Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

Basic psychological needs of in-service EFL

teachers in blended professional training: voices
of teachers and learners

Yudhi Arifani, Ruruh Mindari, Nur Hidayat & Awang Setiawan Wicaksono

To cite this article: Yudhi Arifani, Ruruh Mindari, Nur Hidayat & Awang Setiawan Wicaksono
(2021): Basic psychological needs of in-service EFL teachers in blended professional
training: voices of teachers and learners, Interactive Learning Environments, DOI:
10.1080/10494820.2021.1943691

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1943691

Published online: 21 Jun 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 144

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1943691

Basic psychological needs of in-service EFL teachers in blended

professional training: voices of teachers and learners
a b c d
Yudhi Arifani , Ruruh Mindari , Nur Hidayat and Awang Setiawan Wicaksono
a
English Education Department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia; bEnglish Education Department,
Widya Mandala Surabaya Catholic University, Indonesia; cEnglish Education Department, STKIP Bina Insan Mandiri
Surabaya, Indonesia; dPsychology Education Department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Basic Psychological Needs (BPN) in blended learning has become a crucial Received 30 November 2020
precursor in promoting the harmony of competence, relatedness and Accepted 10 June 2021
autonomy for both traditional and online learning approaches. This
KEYWORDS
mixed study aims to investigate in-service teachers’ and learners’ Basic psychological needs;
perspectives of BPN fulfillment and its issues under the context of relatedness; competence;
blended professional training. A total of 60 in-service teachers and 120 autonomy; in-service
secondary school students from 24 provinces in Indonesia participated teachers; blended
in the study. Construct validity of the questionnaire was established professional training
using exploratory factor analysis. Findings using the non-parametric
Mann–Whitney U test showed no significant differences between in-
service teachers’ and learners’ perspectives of the in-service teachers’
BPN. Learners believed that the in-service teachers’ fulfillment of
relatedness and competence was low in connecting to other people
using IT, online care, online teachers’ adornment, and learning new
skills. The interview with both groups of participants depicted that in
some points, the learners perceived that their in-service teachers BPN of
relatedness made them unsatisfied with low online care, empathy, and
massive online tasks. Suggestion to harmonize these issues and their
pedagogical implications for the second language (L2) curriculum and
teacher training program in Indonesia and similar contexts were
discussed.

Introduction
The advancement of technology has influenced and changed many aspects of life, including edu-
cation (Cropley, 2020; Stojanović et al., 2020; Szymkowiak et al., 2021). In this era of changes,
whether like it or not, teachers and learners have to adjust themselves with new ways of teaching
and to learn in order to reach the learning objectives effectively, efficiently, and attractively
(Arifani, 2019; Hofer et al., 2021; Kessler, 2018). If several years ago, face-to-face teaching and learning
was the only possibility to carry out instructions, e-learning has been widely applied today. With e-
learning, learners can autonomously learn anything they need breaking the physical barrier as well
as time restrictions (Hsu et al., 2019; Scherer et al., 2021). The new way of learning enables learners to
learn independently; meanwhile, the teacher’s role shifts more to be a facilitator (Martin et al., 2020;
Motteram, 2006; Xu et al., 2020).
The transfer seems wonderful; however, it is not without challenges. There are some domains on
the learners as well as the teachers’ side that need certain management to make both sides ready

CONTACT Yudhi Arifani yudhi_arif@umg.ac.id English Education Department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik,
Indonesia
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y. ARIFANI ET AL.

socially, technically, and mentally to do their internet-based activities successfully (Hsu et al., 2019;
Hurlbut, 2018; Kocoglu et al., 2011; Wasserman & Migdal, 2019). To bridge the gap between face-to-
face classroom learning activities and e-learning, blended learning seems to be a wise transitional
phase as it combines both the conventional and modern ways of teaching and learning (Arifani
et al., 2019; Kocoglu et al., 2011).
As each instructional technique has its own advantages and disadvantages, the mixed instruc-
tional technique keeps the strengths of both old and new ways of teaching and learning—the inter-
action between teacher and learners as well as the learning effectiveness and flexibilities. However,
to have the maximum practice of blended learning, there are basic psychological needs on both the
learners and teachers to meet (Wong, 2019).
As Wong (2019) argues, blended learning is highly related to basic psychological needs (BPN).
Research also supports that there is a strong connection between the two. This implies the need
of thorough research on BPN to make blended learning work optimally. The author has made a
good instrument; however, the issue was viewed from one side only, that is from the teachers’ per-
spective. This is not quite fair as the result of a learning process does not rely on the teachers’ efforts
only (Dashtestani & Hojatpanah, 2020; Lin & Reinders, 2019). The learners’ voice must also be con-
sidered. In other words, information about the learners’ psychological needs should be elicited. In
that way, harmony in blended learning can be promoted.

