Motivation is a central concept in education and the teacher-student relationship is significant in promoting students’ academic motivation and engagement in school (Hattie, 2009; Roorda et al., 2017). However, previous research has suggested that teacher education may not sufficiently prepare teachers how to build positive teacher-student relationships (Korpershoek et al., 2016; Rucinski et al., 2018). Teachers need a diversity of pedagogical strategies and professional tools to be able to adapt their instructional behaviour and motivational style to the diversity of students they meet in school. Motivational interviewing (MI) has gained attention as a method to promote students’ motivation (Rollnick et al., 2016; Strait et al., 2014), and previous studies have shown that MI can be an effective tool for teachers (Svensson et al., 2021). MI is a collaborative communication style used to enhance individuals’ motivation for change and is related to both positive academic outcomes as well as mental health outcomes (Rollnick et al., 2016; Snape & Atkinson, 2016; Strait et al., 2014). However, there is a lack of school-based interventions where teachers have specifically been trained in MI in order to increase students’ motivation, and to promote teachers’ instructional behaviours and teacher efficacy (i.e. teachers’ own belief in their capability to organize and implement specific teaching tasks required to achieve desired outcomes of student engagement and learning; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Hence, this study aims to explore whether an MI-based intervention can increase teacher efficacy and teachers’ perceived autonomy-supportive teaching, and increase students’ academic motivation.

Theoretical background
Motivational interviewing (MI) is based on four central components: partnership, compassion, acceptance, and evocation of change talk (Miller & Rollnick, 2012). In MI, the core is to get the student to state their own arguments for change, in order to strengthen motivation and confidence in their own abilities. Although MI is a collection of communication techniques, MI is in many ways similar to Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which is used as a relevant theoretical framework to understand school motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Autonomy is central in both MI and SDT, and SDT distinguishes between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. SDT emphasizes the importance of not controlling the students and suggests that students who are autonomously motivated are more engaged, effective and persistent compared to students who feel controlled. In this study, the concept autonomy support is central, which is defined as the teacher being respectful to the students’ perspective, and supports their intrinsic sources of motivation and sense of freedom of choice (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Previous research has shown that students who receive autonomy support from their teacher have reported increased intrinsic motivation and greater engagement in school (Reeve & Cheon, 2021).

Methods We conducted an intervention study with a short-term longitudinal design (8 months), with an intervention group in which teachers were trained in MI, along with a control group where the students’ teachers did not receive this specific training. 14 upper primary teachers participated in the intervention group, and a sample of 478 students (10-12 years) participated in the study. The intervention was conducted at 16 Swedish elementary schools. The teachers received MI training with a focus on school settings, delivered in five workshops during one semester. The workshops provided the basic knowledge and skills in MI, and an understanding of the practical application of school-based MI. As part of the skills training, the teachers were given exercises between each workshop in order to apply MI in their classes. Previously validated measures were used to collect survey data. Teachers’ perceptions of their autonomy-supportive teaching style was assessed using Learning Climate Questionnaire (Black & Deci, 2000), rated on a four-point Likert-type scale. To assess self-reported teacher efficacy we used Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), rated on a nine-point Likert scale. To assess students’ academic motivation, students completed the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (Ryan & Connell, 1989), which concerns the self-regulations of why students perform school activities, rated on a four-point Likert-type scale. Teacher data were collected at two times, before and after the intervention, using a web-based survey. Student data were collected in three waves; before, during and after the intervention. The data collection took place in students’ regular classrooms, and they answered the survey on their iPads. To analyse teacher data we used paired sample t-tests. To analyse student data we used repeated-measures ANCOVA’s, controlling for gender and grade level.

Results and Conclusions Findings show a significant increase in teachers’ perceived autonomy-supportive teaching from Time 1 (M = 3.05, SD = .35) to Time 2 (M = 3.27, SD = .35, p < .05), which indicates that an MI-based intervention can help teachers become more autonomy-supportive towards their students. The results show a significant increase in teachers’ perceived efficacy in several teaching situations: in student engagement from Time 1 (M = 6.13, SD = .63) to Time 2 (M = 7.07, SD = .65, p < .001), instructional strategies from Time 1 (M = 6.54, SD = .66) to Time 2 (M = 7.37, SD = 0.63, p < .001), and in classroom management from Time 1 (M = 6.53, SD = .75) to Time 2 (M = 7.46, SD = .58, p < .001). However, this intervention did not increase students’ academic motivation over time. Students’ rated their motivation relatively high at Time 1, in both the intervention group (M = 2.65, SD = .60) and the control group (M = 2.70, SD = .60). At Time 3, the results show a significant decrease of students’ motivation over time in both the intervention group (M = 2.43, SD = .62) and the control group (M = 2.46, SD = .64, p < .05), but no significant differences were detected between the groups. These findings suggest that school-based MI may be more effective for teachers’ professional development than for younger students’ academic motivation. Teachers need to have a diversity of pedagogical strategies to handle various and challenging teaching situations, where MI seems to be an appropriate tool to cope with these challenges. This study can be a valuable contribution to the field of European educational research, as MI-training can influence teachers’ instructional behaviours and increase teacher efficacy, which in turn affects teaching quality.

Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self‐determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740-756. 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. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., & Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 643-680. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. Guilford press. Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54-77. Rollnick, S., Kaplan, S., & Rutschman, R. (2016). Motivational interviewing in schools: Conversations to improve behavior and learning. The Guilford Press. Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. (2017). Affective teacher–student relationships and students' engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239-261. Rucinski, C. L., Brown, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2018). Teacher–child relationships, classroom climate, and children’s social-emotional and academic development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 992-1004. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749-761. Snape, L., & Atkinson, C. (2016). The evidence for student-focused motivational interviewing in educational settings: A review of the literature. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 9(2), 119-139. Strait, G. G., McQuillin, S., Terry, J., & Smith, B. H. (2014). School-based motivational interviewing with students, teachers, and parents: New developments and future direction. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 7(4), 205–207. Svensson, M., Wagnsson, S., & Gustafsson, H. (2021). Can motivational interviewing be a helpful professional tool? Investigating teachers' experiences. Educational Research, 63(4), 440-455. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.