See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318866397

Relationship between motivation and teachers' teaching style among secondary

school students' in Kulai

Article  in  Man in India · January 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 1,262

2 authors:

Nur Liyana Mohd Idhaufi Zakiah Mohamad Ashari

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Play based pedagogy in pre-school: A meta analysis research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zakiah Mohamad Ashari on 28 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Man In India, 97 (12) : 299-307 © Serials Publications

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION AND

TEACHERS’ TEACHING STYLE AMONG SECONDARY
SCHOOL STUDENTS’ IN KULAI
Nur Liyana Mohd Idhaufi1 and Zakiah Mohamad Ashari2

Teaching and learning is not a new situation. In order to tackle students’ motivation in learning,
teachers’ are required to add new approaches and teaching styles. Therefore, this research was
conducted to determine the relationship between students’ motivation and teachers’ teaching
style at secondary schools in Kulai. This research also aimed to investigate the significant
differences of students’ motivation and teachers’ teaching style based on gender. The Cronbach’s
Alpha value is near with the value yielded in pilot study which is .800. The questionnaires were
distributed to 160 students from two different schools.Findings showed that students were more
favour with Personal Model style which obtained high score mean of 3.33 and score mean for
students’ motivation was 3.59 for intrinsic motivation. Female students seem to be more motivated
to engage in learning because they can compete with peers. Result was revealed that there was a
moderate relationship between students’ motivation and teachers’ teaching style. Few
suggestionswere made such as widen the scope of sample size and number of schools involved in
order to gain more significant and accurate result.
Keywords: Students’ Motivation, Teachers’ Teaching Style, Secondary School Students.

1. INTRODUCTION
Teachers’ action and method in teaching transpire to the children as Bandura (1997)
suggests that “children is fragile and can easily influence by their surroundings.”
Teachers are not only responsible for providing solutions and answering questions
but they are also an authoritative figure in students’ engagement. An excellence
school with good academic achievement should always consider a good motivation
towards learning from students as a school’s success is always related with mediating
factors that correlate motivation and students’ attitude (Varasteanu and Iftime,
2013) hence teachers should always be aware that motivation and encouragement
is a recipe for students’ active learning. Added later by Nir and Hameiri (2014),
teachers teaching style and their quality in teaching can positively impact students’
motivation thus will result in greater academic success.
Teachers can tackle students interest and motivation towards learning using
different teaching styles. This statement supported from study done by Clark and
Trafford (1996) and Dornyei (2001) indicate that students’ motivation in learning
were stimulated by teaching strategies and how teachers impact their learning
session by makes them engage actively throughout the lesson. The implementation
1
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, E-mail: lyanaidhaufi@gmail.com
2
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, E-mail: zakiahma@utm.my
300 MAN IN INDIA

and variety of teaching styles can prevent boredom students feel more motivated
to learn. In addition, when students enjoy and motivate to learn more, they will
have a good attitude in it. Students’ tend to feel that they go to school because they
need to go, not because they need to learn and for their future. Thus, with a mind-
set like that, they took learning for granted. In order to foster good attitude towards
learning is quite challenging. Students with positive attitude will be more motivated
to learn whereas the one with negative attitude will hinders learning (Lawal, 1988).
In education, in order to attract students interest to learning, different approaches
are needed. According to Fan and Ye (2007), teaching style is the teacher’s preferred
way in solving problems, how the teacher carries out tasks given to them, also in
making decisions regarding their way of teaching. When children go to school,
teachers take place as the one who teach and educate them. Teachers seem to be
the most trustable and children building a safe environment context around them
for academic and psychological development (Hamre&Pianta, 2010).
Fostering students’ motivation for learning is different from one to another. It
requires abilities and skills from teachers. As motivation act as stimulator for
students to learn and actively engage in learning, teachers need to do various
methods and styles in their teaching other than same old method (Varasteanu and
Iftime, 2013). According to Dornyei (2001), teachers teaching styles and strategies
in order to make students’ actively engage in learning session is seen as one of the
motivation stimulator for students’. A highly motivated student may produce a
good academic achievement. Study done by Nir and Hameiri (2014) indicated that
students’ motivation is increasingly high when teachers using different teaching
styles yet still maintain their quality and thus, producing a good result in students’
academic setting.
Nowadays, students tend to skip school and breaking the rules especially
truancy because they feel demotivated and not interested in engaging themselves
to learn. According to Covington (2000), motivation and attitude is related to each
other and for students to grab full knowledge about learning, it is needed in order
to have a quality of educational process. Kikas, Silinskas, Jogi and Soodla (2016)
teachers with different teaching styles may have individualized support from
students. The problem with teachers nowadays is that they feel that they only needed
to deliver the lesson without fully knowing the content. Despite of novice or
experienced teachers, they always given subject or topic which they are not have
fully knowledge in it.
Mooi and Munira Mohsin (2014) believed that teachers are the one who should
know about students’ ability and their skills. Teachers tend to pay off attention to
this and assume that all students are the same. Teachers also always delivering
their lesson with same old method and does not have variation in their teaching
styles. Teachers need to remember that students need to learn not only for their
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION AND TEACHERS’... 301

