Autonomy-Supportive Teachers: How They Teach and Motivate Students€¦ · How They Teach and...

Journal of Educational Psychology1999, Vol. 91, No. 3, 537-548 Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

0022-0663/99/$3.00

Autonomy-Supportive Teachers:How They Teach and Motivate Students

Johnmarshall ReeveUniversity of Iowa

Elizabeth Bolt and Yi CaiUniversity of Wisconsin—Milwaukee

The authors examined motivating style in terms of a teacher's disposition to control studentsor support their autonomy. In Study 1, 4 independent samples of preservice teacherscompleted the Problems in Schools (PS) questionnaire so the authors could critically evaluatethe instrument to assess motivating style as an individual difference characteristic. In Study 2,preservice teachers taught a 10-min instructional episode as raters judged their language andstyle. In Study 3, elementary and high school teachers self-reported a recent attempt to teachand motivate one of their students. Compared with their controlling counterparts, autonomy-supportive teachers showed a distinctive motivating style as measured by their conversationalbehaviors, interpersonal style, and attempts to support students' intrinsic motivational andinternalization processes.

Teachers vary in the interpersonal styles they rely on toteach and motivate students (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, &Ryan, 1981; Rigby, Deci, Patrick, & Ryan, 1992; Ryan &Grolnick, 1986). Some teachers target a way of thinking,feeling, or behaving and then offer extrinsic incentives andconsequences for progress that their students show towardthat way of thinking, feeling, or behaving. This style isrelatively controlling, because the teacher's goal is to controlstudents' behavior so desirable states occur more frequentlyand undesirable ones occur less frequently. Other teachersteach and motivate by identifying and supporting students'interests and by supporting their internalization of theschool's values and agenda. This style is relatively au-tonomy supportive, because the teacher's goal is to supportstudents' interest in and valuing of education.

The motivating style a teacher relies on—controllingversus autonomy supportive—is relatively stable over thecourse of the academic year (Deci, Schwartz, et al., 1981)and is important because a teacher's style influences stu-dents' school-related motivation, emotion, and performance(for reviews, see Deci & Ryan, 1987; Deci, Vallerand,Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Reeve, 1996). In particular, studentsin classrooms with autonomy-supportive teachers, as com-pared with students in classrooms with controlling teachers,are more likely to stay in school (Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay,1997) and are more likely to show greater perceivedacademic competence (Deci, Schwartz, et al., 1981), en-hanced creativity (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984),a preference for optimal challenge (Shapira, 1976), greater

Johnmarshall Reeve, Division of Psychological and QuantitativeFoundations, University of Iowa; Elizabeth Bolt and Yi Cai,Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-—Milwaukee.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toJohnmarshall Reeve, Division of Psychological and QuantitativeFoundations, 361 Lindquist Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City,Iowa 52242. Electronic mail may be sent to johnmarshallreeve®uiowa.edu.

conceptual understanding (Benware & Deci, 1984; Grolnick& Ryan, 1987), more positive emotionality (Patrick, Skin-ner, & Connell, 1993), higher academic intrinsic motivation(Deci, Nezlek, & Sheinman, 1981), better academic perfor-mance (Boggiano, Flink, Shields, Seelbach, & Barrett,1993), and higher academic achievement (Flink, Boggiano,Main, Barrett, & Katz, 1992). Students show these benefits,according to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985b,1987, 1991; Rigby et al., 1992), because autonomy supportfrom a teacher enables the self-determined motivation instudents that facilitates these benefits.

Research on teachers' motivating styles has closely trackedresearch on the quality of students' motivation, largelybecause of the assumption that the quality of a student'smotivation depends in part on the quality of a teacher'sinstructional style (deCharms, 1976; Deci et al., 1991;Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Goodenow, 1993; Midgley, Feld-laufer, & Eccles, 1989; Rogers, 1969). Highlighting thedistinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, earlyinvestigators (deCharms, 1972,1976; Rogers, 1969; Ryan &Grolnick, 1986) showed how a flexible, resource-providing,and student-centered instructor was able to facilitate instudents the motivational orientation of being an "origin"(i.e., active, having an internal locus of causality) rather thana "pawn" (i.e., passive, reactive). Later, concerned over themotivational downturn students show during the middleschool transition, several researchers highlighted the impor-tance of the fit between the educational context provided byteachers and the socioemotional needs brought to theclassroom by early adolescents (Eccles & Midgley, 1989;Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles, 1988; Ryan & Powelson,1991). A teacher's supportive style that respected andvalued, rather than neglected or frustrated, these needsnurtured high interest, motivation, and achievement (Good-enow, 1993; Midgley et al., 1989; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986).In subsequent research, three needs were identified asespecially sensitive to a teacher's motivating style: Related-ness was nurtured by teacher-provided involvement (care,acceptance), competence was nurtured by teacher-provided

