View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

What Is the Association between Teachers' Autonomous Motivation, Controlled Motivation and Students' Emotional Well-Being? A Multilevel Mediation Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: What Is the Association between Teachers' Autonomous Motivation, Controlled Motivation and Students' Emotional Well-Being? A Multilevel Mediation Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Enxia Ju, Huaiyuan Qi, Guoliang Qu, Yangmei Luo (ORCID 0000-0002-4440-6980), Ying Li, Xuqun You
Source: European Journal of Education. 2025 60(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Teacher Motivation, Professional Autonomy, Student Welfare, Psychological Patterns, Correlation, Teacher Student Relationship, Student Attitudes, Mental Health, Teacher Influence
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.70012
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: Teachers' motivation, which pertains to the reasons to sustain teaching, plays a pivotal role in shaping students' learning motivation, school engagement, and academic achievement. However, the relationship between teachers' motivation and students' emotional well-being remains unclear. This study, grounded in self-determination theory and the prosocial classroom model, investigated the associations between teachers' autonomous motivation and controlled motivation with students' emotional well-being and examined the potential mediating role of students' perceived teacher-student relationships and teacher support in these associations. The current study involved 49 homeroom teachers and 1853 students, assessing teachers' autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, students' perception of teacher support, teacher-student relationships, and emotional well-being. The results of the multilevel analysis indicated that (1) teachers' autonomous motivation positively predicted students' emotional well-being, mediated by teacher support; (2) teachers' controlled motivation negatively predicted students' emotional well-being, mediated by both students' perception of the student-teacher relationship and teacher support. The findings underscore the significance of intervening in teachers' work motivation, particularly controlled motivation, in educational and teaching practices to improve students' mental health.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1461371
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFQ7AmzZY5PrfziZhe8omTcAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAH4MkvmBey_inLWVQIBEICBm45bep0s0sTVa34l-o2KxDC8kOw6fw8JyOS0-CoePp0GlchJMy9OiWWMN-nqVDnxBzblj39BU3IefaOX9K-NlumoxCxYnzz4CalRAwIwJ0WS-k1BbCwIEvG31jnnwHDj3CQHUCpTJiv2IlH4kEjfaA35FWFDnrhXIsWhFA-3n_yqMAHzmavZqELxuE-d8C1XVxxeZV4cjnglnUfk
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183654431;eje01mar.25;2025Mar17.06:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183654431-1">What Is the Association Between Teachers' Autonomous Motivation, Controlled Motivation and Students' Emotional Well‐Being? A Multilevel Mediation Analysis </title> <p>Teachers' motivation, which pertains to the reasons to sustain teaching, plays a pivotal role in shaping students' learning motivation, school engagement, and academic achievement. However, the relationship between teachers' motivation and students' emotional well‐being remains unclear. This study, grounded in self‐determination theory and the prosocial classroom model, investigated the associations between teachers' autonomous motivation and controlled motivation with students' emotional well‐being and examined the potential mediating role of students' perceived teacher‐student relationships and teacher support in these associations. The current study involved 49 homeroom teachers and 1853 students, assessing teachers' autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, students' perception of teacher support, teacher‐student relationships, and emotional well‐being. The results of the multilevel analysis indicated that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) teachers' autonomous motivation positively predicted students' emotional well‐being, mediated by teacher support; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) teachers' controlled motivation negatively predicted students' emotional well‐being, mediated by both students' perception of the student‐teacher relationship and teacher support. The findings underscore the significance of intervening in teachers' work motivation, particularly controlled motivation, in educational and teaching practices to improve students' mental health.</p> <p>Keywords: teachers' autonomous motivation; teachers' controlled motivation; teacher support; students' emotional well‐being; student‐teacher relationship</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Motivation is fundamental to teachers' goals, beliefs, aspirations, and instructional behaviours, and influences the quality of their daily work (Collie and Martin [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]; Richardson and Watt [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref4">41</reflink>]). Teacher motivation, defined as reasons to sustain teaching (Han and Yin [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref5">22</reflink>]), has received substantial research interest in recent years (Watt and Richardson [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref6">55</reflink>]). Teacher motivation is not only relevant to their teaching practices and their well‐being (Abos et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]; Rodríguez‐Rivero et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref8">43</reflink>]; Ryan and Deci [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref9">45</reflink>]), but it also plays an important role in students' learning motivation, school engagement, and academic achievement (e.g., Bardach and Klassen [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref10">6</reflink>]; Roth et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref11">44</reflink>]; Zou et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref12">60</reflink>]). However, it is still unknown how teacher motivation is associated with student emotional outcomes. Given that students' psychological growth and well‐being are more important than their achievement outcomes in school (Ryan and Deci [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref13">46</reflink>]), the current study aimed to investigate the role of teachers' motivation in students' emotional outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-3">Teachers' Autonomous Motivation and Controlled Motivation</hd> <p>Teachers' motivation can be quantified according to different levels of self‐determination. As one of the established theories of human motivation, the self‐determination theory (Deci and Ryan [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref14">16</reflink>]) distinguishes two broad forms of motivation with different levels of autonomy. Autonomous motivation refers to the motivation of individuals to engage in a certain behaviour out of their volition and reflects one's values and interests. That is, teachers with highly autonomous motivation engage in their teaching work, motivated by intrinsic interest and pleasure, or the recognition of the importance of their work for both their professional development and student growth. Autonomous motivation includes two subtypes of regulation: intrinsic motivation (i.e., the inherent pleasure and interest in activities) and identified regulation (i.e., the recognition of the values and importance of activities). In contrast, controlled motivation refers to an individual's motivation to engage in behaviour out of self‐imposed or external pressure. That is, teachers with highly controlled motivation get involved in their teaching work because it can bring external rewards such as salary or vacation time. Controlled motivation consists of two subtypes of regulation: introjected regulation (i.e., self‐imposed pressure such as a desire to avoid the feeling of guilt and shame about oneself) and external regulation (i.e., external pressure such as a desire to gain tangible rewards or to avoid punishment; Deci and Ryan [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>As proposed by self‐determination theory (Deci and Ryan [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]), teachers' motivation is not only important for teachers' own psychological function and work performance but also vital to the quality of their interactions with students. Specifically, teachers' autonomous motivation usually predicted desirable outcomes for teachers. For example, teachers with highly autonomous motivation value and enjoy teaching more, are more engaged in work, have a higher sense of personal accomplishment, and have fewer symptoms of burnout (Abos et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>]; Roth et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref18">44</reflink>]; Van den Berghe et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref19">52</reflink>]; Zhang [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref20">59</reflink>]). Furthermore, considerable evidence indicates that teachers' motivation has an important implication for students' motivation and learning performance (Ahn, Chiu, and Patrick [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]; Roth et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref22">44</reflink>]; Taylor and Ntoumanis [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref23">50</reflink>]; Zou et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref24">60</reflink>]). For instance, researchers have found that students taught by teachers with highly autonomous motivation also have the high autonomous motivation and a higher degree of learning engagement (e.g., Zou et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref25">60</reflink>]), and it helps to promote students' second language learning achievements (Alrabai and Alamer [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]). Moreover, the stronger the autonomous motivation of teachers is, the better their