Literature review
Blended learning
Uniting the benefits of traditional and e-learning instructions have led to the popularity of blended
learning in the educational context including in second language (L2) teaching, learning, and pro-
fessional development field (Arifani et al., 2019; Buela & Joseph, 2015; Crawford & Jenkins, 2018;
Gillian & Lew, 2018; Kocoglu et al., 2011), with the primary objective aims at maintaining the flexi-
bility and harmony between the traditional and e-learning approaches (Fernandes et al., 2016;
Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). Even, in the field of EFL teacher professional training, the implemen-
tation of blended professional training has been recognized its positive contributions in enhancing
EFL teachers’ creativity, teaching effectiveness, attitudes, personality, skills and knowledge.
However, most of the aforementioned previous researchers underestimated the crucial roles of tea-
chers’ and learners’ basic psychological needs as an essential precursor of successful implemen-
tation of blended learning and pre-requisite of maintaining the harmony of traditional and e-
learning instructions (Kocoglu et al., 2011; Wong, 2019).
Arifani et al. (2019), for example, scrutinize the effects of blended EFL teacher professional training
on secondary teacher creativity and effectiveness as a critic toward the lacuna of their previous
research of creativity and effectiveness without involving their professional development as one
of the precursors of successful teaching outcomes. The results revealed that the implementation
of one-year blended professional training positively correlates to their teaching creativity and effec-
tiveness. Similarly, two different studies emphasizing on the effectiveness of blended, attitudes, skills
and knowledge under the teacher professional training context also echoed positive results (Buela &
Joseph, 2015; Crawford & Jenkins, 2018).
Next, a seminal work by Wong (2019) investigating 150 learners’ basic psychological needs for
relatedness, competence and autonomy in three different secondary schools in Hong Kong finds
out that the three dimensions of basic psychological needs using an adapted scale of basic psycho-
logical needs proposed by Deci and Ryan (2000) are positively related to the implementation of
blended learning in terms of relatedness and competence but autonomy. The positive results indi-
cate that learners’ basic psychological needs for relatedness and competence have been positively
fulfilled, but their autonomy has not. This study is significantly fruitful towards the development of
the needs of basic psychology for the lens of learners’ perspectives. Although, the attainment of
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 3

knowledge contribution has been acknowledged, by looking at the analysis from learners’ perspec-
tives only might be methodologically biased as the teachers as one of the determinant factors in
implementing blended learning instruction are not involved in the study. Further, if both teachers’
and learners’ basic psychological needs are not examined under one single study, it may cause
theoretical gaps on how those three dimensions are fulfilled and its challenges in optimizing the
harmony of blended learning instructional practices.

Learners’ and teachers’ basic psychological needs

From the review of previous studies allow us to make more observations about basic psychological
needs and also identify areas for further research. Indeed, BPN, with its merits and demerits, has been
widely studied in various fields, including education. However, so far, the observations conducted
have mainly been focusing on the previous research—the basic psychological needs in the field
of broader educational context: leadership (Hetland et al., 2011; Perreault et al., 2016), sport
(Alcaraz et al., 2015; Garn & Shen, 2015; van Aart et al., 2017; Vlachopoulos & Michailidou, 2006),
medical (Babenko & Oswald, 2019) and social (Kassis et al., 2019; Klaeijsen et al., 2018; Mahmoudi
et al., 2018) which commonly adopt the basic psychological needs scale in workplaces by Deci
and Ryan (2000) which are irrelevant to the specific L2 educational context. Only one study under
the work of (Wong, 2019) that scrutinizes basic psychological needs in education within the ELT
context.
One of the themes we can draw from previous studies is that basic psychological needs for lear-
ners and teachers are considered crucial precursors to a successful implementation of blended learn-
ing programs. An understanding of basic psychological needs for learners and teachers not only
provides guidance for classroom practice and teacher training (Wong, 2019) but also enhances lear-
ners and teachers competency, motivation, and pedagogical knowledge (Evelein et al., 2008; Ver-
meulen et al., 2012).
This research, therefore, aimed at addressing the above concerns. First, we believe that the con-
ceptualization of psychological needs for blended learning should center on the constructs of
learner and teacher perspectives to allow us to determine whether such psychological needs is
evident.
By synthesizing the previous work as shown in the previous part, we conclude that learners’ and
teachers’ psychological needs for blended learning involve a complex constellation of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Wong, 2019). The researcher believes that these three dimensions
are good predictors of learner and teacher psychological needs.
In this study, learners’ and teachers’ psychological needs for blended learning are perceived as
learner and teacher psychological development in an effective blended learning context which
involves intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The terms psychological needs are derived from the
self-determination theory (STD). It explains how motivation influence learners and teachers psycho-
logical development (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In this regard, intrinsic motivation is considered vital
elements in applying blended learning (Delialioglu & Yildirim, 2007). Autonomy refers to learners’
capacity to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning objectives within the blended learning atmos-
phere. Meanwhile, competence is closely related to the theory of self-efficacy (Bandura et al., 1999)
which refers to learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of their own competence and capabilities to
perform blended learning tasks at a designated level. The concepts of relatedness refer to learners’
and teachers’ desire and need to connect, collaborate, care and support from each other in the
teaching and learning process.
Second, a triangulated approach was applied in this study to collect data in order to give a more
comprehensive understanding of psychological needs from mixed perspectives. Both learners’ and
teachers’ psychological needs in implementing blended learning were examined to minimize the
shortcomings of applying a single-research method. Both students and teachers’ perceptions
were compared in terms of autonomy, competence, and relatedness as they help to identify areas
4 Y. ARIFANI ET AL.

of facilitation and constraint as regards pedagogy for blended learning in a school context (Wong,
2019). Constraints to the development of learner and teacher psychological needs were explored to
better understand what might be the causes of the low level of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness.
This research specifically addresses the following questions:

1. What are EFL teachers’ and students’ perspectives on in-service teachers’ basic psychological
needs for relatedness in blended professional training? Is there a significant difference
between teachers’ and students’ perspectives?
2. What are EFL teachers’ and students’ perspectives on in-service teachers’ basic psychological
needs for competence in blended professional training? Is there a significant difference
between teachers’ and students’ perspectives?
3. What are EFL teachers’ and students’ perspectives on in-service teachers’ basic psychological
needs for autonomy in blended professional training? Is there a significant difference between
teachers’ and students’ perspectives?

Method
Design
The aims of this study were to examine how EFL teachers and learners perceived the in-service tea-
chers’ basic psychological needs and to find whether there were any discrepancies of perspectives
between EFL teachers’ and learners’ basic psychological needs for relatedness, competence and
autonomy within a blended learning context. To address these three questions, mixed methods
were employed to measure perception differences and explain the fulfilment of participants’
basic psychological needs using Wong’s (2019) basic psychological needs scale for blended learning
context. To examine whether the nature of participants’ basic psychological needs, focus group
interviews were also conducted.

