Exploring reasons to attend formal teaching sessions among students: A self-determination theory perspective

Self-determination theory

SDT posits that student motivation can be understood as a continuum ranging from amotivation and extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation (see e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2017). Students who are amotivated completely lack motivation, whereas those who are extrinsically motivated engage in teaching activities to obtain an outcome separable from the task itself, such as to pass a course. Students who are intrinsically motivated find studying and learning inherently enjoyable and interesting and, therefore, engage in the teaching activities for their own sake, and they generally find learning meaningful and relevant to themselves.

SDT centres on the concept of basic psychological needs, namely autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and is crucial to understanding the satisfactions and supports necessary for autonomous forms of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Within the context of studying at the university, autonomy might be understood as students’ perceptions of themselves as causal agents of their respective lives and that they act in harmony with their integrated self. Furthermore, competence might be understood as students feeling competent and experiencing mastery. The basic psychological need relatedness might be understood as students experiencing personal relations and wanting to interact, be connected to, and experience caring for their classmates.

Autonomy-supportive teachers

SDT can be used to understand classroom conditions. Students’ classroom engagement depends, at least to some extent, on the motivational climate and, here, teachers can motivate their students by being either controlling or autonomy-supportive (Reeve, 2006). Reeve (2006, 2009) suggests that teachers who adopt a controlling motivational approach rely on extrinsic motivation. This approach is characterised by merely adopting the teacher’s perspective, intrude into students’ thoughts, feelings, or actions, and pressure them to think, feel, or behave in certain ways (Reeve, 2009). Here, instructional behaviours include relying on external sources of motivation, disregarding explanatory rationales, and relying on pressure-inducing language. As the alternative, autonomy-supportive teachers rely on intrinsic motivation (Reeve, 2009). Key characteristics of an autonomy-supportive motivational approach include adopting the students’ perspective; welcoming their thoughts, feelings, and behaviours; and support students’ motivational development and capacity for autonomous self-regulation (Reeve, 2009). Instructional behaviours related to supporting autonomy include nurturing internal motivational resources, providing explanatory rationales, and relying on non-controlling and informational language (Reeve, 2009).

It is critical to stress that autonomy support is not synonymous with an unstructured learning environment (Reeve, 2006, 2009). Here, it should be noted that, although autonomy-supportive teachers adopt (and value) the students’ perspective, it does not downplay the importance of acting on the teacher’s perspective. The teachers’ strategies, priorities, and goals can be expressed through the provision of a structured learning environment by, for example, communicating expectations, giving directions, and taking the lead during instruction (Reeve, 2009).

Available research suggests that teacher-provided autonomy has been shown to benefit students in terms of, for example, curiosity, engagement, creativity, competence, academic achievement and, importantly, attendance during formal teaching sessions (Reeve, 2009). Despite this, studies suggest that many teachers tend to adopt a controlling motivational approach. According to Reeve (2009), this might be explained by several reasons, including that teachers assume an inherently powerful social role where they possess both power and influence over their students. It might also be because teachers bear responsibility and accountability for their students’ academic outcomes and, therefore, experience pressure to ensure that their students perform up to standards. Some teachers might also equate control with structure (Reeve, 2009).

Many previous studies have focus on reasons why students do not attend formal teaching sessions. There are also studies to suggest that high student motivation and interest can positively influence attendance, yet less is known about what students believe teachers could do to facilitate attendance during formal teaching sessions. Therefore, the present study aims to explore what students believe teachers could do to facilitate attendance during formal teaching sessions at the physical education part of the teacher education program in Sweden. Based on the aim of this study, the research question was: What do students believe teachers could do to facilitate attendance during formal teaching sessions?

Recruitment and participants

To be included in this study, the participants were required to have at least one full year of experience in higher education. This criterium was set arbitrarily but with the intention of including those who had previous experiences from many formal teaching sessions (e.g., lectures, seminars, and workshops) delivered by several different teachers.

