MRES Empirical Paper Millie Davis

An exploration into the understanding of the underpinning Self-Determination Theory framework in NS’s intervention.

Abstract Based on Self-Determination Theory, this study aimed to explore mentors’ behaviours when delivering sessions to their often-disengaged participants, in an informal education and wellbeing intervention. Much of the current research focusing on needs-supportive behaviours has been conducted in formal education settings such as schools and colleges, so exploring needsupportive behaviours used in informal settings can provide useful knowledge to the field.

Three research questions were addressed in this study throughout a two-phase approach: how do mentors use certain strategies to help promote a needs-supportive environment for participants in the reflection interactions? How do mentors position themselves and their participants to create opportunities to satisfy their participants’ autonomy, competence and relatedness needs? What experiences do mentors have using certain behaviours in order to facilitate a needs-supportive environment with their participants throughout the 10-week intervention? In phase 1, content analysis was used to gather how often autonomy, competence and relatedness supportive statements and questions were used by mentors throughout the reflection data. Additionally, positional theory was used to help understand why mentors may use certain behaviours when they occupy certain roles in social interactions with their participants. In phase 2, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six mentors from the Noise Solution intervention. Interviews were deductively analysed using thematic analysis. Findings revealed mentors positioned themselves as the ‘facilitator’ and ‘friend’, whilst inviting participants to take up the position of the ‘expert’. All positions could lead to certain needs- supportive behaviours being delivered by mentors. The findings from phase 2 suggest that providing choice and placing participants at the centre of the intervention helped to satisfy autonomy, highlighting participant’s self-worth helped to satisfy competence and gaining a professional ‘friendship’ helped to satisfy relatedness needs. The findings are discussed, limitations are identified and suggestions for future research are noted.

Key Words: Needs-supportive behaviours, Self-Determination Theory, Intervention, Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness

Introduction Motivation is an important factor which influences ways individuals learn, engage and perform (Kleinginna and Kleinginna, 1981). Motivation also has a significant impact on an individuals’ overall well-being, impacting their physical and mental health (Fox, 1997; Accordino et al, 2000; Kotera and Ting, 2021). Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan and Deci, 2000) is a motivational theory which includes six meta-theories, one being the Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT) which suggests humans have three innate psychological needs for autonomy (i.e., volition over decisions and actions), competence (i.e., mastery or efficacy), and relatedness (i.e., meaningful connections with others) which must be satisfied for positive well- being and increased motivation. Frustration of these psychological needs can lead to disengagement and ill-being (Bartholomew et al., 2018). Literature has identified positive associations between the three psychological needs and overall well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2008; Ng et al, 2012; Molix and Nichols, 2013). To support this, Creech et al (2013, p.40) highlights ‘subjective well-being is found to be underpinned by a sense of purpose, feeling in control and autonomous, and receiving affirmation through positive social relationships that accord individuals with respect and status’. This suggests the BPNT can influence individuals’ well-being and have potential to be the mechanisms via which interventions can stimulate positive well-being outcomes.

There is a growing body of research highlighting the importance between teacher-student relationships and interactions, which promotes students’ motivation and therefore outcomes such as increased engagement and learning (Ryan and Deci, 2008; Pietarinen, Soini and Pyhältö, 2014; Norris, 2019). Teacher-student relationships are formed in a formal setting, such as schools or colleges, similarly to relationships such as coach-athlete relationships, where education is often an organised method of learning (La Belle, 1982). Mentors working with individuals showing tendencies to become disengaged in a formal education setting, have had less attention regarding how they can engage and help individuals learn in an informal education setting. It seems necessary to ensure mentors in these informal settings, where there is no organised teaching structure, have support when delivering sessions. The lack of research on this topic seems striking considering the increasing numbers of exclusions and disengaged learners exiting formal education settings (Gov.UK, 2020). Exploring how mentors can work to support disengaged young people, can help not only mentors themselves with delivery, but the individual requiring the support from informal education settings, typically interventions aiming to re-engage individuals back into learning opportunities.

Noise Solution (NS) is an intervention, which aims to reengage young people (YP) in learning activities to improve their mental well-being and associated educational and social outcomes including concrete qualifications and pathways for participants’ employment and training (The Social Investment Consultancy, 2016). NS suggests that this occurs through mentors engaging with participants to fulfil the three basic psychological needs (BPNs).

Evidence supports mental well-being increases throughout the 10-week intervention.

However, like many interventions, reasons why and how, are still not completely understood, with no evidence suggesting SDT is causing improvements in mental well-being and enhanced educational prospects. SDT offers a framework when understanding need supportive behaviours and need supportive environments. The theory itself stresses the importance of supporting individual’s BPNs (Van de Broeck et al, 2016).

Behaviours and techniques used to promote psychological need-satisfaction of the BPNs in formal education settings have been empirically confirmed to help individuals engage in

learning and improve overall well-being (Gagné, 2003; Collie and Martin, 2017). However, it is important to explore how mentors can provide a supportive environment for their disengaged participants in informal education settings. Mental health issues are increasingly rising. 70 percent of YP who experience mental health problems have not yet had intervention at a sufficiently early age (Mental Health Foundation, 2021). In addition, individuals disengaged in learning, work, college, school, or training, report high levels of mental health issues (Harvey et al, 2017; Kearney, 2019). Therefore, using practical solutions, such as interventions which aim to support disengaged individuals, can provide opportunities to support participant’s BPNs. Practitioners working with the individuals have one of the biggest jobs in engaging participants. They have the role of ensuring their participants are in a needs-supportive environment, which enables individuals to experience intended positive outcomes of an intervention such as improved physical and psychological well-being.

For the purpose of the study, and the basis that NS is underpinned by it, SDT has been utilised as the theoretical framework in order to explore how a needs-supportive environment can be created by mentors delivering the intervention. The aim of the current study is to explore how mentors in an informal education setting can provide a supportive environment for disengaged YP and unveiling techniques, methods and strategies used to promote a needs supportive environment. Gaining a clearer insight into the strategies mentors can use will help to deliver training and information to practitioners such as mentors, as well as informing other interventionists of what strategies are effective when working in informal education settings with disengaged individuals.

This study is comprised of the introduction, which has familiarised the reader with a background knowledge, putting into context what will be discussed throughout the paper. A literature review will aim to provide a critical review on previous literature searched within the field, specifically on autonomy, competence and relatedness supportive environments.

Following this, a clear and concise methodology will explain and justify the two-phase approach of this study, the design, selection of participants, and how data collection and data analysis were conducted. Finally, data analysis results will be stated and discussed in the twophase approach, aiming to deliberate their significance in context of existing research and practice within specific settings and contexts. Furthermore, limitations of the study will be outlined and future research positions will be discussed. A conclusion of the study will summarise findings and critically evaluate aspects of the research paper.

