Mathematics education in primary schools provides a crucial foundation for students’ long-term academic development, with teacher-related factors playing a decisive role in shaping both achievement and motivation (Niemi et al., 2025). Teachers’ instructional practices are among the most influential school-based determinants of learning and motivation (Hattie, 2023). In mathematics classrooms, effective teaching extends beyond the delivery of content to encompass how teachers structure learning processes, foster motivation, and create emotionally supportive relationships with students (Desmet et al., 2023). Recent research highlights that the cognitive, motivational, and relational dimensions of teaching jointly contribute to students’ academic achievement, engagement, and well-being (Yang et al., 2021).

Instructional practices in mathematics can be located along a continuum from structured, teacher-directed approaches that ensure clarity and organisation, to student-oriented and agency-supportive practices that promote exploration, autonomy, and ownership of learning (Lee et al., 2026). Motivationally supportive practices— particularly competence support and utility enhancement—help students perceive mathematics as both achievable and meaningful, thereby increasing engagement and persistence (Niemi et al., 2025).

Beyond instructional strategies, the emotional and relational quality of teacher–student relationships (STRs) is a critical determinant of motivation and engagement (Longakit et al., 2025). Supportive relationships characterised by warmth, trust, and responsiveness have been shown to enhance students’ intrinsic motivation and emotional well-being (Desmet et al., 2023). Teacher emotional support has a particularly strong effect during the primary years, predicting both academic motivation and engagement through mechanisms such as self-efficacy and behavioural involvement (Yang et al., 2021). Teachers’ emotional intelligence and their ability to express genuine, appropriately regulated emotions play an essential role in maintaining these positive interactions and in creating psychologically safe classroom climates (Longakit et al., 2025). Despite this extensive body of evidence, teachers vary considerably in how they integrate cognitive, motivational, and emotional dimensions in their classroom practices (Kasa et al., 2024).

Estonia provides a particularly valuable context for exploring such diversity. Although teachers enjoy high professional autonomy and perform strongly in international assessments such as PISA and TIMSS (Eisenschmidt et al., 2025), empirical studies reveal wide variation in classroom practices (Leijen & Pedaste, 2018). The coexistence of class teachers (generalists) and subject-specialist mathematics teachers adds further heterogeneity to instructional approaches (Tuul et al., 2015). While national policy promotes student-centred and competence-based learning, many classrooms still exhibit a blend of traditional and reform-oriented features (Leijen & Pedaste, 2018). Thus, although Estonia’s overall student achievement is high, little is known about which types of teachers and teaching profiles contribute most effectively to students’ performance and motivation in mathematics.

This paper, which forms part of a doctoral project on mathematics teachers’ beliefs and practices in Estonia, employs a person-centred approach—specifically Latent Profile Analysis (LPA)—to identify distinct profiles of primary mathematics teachers based on their instructional practices, motivational support, and teacher–student relationships. The study further examines how these teacher profiles relate to students’ mathematics achievement and motivation.

Research questions

1. What latent profiles of primary mathematics teachers can be identified based on their instructional, motivational, and relational practices?
2. How are these teacher profiles associated with students’ mathematics achievement and motivation?

Methods The study draws on data from the second wave (2023) of an international longitudinal project investigating the development of students’ mathematics motivation in primary schools. The Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu granted ethical approval. Participants. Data were collected from 133 teachers (97% female) representing 45 schools across Estonia. The average teacher age was 46.4 years (SD = 12.4), and the average teaching experience was 20.5 years (SD = 13.6). The student sample included 1,672 students (52% girls; M age = 11.1, SD = 0.7) in grades 4 and 5. Measures. Teachers completed validated self-report scales assessing: (a) General instructional practices – Teacher-Oriented (e.g., “Memorise rules, procedures, and facts”), Student-Oriented (e.g., “Discuss incorrect solutions and what can be learned from them”), and Agency-Supportive (e.g., “Encourage students to bring in maths problems from daily life”); (b) Motivationally supportive practices – Competence Support (e.g., “Give students opportunities to justify their problem-solving strategies”) and Utility (e.g., “Relate lessons to students’ daily experiences”); (c) Teacher–student relationships – Affective Relationship (e.g., “I share a warm and trusting relationship with most students”) and Classroom Climate (e.g., “I make classroom routines clear and consistent”). All scales used a four-point Likert format (1 = never/strongly disagree to 4 = every or almost every lesson/strongly agree). Students completed the Expectancy–Value Scale, measuring five motivational components: intrinsic value, attainment, cost, utility, and perceived competence. Mathematics achievement was assessed using a 14-item standardised test based on released TIMSS 2011 items, with scores scaled via Rasch modelling (M = 500, SD = 100). Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by the number of books at home (1 = 0–10; 5 = 200+). Analytical strategy. Analyses were conducted in Mplus 8.11. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) validated the measurement models (CFI ≥ .95, RMSEA ≤ .08). Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) identified subgroups of teachers based on seven standardised indicators. Model fit was evaluated using AIC, BIC, SABIC, entropy (>.80), and likelihood ratio tests (LMR, BLRT). BCH analysis examined profile differences in student outcomes (achievement, motivation), and Kruskal–Wallis tests explored SES variation across profiles.