537

538 REEVE, BOLT, AND CAI

structure (optimal challenge, performance feedback), andself-determination was nurtured by teacher-provided au-tonomy support (choices, shared decision making; Connell& Wellborn, 1991; Deci et al., 1991; Skinner & Belmont,1993). Reflecting on this research history, Weiner (1990)concluded that "school motivation cannot be divorced fromthe social faliifein which it is embedded" (p. 621). That is,the quality ofiiiStodent's motivation does indeed depend, inpart, on the quality of a teacher's interpersonal motivatingstyle.

One instrument for assessing motivating style is theProblems in Schools (PS) questionnaire (Deci, Schwartz, etal., 1981). The questionnaire features eight vignettes thatdescribe the motivation-related problems children face inschool. Each vignette lists four ways a teacher mightrespond to the child's problem, and each way represents apoint along a continuum that extends from highly control-ling (HC) to highly autonomy supportive (HA). For the HCresponse, the teacher identifies a solution and uses tangibleextrinsic motivators to encourage appropriate behaviors. Forthe moderately controlling (MC) response, the teacheridentifies a solution and encourages its implementation byappealing to the child's internalized sense of obligation ("dowhat you should") or to what others think is right ("it's foryour own good"). For the moderately autonomy-supportive(MA) response, the teacher encourages the child to empa-thize with how his or her peers understand, diagnose, andsolve the same problem. For the HA response, the teacherencourages the child to diagnose the problem, generate asolution, and try it out for himself or herself. For eachvignette, respondents rate the appropriateness of each of thefour responses on a separate 1-7 Likert scale. Each scale'sscore is computed by averaging its eight responses, and thefour scores are combined as follows: Motivating style =2(HA) + MA - MC - 2(HC). The possible range of scoresis - 1 8 to 18, with negative scores reflecting a relativelycontrolling motivating style and positive scores reflecting arelatively autonomy-supportive style. For purposes of illus-tration, one of the questionnaire's vignettes is as follows:

Jim is an average student who has been working at grade level.During the past two weeks, he has appeared listless and hasnot been participating during reading group. The work he doesis accurate, but he has not been completing assignments. Aphone conversation with his mother revealed no usefulinformation. The most appropriate thing for Jim's teacher todo is:

MC: She should impress upon him the importance offinishing his assignments since he needs to learn thismaterial for his own good.

HA: Let him know that he doesn't have to finish all of hiswork now and see if she can help him work out thecause of the listlessness.

HC: Make him stay after school until the day's assignmentsare done.

MA: Let him see how he compares with the other children interms of his assignments and encourage him to catchup with the others.

The instrument's designers validated each response optionas a representative of its scale through its face validity (i.e.,the item's wording matched the scale's operational defini-

tion) and by showing that its score correlated higher with theother seven response options from that scale than it did withany of the 24 response options from the other three scales(Deci, Schwartz, et al., 1981). But the investigators stoppedshort of establishing criterion validity for each scale and,instead, validated only the questionnaire's total score. Teach-ers who scored as relatively autonomy supportive overall—that is, using 2(HA) + MA - MC - 2(HC)—had studentswho (a) rated that teacher as relatively autonomy supportiveand (b) scored high on a measure of intrinsic motivationtoward school (Deci, Nezlek, et al., 1981; Deci, Schwartz, etal., 1981).

After 15 years of productive research with the PSquestionnaire, two important gaps remain in understandingautonomy-supportive and controlling teachers. The first gapis an assessment issue and concerns a potential shortcomingof the PS instrument. Solving this problem was the goal ofStudy 1, which we focused on testing the questionnaire'sconceptual validity. The second gap is that no study has yetconfirmed that teachers who score as autonomy supportive(or controlling) on the questionnaire actually interact withstudents in more autonomy-supportive (or controlling) ways.We therefore focused Studies 2 and 3 on testing thequestionnaire's predictive validity. In Study 2, a laboratorystudy, preservice teachers first completed the PS question-naire and then taught a student during an actual instructionalepisode, which we videotaped to later judge the languageand style used by each teacher as relatively autonomysupportive or controlling. In Study 3, a field study, practicingteachers first completed the questionnaire and then self-reported a recent, actual classroom episode in which theyattempted to teach and motivate a disengaged student.Reading these essays, raters judged each teacher's languageand style as relatively autonomy supportive or controlling.