Participants and context

The participants of the study were 60 EFL senior high school teachers (27 male and 33 female) from
24 province in Indonesia who have accomplished attending a prestigious one-year in-service
blended teacher professional development training program under the Ministry of Education and
120 learners (49 male and 71 female) from different senior high schools in Indonesian context
The limited number of the participants is due to the tight governmental qualifications for teachers
to join the in-service training. The academic qualifications cover academic potential test, pedagogic,
major, talents and interest tests. The passing grade is decided by the Ministry of Research, Technol-
ogy and Higher Education. Besides, the teachers also have to meet the administrative qualifications
that consist of the following points: (1) Registered as a teacher at the database of the Ministry of Edu-
cation and Culture; (2) Passing the pretest; (3) Completing Strata 1 (undergraduate) or Diploma IV
from an accredited college; (4) Qualified with the same major as the in-service training to join; (5)
As an active teacher at least in the last 5 years; (6) Maximally 58 years old; (7) Physically and mentally
healthy; (8) Clean from narcotics, psychotropics and other addictive substances; and (9) Having a
good attitude. The in-service training itself is completed with a Knowledge Examination and Per-
formance Examination. Only if they have passed all, they will be certified and get an amount of
fund from the government aside of their salary.
The project under this study was hosted by only two English Language Education Department
(ELED) nominated by the Directorate of Higher Education by their excellent accreditation nomina-
tion and part of authors’ previous project (Arifani et al., 2019). This professional English teacher train-
ing program was designed for two different phases. In the first phase, EFL teachers attended a one-
semester long-distance learning program via e-learning mode. During the long-distance course,
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 5

online teaching practices, discussions, and tests were conducted to enhance teachers’ content and
pedagogical knowledge. In the second phase, they also held the same one-semester activities of dis-
cussion, peer-teaching, classroom teaching practices in their own schools supervised by the L2
senior university lecturers, and performance tests via traditional classroom mode. At the end of
the in-service training activities, a basic psychological needs scale for blended learning program
(BPN) (Wong, 2019) was administered to both 60 selected EFL teachers and 120 learners from
different senior high schools. All participants were assigned to complete the BPN questionnaires
and semi-structured interviews to ascertain whether their basic psychological needs had been
fulfilled after attending the one-year blended professional training program.

Instrument
Development of questionnaires
As this study aimed at measuring EFL teachers’ and learners’ basic psychological needs for relatedness,
competence and autonomy within a blended learning context, a basic psychological needs scale devel-
oped by Wong (2019) was implemented to draw the participants’ perceptions. A 20-multiple option
format with a five-interval from “low” to “high” has been presented as well. The means range 1-2.5
is interpreted into a low of BNPS fulfilment, 2.6-3.5 (average level), 3.6-5: high level of fulfilment (Dash-
testani & Hojatpanah, 2020). It contains three multidimensional elements of relatedness (8 items), com-
petence (6 items), and autonomy (6 items) under the blended learning context. Specifically, relatedness
refers to the teachers’ and learners’ desire to communicate and connect with others during the
implementation of blended learning. Competence is highly related to the teachers’ and learners’ abil-
ities or skills to perform instructional tasks within the blended learning context. Finally, autonomy
belongs to teachers’ and learners’ needs for their self-regulation through internalization of their exter-
nal values of blended learning culture and school regulations (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Modifications and
amendments of the questionnaires were made on its content and construct. A panel of three
experts of blended learning who were university Ph. D lecturers was invited to match the appropriate-
ness of the questionnaire items. The modified questionnaires were then piloted to different groups of
participants of in-service teachers and students to measure its validity and reliability. The Cronbach’s
alpha values reported the relatedness (.094), competence (0.92), and autonomy (0.92).
Approvals from the host universities, schools’ principals, EFL teachers, the in-service teachers and
students were obtained to enter the blended training program classrooms to collect the research
data. The involvements of the research participants were selected based on a voluntary basis. Par-
ticipants’ confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed.

Interview
A semi structured-interview was used in this research. The purpose of it was to triangulate the qualitative
data in order to support the quantitative questionnaire data. To reach the purpose of the semi struc-
tured-interview, the questions were constructed based on the aims of the research. Three sets of BPN
questions of relatedness, competence, and autonomy were developed for the in-service teachers and
the students. An evaluation checklist for the semi structured-interview was given to three experts of
blended learning. Their opinions, notes, comments, and suggestions were used to determine the
content validity and questions suitability of the semi-structured interview. The interview questions
for both groups of participants of teachers and students focused on the in-service teachers’ basic
psychological needs perspectives of online and classroom contexts. The interview questions were
then piloted to different groups of participants of the in-service teachers and learners from different
host universities who enrolled the same blended professional training program. The in-service teachers’
interview questions emphasize on their qualitative perspective of BPN fulfillments level in terms of relat-
edness, competence, and autonomy in their blended teaching practices. The students’ interview
6 Y. ARIFANI ET AL.

questions focus on some issues of their in-service teachers BPN fulfillments of promoting their related-
ness, competence, and autonomy in the online and classroom learning activities. This semi-structured
interview was also administered to both EFL teachers and learners at the end of the blended training
program during the classroom teaching practices in their schools to draw their qualitative perspectives.