In Sweden, the teacher education program is organised into the following four parts: 1) Courses directed towards specific subjects (e.g., physical education), 2) core courses in educational sciences, 3) teaching practice, and 4) degree project. In October 2019, students who attended the physical education part of the teacher education program at a large university in Sweden were invited to participate in this study. Three classes were visited to briefly explain the aim of this study and distribute written information about the study procedure. Students interested in participating entered their email address on a separate sheet and were then contacted and provided with information on time and location for each interview.

The goal was to include four to six participants per interview. Although arranged accordingly, unexpected and late drop-outs meant that two interviews were conducted with two and three participants, respectively. In total, three interviews were conducted (in Swedish) with eleven participants (both males and females) who were 20 to 35 years of age. The participants had one to four years of experience of higher education and attended the physical education part of the teacher education program directed towards secondary school (4^th to 9^th grade, approximate ages: 10 to 15 years) or upper secondary school (10^th to 12^th grade, approximate ages: 16 to 18 years). Table 1 provides an overview of the interviews.

All participants had Swedish as the language of instruction. They also had experiences from attending different types of teaching sessions, such as lectures, seminars, workshops, and didactic teaching sessions. These teaching sessions were carried out with varying group size, attendance rate, and room size. In general, the participants had been taught by teachers who had several years of teaching experience in the teacher education program.

Procedure and data production

An interview guide was developed and subsequently tested among former (graduated) students who had previous experience from formal teaching sessions at the physical education teacher education program. Any suggestions and comments to improve the interview guide were noted and the guide revised accordingly. The revised, final version of the interview guide comprised the following two areas:

• Introduction: An introduction that outlined the aim, structure, and organisation of the interview, as well as ethical considerations such as volunteerism, the opportunity to withdraw participation, and collection of written, informed consent.

• Questions: The main part of the interview that revolved around two main questions: Why do you (or your classmates) attend lectures, workshops, seminars, and similar formal teaching sessions? What do you (or your classmates) believe teachers could do (i.e., make different, improve etc.) to facilitate attendance during formal teaching sessions?

Each interview was conducted at the university department in facilities familiar to the participants. The interviews were audio-recorded using a Dictaphone and microphone. The two authors of this study conducted the interviews. Both were senior lecturers in sport science with experiences from both teaching and focus group interview methodology.

The second author (L.J.) acted as moderator and had the responsibility of steering and maintaining the discussions’ focus. The first author (A.F.) acted as assistant moderator and was responsible for asking follow-up questions and summarising what the participants had expressed to ensure correct interpretation.

The interviews began with everyone introducing themselves. After that, the assistant moderator clarified the aim and procedure of the interview. Throughout the interviews, questions were asked to engage all participants, and each interview ended with a summary of the participants’ expressed thoughts. The interviews lasted on average 60 minutes (range: 57 to 64 minutes) (Table 1), and the participants were offered refreshments (e.g., coffee, tea, and biscuits) to maintain focus.

Ethical considerations

During the recruitment procedures, it was elucidated that participation was voluntary and that everyone had the opportunity to withdraw their participation at any time without any explanation. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants before each interview.

At the beginning of each interview, an explanation was also given that all statements would remain within the group. Also, the findings would be presented to make it impossible for individual participants to be identified.

Furthermore, conducting interviews might be accompanied by power relation (Vähäsantanen & Saarinen, 2013). The moderator had no previous experiences teaching any of the participants included in this study, and it was unlikely that he would do so in the future. The assistant moderator had previously taught most of the participants in a previous course, and it was likely that he would do so in the future. Therefore, it should be noted that a power imbalance might have been present, which could have inhibited the participants’ opportunity to express themselves without restrictions. With the ambition to reduce such power imbalance, the moderators made an effort to develop trust by advising the participants that there were no correct or incorrect answers, etc., and that all thoughts and opinions were equally as important and would contribute to the general understanding of the focus area of this study. Because the focus area of this study might be perceived as sensitive, the moderators also encouraged the participants to discuss the questions from their perspectives and their views on how past and present classmates have reasoned regarding why they do not attend/attend formal teaching sessions. The moderators also adopted a neutral approach by not engaging on one side of the argument or another or affirming or disapproving of the participants’ expressed thoughts.

