Why do some students feel motivated and engaged in school, while others feel pressured or disconnected—especially as academic demands increase during adolescence?
In Associations between parents’ and teachers’ autonomy support and the bifactor model of academic motivation, Dr Wong Zi Yang and colleagues examine how the ways parents and teachers interact with students influence their motivation for learning mathematics. Using data from over 2,300 secondary school students in Singapore, surveyed twice within a year, the study looks at how motivation and adult support shape one another over time.
Rather than viewing motivation as fixed, the research highlights motivation as something that develops through everyday interactions between students, parents, and teachers.
What is autonomy support—and why does it matter?
A central idea in the study is autonomy support. Autonomy support does not mean letting students do whatever they want or lowering expectations. Instead, it refers to an adult’s ability to take a student-centred perspective and interact in a respectful, understanding way.
Examples of autonomy-supportive behaviours include:
- Encouraging students to explore their interests
- Offering meaningful choices
- Explaining the reasons behind tasks or rules
- Acknowledging frustration or negative emotions
- Showing patience when students struggle
When students experience autonomy support, they are more likely to feel a sense of ownership over their learning. This sense of ownership helps shift motivation from “I have to do this” to “I want to do this” or “I see why this matters.”
Motivation is a two-way street
One important insight from the study is that influence flows in both directions.
Parents’ and teachers’ autonomy support can shape students’ motivation—but students’ motivation also affects how parents and teachers respond to them. For example, when students show interest, effort, or engagement, adults may naturally respond with more encouragement and support. Over time, this creates a positive cycle that strengthens motivation.
On the other hand, disengagement or maladaptive motivation can trigger more controlling responses from adults, leading to a downward spiral where students feel even less motivated. The study highlights the importance of recognising this dynamic and intentionally fostering positive interactions to interrupt cycles of disengagement.
Why this matters in today’s school context
Research consistently shows that self-determined motivation—motivation driven by interest, values, or personal meaning—is linked to better learning, persistence, and well-being. Yet many students experience declining motivation during adolescence, particularly in subjects like mathematics.
In high-stakes academic contexts, such as Singapore, this decline may be intensified when parents and teachers feel pressure to adopt more controlling approaches to ensure results. This study offers an alternative: even in demanding environments, autonomy support can help protect students’ motivation and well-being.
Rethinking common misconceptions
Dr Wong also highlights two common misunderstandings. First, autonomy support is not the same as pushing adolescents to become independent by withdrawing support. Rather, it focuses on helping students act in line with their values and interests (see Reeve & Cheon, 2021), while maintaining strong relationships.
Second, autonomy support and structure are complementary, rather than mutually exclusive (see Jang et al., 2010). Clear expectations, guidance, and feedback are still essential—but they are most effective when delivered in an autonomy-supportive way rather than through pressure or control.
The key takeaway
Motivation does not develop in isolation. It is shaped through ongoing, everyday interactions between students, parents, and teachers. When adults support students’ autonomy, while still providing structure, they help create learning environments where motivation can grow, even in challenging academic settings.
What this study adds for researchers
Beyond its practical implications, the study also makes several important contributions to research on academic motivation. Reflecting on the study’s theoretical and methodological contributions, Dr Wong Zi Yang notes:
“Previous studies, which applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to academic motivation measurements, have reported inconsistent findings regarding the association between autonomy support and controlled forms of motivation. To address this, the present study employed bifactor exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM) to model students’ academic motivation. This approach enables the simultaneous assessment of a global self-determined motivation factor together with specific motivational factors (i.e., intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external regulation). By accounting for both global and specific levels of motivation, our findings provided more fine-grained insights. In line with self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017), autonomy support was positively associated with global self-determined motivation, intrinsic motivation, and identified regulation, whereas autonomy support showed either negative or non-significant associations with introjected and external regulation. Although separating global and specific variance in academic motivation is theoretically and methodologically justified, some researchers have questioned the practical interpretation of this approach (e.g., interpreting the meaning of identified regulation factor after removing self-determination variance). This underscores the need for further validation of the bifactor ESEM model of academic motivation, particularly in clarifying how global and specific factors uniquely relate to diverse personal and contextual predictors and outcomes.
In line with Skinner et al.’s (2022) framework on the complex social ecologies of academic motivation, this study also highlighted two key dynamics: (a) the bidirectional association between autonomy support and academic motivation, and (b) a parent-to-teacher spillover effect, where supportive interactions in one microsystem (i.e., teacher autonomy support) foster supportive interactions in another (i.e., parent autonomy support). However, the study did not investigate potential mediating mechanisms (e.g., agentic engagement or prosocial behaviours) that might explain these links, nor did it explore whether the strength or direction of these associations shifts over time as students progress from late childhood through adolescence. Future research using extended longitudinal designs that incorporate such mediators is therefore needed to yield a more comprehensive understanding of these dynamics.”
Together, these insights encourage researchers to move beyond one-off snapshots of motivation and toward longer-term, relational perspectives that consider students, parents, and teachers as part of an interconnected system.
Looking ahead with DREAMS
This study is part of the DREAMS (Drivers, Enablers, and Pathways of Adolescent Development in Singapore) study, a large-scale longitudinal research programme that follows young people over time to better understand how their academic, psychological, and social development unfolds during adolescence.
Because DREAMS tracks students across multiple years, it allows researchers to move beyond one-time snapshots and examine how factors such as motivation, well-being, relationships, and support from parents and teachers interact and change as students grow older. As the study continues, future work will build on these findings to explore not only motivation, but also a wider range of developmental domains that matter for adolescents’ learning and well-being.
More insights from DREAMS are on the way. To stay updated on new findings and publications, follow us on our social media channels and keep an eye out for upcoming releases.
References:
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Vollet, J. W., & Rickert, N. P. (2022). Complex social ecologies and the development of academic motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 34(4), 2129–2165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09714-0