“Without a science-literate population, the outlook for a better world is not promising” (AAAS, 1999). Therefore, student participation and achievement in science lessons is vital. Research showed that students’ achievement, cognitive engagements and conceptual change process are affected by motivation (Pintrich et al, 1993; Brophy, 1998; Wigfield and Wentzel, 2007). Moreover, students’ previous success and attitudes towards science are considered to have an influence on their choices and decisions about their plans; therefore, motivational factors have a critical role in determining their future (Singh et al. 2006). Furthermore, according to Gorham and Christophel (1992) “negative teacher behaviors are perceived as more central to students' demotivation than positive behaviors are perceived as central to their motivation”.

In this study, interaction between teacher and student was put forth using modeling process through Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) perspective. SCT focuses on how people acquire knowledge, skills, strategies, beliefs and emotions through interactions with and observations of others. One primary contribution of SCT is its explication of modeling process (Pintrich and Schunk, 2002). Modeling refers to behavioral, cognitive, and affective changes resulting from observing one or more models (Bandura, 1969, 1989; Schunk 1987). 

According to Bandura (1986) and Schunk (1987), models are important influences on student motivation. Teachers as models provide vicarious sources of self-efficacy information for students. Students tend to believe that they can learn concepts and skills when observing teachers explain and demonstrate them especially with competent, credible and enthusiastic attitudes (Pintrich and Schunk, 2002). Furthermore, main reflections of teacher-student interaction such as teaching strategies, teacher’ feedback styles, teacher expectations and overall classroom climate can also be motivation sources for students (Pintrich and Schunk, 2002).

The aim of the study is to reveal the profiles of teachers who caused students’ academic motivation in science lessons in elementary and high school to destroy. To achieve this aim, following research questions are focused:

1. How do demotivation processes occur in science classes?

2. What are the demotivating science teachers’ general profiles?

3. What are the feelings of the demotivated students in science?

Within SCT perspective, in this study, demotivated students refer to observers and demotivating teachers of those students refer to models.

The ways teachers affect student motivation are a relatively new subject for motivation research (Pintrich and Schunk, 2002). In literature, although there are some studies on this issue, many were quantitative, focused on demographic variables such as teachers’ gender and educational background. This study is a qualitative study which mainly focused on teachers’ characteristic variables to reach a deeper understanding about how and how much a teacher can affect students’ academic motivation in science by looking at extreme cases. It is expected that understanding the issue deeply will help (1) academicians who want to extend the content of existing motivational theories and improve curriculum of pre-service science teachers, (2) science teachers who want to improve their classroom management.

Akturan, U., and Baş, T. (2008) Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: NVivo 7.0 ile nitel veri analizi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1999). Science Literacy for All in the 21st Century. Educational Leadership, 57(2). Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of taught and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development 6, 1-60. Greeenwich, CT: JAI Press. Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Madison.WI: McGraw Hill. Gorham, J. and Christophel, D. M. (1992). Students' perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarterly, 40(3), Summer 1992, 239-252. Pintrich, P. R. and Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Columbus, OH: Merrill Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W. and Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivation beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167- 199. Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149-174. Singh, K., Chang, M., and Dika, S. (2006). Affective and motivational factors in engagement and achievement in science. International Journal of Learning, 12(6), 207- 218. Wigfield, A., and Wentzel, K.R. (2007). Introduction to motivation at school: Interventions that work. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 191-196.