Data analysis
The initial phase of the inquiry began when the researchers went to two host universities which
enrolled a one-year blended teacher training program for the EFL teachers funded by the Indonesian
Ministry of Education. Site visits and meetings to socialize and conduct this survey with secondary
English teachers from the two host universities were conducted at the end of the blended training
program. Two different types of questionnaires (BPN) and open-ended ones had to be completed by
the EFL teachers and learners after they had finished their teaching practices at their schools. In this
case, the questionnaires were administered in a paper-pencil based format administered by the host
lecturers who had been assigned to supervise and assess the classroom teaching practices at the end
of the blended training.
In order to analyze the quantitative data, the researcher utilized Statistical Package for the Social
Science (SPSS) version 24. The differences between the teachers’ and students’ perspectives in the
questionnaires were calculated using the non-parametric calculation (Mann–Whitney U test). The
result of the questionnaires was presented in the form of the standard deviation, the sig. 2-tailed
and means for each item. The qualitative data, including a sample of 20 teachers’ and 36 learners’
interviews were analyzed by transcribing the result of the interview and continued by reducing the
data, displaying them and drawing a conclusion. Before conducting the interview, a scheme of code
was designed to improve the consistency level of coding.

Results
EFL in-service teachers’ and students’ perspectives on their in-service EFL teachers’ BPN
for relatedness, competence and autonomy within a professional training context.
Table 1 indicates the results of perspectives on in-service EFL teachers’ level of basic psychological
needs of relatedness in a blended professional training in terms of the mean, standard deviation, and
differences of perceptions between teachers and learners. The mean ranges from 1–2.5, that refers to
a low fulfilment, 2.6–3.5 an average fulfilment, and 3.6–5, referring to a high fulfilment.

Table 1. Participants’ demographic information.

Teachers’ Characteristics N(60)
Gender
Male 45%
Female 55%
Age
30–40 years 62%
40–50 years 38%
Teaching experience
5–7 33,3%
8–10 33,3%
>10 33,3%
Students’ Characteristics N(120)
Gender
Male 41%
Female 59%
Age
16–17 years 63%
18–19 years 38%
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 7

Unlike traditional classroom teaching that gave much keep to their students in which the students
and teachers perceived the highest fulfilment of relatedness (4.70 and 4.57), in blended learning the
students perceived to have an average fulfilment in another relatedness category of students
get along with people at school (2.62) but the teachers believed it as high fulfilment (3.78).
In the online teaching, the students and teachers reported similar opinions of students like to col-
laborate using IT as high fulfilment of relatedness category (4.31 and 4.35). Conversely, the categories
of the teachers pretty much keep to their students (3.42), and the students really like their teachers (3.96)
were believed to be the high fulfilments according to the teachers, but they were perceived to be
low fulfilments by their students (2.35 and 2.12).
The results of the Mann–Whitney U test in Table 2 also reveals no significant differences regarding
the fulfilment of relatedness between teachers and learners on the in-service teachers’ relatedness.
In contrast, under the traditional mode, the teacher makes their students get along with people at
school and the online mode the teachers pretty much keep to their students and the students really
like their teachers were perceived differently by both groups of participants.
Table 3 illustrates the results of perspectives on in-service EFL teachers’ level of basic psychologi-
cal needs of competence in a blended professional training in terms of the mean, standard deviation,
and differences of perceptions between teachers and learners. The mean ranges from 1–2.5, that
refers to a low fulfilment, 2.6–3.5 referring to an average fulfilment, and 3.6–5, a high fulfilment.
The teachers and students have mostly perceived teachers tell their students are good at their
online works (4.67 and 4.80), and they have been able to learn interesting new skills (4.96 and 4.75)
as the highest fulfilment under the category of competence in both traditional and online teaching
modes. However, under the traditional mode, the category of the students has been able to learn
interesting new skills was perceived differently by both participants. The teachers believed them-
selves had high fulfilment (4.10), but the students had low fulfilments (2.52).
The results of the Mann–Whitney U test in Table 3 shows no significant differences between the
perspectives of the teachers and students regarding blended psychological fulfilment of compe-
tence in terms of students’ capability in doing the task and work report since the alpha values
were above 0.05. In contrast, under the category on competence on both traditional and online
teaching, teachers’ ability in promoting students’ interesting new skills were significantly different
because the obtained significant value of 0.000 was below than the alpha value of 0.05.
Table 4 illustrates the results of perspectives on in-service EFL teachers’ level of basic psychologi-
cal needs of autonomy in a blended professional training in terms of the mean, standard deviation,

Table 2. EFL in-service teachers’ and students’ perspectives on their in-service EFL teachers’ BPN for relatedness in blended
learning.
Mann Whitney
Category Participants N M SD U test p
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching using information Teachers 60 3.62 1.52 2611.0 0.324
technology (IT), they make their students get along with people Students 120 3.42 1.38
at school using IT.
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching in the classroom, Teachers 60 3.78 0.89 2882.5 0.001
they make their students get along with people at school Students 120 2.62 1.52
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching using IT, they pretty Teachers 60 3.42 1.38 1590.0 0.002
much keep to their students. Students 120 2.35 1.32
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching in the classroom, Teachers 60 4.57 0.86 3454.0 0.643
they pretty much keep to their students. Students 120 4.70 0.91
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching using IT, they Teachers 60 4.21 1.39 2198.0 0.375
consider their students like to collaborate using IT. Students 120 4.35 1.65
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching in the classroom, Teachers 60 4.35 1.39 2198.0 0.570
they consider their students like to collaborate Students 120 4.45 1.27
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching using IT, the Teachers 60 3.96 0.81 3311.0 0.000
students really like their teachers. Students 120 2.12 0.78
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching in the classroom, the Teachers 60 3.42 1.38 3565.0 0.216
students really like their teachers. Students 120 3.52 0.95
8 Y. ARIFANI ET AL.