Literature Review According to SDT, there are three BPNs essential for individuals to experience a state of positive well-being: autonomy, competence and relatedness (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Since the landmark contributions from Ryan and Deci (2000) on SDT and the understanding of the BPNs, much more empirical research has been conducted and the exploration and understanding of the BPNs has increased and continues to do so. A significant amount of research has been summarised in various meta-analyses which have convincingly highlighted how the three BPNs can help and influence individual development, and wellness (Ng et al, 2012; Yu et al, 2018; Stanley, Schutte and Phillips, 2021). Although it is helpful to understand what the BPNs are and how they affect individuals in a positive way, one thing yet to be explored in great detail is how these needs can be supported for individuals. Deci and Ryan (1985) highlighted individuals can engage and use needs-supportive interpersonal behaviours to help support other’s needs which should promote self-motivation and selfdetermined behaviours. However, not much is known how and why certain behaviours to facilitate feelings of BPNs are used.

Autonomy Support Autonomy plays a vital role in providing individuals with feelings such as choice and control Researchers conclude that this leads to feelings of volition in activities being carried out (Dickinson, 1985; Cheon, Reeve and Vansteenkiste, 2020). This sense of volition enforces feelings of self-esteem, and self-confidence, therefore increasing self-determined behaviours.

Therefore, it is important to understand what and how practitioners working with individuals can promote feelings of autonomy. The existing literature on what an autonomy-supportive environment is, and why it is beneficial to individuals is extensive. They generally use formal education settings, specifically looking at a teacher-student dyad to explore how teachers can provide these autonomy-supportive environments for their students (Vansteenkiste et al, 2004; Leroy et al, 2007; Girelli et al, 2018). In addition, there has also been extensive research into how autonomy supportive environments can be created in sporting settings, focusing on coach- athlete dyads, in order to promote improvements in performance (Coatsworth and Conroy, 2009; Occhino et al, 2014; Ntoumanis et al, 2017).

Numerous studies have attempted to explain what could be used as potential autonomysupportive behaviours (for example, Reeve, 2009; Reeve and Cheon, 2014). Both of these examples include various ways of incorporating autonomy-supportive motivation styles into practice in a formal education setting; taking the student’s perspective, vitalising inner motivation sources, providing explanatory rationales for request, acknowledging and accepting student’s expression of negative affect, relying on informational, non-pressuring language and displaying patience are all aspects of autonomy supportive behaviours that can be used to provide an autonomy supportive environment for students in formal education (Reeve, 2016). Similarly, Black and Deci, (2000, p.742), highlighted that ‘an individual in a position of authority (e.g, a teacher, or coach), takes the other’s (e.g., a student or athlete’s) perspective, acknowledges the other’s feelings, and provides the other with pertinent information and opportunities for choice, while minimising the use of pressures and demands’. This view of using similar strategies to promote an autonomous-supportive environment is supported by recent empirical literature, and continues to help inform formal education relationships, such as teacher and student relationships, as well as those in sporting environments, such as the coach and athlete relationships.

Previous studies have also added to the knowledge of autonomy-supportive environments by exploring controlling behaviours and the effects these types of behaviours have on individuals (Bartholomew et al, 2009). In comparison to an autonomy-supportive environment, an environment where controlling behaviours are prominent can be characterised as using controlled and hostile behaviours, where individual’s motivation may be pressure-based as the individual acts without enjoying or valuing the task at hand (Hardré and Reeve, 2009). Using such behaviours have been empirically confirmed to have an opposite effect on individuals compared to when autonomy-supportive environments are used. Using controlling motivational styles and behaviours can undermine individuals’ positive functioning, as it can cause a sense of pressure and obligation to others, leaving no room for self-determined behaviours (Reeve, 2009). This is supported by Morbée et al (2017) who found that when a sport instructor was perceived as being highly controlling, levels of needs frustration and amotivation were higher compared to when they perceived an instructor as being highly autonomy-supportive. This suggests controlling behaviours, in both formal education settings and sporting settings inhibit individual’s ability to flourish and to positively enhance their well-being and performance.

Although practitioners such as teachers and coaches may not set out to be controlling and create controlling environments, it is still a common style used by some practitioners (Hagger, Chatzisarantis and Biddle, 2002; Tilga et al, 2019). It has been shown that controlling behaviours can be influenced by a number of factors; the practitioners own motivational orientation may impact the way they behave when motivating others (Pelletier, Séguin- Lévesque and Legault, 2002; Katz and Shahar, 2015). In addition, pressures that may be placed on teachers to gain good results from their students, for example, demands from the school’s organisation, may lead them to adopt controlling behaviours (Deci et al, 1982; Pelletier et al, 2002; Yuan et al, 2012; Cuevas et al, 2018). Although this may be the case, insightful and promising research has been found which suggests autonomy-supportive behaviours and styles are teachable to practitioners (Reeve et al, 2004; Raabe et al, 2019).

This is a positive step to ensure autonomy supportive behaviours continue to be used and taught to practitioners working to provide positive outcomes for individuals in need.

However, there is little, to no literature focusing on autonomy support in informal education settings. Styles and strategies that may work in formal education settings may be slightly different for those in informal settings.

In summary, it has been well established in the literature that autonomy-supportive environments can promote positive outcomes for individuals if practitioners can use the strategies and techniques associated with creating a needs-supportive environment. It’s promising that research has concluded that these autonomy-supportive behaviours are teachable, so putting them into practice is achievable for many practitioners. However, much of the research focused on autonomy-supportive environments is that of a formal education setting, such as in a school or college. Research is yet to acknowledge how these autonomous- supportive behaviours may differ for practitioners in an informal education setting with different participants. Thus, it is important for future research to gain an understanding of what practitioners in an informal setting might do to promote an autonomy– needs supportive environment for their participants.

Competence Support According to SDT competence is one of the three BPNs that is deemed essential to promote a sense of well-being, influence engagement and encourage motivation (Elliot, McGregor and

Thrash, 2002; Ryan and Moller, 2017). For individuals to experience competence, they must feel as though they have the capability to meet expectations of the activity they are doing, being able to gain mastery of the tasks given and feeling effective when interacting with the environment (Van den Broeck et al, 2010). Much of the literature exploring what forms a competence-supportive environment is generally focused on sporting environments, where developing competence for specific skills can be influenced by the coach (Banack, Sabiston and Bloom, 2011; Fransen et al, 2018). Mouratidis et al, (2008), highlights competencesupportive environments can be achieved using six strategies. Offering challenges suited to individual’s ability, expressing confidence in participants’ capacity to effectively engage in the activity, offering an effective model prior to task participation, providing encouragement and help throughout the activity, presenting individuals with positive feedback and praise after successful completion of the task and not using critical and demeaning feedback after mistakes. This can be supported by Niemic and Ryan, (2009) who agrees that competence can be supported by introducing learning activities that are optimally challenging and providing individuals with feedback and tools that promote success and feelings of efficacy.

To better understand what instructional practices could help promote competence supportive environments in formal education settings, Hensley et al, (2020), explored how instructional features, intellectual experiences, and teaching practices supported the three BPNs. It became clear that competence was supported in three primary ways, through instructor scaffolding, which is allowing for adaptation in sessions, requiring a certain level of cognitive engagement supported development of competence. The students also appreciated being challenged at appropriate levels. Finally, students reported that being self-reflective and analysing themselves allowed them to see where growth had occurred. It is important to highlight that the students in Hensley et al, (2020) study participant on a learning to learn course, which aims to promote personal development and academic success at college.