academic setting but all of the education will be helpful in their future life if they
feel motivated and accept learning as meaningful (Hrbackova and Suchankova,
2016). Therefore, this study was conducted to identify students’ favourable teaching
styles. Other than that, this study aims to investigate students’ motivation and
teachers’ teaching style among secondary school students in Kulai based on gender.
This study also aims to determine a relationship between students’ motivation
with teachers’ teaching style among secondary school students in Kulai.
2. METHODOLOGY
This quantitative research used descriptive research approach involved students
from two different schools in Kulai. Pilot study was done to seek reliability of
items in the questionnaire. The Cronbach’s Alpha index from the pilot study
acquired score value of .885 which indicated as high score value. The questionnaire
was distributed to 160 students and the response rate was 100 percent. The
questionnaire distributed consisted of 30 items and divided into three main sections
of Section A, demographic information, Section B, teachers’ teaching style and
Section C consists of students’ motivation. Section B consisted of 25 items which
adapted from Grasha-Reichmann Teaching Style Inventory (1994) and Section C
adapted from National Survey of Student Engagement (2006). Both Section B and
C using Likert-type scale to indicate their agreeableness. Collected data were
analysed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 22.
3.0 FINDINGS
Based on Table 1, research was found that students’ favourable teaching style
based from Grasha’s Model was Personal Model style based on the mean value of
3.33 and standard deviation of 0.365 followed closely by Facilitator style (M =
3.32, SD = 0.406), Expert Style (M = 3.18, SD = 0.311), Delegator Style (M =
3.11, SD = 0.446) and Formal Authority Style (M = 3.10, SD = 0.340) respectively.
TABLE 1: FAVOURABLE TEACHERS’ TEACHING STYLE
Construct Mean Standard Deviation
Expert Style 3.18 0.311
Formal Authority Style 3.10 0.340
Personal Model Style 3.33 0.365
Facilitator Style 3.32 0.406
Delegator Style 3.11 0.446

Students’ motivation among secondary school students’ in Kulai also yielded

high mean score for Intrinsic Regulation of 3.59 and standard deviation of 0.608
followed by External Regulation (M = 3.49, SD = 0.583), Introjected Regulation
(M = 3.38, SD = 0.734) and Identified Regulation (M = 3.26, SD = 0.781)
respectively. Mean and standard deviation value shown in Table 2.
302 MAN IN INDIA

TABLE 2: STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION

Construct Mean Standard Deviation
External Regulation 3.49 0.583
Introjected Regulation 3.38 0.734
Identified Regulation 3.26 0.781
Intrinsic Regulation 3.59 0.608

Findings from this research aims to determine whether there is a significance

difference between students’ motivation with teachers’ teaching style based on
gender among secondary school students in Kulai. The findings showed that p
value was 0.244 > 0.05. Thus, null hypothesis is accepted which indicated that
there is no significant difference for both gender. Based from the respondents,
mean and standard deviation for male (M = 3.32, SD = 0.410) and female (M =
3.41, SD = 0.386) respectively. Findings shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3: INDEPENDENT SAMPLE T-TEST ON DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MOTIVATION
AND TEACHERS’ TEACHING STYLE AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ IN
KULAI
Variables n Mean Standard Deviation df T Significant Value
Male 59 3.32 0.410 158 –1.296 0.244
Female 101 3.41 0.386
* Independent sample t-test significant value, a = < 0.05.

Findings on favourable teaching styles based on gender among secondary

school students in Kulai shown in Table 4. P-value from this research indicated
that p = 0.991 thus concluded that null hypothesis is accepted. This value shown
that there is no significant difference among gender regarding favourable teaching
styles. Based on gender, mean and standard deviation value of male (M = 3.20, SD
= 0.238) and female (3.21, SD = 0.238).
TABLE 4: INDEPENDENT SAMPLE T-TEST ON FAVOURABLE TEACHING STYLES
AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN KULAI
Variables n Mean Standard Deviation df T Significant Value
Male 59 3.20 0.238 158 –0.315 0.991
Female 101 3.21 0.238
*Independent sample t-test significant value, a = < 0.05.