Table 3. EFL in-service teachers’ and students’ perspectives on their in-service EFL teachers’ BPN for competence in blended
learning.
Mann Whitney
Category Participants N M SD U test p
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching using IT, the Teachers 60 3.96 0.81 3192.0 0.194
students do not feel very capable when they are assigned a task Students 120 3.78 0.89
using IT.
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching in the classroom, the Teachers 60 3.26 0.86 2299.0 0.621
students often do not feel very capable when they are assigned a Students 120 3.42 1.38
task.
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching using IT, teachers Teachers 60 4.67 0.91 2007.5 0.216
tell their students are good at their online works. Students 120 4.80 0.82
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching in the classroom, Teachers 60 3.78 0.89 2882.5 0.312
teachers at school tell their students are good at their works Students 120 3.67 1.42
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching using IT, the Teachers 60 4.96 0.81 3418.5 0.570
students have been able to learn interesting new English skills. Students 120 4.75 0.78
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching in the classroom, the Teachers 60 4.10 1.38 2007.5 0.000
students have been able to learn interesting new English skills. Students 120 2.52 1.72

and differences of perceptions between teachers and learners. The mean range 1–2.5 refers to a low
fulfilment, 2.6–3.5 an average fulfilment, and 3.6–5 a high fulfilment.
The high fulfilments of autonomy basic psychological needs under the traditional teaching mode
were echoed by the teachers and learners in terms of the students feel like they can have a lot of input
as to deciding how their tasks get done (4.67 and 4.48). Meanwhile, other high fulfilments of autonomy
perceived by teachers and learners under the online teaching mode were reflected in the category of
the students are free to express their ideas and opinions (4.96 and 4.82), and the students feel like they
can have a lot of input as to deciding how their tasks get done (4.56 and 4.70). In contrast, under the
category of many opportunities for their students to decide for themselves how to go about their school
works, teachers and learners had different perceptions. The learners perceived it as high fulfilment
(4.21), but the teachers perceived it as an average fulfilment.
The results of the Mann–Whitney U test in Table 4 shows there was a significant difference
between the perspectives of the teachers and students regarding blended psychological fulfilment
of autonomy in terms of many opportunities for their students to decide for themselves how to go about
their school works since the obtained alpha value of 0.000 was below 0.05. Moreover, the results also
showed that there were no significant different differences among the other five categories since all
the obtained values were below 0.05.

Table 4. EFL in-service teachers’ and students’ perspectives on their in-service EFL teachers’ BPN for autonomy in blended
learning.
Mann Whitney
Category Participants M M SD U test p
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching using IT, the Teachers 60 4.56 0.75 2439.0 0.570
students feel like they can have a lot of input as to deciding Students 120 4.70 0.91
how their tasks get done.
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching in the classroom, Teachers 60 4.67 0.91 2438.0 0.216
the students feel like they can have a lot of input as to deciding Students 120 4.48 0.56
how their tasks get done.
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching using IT, there is Teachers 60 1.22 2382.5 0.000
much opportunity for their students to decide for themselves Students 120 4.21 1.39
how to go about their school works. 3.40

When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching in the classroom, Teachers 60 3.35 1.22 3311.0 0.324
there is much opportunity for their students to decide for Students 120 3.41 1.24
themselves how to go about their school works.
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching using IT, the Teachers 60 4.96 0.81 2009.5 0.909
students are free to express their ideas and opinions. Students 120 4.82 0.76
When the in-service EFL teachers are teaching in the classroom, Teachers 60 3.97 0.81 3565.0 0.324
the students are free to express their ideas and opinions. Students 120 3.62 1.52
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 9

EFL in-service teachers’ and learners’ perspectives of their in-service teachers’ basic
psychological needs for relatedness, competence and autonomy in blended learning
In-service teachers’ and learners’ perspectives of their fulfilment of relatedness in blended
learning
During the interview with the in-service EFL teachers, from the three categories of basics needs of
relatedness (care, affection, and needs to connect with other people), it seemed that the majority
of in-service teachers’ fulfilments laid on needs to connects with other people using online
(N=20) and classroom group works (N=18). They rated the fulfilment of online needs of care
(N=16) was more dominant than the classroom needs (14). These needs were manifested in the
form of monitoring learners’ online and classroom learning progresses. Similarly, from the interview
with students, most of the students also rated their in-service teachers’ fulfilment of needs to
connect with other people using online (N=35) and traditional (N = 31) were similarly high but
not for the fulfilment of the needs of affection on both online (N=10) and classroom (N=14).
I often ask my students to collaborate with their friends to do their English-speaking tasks and project recorded
and uploaded on YouTube (Teacher 19). In the traditional classroom teaching, I like to group them based on my
own criteria (Teacher 17).

The teachers often ask me to work collaboratively using the WhatsApp group (Student 6). But in the classroom
teaching, they also ask me to make group discussions and presentations (Student 1)

During the online discussion session, I always point out some students who never or rarely express their opinions
(Teacher 7). I also apply this strategy in the classroom teaching (Teacher 20).

I was afraid when my teacher calls me in zoom discussion to answer a question from him/her (Student 35). They
often mention my name when no students answer their questions correctly (Student 19).

I always ask my students to write their name on the zoom so that I can identify their name well. I regularly call
their name one by one before the class begins (Teacher 2). In the traditional classroom teaching, I usually call my
student’s name one by one during the classroom session and call the rests later at the end of the class (Teacher
10).

I like to hide my video and put my name there on the zoom so that I can more freely to engage (Student 11). All
the teachers remember my name, and they usually point me out to say something in the classroom (Students
29).

After my students make a classroom presentation or submit a task, I usually give comments on their group pre-
sentations and task. I apprise them with ‘excellent’, ‘nice works ‘or ‘presentations’ when they have good pres-
entation and do well in their tasks. I do these strategies in online learning, as well (Teacher 6).

The teachers’ comments are better in the traditional platform than using technology (Student 36). Sometimes
they give us their feedback on our works and tasks very long (Student 2).