Therefore, these findings do not take into account students that may be disengaged at school or college; they may find it harder to experience competence, and practitioners may have to use different strategies and practices to help them feel in a competence-supportive environment.

Research that focuses on competence is almost solely focused on competence-satisfaction, aiming to explore the behaviours and environments that promote one’s competence in settings such as school, work and sport settings (Brown and Reeve, 1987; Alsina and Mulá, 2019). Little research has attempted to address competence-thwarting behaviours. However, it is evident that low competence can cause BPNs to be dissatisfied, leading to ill-being (Chen et al, 2015). One study has explicitly highlighted behaviours which will cause competence-thwarting in individuals; Sheldon and Filak (2008) highlight that controlthwarting behaviours consist of emphasising others’ faults, discouraging people from trying difficult tasks, telling someone or clearly viewing someone as incompetent and doubting their ability to improve. It is positive that these behaviours have been identified, as it can help practitioners delivering sessions to avoid these certain behaviours, however the research is limited; Sheldon and Filak (2008) used self-report measures in their study, therefore this could have encountered limitations. As the self-reports were based on individual feelings, participants may have disclosed the more socially acceptable answer (Chan, 2010).

Nonetheless, understanding what behaviours stimulate competence-thwarting is useful to ensure they are avoided when attempting to deliver a needs-supportive environment.

In summary, competence-supportive behaviours have not been a huge focus compared to autonomy-supportive behaviours in the literature. However, the behaviours that have been

identified as competence-supportive behaviours all have similar factors in common. They consist of providing challenges which suit individual’s abilities, providing feedback which is not critical, nor negative in any way, and the ability to promote individual’s self-worth and boost their self-efficacy. Furthermore, there is a gap in the literature which needs to be acknowledged, understanding practitioner’s views and experiences of using behaviours that promote competence in their sessions, can inform other practitioners and interventionists to use them in their sessions. Although research is limited, knowing what behaviours to avoid ensuring competence-thwarting does not occur, is valuable for practitioners delivering needsupportive environments to individuals.

Relatedness Support Relatedness is defined as the feeling of being in relation to others in a social context (Ryan & Deci, 2002). ‘Relatedness support’ refers to the social environments in which individuals have the opportunity to develop inspiring relationships with others (Cox, Duncheon, & McDavid, 2009). It seems important to understand the strategies and techniques that can be used by practitioners to support individuals with feelings of relatedness; in a study conducted

by Holt et al, (2019), they found that in physical activity classes at school, student’s (aged 913) relatedness was central to individual well-being, but more than this, relatedness was found as a factor that influenced student’s sense of autonomy and competence. Supporting this view, a meta-theory conducted by Roorda et al (2017) explored 189 studies which included samples from preschool to high school. Findings revealed significant positive relationships between teacher’s relatedness and student’s engagement and achievement. This suggests relatedness is an important and crucial BPN that should be a focus when teaching in formal education.

Perceived teacher support has demonstrated to have strong positive correlations with feelings of relatedness and levels of motivation (Ryan and Patrick, 2001; Sparks et al, 2016).

Emotional support, such as being caring, friendly, understanding, dedicated and dependable (Ryan and Patrick, 2001), has been identified as influential factors of related-supportive behaviours. Some may argue that these are merely interpersonal qualities that can be subjective to personality types and characteristics of the practitioner (Blatt and Blass, 2013).

In a formal education setting, it may be hard for teachers to form an emotional, warm bond with students at times due to the professionalism of the profession. However, in informal education settings, it may be easier for practitioners to form emotional relationships with their participants, and how they do this may be insightful.

As with autonomy and competence, these BPNs can become thwarted if behaviours frustrate their needs (Bartholomew et al, 2011). In a study conducted by Gonzalez and Chiviacowsky (2018), three groups of participants were required to learn to swim the front crawl stroke in an indoor swimming pool. The three groups consisted of a relatedness-supportive group, where the experimenter gave instructions to participants emphasising interest. In contrast, the relatedness-thwarting group received instructions emphasising disinterest, with the control group not receiving any kind of relatedness instructions. One significant finding from this study is that the relatedness-thwarting group showed a decrease in learning compared to the control group. This suggests thwarting relatedness can be as impactful as supporting it, emphasising the real importance of understanding what behaviours can be detrimental to individuals’ development and well-being. Rocchi et al (2017) highlights relatednessthwarting behaviours can include being distant to others, not connecting emotionally, excluding individuals, not listening to them and not being available when needed.

Understanding these behaviours and the impact they may have on individuals is crucial to ensure psychological needs are being supported and not thwarted.

To summarise, literature that explores relatedness as being a critical BPN is well established and provides support that relatedness is needed to create a sense of well-being and influence individual’s motivations, autonomy and competence. However, research seems to be limited in the sense of what actually promotes relatedness and how practitioners can provide an environment which supports their relatedness. It may be that interpersonal qualities, such as being caring, friendly and attentive promotes relatedness, but it could be argued that just these simple personal qualities are not enough to form relationships with some individuals.

Communication, social support and emotional support may also be needed to form relatedness with individuals. Furthermore, understanding what can cause relatednessthwarting is crucial to ensure practitioners avoid these behaviours and are knowledgeable on what behaviours can support individuals and promote well-being.

Influence of Perceived Social Roles on Supporting and Thwarting Behaviours In the three previous sections of the literature review, it has been established that research has attempted to understand the behaviours that can either support or thwart individuals’ BPN satisfaction. However, there is little research on why individuals may use certain behaviours.

Nevertheless, one study conducted by Carroll and Allen (2021) explored why youth sport coaches behave the way they do. They used qualitative measures to explore intricacies of why coaches behave certain ways when using needs-supportive or controlling behaviours. An interesting finding was that coaches reported the perceived ‘role’ of the coach to be an influential factor of their behaviour. This is a coherent explanation of why certain controlling or supportive behaviours may be used by individuals. In this formal setting, there is an organised environment, including pressures and social norms for practitioners (e.g. coaches or teachers) to ensure their students and athletes are achieving. Therefore, as a sports coach, it may be quite easy to say to athletes that their performance was not good enough; due to the pressures of winning. These behaviours may be competence-thwarting, which could negatively affect an individual’s BPNS. In addition, teachers are perceived professionals, therefore it may be hard to connect emotionally with students, which may lead to their need of relatedness being unsatisfied.

To further explore this concept, it may be useful to use Positional Theory (Harré and Van Langenhove, 1999) to identify positions being occupied throughout these social interactions, focusing on what is being said, how others respond, and making inferences about the duties and roles individuals are taking up. Mary Barnes (2004) used positional theory to study student participation in collaborative learning activities. Her research revealed the possibility for the use of positional theory in the study of classroom interactions. Although this research was conducted in a formal education setting, it may be interesting to explore roles individuals take up when they are in an informal education setting. These settings tend to be less rigid and less professional which may allow practitioners in these settings to naturally provide more need- supportive behaviours. The positions we place ourselves in, through social interactions and norms may determine if we use and provide certain behaviours or not.

Purpose of the Current Study The main purpose of the current study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the need supportive behaviours mentors from a music intervention (NS) use, which promotes BPNs.