ability development will be when they engage in collaborative learning (Belay and Melesse [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref27">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>In contrast, teachers with highly controlled motivation are typically associated with maladaptive psychological outcomes. Specifically, highly controlled teachers had a greater risk of emotional exhaustion (Van den Berghe et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref28">52</reflink>]) and might have lower self‐efficacy (Fernet et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>]), work engagement (den Brok et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref30">17</reflink>]), and well‐being (Slemp, Field, and Cho [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref31">47</reflink>]). Meanwhile, teachers with highly controlled motivation may interfere with students' motivations because they usually define what students should think, feel, and do (Reeve et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref32">40</reflink>]). Nonetheless, some past studies did not find an association between teachers' controlled motivation and students' academic motivation and academic performance (e.g., Ahn, Chiu, and Patrick [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]; Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]). Taken together, although substantial evidence focuses on teachers' psychological function and work performance predicted their motivation, few studies investigated the associations between teachers' autonomous and controlled motivation and students' related outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-4">Teachers' Motivation and students' Emotional Well‐Being</hd> <p>Students' emotional well‐being, referring to the emotional quality of students' everyday experience, has a profound impact on their school and future lives (Beanlands et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>]; Kaya and Erdem [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref36">26</reflink>]). According to self‐determination theory (Deci and Ryan [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]), teachers' motivation may play an important role in the emotional outcomes of students (Bardach and Klassen [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>]). Specifically, teachers' autonomous motivation may increase the likelihood of a more active, enthusiastic, and lively classroom environment (Reeve [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref39">39</reflink>]). Additionally, students are more likely to perceive the teacher's positive emotional state, leading to positive emotional experiences and emotional health. Consistent with this theory, several researchers have discovered significant positive correlations between teachers and students' positive/negative emotional classroom experiences (Frenzel et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref40">20</reflink>]; Tam et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref41">49</reflink>]). For example, Frenzel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref42">20</reflink>]) discovered a stronger correlation between teachers' and students' emotional experiences when teachers demonstrated greater enthusiasm for autonomy in the classroom. In contrast, controlled motivation may drive teachers to concentrate on completing assigned teaching tasks, and teachers are more likely to experience burnout and negative emotional states. Then, students may also be influenced by their teacher and have negative emotional experiences. Together, although self‐determination theory predicted the association between teachers' motivation and students' emotional well‐being (Deci and Ryan [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]), there is little direct evidence to show their association. Given that teachers' potential contributions to student learning and emotional well‐being are crucial to educational research and practice, the overarching goal of this study was to examine the relationship between teachers' motivation and students' emotional well‐being.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-5">Teacher‐Student Relationship and Teacher Support as Potential Mediators</hd> <p>Teacher‐student relationships and teacher support are important school environmental factors for the development of adolescents. According to the prosocial classroom model (Jennings and Greenberg [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref44">24</reflink>]), teachers' social and emotional competencies play a critical role in developing and maintaining supportive teacher‐student relationships, effective classroom management, and students' educational outcomes. Combining the prosocial classroom model (Jennings and Greenberg [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref45">24</reflink>]) and self‐determination theory (Ryan and Deci [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref46">46</reflink>]), autonomously motivated teachers may often get pleasure from work, value their teaching work, and are more willing to invest social and emotion resources to interact with their students (e.g., Collie [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref47">14</reflink>]). They usually identify and support students' interests and help students find the internal pleasure from learning (Slemp, Field, and Cho [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref48">47</reflink>]). As a result, teachers are able to develop positive teacher‐student relationships and provide more support to students (Bureau et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref49">10</reflink>]; Pitzer and Skinner [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref50">37</reflink>]; Zou et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref51">60</reflink>]). In contrast, highly control‐motivated teachers may frequently experience stress and pressure from deadlines or surveillance, incurring emotional and psychological costs at work (Slemp, Field, and Cho [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref52">47</reflink>]). They structure how students should think and behave as opposed to providing options. As a result, this type of teacher‐student interaction may cause students stress and reduce their motivation (Reeve et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref53">40</reflink>]; Vermote et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref54">53</reflink>]). Then, teachers may establish a tense teacher‐student relationship and give less support to their students. For example, studies have shown that teachers with higher autonomy motivation showed higher quality teacher‐student interaction and higher need satisfaction compared with teachers with higher controlled motivation (Abos et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>]). At the same time, a large amount of evidence shows that students' perceived teacher‐student relationship and teacher support are significantly related to students' learning interests (Lazarides, Gaspard, and Dicke [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref56">28</reflink>]), academic engagement (Hughes et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref57">23</reflink>]), and emotional well‐being (Buyse et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref58">12</reflink>]; Suldo et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref59">48</reflink>]). Therefore, we will also explore the potential mediating role of the teacher‐student relationship and teacher support between teachers' motivation and students' emotional well‐being.</p> <p>In addition, some research suggests that students' perceived teacher support is influenced by their communication interactions with their teachers, and when the teacher‐student relationship is deemed to be strong, students are more likely to perceive their teachers as providing support and assistance with their academics, abilities, and emotions (Turner et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref60">51</reflink>]). In contrast, when the relationship is weak, teachers may have less influence on students' academics or lives and therefore provide fewer supportive activities (Robinson [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref61">42</reflink>]), resulting in a decline in perceived teacher support due to the estrangement of the relationship (Ma, Luo, and Xiao [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref62">32</reflink>]). Some studies have demonstrated, for instance, that the teacher‐student relationship is significantly positively related to students' perceived teacher support and is a significant positive predictor of students' perceived teacher support (Pan and Yao [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref63">36</reflink>]; Zhang, Jin, and Cui [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref64">58</reflink>]). Therefore, teachers' autonomous or controlled motivation may alter the teacher‐student relationship and then serve as a predictor of students' perceived teacher support and emotional well‐being. Teacher‐student relationships and teacher support play a serial mediating role between teachers' autonomous or controlled motivation and students' emotional well‐being.