A three-profile model provided the best statistical and conceptual fit (BIC = 1784.66; entropy = .815). Profile 1 – Teacher-centred (43%) Teachers in this group scored low on student orientation, agency, support, and affective aspects, with a focus primarily on structure, clarity, and content delivery. Their teaching reflected a traditional, instructor-led approach. Profile 2 – Balanced, utility-oriented (31%) These teachers demonstrated moderate values across all dimensions, with a strong emphasis on the usefulness and real-life relevance of mathematics. Their teaching blended structured guidance with moderate autonomy support. Profile 3 – Student-centred, supportive (26%) Teachers in this profile reported high levels across all dimensions, combining autonomy support, emotional warmth, and motivational engagement. Student outcomes. Students taught by teacher-centred teachers achieved the highest mathematics scores (M = 672), significantly outperforming those in Profile 2 (p = .013). Conversely, students of student-centred supportive teachers showed the highest intrinsic motivation (p < .05) and perceived competence (p < .05). No significant differences emerged for cost or utility value. SES differed across profiles, with students in Profile 3 classrooms reporting slightly higher backgrounds (p < .05). Theoretical and educational implications. The findings support multidimensional models of teaching quality (Kunter et al., 2013) and motivational theories such as Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and Expectancy–Value Theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Effective teaching involves balancing structure with autonomy support and relational warmth. In practice, the results underscore the importance of professional development that enhances teachers’ reflective awareness of their instructional profiles. Supporting teacher-centred practitioners in integrating more autonomy-supportive feedback and helping student-centred teachers maintain cognitive rigour may encourage more balanced and effective teaching. This study thus offers an evidence-based framework for differentiated teacher learning and motivation-focused instructional design.

Desmet, O. A., Camargo Salamanca, S., Lee, H., & Tuzgen, A. (2023). The effect of student–teacher relationships on students’ math motivation across EU countries. Journal of Advanced Academics, 34(3–4), 271. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary educational psychology, 61, 101859. Eisenschmidt, E., Ahtiainen, R., Kondratjev, B. S., & Sillavee, R. (2025). A study of Finnish and Estonian principals’ perceptions of strategies that foster teacher involvement in school development. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 28(1), 81. Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel. New York. Kasa, Y., Areaya, S., & Woldemichael, M. (2024). Relationship between university teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics and their instructional practices. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2335838. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805. Lee, E., Baird, T. D., & Lee, D. (2026). Supporting student agency through student-centred learning across educational contexts. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 63(1), 163. Leijen, Ä., & Pedaste, M. (2018). Pedagogical beliefs, instructional practices, and opportunities for teachers' professional development in Estonia. In The teacher’s role in the changing globalising world (pp. 33–46). Brill. Longakit, J., Lobo, J., Gazali, N., Toring-Aque, L., Sayson, M., Aque, F. J., ... & Celestial, E. F. (2025). The influence of teacher emotional support on academic engagement of university students: Examining the mediating role of academic motivation through the lens of Self-determination theory. Sportis Scientific Journal of School Sport Physical Education and Psychomotricity, 11(2), 1-25. Niemi, L. H. L., Holm, M., Haataja, E., Ilomanni, P. K., & Laine, A. (2025). The role of teachers’ beliefs and professional development in students’ mathematics motivation in primary education. LUMAT, 13(1). Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. Tuul, M., Mikser, R., Neudorf, E., & Ugaste, A. (2015). Estonian preschool teachers’ aspirations for curricular autonomy: The gap between an ideal and professional practice. In Early childhood pedagogies (pp. 131–147). Routledge. Yang, Y., Li, G., Su, Z., & Yuan, Y. (2021). Teacher's emotional support and math performance: The chain mediating effect of academic self-efficacy and math behavioral engagement. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 651608.