Literature surrounding informal education settings, where the aim is to engage those that are currently disengaged in school, college, work, and training, is limited. Much of the research on needs-supportive behaviours focuses on formal education settings where students go to learn, and it is part of most student’s daily routines. Engaging those that are currently disengaged may require different strategies and behaviours to promote a needs supportive environment. Three research questions aim to be addressed in this study: how do mentors use certain strategies to help promote a needs-supportive environment for participants in the reflection interactions? How do mentors position themselves and their participants to create opportunities that may satisfy their participants’ autonomy, competence and relatedness needs? What experiences do mentors have using certain behaviours in order to facilitate a needs-supportive environment with their participants throughout the 10-week intervention?

The addition of this study in the research field of needs-supportive behaviours will hopefully give an insight to practitioners wanting to create a needs-supportive environment, as well as interventionists that may find it useful to base training for practitioners around creating a needs-supportive environment through needs-supportive behaviours.

Being able to analyse first-hand reflection data provided by NS, allowed for an understanding into the ways mentors from NS provided needs-supportive behaviours in their sessions. This led to a two-phase methodological process, where follow-up interviews were necessary to further delve into the mentor’s understandings and experiences of providing needs-supportive behaviours to participants.

Methodology Research Approach This piece of research adopts an interpretivist view; it capitalises on the importance for the researcher to gain different views and experiences from different participants to inform practice. As highlighted by Van Der Walt (2020), taking on an interpretivist approach allows researchers to see the world through others’ eyes. The ontological view from an interpretivist is that reality is constantly changing, it is far from being stable and depends on how individuals perceive it, trying to understand the reality and interpret it, taking a relativism ontological view. Reality is a relative thing, which depends on individuals’ sets of experiences, beliefs and understandings (Landry, 2017). Epistemology is the study of knowledge, interpretivism takes a subjectivism epistemological view, as a researcher, we may influence participants and they may influence us, we are co-constructing the reality (Varpio and Ellaway, 2021). This is especially important when looking at how theory can relate to practice and understanding the behaviours of individuals that are key experts in their practice.

Individuals are intricate, different people will experience, understand and behave differently, therefore being able to gain mentors’ understanding allows us to explore further into some of the actions and need-supportive behaviours they use which best suit their participants.

All participants share similar experiences at a surface level, they are working with NS participants, and have a musical background. However, how individuals work with their participants and why they use certain behaviours may be completely differently other mentors. Through previous experiences, and potential educational differences resulting from exposure to training on needs-supportive behaviours, understandings of mentors may be completely different. Therefore, using an interpretivist approach allows the researcher to delve further into mentors’ understandings and experiences. This is accompanied by a qualitative approach that has been used in both phases of this research. Using qualitative approaches allows the researcher to explore with depth, and analyse behaviours in natural settings. Hamilton and Finley (2019) highlights qualitative designs are critical to implementation research, as these methods can help to answer complex questions such as the why’s and how’s of best practice.

Design In this study, the use of multiple methods was implemented. The purpose of this sequential multimethod study was to explore music mentors’ experiences and to understand the behaviours mentors use to create needs-supportive environments for their participants in the intervention. An exploratory design was used in the initial phase of the study, which enabled the researcher to develop a better and more conventional way of understanding the positions mentors and participants occupy in their dyadic relationships and how these positions might relate to opportunities to satisfy their participants’ BPNs. This preliminary research inaugurated a secondary research question, stimulating the second phase of this research study, where mentors were interviewed, and needs-supportive behaviours were explored in depth from their perspective. Using a multiple methods design allowed for a greater range of insights into the research problem and widened the scope and breadth of the study (Martha, Sousa and Mendes, 2007).

Phase 1 Research Questions How do mentors use certain strategies to help promote a needs-supportive environment for participants in the reflection videos?

How do mentors position themselves and their participants to create opportunities that may satisfy their participants’ autonomy, competence and relatedness needs?

Participants Mentors working for NS, along with their participants, conducted video reflections of their first session together (week one) and their final session together (week ten). The interactions of the mentors and participants were carried out face to face throughout the 10-week period as data was collected before the intervention was moved online due to COVID-19. The participants, both male and female, had been referred to the NS programme because they were struggling to engage in either school, college or work. Participants are usually referred to NS if they are at risk of exclusion from school. Many key practitioners, such as teachers, care workers, and educational psychologists, work in conjunction with mentors to support these individuals. Due to the individuals having difficulties engaging, many of them are also faced with mental health problems which can be detrimental to their well-being. Mentors are self-employed at NS and work with a number of different participants. Thus, have experienced working with a variety of individuals in the intervention.

Data Collection Existing data was obtained from NS, 25 transcripts of participants and music mentors start (week one) reflections and end (week ten) reflections were accessed from the NS gatekeeper.

The reflections from participants and mentors generally lasted around five minutes each, with participants mainly answering questions from mentors, regarding what was done in the sessions, how they felt, and what they liked/disliked about the sessions. NS had transcribed the audio of the reflections in verbatim, and fully anonymised any names and places that were mentioned in the audio.

Procedure and Data Analysis The first stage of analysis in this phase was conducted by using content analysis (Lasswell, 1948). This was used in order to identify key text where BPNs were being supported. A sixstage process was systematically followed; firstly, research questions and objectives were formed; How do mentors use certain strategies to help promote a needs-supportive environment for participants in the reflection videos? How do mentors position themselves and their participants to create opportunities that may satisfy their participants’ autonomy, competence and relatedness needs? Simultaneously, for the second stage, the communication content was selected (reflection data). Next, the researcher was able to identify content categories, which are compartments ‘with explicatory stated boundaries into which the units of content are coded for analysis’ (Prasad, 2008, p.11). Autonomy, competence and relatedness, were identified as the content categories. Next, the units of analysis were finalised, the levels of implication were identified and it was clear that coding for frequency would allow the researcher to identify general trends and patterns in the data. In the next

stage, coding was completed by hand, rather than on a computer software. Finally, the frequency of autonomy, competence and relatedness questions and statements were quantified, drawing out conclusions and generalisations where possible. This analysis led the researcher to conducting a second systematic analysis through using positional theory (Harré and Langenhove, 1999).

Throughout the data from the reflections, it became clear that mentors would use autonomy, competence and relatedness questions and statements, which in turn, positioned mentors and participants in certain ways, relative to an idea or an experience. A position can be understood as the dynamic social interactions individuals experience, particularly the ascription to themselves and others (Harré and Moghaddam, 2009). To identify positions, it is necessary to explore social interactions, focusing on what is being said, how others respond, and making inferences about the duties and roles individuals are taking up. The list of positions identified by Barnes (2004) (appendix A) was used to generate categories/positions when mentors and participants were in conversation. Interpretation of the questions and prompts mentors used and how these were received and responded by participants allowed the researcher to generate new and existing positions. A major motivation for this piece of data analysis was to develop a better understanding of why certain behaviours may be used in the delivery of NS sessions. By understanding and exploring how participants and mentors are positioned in a conversation, this may allow for other research developers and NS to identify how individuals, both mentors and participants can be positioned through certain conversations and how this may prompt participants to experience autonomy, competence and relatedness satisfaction.

Phase 2 Research Question What experiences do mentors have using certain behaviours in order to facilitate a needssupportive environment with their participants throughout the 10-week intervention?

