Perceptions of the teacher–student relationship climate and the development of academic motivation in high school: a transactional analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High school teachers often struggle to engage students who have little or no motivation to learn. We argue that improving students’ perceptions of affective relationships with teachers may have the potential to positively influence their motivation, and vice versa. This study looks at reciprocal associations between students’ perceptions of the teacher–student relationship climate (PTSRC) and three components of academic motivation (autonomous, controlled, and amotivation), measured at two time points, over a 12–month period. We recruited 328 students (on average 15 years of age, 65% girls) from public high schools in disadvantaged areas of a Canadian suburb. We found that students’ autonomous motivation predicted an increase in positive PTSRC. In contrast, we did not find evidence that PTSRC predicted either autonomous or controlled motivation. Nonetheless, a positive PTSRC predicted a decrease in students’ amotivation. This finding suggests that high school students’ positive PTSRC can help them find purpose in their schooling. Knowing that motivation typically declines during the high school years, this study is important because it suggests that promoting positive teacher–student relationships can contribute to ward off such decline.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".