For answering research questions made for this current research, hypothesis
was built to determine correlation between two variables which are students’
motivation and teachers’ teaching styles. Pearson Correlation was used to test the
hypothesis. Table 5 shown the relationship between motivation and teachers’
teaching style among secondary school students in Kulai. The correlation analysis
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION AND TEACHERS’... 303

computed and revealed a moderate relationship between variables (r = 0.449, p =

0.000 < 0.05) and concluded that there is a relationship between students’ motivation
and teachers’ teaching style. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected.
TABLE 5: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION WITH TEACHERS’
TEACHING STYLE
Students’ Motivation Teachers’ Teaching Style
Students’ Pearson Correlation 1 .449
Motivation Sig. (2-tailed) .000
n 160 160
Teachers’ Pearson Correlation .449 1
Teaching Style Sig. (2-tailed) .000
n 160 160
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4. DISCUSSION
Based on findings, it showed that the most favourable teaching styles was Personal
Model style which yielded high mean value even though the value among each
and every styles is not shown much differences. Kaplan and Kies (1995) in their
research stated that teaching style is one of the concept that consists the personal
behaviour of a teacher and also how the teacher used the technology to transmit
data which is knowledge to the receiver (students) or receive it from the students.
These research findings aligned with study done by Ghanizadeh, Jahenizadehand
Boylan (2016) and found that Personal Model style was one of the most favourable
and widely used among the five styles (M = 4.171). Other than that, study done by
Sukor Shaari, et. al. (2014) found that most of the students are more likely to
engage to learning when teachers using Personal Model style when delivering
their teaching.
Findings from mean value which computed to seek students’ motivation
towards learning also yielded high value and this was aligned with study by Zhang,
Huang and Zhang (2005) identified university students teaching styles in mainland
China, Hong Kong and also the USA. The result indicated that all university students
from both three cultures preferred teaching styles that involved creativity and allow
students’ autonomy. Ryan (1982) also found that school teachers who given
autonomy and supportive strategy to the students make the students have more
curiosity, interested in learning, more independent and motivated to learn more.
This collected data shown that students’ will gain more motivation to learn when
they are encouraged to learn and have a little empowerment in engaging to their
lesson.
304 MAN IN INDIA

For gender differences findings, female students seen to have high value
regarding motivation and teachers’ teaching style. This result was aligned with
study done by Pink (2011) which found that female students’ feel more intrinsically
motivated and engage some competitiveness when they have autonomy in doing
their lesson. Besides that, findings on favourable teaching styles also yielded female
students as the one who enjoys different teaching styles and shown just a little
high mean value compared to male students even though the differences are too
small. Thus, researcher can have concluded that there is a little to none difference
between male and female students regarding favourable teaching styles. This
statement was supported fromstudy conducted by Zhang (2008) stated that teachers’
that used different style and method of teaching seem to understand more their
students’ preferences and resulted in more understanding the students lesson in
learning. Struyven, Dochy and Janssens (2010) found that students’ motivation
towards learning increasingly changed when teachers using different teaching styles
other than the traditional and usual teaching styles.
The result shows that there was a significant relation between students’
motivation with teachers’ teaching style. The analysis was computed using Pearson
Correlation and yielded significant relationship between two variables. This result
was not aligned with the current research as the current research proposed that
there is no significant relationship between students’ motivation with teachers’
teaching style. Even though the findings were not aligned with the current research,
the result was aligned with study done by Black and Deci (2000) in a large scale of
college students found significant result of they feel enjoyed and have good interest
in competing when they gave autonomy in the class. In addition, study done later
by O’Brien (2012) found that different teaching styles will result in different
outcomes from the students thus students will feel more motivated when teachers
have different variation in teaching. Opdenakker, Maulana and den Brok (2012)
also believes that teachers teaching styles such as cooperativeness is one of the
strong interpreter in fostering students’ motivation. Thus, it shows that the
relationship between students’ motivation and teachers’ teaching style is proven.
5. CONCLUSION
Overall, the research findings were successfully shown the relationship between
students’ motivation with teachers’ teaching style and yielded moderate relationship.
Gender plays an important role in influencing students’ motivation towards learning
and found that female students feel more motivated and enjoy to learn when they
were competing with peers and other gender. Therefore, there is only a little to
none difference between favourable teaching styles among male and female
students. It shows that both gender almost feel the same about how teachers
delivered their lesson. Students’ also more favour of teaching styles that include
two-way communication and likely to engage to learning when teachers give them
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION AND TEACHERS’... 305

autonomy to do some task. Nevertheless, this research only involved students in

secondary schools and in a limited number of schools. Thus, future researchers are
suggested to do the research in a large scale of respondents, involve more schools
and widen the scope of place. This research also can act as a guideline to teachers
to improve their teaching in order to capture students’ interest and motivation to
learn more in the future.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and the Ministry of
Education MOE) for their endless support of this project. Also, biggest appreciation and thank
you for Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional (PTPTN) for the funding during this
project and made it happened.

