Autonomy-supportive and controlling styles of teaching are usually considered to be the opposite ends of a single continuum. An alternative view, however, is that individuals can perceive both styles simultaneously, which suggests that they are different constructs ( Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011 ). Using cluster analysis, Study 1 (N = 160) confirmed that both teaching styles were perceived by students. Four clusters appeared depending on the student’s score on the measures of autonomy and controlling styles (high autonomy–high control; low autonomy–low control; high autonomy–low control; low autonomy–high control). Participants in the high autonomy–low control cluster reported the highest self-determined motivation in their studies. Using path analysis and mediational analyses, Study 2 (N = 127) tested the independence of the two styles by studying the process through which they influenced motivation. The results showed that need satisfaction (specifically, the need for autonomy) mediated the path between perceived autonomy-supportive teacher behavior and motivation, and that need-thwarting (specifically, the need for autonomy and relatedness) mediated the path between perceived controlling teacher behavior and self-determined motivation, which in turn predicted academic performance. These results add to the existing literature supporting the independence of the two styles.
Principal component analysis with successive interval in K-Means Cluster Analysis (Study case: Poverty data 2013 in East Nusa Tenggara)
