ABSTRACT

Teachers whose basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness are satisfied tend to use a motivating teaching style characterised by the provision of autonomy support and structure, whereas teachers whose needs are frustrated tend to use controlling or chaotic styles which are considered de-motivating. Given the importance of an autonomy supportive and motivating teaching style, it is crucial to better understand how it can be fostered and maintained. Since emotion regulation has been shown to affect both teachers’ and students’ well-being, this research tested the hypothesis that it shapes the association between teachers’ need satisfaction or frustration and the adoption of (de)motivating styles. Three hundred teachers filled in questionnaires to assess need satisfaction and frustration, the emotion regulation strategies of reappraisal and suppression, and their teaching styles. The results confirmed the mediating role of reappraisal and the moderation of emotional suppression. Teachers’ need satisfaction was linked with reappraisal, which in turn was related to the autonomy supportive and structuring motivating styles. High emotional suppression related with the adoption of a controlling style independently of need frustration levels. Only low levels of emotional suppression and need frustration lessened the adoption of a controlling style. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.

摘要

满足能力，自主性和相关性的基本心理需求的教师倾向于使用以提供自主支持和结构为特征的激励型教学方式，而感到沮丧的教师倾向于使用控制型或混乱型的激励型教学。鉴于自主性支持和激励性教学方式的重要性，至关重要的是更好地了解如何进行培养和维护。由于情绪调节已显示出会影响教师和学生的幸福感，因此本研究检验了这一假设，它塑造了教师的需求满意度或挫败感与采用（去激励）风格之间的关联。300名教师填写了问卷调查表，以评估需要的满意度和沮丧感，重新评估和抑制的情绪调节策略及其教学风格。结果证实了重新评估的中介作用和抑制情绪的调节作用。教师的需求满意度与重新评估联系在一起，而重新评估又与自主性支持和结构性激励方式有关。高度的情绪抑制与采用控制风格无关，而与需要沮丧程度无关。只有低水平的情绪压抑和需要挫折感会降低控制风格的采用。讨论了理论和教育意义。这又与自主性的支持和结构性激励风格有关。高度的情绪抑制与采用控制风格无关，而与需要沮丧程度无关。只有低水平的情绪压抑和需要挫折感会降低控制风格的采用。讨论了理论和教育意义。这又与自主性的支持和结构性激励风格有关。高度的情绪抑制与采用控制风格无关，而与需要沮丧程度无关。只有低水平的情绪压抑和需要挫折感降低了控制方式的采用。讨论了理论和教育意义。