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-6">The Present Study</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was twofold. First, we aimed to determine the relationship between teacher motivation and student emotional well‐being. Second, we aimed to explore the possible mediating role of student‐perceived teacher‐student relationships and teacher support in the relationship between teachers' motivation and students' emotional well‐being. Based on self‐determination theory, prosocial classroom model, and the aforementioned studies (e.g., Jennings and Greenberg [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref65">24</reflink>]; Ryan and Deci [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref66">46</reflink>]; Slemp, Field, and Cho [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref67">47</reflink>]; Weinstein, Hodgins, and Ryan [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref68">56</reflink>]), we proposed the following research hypotheses (shown in Figure 1): Teachers' autonomous motivation positively predicts students' emotional well‐being (Hypothesis 1a); Teachers' controlled motivation negatively predict students' emotional well‐being (Hypothesis 1b); Student‐perceived teacher‐student relationship mediates the association between teachers' autonomous motivation and students' emotional well‐being (Hypothesis 2a) and the association between teachers' controlled motivation and students' emotional well‐being (Hypothesis 2b); Student‐perceived teacher support mediates the relationship between teachers' autonomous motivation and students' emotional well‐being (Hypothesis 3a) and the association between teachers' controlled motivation and students' emotional well‐being (Hypothesis 3b); Students' perceived teacher‐student relationship and teacher support serve as sequential mediators in the relationship between teachers' autonomous motivation and students' emotional well‐being (Hypothesis 4a) and the relationship between teachers' controlled motivation and students' emotional well‐being (Hypothesis 4b).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01mar25/ejed70012-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed70012-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Hypothesis model." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654431-8">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654431-9">Participants and Procedure</hd> <p>Participants included 49 homeroom teachers and 1853 students from three Chinese middle schools. Typically, homeroom teachers in the Chinese educational system are in charge of a single class. They are usually responsible for classroom management, including discipline, academic performance, moral education, psychological counselling, extracurricular activities, and communication with parents. As a result, homeroom teachers spend a significant amount of time interacting with students and have a strong emotional connection with them. Before data collection, the study was approved by the University Institutional Ethics Committee. Additionally, written informed consent was obtained from the teachers and the parents of students. Teachers and students were required to respond to questions online. The data were collected in the middle of the school year. In this study, homeroom teachers had a mean age of 37.08 years (SD = 9.03) and their teaching experience approximately ranged from 11 to 20 years (<emph>M</emph> = 2.57, SD = 1.27). The mean age of the students was 14.96 years (SD = 1.77), and additional demographic information is provided in Table 1.</p> <p>1 TABLE Demographic characteristics of the sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center">%</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Teachers (N = 49)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(1) Male</td><td align="center">19</td><td align="center">38.80%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(2) Female</td><td align="center">30</td><td align="center">61.20%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade level taught</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(1) Seventh Grade</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="center">26.50%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(2) Eighth Grade</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="center">16.30%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(3) Ninth Grade</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="center">28.60%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(4) Tenth Grade</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="center">28.60%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Education background</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(1) Bachelor degree</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">67.30%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(2) Graduate degree</td><td align="center">16</td><td align="center">32.70%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teaching experience</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(1) ≤ 5 years</td><td align="center">16</td><td align="center">32.65%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(2) 6–10 years</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">12.24%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(3) 11–20 years</td><td align="center">10</td><td align="center">20.41%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(4) > 20 years</td><td align="center">17</td><td align="center">34.69%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Students (N = 1853)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(1) Male</td><td align="center">938</td><td align="center">50.60%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(2) Female</td><td align="center">915</td><td align="center">49.40%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(1) Seventh Grade</td><td align="center">642</td><td align="center">34.60%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(2) Eighth Grade</td><td align="center">312</td><td align="center">16.80%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(3) Ninth Grade</td><td align="center">451</td><td align="center">24.40%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(4) Tenth Grade</td><td align="center">448</td><td align="center">24.20%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0183654431-10">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654431-11">Teachers' Autonomous and Controlled Motivation</hd> <p>Teachers' autonomous and controlled motivation was assessed by The Motivation at Work Scale (MAWS; Gagné et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>]). The 12‐item scale contains four subscales: External Regulation (e.g., I work as a teacher because it allows me to make a lot of money.), Introjected Regulation (e.g., I work as a teacher because my reputation depends on it.), Identified Regulation (e.g., I work as a teacher because this job fits my personal values.), and Intrinsic Motivation (e.g., I work as a teacher because I enjoy this work very much.). Teachers were asked to rate their motivation on a seven‐point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely). We calculated autonomous motivation by averaging identified regulation and intrinsic motivation, whereas controlled motivation was calculated by averaging external and introjected regulation. This scale has also been employed in previous research to measure teachers' work motivation (e.g., Bechter et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref70">8</reflink>]). In this study, both autonomous motivation (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.89) and controlled motivation (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.77) were found to be sufficiently reliable in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-12">Students' Emotional Well‐ Being</hd> <p>Students' emotional well‐being was assessed by the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) scale (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref71">54</reflink>]). The scale consists of two subscales, each with 10 items, that assess positive (e.g., interest, excitement, or pride) and negative (e.g., distress, annoyance, or fear) subscales. Students were asked to indicate, on a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 (very little or not at all) to 5 (very much), the degree to which they experienced each of the emotions over the past 2 weeks. This study combined the scores of the two scales by subtracting the negative emotions from the positive emotions (e.g., Diener et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref72">18</reflink>]). In this study, the PANAS demonstrated excellent reliability, with Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> of 0.88 and 0.90 for the positive and negative emotion subscales, respectively. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (i.e., CFA) results suggested that the measure had acceptable construct validity (CFI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.08) in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-13">Students' Perceived Teacher Support</hd> <p>Students' perceived teacher support was assessed by the 19‐item Chinese version of the perception of teacher support (Ouyang [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref73">35</reflink>]), which was revised from the study of teacher's differential behaviour (Babad [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>]). The scale consists of 19 questions and three subscales: Learning Support (e.g., "My teacher believes I am always capable of completing difficult assignments or tasks"), Emotional Support (e.g., "My class teacher smiles when I answer questions in class"), and Competence Support (for instance, "My teacher has always supported me in participating in various activities and competitions") subscales. Students were asked to indicate whether or not the classroom teacher offered support. In this study, Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.88 for academic support, 0.88 for emotional support, and 0.81 for ability support indicating that the scale was reliable. CFA results suggested that the measure had acceptable construct validity (CFI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.05) in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-14">Students' Perceived Teacher‐Student Relationship</hd> <p>Students' perceived teacher‐student relationship was assessed by the subscale of the Classroom Environment Scale (Jiang [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref75">25</reflink>]). The subscale of teacher‐student relationship has eight items, such as "Our homeroom teacher is kind and amiable," using a five‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. The average score of all items was taken as the individual's perception score of the teacher‐student relationship, with a higher score indicating a more positive perception of the teacher‐student relationship. In this study, the scale's Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> value was 