In the online course, my teacher says nothing when one of us do not join the class. It is very different from the
usual. They just focus on delivering the course (Student 21).

In-service teachers’ and learners’ perspectives of their in-service teachers’ fulfilment of

competence in blended learning
In the interview, the in-service teachers mentioned that they fulfilled their learners’ basic needs of
competence in terms of learning new English skills in online learning (N = 20) and learners’ capability
in online tasks (N=19) as the highest needs. Meanwhile, classroom learning (N=15) and capability in
traditional tasks (N=14) as a medium level of fulfilments. Based on the interview with students, they
had different perceptions from their in-service teachers because they rated learn new English skills
from the classroom (N=34) as the higher fulfilment than other basic needs of learning new English
skills in online learning (N=22) classroom (N=21) and online capabilities (N=16).
I think the students learn many interesting topics and know everything from the internet (Teacher 18).
10 Y. ARIFANI ET AL.

I am not sure that all sources I learn are relevant to my real course from the teacher (Student 9).

Although, I learn a lot of things from YouTube and the internet, I feel my test is still best than those sources
(Student 30).

I like doing tasks using the online platform since it is very simple, just clicking, and it finishes (Student 4).

I think my students like simple online multiple-choice task and test formats compared to written tasks and
printed their tasks (Teacher 19).

Classroom presentation makes me nervous because I have to stand up in front of my friends and the teacher
(Student 29). I do not feel free to speak English in the classroom (Student 14).

I feel that my students are more confident to talk using zoom platforms, but I feel that I am not smart to respond
to the discussions (Teacher 3).

In-service teachers’ and learners’ perspectives of their in-service teachers’ fulfilment of

autonomy in blended learning
Based on the interview results, the teachers and learners had similar perceptions of their in-service
teachers’ fulfilment of autonomy needs. The two groups of participants believed the needs of class-
room tasks (N = 19 and N=36) and course works (N = 17 and N=32) were higher than the online tasks
(N = 8 and N=13) and online course accomplishments (and N = 12). Also, the teachers and students
perceived that their in-service teachers could make their leaners more confidence in the online
(N=18 and N=34) than the classroom activities (N=6 and N=12).
I can monitor students’ classroom task accomplishment. When they get a problem with their task, I can directly
help them, but in the online, I cannot know their task progress and problem. They usually submit online their
works late (Teacher 17).

I can consult my problem in finishing the tasks to the teacher or classmate directly. Teacher’s direct explanation
is clearer than from the internet resources (Student 11).

I adore my teachers because they are disciplines, helpful, care and always remind me every time we meet them
like “Hi … how is your class today and how your homework is” (Student 5).

I think my students like to meet classroom teachers and classmates to care for each other, remind next classroom
home works, presentation groups, schedule, make jokes together (Teacher 7).

I feel my students are more confident to express their ideas through online media such as zoom and WhatsApp
because they the disappearance of their physical meetings. Through WhatsApp, they can just type their idea
(Teacher 20).

I can just send my opinions to my teacher through a mobile application. I often use social media for interaction with
my friend through phone calls, video calls. Therefore, in the zoom discussion, I feel more confident (Learner 33).

Discussion
While most previous studies have dealt with the issue of learners’ Basic Psychological Needs (BPN)
beyond a second language (L2) context, this study endeavored to portray the current perceived with
regard to in-service teachers’ BPN of relatedness, competence, and autonomy fulfilment level. Based
on the findings, no significant differences between the in-service teachers’ and students’ percep-
tions regarding the in-service teachers’ level of relatedness were identified in the questionnaire
results. In the interviews, both groups of participants claimed that the in-service teachers had a
high level of fulfillments of relatedness in terms of needs to connect with other people. More specifi-
cally, except for the affection and care using online learning, the students reported a low of fulfil-
ments compared to traditional classroom instruction and other categories. Some parts of these
relatedness findings are commensurate with previous studies on learners’ BPN and blended learn-
ing. In terms of the needs to connect to others using online learning, this finding is commensurate
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 11

with Wong’s (2019). Although, Wong (2019) pointed out that learners’ relatedness similarly high as
this present study, but he did not specify the details. This study revealed that the in-service teachers
had higher fulfillments of care and affection under the traditional classroom instruction rather than
the online instruction. Therefore, maintaining learners’ needs in both classroom and online instruc-
tions becomes pivotal roles in maintaining the harmony and success of blended learning (Delialioglu
& Yildirim, 2007; Kocoglu et al., 2011).
The above evidence indicates that the fulfilments emotional sensitivity such as care, warmth,
attentive, and other emotional signs to harmonize between the online and classroom instructions
are considered as the key success of blended learning under the relatedness category (Merritt
et al., 2012; Pianta et al., 2008). Similarly, Arifani et al. (2019), in their study, found out that the
above acceptable emotional classroom touch could not be replaced by any kinds of online platforms.
To fulfil the needs of relatedness under the BPN category, the emotional classroom attributes should
be implemented in online learning.
Furthermore, based on the findings of both groups of participants’ interviews and question-
naires, the teachers and learners believed that the in-service teachers’ BPN for competence
was similarly high in terms of online course and tasks. Although, the in-service teachers believed
that needs of competence were high under the classroom learning but the students seemed to
be uncertain about their in-service teachers’ purposes for learning new skills from the classroom
after they were taught using online learning since they could browse more interesting sources
matched to their learning needs and interest. Although, the merits of online learning were
recognized in terms of providing unlimited resources for the learners, it does not mean that
the learners can learn well from them because the students are not confident whether their
accomplished online tasks have fulfilled teachers’ expectations or not. In this case, if the teachers
do not provide well-defined tasks guidelines, the students will be unconfident. In a similar vein,
the needs of well-defined, interactivity between students and online and classroom courses or
tasks instructions need to be equally maintained. Regarding this issue, Gaytan and
McEwen (2007) and Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) suggested that the effective online and
classroom practices using a variety of instructional methods and clearly explained
learners’ assignments regularly and timely feedback were considered as effective solutions. Multi-
dimensional interactivities between teachers-students, students-students, and students-online and
classroom course contents and tasks should also be effectively established to promote better
learning.
Teachers’ responsibilities to provide accurate feedbacks and timely returns the feedback to the
learners become another consideration. Within the online learning context, teachers usually give
their learners excessive online tasks/projects. It could be good strategies since they can learn
from it. In contrast, it becomes a boomerang if the teachers cannot address and respond to the
excessive online feedbacks timely because it will erode the students’ trusts. Therefore, giving
tasks should look at tasks objective, learning needs and learners’ capabilities (Arifani et al., 2020;
Gaytan & McEwen, 2007).
The results regarding autonomy category under the same umbrella of BPN showed no significant
differences of perceptions between the two groups of participants. In the questionnaires, both in-
service teachers and students believed that the in-service teachers’ fulfillments level of autonomy
were similarly high in terms of learners’ confidence to express their ideas and other categories,
except in the category of managing learners’ online course works. In the interviews, the in-service
teachers did not believe themselves could make the students perform better in the online course
works. The results of the study are commensurate to previous research findings. Arifani et al.
(2020) found out that students’ confidences were established under the online learning strategies
compare to classroom instruction. The reason is quite the same because of their psychological pro-
blems. They feel confident to express their online idea through both verbal and written since this
platform they are not necessary to stand up in front of their classmate and teachers. Moreover,
related to online course work management, the students prefer to have their classroom course
12 Y. ARIFANI ET AL.