Participants Six music mentors, all employed by NS, agreed to participate in the second phase of this study. Participants were selected to take part based on if they had worked for NS for a year or more and were over the age of 18. One female and five male participants took part in the interviews. The music mentors that took part in the study needed to have experienced both face-to-face and online sessions with participants. This allowed for a comparison and a clearer understanding of how needs-supportive behaviours may have been influenced depending on the context the music mentors were in. Allowing the music mentors to be reflective with their experiences helped to provide insightful answers about their views on needs-satisfaction behaviours and how they support their participants in the intervention.

Data Collection Purposive sampling was the most suitable method of sampling to choose for the interviews in this study as the individuals that took part held lots of rich information which was related to the phenomenon of interest in this study, being their experiences and understandings of needs- supportive behaviours (Sharma, 2017). Mentors have real-life experiences with participants and were able to share these experiences to help with the understanding of why

needs- supportive behaviours are important and what these behaviours look like in an informal education context. The invitation email was sent out to prospective participants, outlining and explaining how they would be suitable for the research study, and a brief overview of what the study involved was given. Attached was the participant information sheet and the consent form for taking part in the study. If the individuals wanted to take part in the study, they sent a completed consent form back to the researcher. Six participants replied with a completed consent form. The interviews were arranged with participants, which were conducted via Microsoft Teams, a video conferencing software. Interviews were audio recorded so transcripts could be written in verbatim.

Semi-structured interviews were used in order to collect data for the study. A semi-structured interview approach was chosen because it allowed participants to provide open-ended data, and thoughts, feelings and beliefs were discussed around the topic of needs-supportive behaviours (Young et al, 2018). In addition, the semi-structured interview process allowed the researcher to delve and probe deeper into given situations (Hammer and Wildavsky, 2018). It is important to note that this approach allows the researcher to have a more controlled method of prompting participants to answer certain questions that may well answer the research question, however it also enables participants to give rich, informative information.

The interview guide was developed based on data gathered from the video reflections (see appendix B). Prior to the main content of the interview, rapport was built with participants to ensure they were comfortable. Prior to completion of the first interview, a pilot study was conducted in order to improve questions and changes were made where required. Pilot studies are useful to evaluate the procedure and tools used in the data collection, and to ensure that there would be a smooth process for participants (Van Teijlingen, 2001).

Data Analysis Thematic analysis was the chosen analysis method to use for the data collected in the interviews. This is a six-step process, outlined by Braun and Clarke (2014), which helps to explore themes and codes with an objective of making sense of data collected from participants. The first phase of thematic analysis was familiarising with data gathered from participants which had been transcribed manually. This included reading and re-reading data, initial ideas were identified. Secondly, initial; codes were generated by using a systematic process of gathering relevant features of data which related back to the research question. The third stage involved generating themes from codes which were established throughout the raw data set. Due to the study adopting a deductive approach to the process of thematic analysis, there were already some preconceived themes which were expected to evolve from the data set, based on SDT. The fourth phase explored whether themes displayed high compatibility with codes established in the second phase. Themes were named and defined, in relation to the SDT model. Finally, the analytic narrative was produced which provides critical conclusions across themes presented. Logical conclusions can be met relating back to the research questions.

Ethical Considerations The research carried out for this study had ethical approval from the School of Education and Life Long Learning Research Committee at the University of East Anglia, where a full ethical review was carried out before research collection begun (see appendix C). Written

consent was obtained by music mentors, confirming that they wanted to take part in the interviews as well as consenting to their reflection data being used in the study. The YP who took part in the video reflections had already given consent to NS for their reflections to be used in academic research. The main aim of using the reflections was to analyse the music mentors’ behaviours through positional theory and content analysis, not the young people’s behaviours or experiences. The music mentors were sent an invitation email, and only replied if they wanted to take part in the study, with a completed consent form attached to their email. There was no pressure for participants to comply to the study. There was sufficient information about the study, risks, and benefits in the participant information sheet. It was also made clear to participants that it was completely voluntary to take part in the study, and their decision to take part would in no way effect their relationship with NS. They were also informed that they could withdraw from the study up until the point the data was analysed.

All information associated with this research is confidential and stored securely in an anonymised form in compliance with GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. In the write up of the study, participants are referred to with pseudonyms to protect anonymity.

Results and Discussion Due to the two-phase process discussed in the methodology, it seemed necessary to present the findings in a phased approach. As a result of the analysis in phase 1 of the study, three positions were identified which helped to establish meanings of the needs-supportive behaviours which were being used in the reflections.

Phase 1- Results and Discussion Content Analysis Findings The first analysis completed on the reflection data was the content analysis, which focused on identifying the three BPNs, autonomy, competence and relatedness, throughout the conversations that were had between participants and mentors in their start and end reflections. The content analysis specifically focused on the frequency in which each psychological need was present. In the start reflections, autonomy was coded 24 times, competence 23 and relatedness 24. In the end reflections, autonomy was coded 22 times, competence 32 and relatedness 12.

It is clear that competence was coded most frequently through the start and end reflections, however, it is more predominately apparent in the start reflections. This may be because mentors’ aim of the reflections are to satisfy individuals’ competence. Through these actions, using competence supportive questions such as ‘how did it feel when you'd done, when you made it, did you think yeah, yeah that's pretty cool?’, and competence supportive statements such as ‘I thought you made it look really easy considering it was a challenge’, mentors are able to satisfy competence and provide these need-supportive behaviours to influence their participants. Using these methods on the first session of the intervention in the reflections may influence participants to continue the intervention volitionally; this is because they may think they are good at what they are doing in the intervention and this will promote selfconfidence to continue with it (Sumantri and Wardhani, 2018).

Competence was also the most frequent in the end reflections once participants had completed the 10-week intervention. A potential explanation for this could be that mentors and participant had 10-weeks’ worth of experiences to reflect on, and self-reflection and

monitoring is associated with providing competence-supportive environments as highlighted

by Ihm and Seo (2016). Mentors often facilitated this reflection by asking competencesupportive questions which ensured participants would answer in a particular way, promoting their competence. Using open-ended discovery questions that allow individuals to reflect on their experiences when answering the question, should encourage participants to feel effective in their environment and enhance feelings of competence (Black et al, 2014).

Questions such as ‘what do you think these sessions, if anything, what do you think that they've given you?’ and ‘what's been the best bit about doing the of this?’ can help individuals reflect in a positive way.

Positional Theory Analysis Throughout the analysis of the reflections, using positional theory, three positions were established, mentors as the ‘facilitator’, participants as the ‘expert’ and mentors as the ‘friend’. When analysing the reflection data, two of Barnes (2004) positions were applied to the social interactions analysed between participants and mentors (see appendix A). Positions included mentors as the ‘facilitator’ and participants as the ‘expert’. Additionally, a new position emerged, mentors positioned themselves as a ‘friend’. These findings have contributed to the understanding of how mentors can support the three BPNs, by positioning themselves and allowing participants to position themselves in a way which would promote autonomy, competence and relatedness.