Study 1

In Study 1, we critically examined the conceptual validityof the PS questionnaire. Despite the questionnaire's demon-strated utility (e.g., see Deci, Nezlek, et al., 1981; Deci,Schwartz, et al., 1981; Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1990), avalidity concern has emerged regarding one of its fourscales. Although the HC, MC, and HA scales have consis-tently shown impressive conceptual validity, critical exami-nation of the MA scale has cast psychometric doubt on itsvalidity (see, e.g., Deci, Schwartz, et al.'s [1981] Table 4, p.646). If invalid, then the MA scale should be either revisedor deleted from the instrument altogether. We thereforeapplied data from four independent samples to examinecritically the validity of each scale.

Method: The Samples and Normative Data

Four independent samples of preservice teachers enrolled in ateacher certification program at one of two large, public universi-ties in the midwest completed the PS questionnaire. Sample sizesfor the four groups were as follows: Sample 1,134; Sample 2,141;Sample 3,191; and Sample 4,84. Respondents in Samples 1,2, and3 completed a battery of questionnaires, one of which was the PSquestionnaire. Respondents in Sample 4 completed the PS question-

AUTONOMY-SUPPORTIVE TEACHERS 539

naire both before and after their participation in a training sessionthat featured either autonomy-supportive or controlling (i.e., behav-ior-modification) instructional strategies. Demographic characteris-tics were highly similar across the four samples. Of the 550participants, 74% were women. Academic classifications included13% sophomores, 39% juniors, 28% seniors, and 20% postbacca-laureates. The preservice teachers classified themselves into thefollowing specializations: early childhood, 11%; primary grades,41%; secondary grades, 37%; adult education, 1%; and exceptionaleducation, 10%. Seventy-four percent had some classroom experi-ence in the local school district ranging from classroom observa-tions to teaching with full-time responsibilities. Most participantswere Caucasian White (85%), with 6% African American, 5%Caucasian Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 1% Native American.

The descriptive statistics for each scale—its mean, standarddeviation, and coefficient alpha—appear in Table 1. These norma-tive data correspond closely to those reported in other data sets(e.g., Cai, 1994; Deci, Schwartz, et al., 1981).

Results

Our question was whether each individual scale on the PSquestionnaire showed strong conceptual validity. If valid,each scale measuring autonomy support (i.e., HA, MA)should covary with other indicators of interpersonal au-tonomy support, whereas each scale measuring control (i.e.,HC, MC) should covary with other indicators of interper-sonal control. To make this determination, we applied threevalidity-testing criteria to each scale. The data for (andresults from) each validity test appear in Table 2.

For the first validity test, we computed mean interscalecorrelations. How each scale correlated with the other threeappears in the top third of Table 2. Presumably, the twoautonomy-support scales should have correlated positivelywith one another but negatively or not at all with the twocontrol scales, just as the two control scales should havecorrelated positively with one another but negatively or notat all with the two autonomy-support scales. Scores from thetwo control scales, HC and MC, did correlate highly withone another (mean r = .62), whereas scores from the twoautonomy-support scales, HA and MA, did not (meanr = .00). Instead of correlating with HA scores, the MAscores actually correlated with the two control scale scores(mean rs = .50 and .39).

Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Coefficient Alphas forEach Problems in Schools (PS) Questionnaire Scale

Table 2Results From the Three Validity Tests in Study 1

PS questionnaire scale M SD

HAMAMCHC

5.704.153.953.30

0.781.101.031.11

.69

.78

.77

.79

Note. Each statistic above represents an average score across thefour independent samples. For instance, the descriptive statisticsfor the HC scale in the four samples were as follows (M, SD, a,respectively): Sample 1, 3.33, 0.99, .74; Sample 2, 3.29,1.10, .79;Sample 3, 3.30, 1.06, .79; and Sample 4, 3.26, 1.30, .84. HA =highly autonomy supportive; MA = moderately autonomy support-ive; MC = moderately controlling; HC = highly controlling.