management because, through classroom, they usually meet their friends and talk about the pro-
gress of their coursework, tasks and projects. When they meet their English teacher or other teachers,
usually they ask these points. Rich of reminders from peers and teachers make them adore the class-
room learning.

Conclusion, limitations and recommendations

This study found that both in-service teachers and students believed that the three categories of BPN
of relatedness, competence, and autonomy were highly fulfilled by the in-service teachers who
attended a one year blended professional training. However, the needs for maintaining the
harmony of online and classroom learning was not optimally fulfilled due to overloaded online
tasks, slow online feedback returns, low fulfilment of affection, and care. The integration of
emotional needs from the classroom-based learning activities where the students adore the
figure of good teachers into the online learning activities should harmoniously be fulfilled to opti-
mize relatedness category of care, affection and attentive under the blended-learning context.
The students also adored the uses of video based-learning, videotaped/recorded tasks, online and
classroom collaborative learning, online care, affection, and online engagement. Maintaining
these high needs of fulfilments under the three categories in both online and classroom instructions
become other challenges for the teachers. Keeping these essential indicators from all the three cat-
egories of relatedness, competence, and autonomy could enhance the quality of blended pro-
fessional training itself.
In the present study, there were some potential limitations. First, there were only 36 students and
20 in-service teachers selected in the interviews, and all participants the in-service teachers and lear-
ners were from secondary schools of junior and senior high schools. The study only conducted at a
provincial level in the Indonesian context; the results may not be applicable to other educational
contexts. Meanwhile, in-service teachers’ teaching experience was not considered. This may
influence the results of the study. Meanwhile, practices and challenges of BPN as one of the most
vital variables were not included in the study. Therefore, investigating in-service teachers’ practices
and challenges of promoting BPN is worth pursuing.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Dr. Yudhi Arifani is an associate professor of English Education at the Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia. He
received her Ph.D. degree on English Education in the State University of Malang in 2012. His research interests include
EFL teacher professional development and technology-based language teaching and learning. He teaches at English
Education Department of Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik.
Dr. Ruruh Mindari received her Ph.D. degree on English Education in the State University of Malang in 2012. Her
research interests include teaching English to young learners, language and culture, and teacher professional develop-
ment. She teaches at English Department of Widya Mandala Catholic University, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Nur Hidayat, M.Pd is a Ph.D. candidate at the Universitas Negeri Surabaya. His research interests include teacher pro-
fessional development and technology-based teaching.
Awang Setiawan Wicaksono, M.Psi is a senior lecturer at the Psychology Department Universitas Muhammadiyah
Gresik. His research interests include cognitive psychology, scaffolding, and Autism Spectrum Disorder.

ORCID
Yudhi Arifani http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4615-8439
Ruruh Mindari http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1426-9153
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 13

Nur Hidayat http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0773-1634

Awang Setiawan Wicaksono http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2440-5953

