<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leo, Francisco M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pulido, Juan J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sánchez-Oliva, David</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">López-Gajardo, Miguel A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mouratidis, Athanasios</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">See the forest by looking at the trees: Physical education teachers’ interpersonal style profiles and students’ engagement</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">European Physical Education Review</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1356336X221075501</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SAGE Publications</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">28</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">720-738</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1356-336X</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;span&gt;On the basis of self-determination theory, we aimed to identify students’ perceptions of interpersonal teaching style profiles (i.e. within-teacher combinations of six dimensions of need-supportive and need-thwarting behaviours of autonomy, competence and relatedness) and to examine, through a cross-sectional design, the possible associations between these teaching profiles and students’ behavioural and emotional engagement. Participants were 2065 students (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt;&lt;span&gt;teachers&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; = 38) of Physical Education (PE) (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;em&gt;M&lt;/em&gt;&lt;span&gt;age&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; = 11.96 ± 1.95; range = 10–16 years; 1042 girls) nested in 98 classrooms from elementary (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt;&lt;span&gt; = 915) and secondary (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt;&lt;span&gt; = 1150) Spanish schools. Students filled out questionnaires in a paper and pencil format during the last semester of the school year. A four-cluster solution was found to be the most suitable: (a) a high-low group (i.e. high in perceived need-support and low in need-thwarting), (b) a low-high group (i.e. low in perceived need-support and relatively high in need-thwarting), (c) a low-low group (i.e. low in both need-support and need-thwarting) and (d) a mixed group (i.e. low in autonomy support, high in autonomy-thwarting and relatively modest-to-high in competence and relatedness support and thwarting). A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated significant differences in students’ behavioural and emotional engagement as a function of cluster membership.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;em&gt;Post hoc&lt;/em&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;comparisons showed that the high-low group reported the highest levels of engagement and the low-high group the lowest ones. Furthermore, the mixed group scored the second highest level of engagement – higher than the low-low and the low-high group. These results suggest that teachers who fail to support students’ needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness – either by using or not using need-thwarting instructional practices – might undermine students’ engagement.&lt;/span&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue></record></records></xml>