Qualitative content analysis

The analysis of the interview material was performed using qualitative content analysis (Graneheim, Lindgren & Lundman, 2017; Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). Qualitative content analysis is considered suitable for performing a thematisation of the data to obtain a description of why students do not attend/attend formal teaching sessions and what students believe teachers can do to facilitate attendance. Below is a summary of the qualitative content analysis that was performed according to previous recommendations (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).

The audio recordings from each interview were transcribed verbatim by the first author (A.F.). The two authors repeatedly read the transcriptions in their entirety to understand the contexts and dynamics of the interviews and obtain a sense of the whole. After that, the two authors analysed the collected data as described below.

Firstly, sentences or phrases containing features related to each other through their context and content and were relevant to the research question were highlighted as meaning units and then inputted to a separate sheet to assist the categorisation process. The meanings were then condensed, abstracted, and coded, and similarities and differences were sorted and compared to each other. Similar codes reflecting like aspects of the transcribed text in relation to the research question were merged into tentative categories. These categories captured the general meaning and expressed the manifest content of the text.

Secondly, the tentative categories were reviewed repeatedly and then revised and encoded into the final set of categories. Finally, an overarching theme that intersected with the categories was generated to describe the content on a latent level. Although the analysis is described linearly, the authors undertook a back-and-forth process when critically analysing and reflecting on the codes, categories, and the (tentative) theme. An example of the categorisation procedure is provided in Table 2.

The findings of this study are presented and discussed below. Each category begins with a description of the participants’ statements followed by an interpretation through the lens of the SDT. Occasionally, quotes (translated to English) illustrate the characteristic of each category, and clarifications are stated within square brackets (and in italics) when needed. To avoid identifying participants, any information regarding sex, age, and which interview the quotes are derived from is omitted. Further, each category is concluded with a statement regarding possible implications for teachers.

Interact with classmates

The first category that emerged from the data analysis was interact with classmates. Here, the opportunity to interact with classmates and learn from and with each other was described as reasons for attending formal teaching sessions. For example, the participants stated that attendance provided opportunities to spend time with classmates and experience social connectedness and learn from and with each other, which is illustrated by the following quote: “We want to exchange thoughts with each other discuss and such things”. The opportunity to discuss seemed to be important since the participants perceived their classmates as having different backgrounds and experiences, which, in turn, could lead to different interpretations of the subject matter discussed during lectures, seminars, and workshops.

Some participants also stressed that discussions were welcome features during formal teaching sessions, especially during long lectures. They had the opportunity to be active in the learning process by interacting with each other and making sense of the information communicated. Consequently, lectures arranged in a way that combined sequences of lecture with discussions in pairs or small groups were considered more engaging. Importantly, it was suggested that students were more likely to attend a lecture when they knew that the teachers generally arranged their teaching sessions accordingly.

Lectures in smaller classes were perceived as more appealing compared to large classes because they generated a more personal connection with both classmates and the teacher. This personal, familiar connection seemed to encourage attendance since classmates knew and cared about each other and asked for each other’s presence. For these reasons, participants also stated that they were more likely to ask questions and comment on content during lectures in smaller classes.

Desires such as to interact, socialise, and raise the value of personal connection to classmates connect to SDT and the basic psychological need for relatedness. The concept of relatedness stipulates that students’ wish to experience personal relations with and concern from classmates through care (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Thus, teachers might facilitate attendance by providing students with opportunities to discuss and interact with each other. Furthermore, teachers are encouraged to frequently introduce student-centred activities such as discussions to provide opportunities for students to learn from and with each other. Research also shows that discussions might improve learning (Balta, Michinov, Balyimez & Ayaz, 2017) and develop abilities central to critical thinking, skills, and dispositions (Abrami et al., 2015). Group discussions in the classroom, as opposed to passively listening to a teacher, is a form of active learning that has shown to be associated with increased academic performance (e.g., Freeman et al., 2014).