Mentor as the ‘facilitator’ In both the start and the end reflections, mentors seemed to interact with participants in a way which facilitated the conversation and their social interactions. Similarly, to the position of the ‘facilitator’ in Barnes (2004) study, mentors acted in a way which enabled smooth conversation functioning, provided social support and ensured views were encouraged from the participant. Mentors seemed to accept this position as the facilitator, they would often be the individual initiating the conversation and asking the questions in the reflection. This could potentially be related to participants assessing mentors’ position of power, accepting that mentors will start conversations and participants would accept answering them. Mentors also seemed to guide participants throughout the conversation, typically asking questions which would generate a reflective response such as ‘We've explored improvisation today, what else have we done?’, or ‘So we've learned how to find piano chords, how quickly did you learn that?’. Through positioning themselves as a facilitator, it would be possible that mentors could influence competence and autonomy, as it supports current findings that demonstrate guiding individuals and using non-controlling behaviours (not dictating social interactions), can satisfy the psychological needs (Balaguer et al, 2012). This can also inform practice, understanding why certain behaviours may be present in informal education settings.

Participant as the ‘Expert’ The second position identified was a position that was influenced by the mentor, but was filled by the participant. Participants accepted the role of being the ‘expert’ in some social interactions throughout the reflections. Similarly, to the ‘expert’ position identified in Barnes (2004) study, participants decides what is correct in some situations, and is asked for knowledge or help by others, and are skilled in their work. It is not so much what participants do to accept this position, but what mentors do to invite participants into the position of the expert. Praise and positive feedback was used by mentors which magnified participants

achievements, but also could invite participants to feel as though they are effective in their environment, feeling confident in their ability. Statements used by mentors such as, ‘We were listening to quite a lot of, um, rap stuff today and you've just played me five finger death punch, which I wasn't expecting, but well impressed with that’, and ‘You made all of those up completely by yourself didn't you?’, can invite participants to accept the expert position.

In addition, mentors sometimes depreciated their own knowledge to make participants feel like the expert. Mentors used statements such as ‘I've been doing this years and my timing is awful’, ‘I mean, that's, that was a proper curveball for me, I was not ready for that’ and ‘You're one step ahead of me on quite a lot of stuff. It's very good’. Using statements which downplays mentors’ expertise, may make participants feel more comfortable taking the position of the expert. Providing participants with the opportunity to experience this position may lead to them experiencing positive feelings of competence, through making participants feel as though they are good at something, sometimes even better than their mentor.

Furthermore, participants may experience positive feelings of autonomy, as the position of the expert may promote feelings of being in control of situations and a sense of internal motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2013).

Tutor as a ‘friend’ The final position identified was one that had not been identified by Barnes (2004). The tutor positioning themselves as a friend to participants emerged as a new position. As a friend, mentors would support participants, show genuine care and interest in them, and would have a joke with them. Mentors seemed to accept the position as a friend, to make participants feel comfortable around them, but it could also suggest that mentors took this position to make participants aware that they are not like teachers, they can be a professional friend to the participant. Mentors supporting participants was evident in the reflection data, ‘I'm at the other end of the phone, so feel free to, um, send me a text or give me a phone call with any kind of queries you've got’. This is quite an informal method of support. Participants may be used to texting or calling friends, or people close to them, so when their mentors say they can do the same, it may initiate positive feelings of relatedness. Mentors showed genuine interest in participants, ‘I'm looking forward to- well I've already been working with you today and I've loved it so I'm looking forward to working with you some more’. This supports the view of relatedness being formed when sincere and honest feelings are shared, and care for individuals is shown (Williams et al, 2013). Finally, mentors did not hesitate to make a joke with their participants, ‘In fact, we were gonna do more fart noises on the sampler I think, aren't we?’. Through mentors positioning themselves as friends of the participant, can allow for the psychological need, relatedness, to be satisfied, promoting warm, genuine feelings towards participants, showing that they are important.

Phase 2- Results and Discussion: As a result of the semi-structured interviews and the deductive thematic analysis undertaken, three higher order themes were established which were linked with the three BPNs. The themes were ‘Providing Choice and Placing Participant at the Centre of the Intervention’, ‘Highlighting Participant’s Self-Worth’ and ‘Gaining a Professional ‘Friendship’’. Each higher order themes had sub-themes which helped establish the higher order themes. See appendix D for an overview of the Higher order themes and sub-themes identified.

Autonomy The theme, ‘Providing Choice and Placing Participant at the Centre of the Intervention’, occurred from several sub-themes; emphasising the intervention is all about participants, giving participants choice, helping participants feel in control, adapting to what participants are interested in and using engagement strategies. The strategies and behaviours that seemed to promote autonomy in their sessions ensured that participants were at the heart of the intervention. There was a common view that in the first session with the participants, mentors would allow the students to talk about themselves and allow them to discover what they want out of the session before mentors intervenes. This may allow participants to feel in control of the session from the start, which enforces the feeling of autonomy.

Emma:’ working out what their passions are and you know just explaining that you’re not there to sit and teach them, we will help to develop something that you're interested in and therefore you're placing them front and centre and the most important thing and that you will try and facilitate whatever they they want to do’.

Mentors allows participants to feel in control which should facilitate feelings of volition (Girelli et al, 2018). Participants can then acknowledge that their own behaviours will influence the outcomes of this intervention, therefore they have the power and control to decide what those outcomes might be. It is clear that mentors understand they are not teachers but facilitators in participants journey throughout the intervention. Their role is not to tell them what to do, but otherwise guide them to feelings of volition. Putting participants at the forefront of the intervention will initiate this response from the participants, as they can recognise that the intervention is about them, and they have control over what they want to achieve. This finding supports the view that making participants feel in control of a situation can have a positive effect on their feelings of volition and can support their autonomy, which will help to create a needs-supportive environment for their participants (Deci and Ryan, 1987).

NS is not a formal education setting where teachers are set on a strict curriculum and have pressures of ensuring grades are met and students are always on task. This intervention is an informal education intervention which aims to help individuals re-engage back into learning activities. Therefore, by giving participants control at the beginning of the sessions when they first meet, may initiate the feeling that mentors are not teachers and they can experience freedom, and have an opportunity to take control. In agreement, Hardré and Reeve, (2009) highlighted, teachers can sometimes create controlling environments where the teaching is more for the teacher’s gain, rather than the students, due to the pressures potentially put upon them. However, mentors in this study understands the sessions are for the participants, and that they are at the centre of it. By using non-pressuring language and being patient with participants, mentors can facilitate feelings of autonomy.

Furthermore, there was a common view that mentors would be adaptive to what participants were interested in and what they requested to do. This suggests that participants were given choice, and felt in control of the situation. Adapting to the participant’s interests seemed important to mentors, they also understood that the aims of the intervention may change depending on the participant, and that what might be an intended outcome for one participant, may be completely different for the other. It seems as though mentors are willing to change to suit the participants’ needs.

Harry: ’I've got I've got student that you know doesn't like guitar, I don’t take them down that route, they have control and make sure that they are aware they have control over every element of it as well if they if they don't want to do music in a session you know we might play chess or go for dog walk.’