0.96, indicating excellent reliability. CFA results suggested that the measure had acceptable construct validity (CFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.04) in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-15">Control Variables</hd> <p>Previous research has demonstrated that due to academic pressures and changes in psychological development during adolescence, students may experience various emotional states at different grade levels (Wuthrich, Jagiello, and Azzi [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref76">57</reflink>]). In addition, gender (Wuthrich, Jagiello, and Azzi [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref77">57</reflink>]) and age (Vermote et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref78">53</reflink>]) were found to have a significant relationship with teachers' motivation. Therefore, the aforementioned entry characteristics were included as covariates in the subsequent analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-16">Analytical Strategy</hd> <p>Due to the nested nature of the data, 1853 students were nested within data from 49 homeroom teachers, requiring a multilevel approach. Firstly, an intercept‐only model was employed to separate the variance of the mediating and dependent variables (i.e., students' perceived teacher support, teacher‐student relationships, and students' emotional well‐being) into between‐class and within‐class components. This unconditional model was used to calculate the intraclass correlation (ICC). Second, to explore the role of the students' perceived teacher support and teacher‐student relationships between teachers' motivation and students' emotional well‐being, we performed a multi‐level structural equation model (MSEM) in Mplus 8.3. This method offers significant advantages over conventional multilevel modelling procedures, allowing simultaneous estimation of complex models with multiple mediator and outcome variables, as well as direct and indirect effects (Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref79">38</reflink>]). Adopting the notation proposed by Krull and MacKinnon ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref80">27</reflink>]), the study tested a 2‐1‐1 multilevel mediation model in which teachers' autonomous and controlled motivation were measured at the between‐class level (level 2), students' perceived teacher support and student‐teacher relationship were measured at the within‐class level (level 1), and emotional well‐being was measured at the within‐class level (level 1). For all predictor and mediator variables to compete for shared variance, the study specified within‐ and between‐class covariates between teacher autonomous and controlled motivation, as well as between two mediator variables. To test the robustness of the findings, demographic variables that had potential covariances with the variables of interest were controlled.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654431-18">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations at between (teacher) and within (student) class levels are shown in Table 2. At the teacher level, teachers' controlled motivation was negatively correlated with students' perceived teacher‐student relationship. Teachers' age was negatively associated with teacher‐student relationship. Teachers' education level was positively correlated with teachers' autonomous motivation, student perceived teacher support, and teacher‐student relationship. At the student level, students' emotional well‐being was positively correlated with perceived teacher support and teacher‐student relationship. Student perceived teacher support was also positively correlated with perceived teacher‐student relationship. Students' sex was negatively correlated with students' emotional well‐being.</p> <p>2 TABLE Descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Between‐level (N = 49)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. Student's emotional well‐being</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Student perceived teacher support</td><td align="center">0.59<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Student perceived teacher‐student relationship</td><td align="center">0.32</td><td align="center">0.74<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Teacher's autonomous motivation</td><td align="center">0.11</td><td align="center">0.15</td><td align="center">−0.12</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Teacher's controlled motivation</td><td align="center">−0.14</td><td align="center">−0.20</td><td align="center">−0.48<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0.27</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Teacher's age</td><td align="center">−0.07</td><td align="center">−0.18</td><td align="center">−0.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">−0.06</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Teacher's education background</td><td align="center">0.08</td><td align="center">0.37<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center">0.34<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">−0.37<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Teacher's gender</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">0.01</td><td align="center">−0.09</td><td align="center">0.24</td><td align="center">0.10</td><td align="center">−0.21</td><td align="center">−0.55</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M</td><td align="center">0.61</td><td align="center">4.09</td><td align="center">2.95</td><td align="center">5.52</td><td align="center">3.29</td><td align="center">37.08</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SD</td><td align="center">0.32</td><td align="center">0.39</td><td align="center">0.53</td><td align="center">1.26</td><td align="center">1.03</td><td align="center">9.03</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Within‐level (N = 1853)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. Student's emotional well‐being</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Students' perceived teacher's support</td><td align="center">0.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Students' perceived teacher‐student relationship</td><td align="center">0.26<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0.64<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Student's age</td><td align="center">−0.03</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">0.04</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Student's gender</td><td align="center">−0.08<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">0.02</td><td align="center">−0.05<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">M</td><td align="center">0.65</td><td align="center">4.16</td><td align="center">3.00</td><td align="center">14.96</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">SD</td><td align="center">1.19</td><td align="center">0.95</td><td align="center">0.97</td><td align="center">1.77</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> For both students and teachers, gender was coded as 1 = male, 2 = female; education level was coded as 1 = Undergraduate Degree, 2 = Postgraduate Degree.</p> <ulist> <item>2 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>3 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0183654431-19">Multilevel Mediation Analyses</hd> <p>To support the aggregation of students' perceived teacher support and teacher‐student relationship, class member reliability was calculated using ICC(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>) and ICC(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>), as explained below, and the <emph>F</emph> test of the one‐way random ANOVA was used to determine whether average scores differed significantly across classes. ICC(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>) indicates the proportion of variance in ratings related to class membership, and ICC(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref84">2</reflink>) indicates the reliability of class mean differences (Bliese 2000). The ICC(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>) values were 0.139 for students' perceived teacher support, 0.267 for students' perceived teacher‐student relationship. The ICC(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref86">2</reflink>) value for both students' perceived teacher support (ICC(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref87">2</reflink>) = 0.859) and teacher‐student relationship (ICC(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref88">2</reflink>) = 0.932) was above the 0.70 recommended value (e.g., Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref89">13</reflink>]). In addition, results of a one‐way random ANOVA indicated significant differences between classes for both students' perceived teacher support, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref90">48</reflink>, 1804) = 7.177, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, and teacher‐student relationship, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref91">48</reflink>, 1804) = 13.893, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. In sum, these ICC values indicated a reasonable justification for further multilevel analyses. MSEM showed an adequate level of fit to the data; only the SRMR between groups was slightly above the acceptable range (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>/df = 1.65, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.02, SRMR<subs>Within</subs> = 0.00, SRMR<subs>Between</subs> = 0.11).</p> <p>The results of the multilevel mediation analysis, after controlling for demographic variables, are shown in Table 3 and Figure 2. First, the direct effect analysis revealed that teachers' autonomous motivation did not significantly predict students' emotional well‐being (<emph>β</emph><subs>direct effect</subs> = −0.11, SE = 0.16, <emph>p</emph> = 0.475); however, teachers' controlled motivation could significantly and negatively predict students' emotional well‐being (<emph>β</emph><subs>direct effect</subs> = −0.35, SE = 0.17, <emph>p</emph> = 0.045), indicating a direct negative correlation between teachers' controlled motivation (as opposed to autonomy) and students' emotional well‐being.