Validity test

PS scale intercorrelationsHAMAMCHC

PS scale-COS correla-tions (N = 132)

COS Autonomy scoreCOS Control score

PS scale difference scoresfollowing instructionin:

Autonomy-supportivemethods in = 42)

Controlling methods(n = 42)

'(82)

PS questionnaire scale

HA

.44**

.17

0.57

-0.498.85**

MA

.00

.04

.24**

-0.18

0.172.16*

MC

-.13.50—

.00

.37**

-0.64

0.356.85**

HC

-.22.39.62—

-.05.49**

-0.85

0.688.55**

Note. PS = Problems in Schools questionnaire; HA = highlyautonomy supportive; MA = moderately autonomy supportive;MC = moderately controlling; HC = highly controlling; COS =Causality Orientations Scale.* 0 5 * * 0 1

For the second validity test, we used only the data fromSample 1 to assess each scale's correlation with the Causal-ity Orientations Scale (COS; Deci & Ryan, 1985a), anoften-used personality measure for assessing individuals'orientations toward autonomy and control. We expectedpreservice teachers who scored as autonomy oriented on theCOS to score high on the two autonomy-supportive scales(HA, MA) and preservice teachers who scored as controloriented on the COS to score high on the two control scales(HC, MC). The correlations between preservice teachers'scores on the COS and their scores on the PS questionnaire'sfour scales appear in the middle third of Table 2. Autonomy-oriented individuals scored relatively high on the HA scale,r(134) = .44, p < .01, whereas control-oriented individualsscored relatively high on the MA, MC, and HC scales,rs(134) = .24, .37, and .49, respectively, allps < .01.

For the third validity test, we used only the data fromSample 4 in which preservice teachers were randomlyassigned to receive training in either autonomy-supportiveor controlling instructional strategies. We expected thatexposure to the information, rationale, and how-to ofautonomy-supportive instruction would influence preserviceteachers' posttraining motivating style scores to becomemore autonomy supportive (and that exposure to behavior-modification instruction would influence their posttrainingmotivating style scores to become more controlling). Thesedifference scores (posttraining PS score minus pretrainingPS score) appear in the lower third of Table 2. PosttrainingHA scores changed as expected: They increased followingautonomy-supportive training and decreased following be-havior-modification training, Ms: 0.57 versus -0.40,f(82) = 8.85, p < .01. MA scores, however, decreasedfollowing autonomy-supportive training and increased fol-


lowing behavior-modification training, Ms: -0.18 versus0.17, r(82) = 2.16, p < .05. Posttraining MC and HC scoreschanged as expected: MC scores increased following behav-ior-modification training and decreased following autonomy-supportive training, Ms: —0.64 versus 0.35, *(82) = 6.85,p < .01, just as did HC scores, Ms: -0.85 versus 0.68,

Discussion

The validity of scores produced by the HA, MC, and HCscales was confirmed, whereas the validity of scores pro-duced by the MA scale was not. MA scores did not correlatewith HA scores but instead correlated with the MC and HCscores (Validity Test 1). MA scores did not correlate with anautonomy orientation but instead correlated with a controlorientation (Validity Test 2). Finally, MA scores decreasedfollowing autonomy-supportive training but increased follow-ing behavior-modification training (Validity Test 3).

To increase the validity of the PS questionnaire, threepossibilities present themselves. The first possibility is toretain the MA scale but reinterpret its scores to reflect aslightly controlling (SC) motivating style. The scoringsystem for the PS questionnaire could be modified asfollows: Motivating style = 6(HA) - SC - 2(MC) -3(HC). Although such a modification maintains the con-tinuum of self-determination within the PS questionnaire'sscoring system, it also includes a scale (SC) without anunderlying theoretical rationale. The second possibility is todelete the MA scale altogether and modify the question-naire's scoring system accordingly, as follows: Motivatingstyle = 2(HA) + 0(MA) - MC - 2(HC). This solutionimproves on the first one because each scale score remainsclosely allied with self-determination theory, the theory onwhich the questionnaire was based. The third possibility is torevise the content of the MA scale and maintain thequestionnaire's original scoring system. Although this solu-tion offers the most promise, it takes us too far from thepurpose of the present investigation. (The data showed thatthe MA scale was problematic, but they did not provide thebasis for constructing a valid alternative.) In the spirit ofencouraging the revision of the MA scale, we offer ourrecommendations on how this might be accomplished in theGeneral Discussion below. For Studies 2 and 3, we adoptedthe second solution and zero weighted the MA scores, astrategy that allowed us to use three reliable and valid scalescores to compute the PS total score we needed to identifyautonomy-supportive (and controlling) teachers.