This mentor has provided autonomy to their participant by allowing them to have freedom of what they are doing. They identified that participants did not want to engage in the music making process, therefore suggested other things that may make them engage. If mentors are engaging participants in something, this may allow them to feel autonomous, as participants had chosen to do something they wanted to do. Black and Deci, (2000), highlights that when individuals of an authoritative position takes on other’s perspectives, this creates feelings of autonomy as it allows others’ views to be acknowledged, not just the experts. Findings highlight that those delivering sessions do not always need to take the authoritative position to dictate and tell individuals what to do, rather promote choice and provide opportunities which guides the participant. Being adaptive and allowing participants to have freedom are behaviours that mentors can use to stimulate feelings of autonomy.

Shaun: ’in the initial sessions I will keep the choices sorted binary like oh you could put that loop there and it will sound really cool or you could put it there and that would sound really cool too which of those two things do you prefer will maybe listen and contrast and say well I preferred it here and okay will do that then yeah so it's like there’s an element of like autonomy about it they're deciding but they they're not deciding out of thin air’ Shaun demonstrates using non-pressuring language throughout the musical making process, showing that guiding their participant through the process is something that they often do. In addition, the language that Shaun is using may allow for guidance but also the ability to guide participants may actually help with promoting competence too. If mentors allow complete autonomy for their participants and they produce music which is not successful, this may have a detrimental effect on their participants. However, being non-pressuring and promoting choice but guiding the right decisions may allow for autonomy to be met and competence at the same time. Reeve (2021) highlights non-pressuring language can encourage students’ initiative and therefore feelings of volition. Using language such as ‘you might want to...’ or ‘you might consider...’ can help provide an autonomous-environment as individuals can experience choice through the language used by mentors.

Competence The theme, ‘Highlighting Participant’s Self-Worth’ was established through identifying a number of sub-themes; these sub-themes consist of, setting achievable goals, providing participants with achievable challenges, utilising the blog, establishing quick wins for participants and using praise and feedback. These sub-themes were often spoken about by

mentors, and seemed to be the most common behaviours used to provide competence for their participants.

It became apparent that mentors understood that goals and challenges they were setting needed to be achievable for their participants, otherwise it could potentially bring about feelings of failure and potentially thwart their feelings of competence. An interesting finding is that mentors highlighted that they let participants set their own goals. Not only does this bring about feelings of competence by enabling them to recognise their own ability, it also provides them with a sense of autonomy because they are very much choosing what they want to set themselves. This supports the view that helping individuals set optimal goals can ensure that they feel confident and worthy of achieving these goals, and that feel effective in the environment that they are in (Van den Broeck et al, 2010).

Harry: ‘for me, it is 2 specific things it's having goals that they set themselves and then sign posting how they can achieve them’.

Henry: ‘we work at a pace they always feel like they are achieving so you want it to be a little bit challenging but not so difficult that you're setting someone up to fail’.

Intervention participants have difficulty engaging in activities, especially learning activities, therefore, creating an environment where they cannot possibly fail may be beneficial to help them stay engaged in the learning processes, and help them to gain confidence in their own ability. Using feedback which praises and enforces feelings of confidence is a common behaviour used by mentors at NS. It seemed clear that mentors tried to avoid using negative and critical feedback. Only positive feedback and praise would be used in order to encourage participants and to ensure that they would not experience any sense of failure, but more so to provide them with the feelings of competence. This finding supports the view that praising individuals can promote individual’s self-esteem and self-confidence (Floress et al, 2017).

Mentors’ views were similar to those of Mouratidis et al, (2008), who highlighted that avoiding critical feedback and demeaning language after mistakes can ensure that feelings of competence can be satisfied by participants. Therefore, mentors using these positive behaviours can help facilitate a competence-supportive environment for their participants.

Henry: I’ve told young people their ideas are incredible, amazing especially with the piano chords if young people start doing them the number of young people I’ve said to me can't believe how quickly you’ve picked that up, I've never seen anyone pick it up that quickly before, you know I really, really have praised.

It was a common factor that mentors would use and encourage participants to use a blog, where individuals can post what they have been doing with mentors, and music they have made. This blog acts as a platform where individuals can showcase their music making skills to people they feel close to and in return receive positive feedback. Not only did mentors state they use the blog for this purpose, they also stated that they use it as a reflection tool to look back on what their participants had achieved throughout their time at NS. This reinforces feelings of competence for participants because they are able to identify what they have improved on, how far they have come as individuals and how their confidence has grown throughout. Encouraging participants to use the blog as a form of reflection can improve self-monitoring and regulation. Hensley et al (2020) highlights students at university reported that being self- reflective and analysing themselves allowed them to see where growth had occurred and where there is room for more development. Showing participants,

the blog as a form of reflexivity, can enhance feelings of competence and show participants what they are capable of achieving (Edwards and Nicholl, 2006; Alexander,2017).

Timmy: ‘I'd like to try and show them their blog page by the during the session or certainly at the end yes just wanna say look what we've done today and we just swipe up just a couple photos you know tracks uploading or something yeah even if it's just a couple of photos so, look what we've done today that something that you know he's done all that you know just to recap a bit’.

The final behaviour that seemed to be common across all mentors was that they use instruments and tools which promotes success quickly for their participants. Some highlighted that they would use instruments which you can get good sounds out of in less than 10 minutes. The ability to show individuals that they can do something successful in a matter of minutes may help them feel competent in activities, but it may also allow them to engage in the activity because they want to see their own success. This strategy from mentors may help their participant experience success in their first or second session, which may mean they return and continue to engage in the whole intervention. This could improve selfbelief and self- confidence as well as competence. This may also guide them into feelings of volition, they are doing something because they are internally motivated to see their own success, which related back to feelings of autonomy. Providing activities that individuals will be able to complete, but are challenged by at the same time supports the view of Martin and Kelly (2018) who highlights optimal challenge is an important ingredient to facilitate feelings of competence. However, this finding adds to current research, in that it provides a time scale in which competence, if satisfied, can quickly come about by various activities. Being able to provide activities that quickly satisfies competence, can be useful to engage individuals.

More specifically, this finding may be important for those that target disengaged individuals that maybe have short attention span or find it hard to engage in something over a long period of time.

Harry: ‘I would like to have little things that they can achieve really quickly which can help to get them going. I can teach someone to play a song with two chords in normally about 5 minutes or so erm they really value that, guitar is one of those things that most people think you can’t do, you can it just takes time, and then errr, piano, we have that really fantastic way of learning piano, all of the chords in 20 minutes’.

Relatedness The higher order theme, ‘Gaining a Professional Friendship’ was established through identifying a number of sub-themes in the data. These sub-themes consisted of behaviours such as being informal, building a rapport, encouraging use of the blog, establishing links between participant and self, adapting to participants interests and using interpersonal qualities. When talking to mentors in the interviews, it became quite clear that they were not teachers, counsellors, care workers or any practitioner that would typically be working with disengaged youth, they were musicians that wanted to help individuals create music. One of the main ways mentors seemed to form connections with their participants was by being informal and making their participant aware, they wanted to help them create music. One way mentors seemed to do this was by talking to participants about things they were interested in and informally chatting to them about stuff unrelated to the intervention itself.