</p> <p>3 TABLE Direct, and indirect effects: Standardised MSEM coefficients.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center">[95% CI]</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Direct effects model</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B. autonomous → W. EWB</td><td align="center">−0.11</td><td align="center">0.16</td><td align="center">−0.71</td><td align="center">0.475</td><td align="center">[−0.428, 0.200]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B. controlled → W. EWB</td><td align="center">−0.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="center">0.17</td><td align="center">−2.01</td><td align="center">0.045</td><td align="center">[−0.692, −0.008]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Indirect effects model</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B. autonomous → B. TSR → B. EWB</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">0.11</td><td align="center">−0.07</td><td align="center">0.949</td><td align="center">[−0.23, 0.22]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B. controlled → B. TSR → B. EWB</td><td align="center">0.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="center">0.19</td><td align="center">2.18</td><td align="center">0.029</td><td align="center">[0.04, 0.79]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B. autonomous → B. TS → B. EWB</td><td align="center">0.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="center">0.14</td><td align="center">2.18</td><td align="center">0.029</td><td align="center">[0.031, 0.581]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B. controlled → B. TS → B. EWB</td><td align="center">0.20</td><td align="center">0.16</td><td align="center">1.29</td><td align="center">0.197</td><td align="center">[−0.10, 0.50]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B. autonomous → B. TSR → B. TS → B. EWB</td><td align="center">0.01</td><td align="center">0.16</td><td align="center">0.07</td><td align="center">0.949</td><td align="center">[−0.30, 0.32]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B. controlled → B. TSR → B. TS → B. EWB</td><td align="center">−0.58<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">0.21</td><td align="center">−2.82</td><td align="center">0.005</td><td align="center">[−0.98, −0.18]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note:</emph> B = Between‐class effect, W = Within‐class effect, autonomous = Teachers' autonomous motivation, controlled = Teachers' Controlled Motivation, TS = Students' perceived teacher support, TSR = Students' perceived teacher‐student relationship, EWB = Students' emotional well‐being.</item> <item>5 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>6 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01mar25/ejed70012-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed70012-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Total, direct, and indirect effects of teachers' autonomous and controlled motivation on emotional well‐being: Standardised 2‐1‐1 MSEM coefficients. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The indirect effect analysis revealed that the teacher‐student relationship did not significantly mediate the relationship between teachers' autonomous motivation and students' emotional well‐being (<emph>β</emph><subs>indirect effect</subs> = −0.01, SE = 0.11, <emph>p</emph> = 0.949); however, teachers' controlled motivation could significantly and negatively predict students' emotional well‐being via the mediation of the teacher‐student relationship (<emph>β</emph><subs>indirect effect</subs> = 0.42, SE = 0.19, <emph>p</emph> = 0.029). However, teacher autonomous motivation significantly and positively predicted student emotional well‐being through the full mediating effect of teacher support (<emph>β</emph><subs>indirect effect</subs> = 0.31, SE = 0.14, <emph>p</emph> = 0.029). Teacher‐student relationship and teacher support did not significantly sequentially mediate the relationship between teachers' autonomous motivation and students' emotional well‐being (<emph>β</emph><subs>sequential indirect effect</subs> = 0.01, SE = 0.16, <emph>p</emph> = 0.949); however, teachers' controlled motivation negatively predicted students' emotional well‐being sequentially mediated by the teacher‐student relationship and teacher support (<emph>β</emph><subs>sequential indirect effect</subs> = −0.58, SE = 0.21, <emph>p</emph> = 0.005). These results suggest that teachers' autonomous motivation will establish a relationship between students' emotional well‐being primarily through students' perceived teacher support, supporting Hypothesis 3a, whereas teachers' controlled motivation can establish a relationship with students' well‐being through students' perceived teacher‐student relationship alone or the combined effect of teacher‐student relationship and teacher support, supporting Hypotheses 2b and 4b.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-21">Discussion</hd> <p>In this study, we aimed to examine how teachers' autonomous motivation and controlled motivation were associated with students' emotional well‐being. We collected self‐reported data from 49 homeroom teachers and their 1853 students. The multilevel analysis results showed that teachers' controlled motivation could negatively predict students' emotional well‐being through students perceived teacher‐student relationship and teacher support, and teacher autonomous motivation positively predicted student emotional well‐being through students perceived teacher support. We discussed the implications of these results below.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-22">The Direct Role of Teachers' Autonomous and Controlled Motivation</hd> <p>One of our main results showed that teachers' controlled motivation was negatively correlated with students' emotional well‐being. This result was consistent with the self‐determination theory and our hypothesis. According to the self‐determination theory (Ryan and Deci [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref92">46</reflink>]), highly controlled teachers may get few pleasures from teaching and perceive tension and pressure elicited by deadlines or surveillance. Although those teachers might not necessarily invest less in teaching, they usually pay a psychological cost, such as a high risk of burnout (Abos et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>]). Teachers' negative emotions may be consciously or unconsciously reflected in their interaction with the students. Thus, students may feel fewer positive emotions and more negative emotions in school since teachers' emotional exhaustion and insufficient emotional and learning support. For example, teachers' controlled motivation may be associated with adverse educational outcomes for students, such as a low level of autonomous learning motivation (Reeve et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref94">40</reflink>]). This result is also consistent with findings from prior studies (Ansong et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref95">4</reflink>]; Lei, Cui, and Chiu [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref96">29</reflink>]). Our results found a negative association between teachers' controlled motivation and students' emotional well‐being. These findings contribute to the existing literature by providing additional evidence that contradicts the inconsistent findings regarding the adverse effects of controlled motivation (e.g., Ahn, Chiu, and Patrick [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>]; Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref98">30</reflink>]), and further suggest that controlled motivation exerts a detrimental effect on students' emotional well‐being in addition to their learning motivation (e.g., Reeve et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref99">40</reflink>]). However, the present study did not find a direct relationship between teachers' autonomous motivation and students' emotional well‐being (hypothesis 1a). Instead, the relationship is mediated via teacher support, which we would analyse in greater detail later. Given that teachers' controlled motivation is a relatively understudied phenomenon (Slemp, Field, and Cho [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref100">47</reflink>]), these results may provide further theoretical support for the adverse effects of teachers' controlled motivation on student emotional outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-23">The Indirect Effect of Students' Perceived Teacher Support and Teacher‐Student Relationship</hd> <p>This study found that teachers' autonomous motivation predicts students' emotional well‐being through students' perceived teacher support, supporting Hypothesis 3a and some prior research. According to prosocial classroom model (Jennings and Greenberg [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref101">24</reflink>]) and self‐determination theory (Ryan and Deci [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref102">46</reflink>]), teachers with a higher level of autonomous motivation have a higher level of intrinsic interest in their work and are more likely to invest social and emotional resources in their instruction work. Thus, students may receive more teacher support in learning, emotion, and life (Maulana et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref103">33</reflink>]), and this support further promotes students' positive emotional well‐being. Additionally, some studies have found that students' perceived teacher support leads to higher autonomous motivation, higher levels of academic engagement, and decreased burnout in daily life (Pitzer and Skinner [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref104">37</reflink>]; Ljubin‐Golub, Rijavec, and Olčar [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref105">31</reflink>]). This may be another reason why teacher autonomous motivation positively predicts students' emotional well‐being.