Match challenges and skills

The second category that emerged from the data analysis was match challenges and skills. On the one hand, participants described that they perceived the requirements to pass some courses as being too low. For example, some suggested that classmates could pass a course despite not attending lectures or reading the course literature. Others made references to their previous school experiences and argued that the study effort during secondary school and upper secondary school was more time-consuming compared to the university. According to the participants, there were basically two approaches to obtain the knowledge required to pass some courses: either read the course literature or attend lectures. Of these, some participants believed that attending lectures was the most (time) effective strategy, as illustrated by the following quote: “I don’t want to read everything [the course literature], so … I save time by attending lectures instead”. Another participant with a similar view articulated the following: “I think it can be a lot of text to read … and the text is often summarised quite well during lectures […], so either you read the text or attend the lectures”. As suggested by these quotes, students might not consider attendance during lectures to be required to obtain the knowledge necessary to pass some courses since they could choose to read the course literature instead. In turn, these quotes might suggest that the requirements to pass some courses are perceived as being rather low.

On the other hand, some participants acknowledged that students occasionally did not attend formal teaching sessions because they did not comprehend the subject matter being taught. The following quote suggests this: “If you don’t understand anything … then you don’t go there”. One participant elaborated on this by referring to a lecture series covering subject matter that she perceived as too difficult to comprehend: “I didn’t understand anything at all … and I couldn’t bear to sit there and feel stupid all the time”. The fact that students might decide not to attend lectures that deal with overly challenging subject matter ties to the basic psychological need for competence and thus that students want to perceive themselves as competent and experience mastery over a task (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Given that students might choose not to attend formal teaching sessions due to too low or too high requirements, teachers might facilitate attendance by matching the course challenges with students’ skills. To do so, teachers can inform themselves by, for example, discussing the students’ previous knowledge with the course administrator before any teaching session. The teacher can also begin each teaching session by asking students to discuss their prior knowledge of the subject matter.

Engaged, enthusiastic, and caring

The third category that emerged from the data analysis was engaged, enthusiastic, and caring. The participants stated that teachers could facilitate attendance during formal teaching sessions by being engaged and enthusiastically present the subject matter. Teachers who were perceived as being engaged and enthusiastic were more likely to appear credible and inspiring. The participants stated that such enthusiasm could stimulate and elicit not only interest but also commitment among themselves and their classmates.

Furthermore, it was considered important that teachers showed sound interest in the students and their learning. One participant described such a teacher as follows: “He [the teacher] is there and wants us to learn … all the time he says ‘I want you to learn … you have to tell me if you don’t understand’ … then it’s commitment”. According to the participants, it was also important that teachers showed care by, for instance, keeping their promises. The following quote exemplifies how a caring teacher promptly posts study material or similar resources on the university’s electronic learning platform as promised: “It’s also about showing interest as a teacher … like … ‘we will post this’ … blah, blah, blah … and then you notice like 10 minutes later … it’s up … then you sense that they [the teachers] care and show commitment”.

The above statements tie to the fundamental psychological need relatedness and, more specifically, the importance of students perceiving their teachers as caring about them (Reeve, 2006, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Despite teachers’ personal preferences when it comes to subject matters, it is suggested that teachers should make an effort to introduce the subject matter to be taught engagingly and enthusiastically. Furthermore, it is suggested that teachers show students that their learning is the focus during formal teaching sessions. Although this seems reasonable, the interviews suggested that students do not always perceive that to be the case.

Value and rationale

The fourth and final category that emerged from the data analysis was value and rationale. According to the participants, teachers could improve their teaching by clearly outlining the formal teaching session’s value and rationale and making lectures more relevant in relation to the course assignments and the students’ future profession. The interviews suggested that the participants occasionally experienced some inconsistency among teachers who, on the one hand, did not always convey the value and rationale of subject matters being taught but, on the other hand, simultaneously emphasised the importance that students, in their role as future teachers, clearly communicate why something is being taught.

Furthermore, the participants stressed the importance of teachers’ lecturing on subjects with explicit relevance for course assignments. The participants occasionally sensed that lectures were disconnected from the course assignments and that this did not encourage students to attend formal teaching session. In a broader sense, the participants also stated that some critical skills and knowledge were deprioritised in favour of discussing theoretical frameworks and concepts that they perceived diffuse and without clear implications for future physical education teachers. One participant articulated the following: “There is a lot of knowledge that we want but do not receive … and a lot of information that we get [that] we do not know how to use”. Some examples of deprioritised skills and knowledge were strategies to frame amotivated pupils and recommended approaches to manage conflicts between pupils during physical education. In contrast, lectures regarding theories of learning and education were perceived as interesting but too diffuse and challenging to put into practice.

