THE SOCIAL CONTEXT AS 20
working with students who are intrinsically motivated, or show high levels of effort (Biddle
& Goudas, 1997; Pelletier & Vallerand, 1996). Steven, a director of PE and sport at a
privately-funded school similarly indicated that he withdraws psychological resources when
students show little effort: “If we've got to year twelve and that boy who couldn't swim in
year seven still can’t swim, and doesn't try, I've done with him”. Relatedly, Rachel, a 22
year-old, newly qualified PE teacher highlights poor student discipline as a potential reason
to withdraw teaching support. In response to being asked whether her students influence her
teaching, Rachel stated:
Some kids will come in and they can be really obnoxious with you, and they
keep going and going and it gets to the point where you just think bugger
them, not dealing with this anymore. “You, just go away”, and dismiss them
which is completely the wrong. But if you kept going you'd end up blowing
your lid. So you just ignore them for a while and I suppose maybe neglect
them for a while.
It is very worrying that Steven & Rachel may withdraw time and effort from students
who need the greatest attention. A withdrawal of personal resources may lead to diminished
motivation in students (e.g., Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007), which, in turn has been found to be
associated with poor discipline in PE (Spray & Wang, 2001). Consequently, these strategies
may exacerbate the students’ poor discipline over time. Similarly, Carl and Steven’s
examples above show how the teachers may also magnify students’ levels of self-
determination over time via their chosen motivational strategies. This is fine for highly self-
determined students, who may be more likely to receive adaptive motivational strategies. Yet
students with low-self-determination may receive maladaptive motivational strategies from
the teacher which, in turn, may further reduce their self-determined motivation. Interestingly,