References
Alcaraz, S., Torregrosa, M., & Viladrich, C. (2015). How coaches motivations mediate between basic psychological needs
and well-being/Ill-being. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86(3), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.
2015.1049691
Arifani, Y. (2019). The application of small whatsapp groups and the individual flipped instruction model to boost EFL
learners’ mastery of collocation. CALL-EJ, 20(1), 52–73.
Arifani, Y., Asari, S., Anwar, K., & Budianto, L. (2020). Individual or collaborative” WhatsApp” learning? A flipped class-
room model of EFL writing instruction. Teaching English with Technology, 20(1), 122–139.
Arifani, Y., Khaja, F. N. M., Suryanti, S., & Wardhono, A. (2019). The influence of blended In-service teacher professional
training on EFL teacher creativity and teaching effectiveness. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies,
25(3), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2019-2503-10
Babenko, O., & Oswald, A. (2019). The roles of basic psychological needs, self-compassion, and self-efficacy in the devel-
opment of mastery goals among medical students. Medical Teacher, 41(4), 478–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0142159X.2018.1442564
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Springer.
Buela, S., & Joseph, M. C. (2015). Relationship between personality and teacher effectiveness of high school teachers. The
International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(1), 57–70.
Crawford, R., & Jenkins, L. E. (2018). Making pedagogy tangible: Developing skills and knowledge using a team teaching
and blended learning approach. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.14221/
ajte.2018v43n1.8
Cropley, A. (2020). Creativity-focused Technology Education in the Age of industry 4.0. Creativity Research Journal, 32 (2),
184–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1751546
Dashtestani, R., & Hojatpanah, S. (2020). Digital literacy of EFL students in a junior high school in Iran: Voices of teachers,
students and Ministry directors. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.
1744664
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of
behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2007). Students’ perceptions on effective dimensions of interactive learning in a blended
learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 133–146.
Evelein, F., Korthagen, F., & Brekelmans, M. (2008). Fulfilment of the basic psychological needs of student teachers
during their first teaching experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2007.09.001
Fernandes, J., Costa, R., & Peres, P. (2016). Putting order into our universe: The concept of blended learning—A meth-
odology within the concept-based terminology framework. Education Sciences, 6(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci6020015.
Garn, A., & Shen, B. (2015). Physical self-concept and basic psychological needs in exercise: Are there reciprocal effects?
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2014.940994
Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 21(3), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701341653
Gillian, E., & Lew, R. (2018). Incorporating research-based teaching techniques in E-learning to teach English articles. 3L:
Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 24(1), 16–28. http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2401-2
Hetland, H., Hetland, J., Andreassen, C. S., Pallesen, S., & Notelaers, G. (2011). Leadership and fulfillment of the three basic
psychological needs at work. Career Development International, 16(5), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13620431111168903
Hofer, S., Nistor, N., & Scheibenzuber, C. (2021). Online teaching and learning in higher education: Lessons learned in
crisis situations. Computers in Human Behavior, 121(5), 106789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106789.
Hsu, H. C. K., Wang, C. V., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019). Reexamining the impact of self-determination theory on learning
outcomes in the online learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 2159–2174. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10639-019-09863-w
Hurlbut, A. R. (2018). Online vs. Traditional learning in teacher education: A comparison of student progress. American
Journal of Distance Education, 32(4), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1509265
Kassis, W., Graf, U., Keller, R., Ding, K., & Rohlfs, C. (2019). The role of received social support and self-efficacy for the
satisfaction of basic psychological needs in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 391–
409. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1576624
Kessler, G. (2018). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 205–218. https://doi.
org/10.1111/flan.12318
14 Y. ARIFANI ET AL.

Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M., & Martens, R. (2018). Teachers’ innovative behaviour: The importance of basic psychological
need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and occupational self-efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
62(5), 769–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1306803
Kocoglu, Z., Ozek, Y., & Kesli, Y. (2011). Blended learning: Investigating its potential in an English language teacher train-
ing program. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1124–1134. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.908
Lin, L., & Reinders, H. (2019). Students’ and teachers’ readiness for autonomy: Beliefs and practices in developing auton-
omy in the Chinese context. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9564-3
Mahmoudi, H., Brown, M. R., Amani Saribagloo, J., & Dadashzadeh, S. (2018). The role of school culture and basic psycho-
logical needs on Iranian adolescents’ academic alienation: A multi-level examination. Youth and Society, 50(1), 116–
136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X15593668
Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2020). Facilitation matters: Instructor perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies
in online courses. Online Learning, 24(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i1.1980
Merritt, E. G., Wanless, S. B., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Cameron, C., & Peugh, J. L. (2012). The contribution of teachers’
emotional support to children’s social behaviors and self-regulatory skills in first grade. School Psychology Review,
41(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087517
Motteram, G. (2006). “Blended” education and the transformation of teachers: A long-term case study in postgraduate
UK higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.
2005.00511.x
Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C. (2003). Blending learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 4(3), 227–233. Recuperado de https://www. Learntechlib. Org/p/97576
Perreault, D., Cohen, L. R., & Blanchard, C. M. (2016). Fostering transformational leadership among young adults: A basic
psychological needs approach. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 21(3), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02673843.2015.1083451
Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of web-mediated professional devel-
opment resources on teacher–child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
23(4), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.02.001
Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2021). Profiling teachers’ readiness for online teaching and learning in
higher education: Who’s ready? Computers in Human Behavior, 118(December), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2020.106675
Stojanović, D., Bogdanović, Z., Petrović, L., Mitrović, S., & Labus, A. (2020). Empowering learning process in secondary
education using pervasive technologies. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10494820.2020.1806886
Szymkowiak, A., Melović, B., Dabić, M., Jeganathan, K., & Kundi, G. S. (2021). Information technology and Gen Z: The role
of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. Technology in Society, 65(March),
101565–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses
online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. https://doi.org/10.3102/
00346543076001093
van Aart, I., Hartman, E., Elferink-Gemser, M., Mombarg, R., & Visscher, C. (2017). Relations among basic psychological
needs, PE-motivation and fundamental movement skills in 9–12-year-old boys and girls in Physical education.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1112776
Vermeulen, M., Castelijns, J., Kools, Q., & Koster, B. (2012). Measuring student teachers’ basic psychological needs.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(4), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2012.688556
Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Michailidou, S. (2006). Development and initial validation of a measure of autonomy, competence,
and relatedness in exercise: The basic psychological needs in exercise scale. Measurement in Physical Education and
Exercise Science, 10(3), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327841mpee1003_4
Wasserman, E., & Migdal, R. (2019). Professional development: Teachers’ attitudes in online and traditional training
courses. Online Learning, 23(1), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1299
Wong, R. (2019). Basis psychological needs of students in blended learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(6), 1–
15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1703010
Xu, B., Chen, N. S., & Chen, G. (2020). Effects of teacher role on student engagement in WeChat-based online discussion
learning. Computers and Education, 157, 103956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103956