-supportive – lowly controlling’, 2 = ‘highly structuring – highly autonomy-supportive – highly controlling’, 3 = ‘moderately structuring – moderately autonomy-supportive – lowly controlling’, and 4 = ‘moderately structuring – lowly autonomy-supportive – moderately controlling’. Results Results showed that PE teachers providing structure in combination with predominantly autonomy-supportive teaching (i.e. profile 1), in general, reported the most adaptive pattern of motivation to teach and, consequently, achieved better work-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction and professional performance. The opposite was true for PE teachers who provide structure in combination with controlling teaching (i.e. profile 4). Between profiles 2 and 3, differences were less clear, except for controlled motivation, which was higher in profile 2, characterized by high levels of control. Conclusions Thus, it seems important to develop high-quality motivation for teaching, as it is closely linked to need-supportive teaching styles, and ultimately, to greater job satisfaction and professional performance. Likewise, findings also point toward the risks of providing control, especially in its predominant format, but also, yet to a lesser extent, when combined with needs support.