The data was quite rich in statements indicating that participants sensed that some lectures, seminars, and workshops lack clear implications for them as future teachers in (upper) secondary school. In these cases, some participants also believed that time was more efficiently spent on either reading the course literature or working on pending assignments. To facilitate relevance in relation to students’ future profession, the participants suggested that teachers should provide more concrete examples on how they could use the subject matter being taught. For example, it was stated that teachers could provide examples of how subject matter can be translated into different teachings scenarios. Similar to this, a previous study found that establishing relevance was related to creating interest among students, such as giving an application of a theoretical framework (Kember, Ho, & Hong, 2010). Another strategy that the participants frequently mentioned was that of incorporating student-centred activities such as discussions since it would allow students to relate mutually and problematise the subject content in relation to their shared school experiences.

In many ways, the above statements tie to the concept of being an autonomy-supportive teacher. Teachers who are in sync with their students make formal teaching sessions relevant in relation to both the course assignments and the students’ future profession. According to Reeve (2009), teachers who provide students with meaningful rationales and raise awareness of how certain tasks connect to their existing values, needs, and personal striving are those who take the students’ perspective. Thus, teachers should support students’ autonomy by offering a rationale and explaining why certain knowledge and/or tasks are worth the students’ effort or support their understanding of why the uninteresting task is actually a personally useful thing to do (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Moreover, the above statements also suggest that teachers should make an effort to clearly outline the value and rationale for different teaching activities, thus explain why a certain task is personally worthwhile for the students. As suggested by the interviews, teachers could make formal teaching sessions more authentic and relevant in relation to both the course assignments and the students’ future profession.

Together, it is suggested that teachers can become more autonomy-supportive. For example, teachers could make an effort to adopt the students’ perspective by asking themselves questions such as the following, “If I was a student, then how would this theoretical framework make sense to me when I teach physical education among pupils in 7^th to 9^th grade?” Teachers can also provide concrete examples of how subject knowledge can be translated and used in different teachings scenarios. They might also introduce discussions to provide students with the opportunity to discuss and relate subject matters to their future profession mutually.

Methodological strengths and limitations

In the present study, data were produced through focus group interviews. One strength of focus group interviews is that participants are allowed to make their voices heard and express themselves without restrictions. Another strength is that two authors conducted the analysis to ensure that no relevant data were excluded or irrelevant data included. This also made it possible to discuss the codes and categories from different perspectives and interpretations. Furthermore, throughout this paper, we have strived to provide a clear and distinct description of the context, data collection, and analytic procedures to assist the readers in drawing conclusions regarding the transferability of the study findings.

Although focus group interviews allow participants to make their voices heard and express themselves without restrictions, there are also some limitations with this data collection method (Patton, 2015). For example, the fact that the participants had prior established relationships might be an issue. Those participants who perceive their viewpoint to be a minority perspective might also be less prone to address their thoughts on the specific issues. Focus groups interviews might also be susceptible to peer pressure, that a student does not feel allowed to say something when other students participate in the same discussion. Moreover, due to unexpected and late drop-outs, two of the three interviews were conducted with small groups of students (two and three participants). This is a limitation since the produced data might be less nuanced and varied in comparison to larger groups. It should also be mentioned that acceptance to participate in a study such as this might be a proxy marker for appreciating and raising the value of attending formal teaching sessions. Consequently, those who took part in the interviews might also be most motivated to attend. Although this is acknowledged as a limitation, the authors experienced that the participants discussed similar issues in relation to the research question during the three focus groups. In addition, that the participants frequently referred to both their perspective and their views on how past and present classmates have reasoned about why they do or do not attend formal teaching sessions. Nonetheless, the small number of participants and the possible selection bias should be considered when interpreting the findings in the present study.