</p> <p>Moreover, we discovered that student‐perceived teacher‐student relationships and teacher support acted as sequential mediators between teachers' controlled motivation and students' emotional well‐being, and that the teacher‐student relationship acted as a separate mediator. These results were consistent with Hypotheses 2b and 4b, as well as the prosocial classroom model (Jennings and Greenberg [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref106">24</reflink>]) and self‐determination theory (Deci and Ryan [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref107">16</reflink>]). According to the self‐determination theory (Deci and Ryan [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref108">16</reflink>]), highly control‐motivated teachers may be constrained by excessive curricular requirements and administrative regulations. This excessive control may result in increased job stress and a decrease in a student's desire to learn (Ahn, Chiu, and Patrick [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref109">2</reflink>]). This may result in students feeling disconnected and unattended to by their teachers, both of which can reduce the closeness of the teacher‐student relationship and the perception of teacher support among students (Pitzer and Skinner [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref110">37</reflink>]). In addition, research indicated that teachers with a high level of controlled motivation occasionally experience anxiety, fatigue, and emotional exhaustion (Slemp, Field, and Cho [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref111">47</reflink>]). According to the prosocial classroom model (Jennings and Greenberg [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref112">24</reflink>]), teachers' negative emotional states may result in a negative and unsupportive learning environment, which can also influence students' evaluations of the teacher‐student relationship and teacher support, thereby decreasing students' positive emotions and emotional well‐being.</p> <p>Finally, it is important to note that the mechanisms by which teachers' autonomous versus controlled motivation associated with students' emotional well‐being may differ. Specifically, teachers' autonomous motivation (but not controlled motivation) predicts students' perceptions of teacher support, whereas teachers' controlled motivation (but not autonomous motivation) predicts students' perceptions of teacher‐student relationships. Due to these disparities in predictive effects, the mediating effects of Hypotheses 2a and 3b could not be demonstrated. Typically, teachers' autonomous motivation encourages their engagement in their work and makes them more willing to engage in education, enabling them to provide more support and aid in the development of students (Robinson [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref113">42</reflink>]). Controlled motivated teachers, on the other hand, may exhibit impatience, unfriendliness, or negativity in their interactions, which can be transmitted to their students (Frenzel et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref114">20</reflink>]), resulting in students experiencing more negative emotional experiences and a decline in the quality of teacher‐student relationships, which can impact the teacher‐student relationship. Therefore, teachers' autonomous and controlled motivations may have different mechanisms of action on students' emotional well‐being, and these results suggest that when intervening in students' emotional well‐being, we should consider the differences between teachers' autonomous and controlled motivations.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-24">Practical Implications</hd> <p>In recent decades, numerous countries and regions have documented a rise in the prevalence of mental health issues among adolescents. Several studies have identified academic pressures, social pressures, and family environment as significant factors that influence adolescents' emotional well‐being (Burić, Slišković, and Penezić [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref115">11</reflink>]; Mitchell, Kern, and Conroy [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref116">34</reflink>]). Nevertheless, the current body of research remains insufficient in elucidating the precise effect of teachers' characteristics on students' emotional well‐being. The findings of this research enhance our comprehension of students' emotional well‐being, specifically in relation to teacher motivation. Our research findings suggest a negative association between teachers' control motivation and students' emotional well‐being. This implies that the motivation of teachers to exert control may have an adverse impact on the emotional state of students. Educational institutions have the potential to enhance teachers' motivation to instruction and their capacity to foster students' emotional well‐being through the implementation of interventions and training programs that specifically address their control motivation. More importantly, educational institutions, particularly schools, should reduce the administrative pressure on teachers, thereby reducing their controlled motivation and subsequently preventing detrimental effects on student development.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-25">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>Although this study revealed the negative relationship between teachers' controlled motivation and students' emotional well‐being and explored the mechanisms, the results still have some limitations. First of all, this is a cross‐sectional study, so it's hard to draw a causal relationship. In the future, longitudinal research is needed to study the relationships between the changes in teachers' motivation and students' emotional well‐being. Secondly, the study lacks measures of teacher behaviours, such as signs of burnout or changes in teaching quality. This hinders our understanding of how teachers' motivations directly influence teacher's behaviour or performance. Future research should consider incorporating measures of teacher job performance, such as classroom observations, student achievement data, or peer evaluations, to elucidate the underlying mechanisms linking teachers' work motivation to their actual behaviours in the classroom. Finally, this study only studies the effect of homeroom teachers on students' emotional well‐being. Teachers of other subjects, such as mathematics, may also play an important role in students' emotional well‐being. In the future, we can investigate the effect of teachers of other subjects on students' emotional well‐being.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-26">Conclusion</hd> <p>To investigate whether teachers' autonomous motivation and controlled motivation were associated with students' emotional well‐being, and explore the possible mediating effects of students' perceived teacher‐student relationship and teacher support in their relationship. We collected work motivation of 49 homeroom teachers, teacher support, teacher‐student relationship, and emotional well‐being of 1853 students. The results indicated that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>) teachers' controlled motivation negatively predicted students' emotional well‐being; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref118">2</reflink>) Through the full mediation of teacher support, teachers' autonomous motivation significantly predicted students' emotional well‐being; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref119">3</reflink>) Through the mediation of the student‐teacher relationship, teachers' controlled motivation significantly predicted negatively students' emotional well‐being; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref120">4</reflink>) teachers' controlled motivation significantly predicted negatively students' emotional well‐being via the sequential mediation of student‐teacher relationship and teacher support. The findings have important implications for interventions aimed at improving the emotional well‐being of students by altering teacher motivation.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-27">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0183654431-28">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Data will be made available on request.</p> <ref id="AN0183654431-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (grant numbers GK202201018) and Shaanxi Teacher Development Research Program (grant numbers 2023JSZD007).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0183654431-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abos, A., L. Haerens, J. Sevil Serrano, N. Aelterman, and L. Garcia‐Gonzalez. 2018. " Teachers' Motivation in Relation to Their Psychological Functioning and Interpersonal Style: A Variable‐ and Person‐Centered Approach." Teaching and Teacher Education 74 : 21 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ahn, I., M. M. Chiu, and H. Patrick. 2021. " Connecting Teacher and Student Motivation: Student‐Perceived Teacher Need‐Supportive Practices and Student Need Satisfaction." Contemporary Educational Psychology 64 : 101950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101950.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref26" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alrabai, F., and A. Alamer. 2024. " The Effects of Teacher Motivational Practice on Learner L2 Achievement: A Self‐Determination Theory Perspective Using Structural Equation Modeling." Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241278625.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref95" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ansong, D., M. Okumu, G. L. Bowen, A. M. Walker, and S. R. Eisensmith. 2017. " The Role of Parent, Classmate, and Teacher Support in Student Engagement: Evidence From Ghana." International Journal of Educational Development 54 : 51 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.03.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref74" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Babad, E. 1990. " Measuring and Changing Teachers' Differential Behavior as Perceived by Students and Teachers." Journal of Educational Psychology 82, no. 4 : 683 – 690. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.82.4.683.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref10" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bardach, L., and R. M. Klassen. 2021. " Teacher Motivation and Student Outcomes: Searching for the Signal." Educational Psychologist 56, no. 4 : 283 – 297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1991799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref35" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beanlands, H., E. McCay, S. Fredericks, et al. 2019. " Decreasing Stress and Supporting Emotional Well‐Being Among Senior Nursing Students: A Pilot Test of an Evidence‐Based Intervention." Nursing Education Today 76 : 222 – 227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.02.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref70" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bechter, B. E., P. R. Whipp, J. A. Dimmock, and B. Jackson. 2023. " Emotional Intelligence and Interpersonal Relationship Quality as Predictors of High School Physical Education teachers' Intrinsic Motivation." Current Psychology 42, no. 9 : 7457 – 7465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144‐021‐02096‐6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref27" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Belay, S., and T. Melesse. 2024. " Exploring the Link Between Teachers' Motivation for Continuous Professional Development and Professional Learning Communities: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach." SAGE Open 14, no. 3 : 21582440241281855.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bureau, J. S., J. L. Howard, J. X. Chong, and F. Guay. 2022. " Pathways to Student Motivation: A Meta‐Analysis of Antecedents of Autonomous and Controlled Motivations." Review of Educational Research 92, no. 1 : 46 – 72. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burić, I., A. Slišković, and Z. Penezić. 2019. " Understanding Teacher Well‐Being: A Cross‐Lagged Analysis of Burnout, Negative Student‐Related Emotions, Psychopathological Symptoms, and Resilience." Educational Psychology 39, no. 9 : 1136 – 1155. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1577952.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buyse, E., K. Verschueren, S. Doumen, J. Van Damme, and F. Maes. 2008. " Classroom Problem Behavior and Teacher‐Child Relationships in Kindergarten: The Moderating Role of Classroom Climate." Journal of School Psychology 46, no. 4 : 367 – 391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, R., A. Moed, A. Shoshani, G. Roth, and Y. Kanat‐Maymon. 2019. " Teachers' Conditional Regard and Students' Need Satisfaction and Agentic Engagement: A Multilevel Motivation Mediation Model." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 49, no. 4 : 790 – 803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐019‐01114‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collie, R. J. 2020. " The Development of Social and Emotional Competence at School: An Integrated Model." International Journal of Behavioral Development 44, no. 1 : 76 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419851864.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collie, R. J., and A. J. Martin. 2017. " Adaptive and Maladaptive Work‐Related Motivation Among Teachers: A Person‐Centered Examination and Links With Well‐Being." Teaching and Teacher Education 64 : 199 – 210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 2000. " The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self‐Determination of Behavior." Psychological Inquiry 11, no. 4 : 227 – 268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> den Brok, P. J., J. G. Hooijer, R. L. Martens, and A. van den Beemt. 2014. " Teachers' Engagement in Professional Learning: Exploring Motivational Profiles." Learning and Individual Differences 36 : 27 – 36. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965pli1104_01.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diener, E., D. Wirtz, W. Tov, et al. 2010. " New Well‐Being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive and Negative Feelings." Social Indicators Research 97 : 143 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205‐009‐9493‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernet, C., C. Sen, F. Guay, H. Marsh, and M. Dowson. 2008. " The Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST)." Journal of Career Assessment 16, no. 2 : 256 – 279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707305764.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C., T. Goetz, O. Lüdtke, R. Pekrun, and R. E. Sutton. 2009. " Emotional Transmission in the Classroom: Exploring the Relationship Between Teacher and Student Enjoyment." Journal of Educational Psychology 101, no. 3 : 705 – 716. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014695.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gagné, M., J. Forest, M.‐H. Gilbert, C. Aubé, E. Morin, and A. Malorni. 2010. " The Motivation at Work Scale: Validation Evidence in Two Languages." Educational and Psychological Measurement 70, no. 4 : 628 – 646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355698.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, J. Y., and H. B. Yin. 2016. " Teacher Motivation: Definition, Research Development and Implications for Teachers." Cogent Education 3, no. 1 : 1217819. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1217819.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, J. N., W. Luo, O. M. Kwok, and L. K. Loyd. 2008. " Teacher‐Student Support, Effortful Engagement, and Achievement: A 3‐Year Longitudinal Study." Journal of Educational Psychology 100, no. 1 : 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.100.1.1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings, P. A., and M. T. Greenberg. 2009. " The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes." Review of Educational Research 79, no. 1 : 491 – 525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiang, G. R. 2004. " Class Environment in the Chinese School System: Structure and Measurement." Psychological Science 27, no. 4 : 839 – 843. (In Chinese).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaya, M., and C. Erdem. 2021. " Students' Well‐Being and Academic Achievement: A Meta‐Analysis Study." Child Indicators Research 14, no. 5 : 1743 – 1767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187‐021‐09821‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krull, J. L., and D. P. MacKinnon. 2001. " Multilevel Modeling of Individual and Group Level Mediated Effects." Multivariate Behavioral Research 36, no. 2 : 249 – 277. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906mbr3602_06.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazarides, R., H. Gaspard, and A.‐L. Dicke. 2019. " Dynamics of Classroom Motivation: Teacher Enthusiasm and the Development of Math Interest and Teacher Support." Learning and Instruction 60 : 126 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lei, H., Y. Cui, and M. M. Chiu. 2018. " The Relationship Between Teacher Support and students' Academic Emotions: A Meta‐Analysis." Frontiers in Psychology 8 : 2288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02288.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, X. X., S. Y. Gong, H. P. Zhang, Q. L. Yu, and Z. J. Zhou. 2021. " Perceived Teacher Support and Creative Self‐Efficacy: The Mediating Roles of Autonomous Motivation and Achievement Emotions in Chinese Junior High School Students." Thinking Skills and Creativity 39 : 100752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100752.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ljubin‐Golub, T., M. Rijavec, and D. Olčar. 2020. " Student Flow and Burnout: The Role of Teacher Autonomy Support and Student Autonomous Motivation." Psychological Studies 65, no. 2 : 145 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646‐019‐00539‐6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, L., H. Luo, and L. Xiao. 2021. " Perceived Teacher Support, Self‐Concept, Enjoyment and Achievement in Reading: A Multilevel Mediation Model Based on PISA 2018." Learning and Individual Differences 85 : 101947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101947.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maulana, R., M. Helms‐Lorenz, Y. Irnidayanti, and W. van de Grift. 2016. " Autonomous Motivation in the Indonesian Classroom: Relationship With Teacher Support Through the Lens of Self‐Determination Theory." Asia‐Pacific Education Researcher 25 : 441 – 451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299‐016‐0282‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, B. S., L. Kern, and M. A. Conroy. 2019. " Supporting Students With Emotional or Behavioral Disorders: State of the Field." Behavioral Disorders 44, no. 2 : 70 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742918816518.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ouyang, D. 2005. A Research on the Relation Among Teachers' Expectation, Self‐ Conception of students' Academic Achievement, Students' Perception of Teacher's Behavioral Supporting and the Study Achievement (Unpublished Master Dissertation). Guilin, China : Guangxi Normal University. https://doi.org/10.7666/d.y784638.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan, X., and Y. Yao. 2023. " Enhancing Chinese Students' Academic Engagement: The Effect of Teacher Support and Teacher–Student Rapport." Frontiers in Psychology 14 : 1188507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1188507.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pitzer, J., and E. Skinner. 2017. " Predictors of Changes in Students' Motivational Resilience Over the School Year: The Roles of Teacher Support, Self‐Appraisals, and Emotional Reactivity." International Journal of Behavioral Development 41, no. 1 : 15 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416642051.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher, K. J., M. J. Zyphur, and Z. Zhang. 2010. " A General Multilevel SEM Framework for Assessing Multilevel Mediation." Psychological Methods 15, no. 3 : 209 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve, J. 2006. " Teachers as Facilitators: What Autonomy‐Supportive Teachers Do and Why Their Students Benefit." Elementary School Journal 106, no. 3 : 225 – 236.