39

Shaun: ‘I actually find myself talking to my participant quite a lot about stuff that’s not related to music and erm, I’m a big fan of food... I can’t remember why we got talking about bbq chicken, erm, but that’s sort of like conversational element about it being about anything, just relaxes, the nature of it, I think for this kid it clicked him into the, this isn’t school mode, like this isn’t an area where he has to be defensive’.

Being able to talk about things that interests participants seemed to help develop rapport with participants. Being able to joke and have fun in sessions also allowed participants to feel more comfortable and engaged in the sessions. Using informal language to have a joke with participants may come about through the informal setting in which the NS intervention takes place. It allows for this type of bonding as mentors have no obligation to act as teachers, which would tend to be more professional in schools. This finding does support those of Jones, Armour and Potrac (2004) who highlights having an interest in participants’ activities and showing a genuine like for them as a person can enhance feelings of relatedness-support.

Mentors often found links that would connect participants to themselves, often showing understanding towards participants and being warm and genuine with them. These relatedness- supportive behaviours can help build and satisfy relatedness for participants, providing sincere and caring environments. Providing relatedness-supportive behaviours such as building rapport, exploring similar interests, and showing genuine care to others is very much a similar dynamic and process to how we make friends (Wagner, 2019). In formal education settings, Rawlins, (2000) highlights forming professional friendships between teachers and students can be hard due to dialectical tensions and structural inequality, however this seems to be different in an informal education setting. This could be because of the potential similarities between the mentors and participants taking part in a music intervention. Having the similar interest of music may be one of the reasons that a professional friendship can be formed (Laurensen, 2017).

Max: ‘the rapport comes from conversation and having that time to sort of build that connection so you know when you meet them next, did you have a good week? You said it was your birthday, did you go out? You know, whats going on in your world? And so, erm, in that sense sort of building that relationship’.

Harry: ‘Don’t be serious as well like I find that that helps quite a lot you know have a joke, maybe you know have a laugh at your own expense for a bit. Just to kind of promote the fact that it’s err, a safe space you can laugh you can talk you can you can enjoy rather than a lesson where you are there to do something’.

Although there can be behaviours used which support the feeling of relatedness for participants working with mentors, it seemed as though one of the ways mentors created a supportive environment was through their own interpersonal qualities. Being able to listen, being honest and sincere, as well as being friendly, respectful, caring and trustworthy, allowed them to build relationships with their participants and in turn, allow participants to experience those feelings of relatedness.

Henry: ‘I definitely think its kindness patience, treating them as a person you know, I’m there without any emotional attachment I'm there to make a friend that's how I approach it’.

This finding is similar to Ryan and Patrick, (2001) who highlights relatedness can be created through emotional support. Many of the interpersonal qualities that mentors seemed to have

and use when mentoring are those that would create emotional support for participants.

Therefore, mentors are able to provide a needs-supportive environment through using interpersonal qualities that they naturally display.

Implications Findings from this study have significant implications for the understanding of what behaviours and strategies could be used in promoting a needs-supportive environment for participants taking part in the NS intervention. The positional theory analysis has helped to identify why potential need-supportive behaviours are used, in relation to what positions in social interactions mentors occupy themselves in or positions they invite participants to fill.

Guiding participants, initiating conversations and smoothing conversation functioning can define the position of the ‘facilitator’ mentors would occupy in order to promote positive feelings of competence and autonomy. Mentors also can invite participants into positions by their behaviours, one identified was how participants acted as an ‘expert’. Mentors done this by praising and giving positive feedback, as well as depreciating their own knowledge to make participants experience feelings of competence. Mentors also occupied the position of a ‘friend’ to the participant, which promoted feelings of relatedness by showing genuine care and informal support. Understanding why certain behaviours are used due to the positions mentors may occupy, can lead to practitioners engaging in self-reflections of their own social interactions and what positions they may take up throughout these social interactions to support BPNs. The second phase of this research has allowed mentors of the NS intervention to have a voice and express their thoughts on what works to create these needs-supportive environments.

Behaviours such as adapting to participant’s interests and promoting options and choice, can be used to create autonomy (Girelli et al, 2018). To support competence, using strategies that allow for quick successes for participants and setting them with optimal challenges can enhance their self-belief and self-efficacy (Van den Broeck et al, 2010). Finally, building rapport with participants and gaining a professional friendship with them through interpersonal qualities and creating connections, can promote feelings of relatedness (Jones, Armour and Potrac, 2004).

Not only will this research be useful for the current mentors at NS, but it will also enable other mentors in different interventions to base their behaviours on these findings when creating a needs-supportive environment. Furthermore, these findings may contribute to training purposes and education for practice which should enhance mentors’ and interventionists’ knowledge on SDT itself and what behaviours can be used to provide an environment which can help satisfy autonomy, competence and relatedness. Different behaviours may work for different groups of individuals, what might work for those in a formal education setting, may differ to those in an informal education setting (Eshach, 2007).

This may be due to different intended outcomes for individuals, which is important to acknowledge, especially in intervention settings.

Limitations Limitations throughout the study have cause for discussion. The semi-structured interviews allowed mentors to talk about their retrospective experiences with their participants and were asked to recall examples of times when they had used certain behaviours. This could have negatively affected their recall, having to remember every incident and behaviour used with a

particular participant, decreasing accuracy of the data gathered. In addition, socialdesirability bias could have occurred if mentors did not want to disclose any behaviours they did not think fit the purpose of the study. Alternatively, mentors may have wanted to be seen in the best light and provide answers that they perceived the researcher may wanted to have heard.

Future Directions Future research which has an explicit focus on needs-supportive behaviours in an informal education setting may benefit from observing sessions, and identifying exactly when and how the behaviours of mentors are used. By doing so, it may give a more holistic view of the behaviours used in the sessions. Interactions between mentors and participants can be observed, which may give a better indication of why mentors use particular behaviours to promote the three BPNs and when they use them. In addition, it may also be beneficial for mentors to record sessions, writing reflections of sessions, identifying which behaviours they used and why they used them. A methodology where mentors can record and reflect on their sessions may be beneficial; this is so the researcher can gain a greater and more accurate response of the behaviours used in the sessions.

Conclusion The aim of the present study was to identify and explore what needs-supportive behaviours mentors from the NS intervention use to satisfy their participants’ BPNs. Findings suggests that there are particular behaviours mentors can use in order to promote the three BPNs for their participants. Not only that, but the way mentors position themselves when interacting with their participants can stimulate certain needs-supportive behaviours. Much of the previous research to date has explored behaviours that could be used to promote a needssupportive environment in a formal education setting, however this research was based on an informal education setting, so findings can be generalised to interventions that fall under this category. Being aware of strategies and behaviours that are used to promote a needssupportive environment can be influential to many practitioners, including mentors of the NS intervention, interventionists and mentors from other interventions. Being able to use these findings as a guide of what behaviours can be used in an intervention underpinned by SDT, more specifically, BPNT, could be beneficial to many; including participants that mentors and other practitioners will work with.

Prior to this research being conducted, many studies focused on students, or participants perceptions of behaviours that were used by their teachers or mentors. However, this study helps form an understanding of what mentors believe works for their participants. There is much evidence to support the positive impact of the NS intervention on mental well-being, therefore an increased understanding of what mentors’ do to support BPNS provides valuable theoretical and applied insight for other interventionists and practitioners within the field.