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory . Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Black, A., and Deci, E. (2000). ‘The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’
autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory
perspective’, Science Education, 84: 740–756.
Clark, A., and J. Trafford. (1996). ‘Return to gender: Boys’ and girls’ attitudes and achievements’,
Language Learning Journal 14: 409.
Cooper, T. C. (2001). ‘Foreign language teaching style and personality’,Foreign Language Annals,
34: 301–317.
Covington, M. (2000). Self-esteem and failure in school: Analysis and policy implications
.Berkeley : University of California Press.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation.Essex : Longman.
Fan, W., and Ye, S. (2007). ‘Teaching Styles among Shanghai Teachers in Primary and Secondary
Schools’, Educational Psychology, 27(2): 255–272.
Ghanizadeh, A., Jahedizadeh, S., and Boylan, M. (2016). ‘EFL teachers’ teaching style, creativity,
and burnout: A path analysis approach’, Cogent Education, 3(1): 1151-997.
Grasha, A. F. and Reichmann-Hruska, S. (1994). Teaching Style Survey.Cincinnati: University
of Cincinnati.
Grasha, A. F. (1994). ‘A matter of style. The teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model,
facilitator, and delegator’,College Teaching, 42: 142-149.
Haladyna, T., Olsen, R. and Shaughnessy, J. (1982). ‘Relations of student, teacher and learning
environment variables to attitudes toward science’,Science Education,66: 671–87.
Hamre, B., and Pianta, R. (2010). ‘Classroom environments and developmental processes:
Conceptualization and measurement’, in J. Meece, and J. Eccles (eds.), Handbook of Research
on Schools, Schooling, and Human Development, pp. 25–41. New York and London:
Routledge.
Hrbackova, K., and Suchankova, E. (2016). ‘Self-Determination Approach to Understanding of
Motivation in Students of Helping Professions’,Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
217: 688–696.
306 MAN IN INDIA

Kaplan, J., and Kies, A. (1995). ‘Teaching styles and learning styles: Which came first?’,Journal
of Instructional Psychology, 22: 29–34.
Kikas, E., Silinskas, G., Jõgi, A.-L., and Soodla, P. (2016). ‘Efffects of Teachers’ Individualized
Support on Children’s Reading Skills and Interest in Classroom with Different Teaching
Styles’,Manuscript Submitted for Publication.
Lawal, R. A. (1988). Relationship between attitudes to and achievement of goals in the learning
of a second Nigerian language.Nigeria: University of Ibadan Press.
Lizzio, A., Dempster, N., and Neumann, R. (2011). ‘Pathways to formal and informal student
leadership: the influence of peer and teacher–student relationships and level of school
identification on students’ motivations’,International Journal of Leadership in Education,
14(2): 85–102.
Mooi, L. M., and Mohsin, M. (2014). ‘How do Pre-service Teachers Develop Understanding of
Student Learning through Action Research Project’,Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 114: 877–882.
National survey of student engagement. (2006). The college student report.Bloomington : Indiana
University Centre for Postsecondary Research and Planning.
Nir, A., and Hameiri, L. (2014). ‘School Principals’ Leadership Style and School outcomes: The
Mediating Effect of Powerbase Utilization’,Journal of Education Administration, 52(2):
2010–2227.
O’Brien, J. (2012). ‘The Potential of Continuing Professional Development: Evaluation and
Impact’, In School Effectiveness and Improvement Research, Policy and Practice, 149-162.
London: Routledge.
Opdenakker, M.-C., Maulana, R., and Brok, P. den. (2012). ‘Teacher–student interpersonal
relationships and academic motivation within one school year: developmental changes and
linkage’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(1): 95–119.
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Riverhead
Trade.
Pintrich, P.R. (2003). ‘A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 95: 667–686.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). ‘Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory’,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 450–461.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being’,The American Psychologist, 55(1): 68-78.
Shaari, A. S., Yusoff, N. M., Ghazali, I. M., Osman, R. H., Fatirah, N., and Dzahir, M. (2014).
‘The relationship between lecturers’ teaching style and students’ academic engagement’,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118: 10–20.
Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., &Janssens, S. (2010). ‘’Teach as you preach’: the effects of student-
centred versus lecture-based teaching on student teachers’ approaches to learning’, European
Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1): 43-64.
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION AND TEACHERS’... 307

Vãrãºteanu, C.-M., and Iftime, A. (2013). ‘The Role of the Self-esteem, Emotional Intelligence,
Performance Triad in Obtaining School Satisfaction’,Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 93: 1830–1834.
Zhang, L. F., Huang, J. F., and Zhang, L. L. (2005). ‘Preferences in teaching styles among Hong
Kong and U.S. university students’, Personality and Individual Differences, 39: 1319-1331.
Zhang, L. F. (2008). ‘Preferences for teaching styles matter in academic achievement: Scientific
and practical implications’, Educational Psychology, 28(6): 615–625.

View publication stats