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve, J., H. Jang, D. Carrell, S. Jeon, and J. Barch. 2004. " Enhancing Students' Engagement by Increasing Teachers' Autonomy Support." Motivation and Emotion 28, no. 2 : 147 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, P. W., and H. M. G. Watt. 2010. " Current and Future Directions in Teacher Motivation Research." In The Decade Ahead: Applications and Contexts of Motivation and Achievement, edited by T. C. Urdan and S. A. Karabenick, 139 – 173. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, C. D. 2022. " A Framework for Motivating Teacher‐Student Relationships." Educational Psychology Review 34, no. 4 : 2061 – 2094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐022‐09706‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodríguez‐Rivero, E. R., A. F. Rodríguez Hernández, C. M. Hernández‐Jorge, and I. Duarte‐Lores. 2023. " The Why of the Teaching Profession: Validation of a Structural Model of Teacher Motivations." Education Sciences 13, no. 8 : 815.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roth, G., A. Assor, Y. Kanat‐Maymon, and H. Kaplan. 2007. " Autonomous Motivation for Teaching: How Self‐Determined Teaching May Lead to Self‐Determined Learning." Journal of Educational Psychology 99, no. 4 : 761 – 774. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.99.4.761.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2016. " Facilitating and Hindering Motivation, Learning, and Well‐Being in Schools: Research and Observations From Self‐Determination Theory." In Handbook of Motivation at School, edited by D. B. M. K. R. Wentzel, 2nd ed., 96 – 119. London: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2020. " Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation From a Self‐Determination Theory Perspective: Definitions, Theory, Practices, and Future Directions." Contemporary Educational Psychology 61 : 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slemp, G. R., J. G. Field, and A. S. H. Cho. 2020. " A Meta‐Analysis of Autonomous and Controlled Forms of Teacher Motivation." Journal of Vocational Behavior 121 : 103459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103459.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suldo, S. M., A. A. Friedrich, T. White, J. Farmer, D. Minch, and J. Michalowski. 2019. " Teacher Support and Adolescents' Subjective Well‐Being: A Mixed‐Methods Investigation." School Psychology Review 38, no. 1 : 67 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2009.12087850.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tam, K. Y., C. Y. Poon, V. K. Hui, et al. 2020. " Boredom Begets Boredom: An Experience Sampling Study on the Impact of Teacher Boredom on Student Boredom and Motivation." British Journal of Educational Psychology 90 : 124 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12309.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, I. M., and N. Ntoumanis. 2007. " Teacher Motivational Strategies and Student Self‐Determination in Physical Education." Journal of Educational Psychology 99, no. 4 : 747 – 760. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.99.4.747.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner, J. C., D. L. Gray, L. H. Anderman, H. S. Dawson, and E. M. Anderman. 2013. " Getting to Know My Teacher: Does the Relation Between Perceived Mastery Goal Structures and Perceived Teacher Support Change Across the School Year? " Contemporary Educational Psychology 38, no. 4 : 316 – 327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Berghe, L., G. Cardon, N. Aelterman, I. B. Tallir, M. Vansteenkiste, and L. Haerens. 2013. " Emotional Exhaustion and Motivation in Physical Education Teachers: A Variable‐Centered and Person‐Centered Approach." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 32, no. 3 : 305 – 320. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.32.3.305.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vermote, B., N. Aelterman, W. Beyers, L. Aper, F. Buysschaert, and M. Vansteenkiste. 2020. " The Role of Teachers' Motivation and Mindsets in Predicting a (de) Motivating Teaching Style in Higher Education: A Circumplex Approach." Motivation and Emotion 44 : 270 – 294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031‐020‐09827‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson, D., L. A. Clark, and A. Tellegen. 1988. " Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, no. 6 : 1063 – 1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.54.6.1063.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watt, H. M. G., and P. W. Richardson. 2008. " Motivation for Teaching." Learning and Instruction 18, no. 5 : 405 – 407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinstein, N., H. S. Hodgins, and R. M. Ryan. 2010. " Autonomy and Control in Dyads: Effects on Interaction Quality and Joint Creative Performance." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36, no. 12 : 1603 – 1617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386385.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wuthrich, V. M., T. Jagiello, and V. Azzi. 2020. " Academic Stress in the Final Years of School: A Systematic Literature Review." Child Psychiatry & Human Development 51 : 986 – 1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578‐020‐00981‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, D., B. Jin, and Y. Cui. 2022. " Do Teacher Autonomy Support and Teacher–Student Relationships Influence Students' Depression? A 3‐Year Longitudinal Study." School Mental Health 14, no. 1 : 110 – 124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310‐021‐09456‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, T. 2021. " Physical Education Teacher Motivation: A Conceptual Review and Reconceptualisation." Review of Education 9, no. 3 : e3301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zou, H., J. Yao, Y. Zhang, and X. Huang. 2024. " The Influence of Teachers' Intrinsic Motivation on Students' Intrinsic Motivation: The Mediating Role of Teachers' Motivating Style and Teacher‐Student Relationships." Psychology in the Schools 61 : 272 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23050.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Enxia Ju; Huaiyuan Qi; Guoliang Qu; Yangmei Luo; Ying Li and Xuqun You</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref116"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1461371
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: What Is the Association between Teachers' Autonomous Motivation, Controlled Motivation and Students' Emotional Well-Being? A Multilevel Mediation Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Enxia+Ju%22">Enxia Ju</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Huaiyuan+Qi%22">Huaiyuan Qi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Guoliang+Qu%22">Guoliang Qu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yangmei+Luo%22">Yangmei Luo</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4440-6980">0000-0002-4440-6980</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ying+Li%22">Ying Li</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xuqun+You%22">Xuqun You</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Motivation%22">Teacher Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Autonomy%22">Professional Autonomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Welfare%22">Student Welfare</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health%22">Mental Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Influence%22">Teacher Influence</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.70012
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Teachers' motivation, which pertains to the reasons to sustain teaching, plays a pivotal role in shaping students' learning motivation, school engagement, and academic achievement. However, the relationship between teachers' motivation and students' emotional well-being remains unclear. This study, grounded in self-determination theory and the prosocial classroom model, investigated the associations between teachers' autonomous motivation and controlled motivation with students' emotional well-being and examined the potential mediating role of students' perceived teacher-student relationships and teacher support in these associations. The current study involved 49 homeroom teachers and 1853 students, assessing teachers' autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, students' perception of teacher support, teacher-student relationships, and emotional well-being. The results of the multilevel analysis indicated that (1) teachers' autonomous motivation positively predicted students' emotional well-being, mediated by teacher support; (2) teachers' controlled motivation negatively predicted students' emotional well-being, mediated by both students' perception of the student-teacher relationship and teacher support. The findings underscore the significance of intervening in teachers' work motivation, particularly controlled motivation, in educational and teaching practices to improve students' mental health.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1461371
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1461371
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.70012
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Autonomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Welfare
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Influence
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: What Is the Association between Teachers' Autonomous Motivation, Controlled Motivation and Students' Emotional Well-Being? A Multilevel Mediation Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Enxia Ju
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Huaiyuan Qi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Guoliang Qu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yangmei Luo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ying Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xuqun You
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1