Study 2

Past research on interpersonal motivating styles has reliedon a social psychological approach by creating environmen-tal conditions that led teachers to adopt one motivating styleor the other (Deci, Spiegel, Ryan, Koestner, & Kauffman,1982; Flink et al., 1990). For instance, to orient teacherstoward interpersonal control, researchers stressed that theteachers were responsible for their students being able toperform up to standards. Following this directive, research-

ers looked for behavioral differences among teachers pres-sured by the experimenter-imposed mandate and a controlgroup of teachers without such pressure in terms of theirconversation (e.g., time teacher spent talking), utterances(e.g., frequency of directives, controlling questions), andinterpersonal style (e.g., to what extent the teacher seemedinvolved and enthusiastic). Generally speaking, pressuredteachers gave more hints, used directive language, andoffered their students little choice or autonomy.

In contrast with this social psychological tradition, thepresent study followed a dispositional, or personality-based,approach to investigating motivating style. The purpose ofthe PS questionnaire is to identify autonomy-supportiveteachers. So, in Study 2, we investigated how an autonomy-supportive teacher, once identified by the PS questionnaire,teaches and motivates during an instructional episode.Though our approach was personality-based, we benefitedfrom the social psychological research by adopting many ofthe same methodological features, dependent measures, andtheoretical predictions. In terms of methodological similari-ties, we used a one-on-one instructional context, a laboratorysetting, and an unfamiliar but potentially enjoyable task, aswell as videotaping each teaching session for later coding; interms of dependent measures, we assessed many of the samemeasures of conversation, utterances, and interpersonalstyle; and in terms of theoretical predictions, we hypoth-esized that relatively autonomy-supportive teachers woulddisplay a student-centered conversational approach, nondi-rective utterances, and a flexible interpersonal style thatafforded students rich autonomy.

Method

Participants

Participants were 61 pairs of junior, senior, or postbaccalaureatepreservice teachers (49 female dyads, 12 male dyads) enrolledin a teacher certification program at a large, urban midwestemuniversity.

Procedure

Three hundred seventy preservice teachers enrolled in differentsections of the same educational psychology class completed thePS questionnaire at the beginning of the semester. One month later,an investigator recruited volunteers from this sample into same-sexpairs. On arrival at the laboratory setting, participants wererandomly assigned into the role of either the teacher or the student.The investigator escorted the teacher to the experimental room andasked him or her to take 10 min to gain familiarity with the task, theHappy Cubes puzzle. In past studies, participants have reportedHappy Cubes to be both unfamiliar and potentially enjoyable (see,e.g., Reeve, 1989). Just before situating the teacher, the investigatorescorted the student down the hallway to a room where he or shewaited for 10 min reading through magazines. After 10 min of thestudent waiting and the teacher preparing, the investigator escortedthe student to the experimental room to join the teacher. The pair satside by side at a large table with the puzzle and seven patterns tosolve. The investigator told the student that his or her role was tolearn how the puzzle worked and how to derive its solutions. Theinvestigator told the teacher that his or her role was to help the


student learn about the puzzle and its solutions "in whatever way(s)he saw fit." Following these instructions, the investigator left foran adjacent room. The instructional episode lasted 10 min and wasvideotaped. After 10 min, the investigator returned, administered apostsession questionnaire, debriefed the pair, and allowed any pairwho expressed an interest to watch their videotaped interaction.

The decisions (a) to use an actual student in the role of thestudent, rather than a confederate, and (b) to announce the videocamera's presence were made after weighing the pros and cons. Asto using actual students, we reasoned that although a confederatewould provide greater consistency in the student's behavior, therepetition required from the confederate would sacrifice spontane-ity and realism. In emphasizing spontaneity and realism, wenonetheless recognized the importance of consistency from onestudent to the next. We took the precaution of assessing eachstudent's puzzle-solving motivation so we could statistically con-trol for any differences in the quality of the student's motivationfrom one pair to the next. As to announcing the video camera (onthe opposite side of the room), we reasoned that although secretiverecording of the interaction would provide greater realism, anysuch gain was too small to warrant what we considered to be asubstantial and unnecessary invasion of privacy. Also, pilot workand our previous studies using a visible video camera had shown usthat it was not the presence of a video camera or even surveillanceitself that put privacy and motivation at risk (e.g., see Lepper &Greene, 1975; Plant & Ryan, 1985), but was instead the camera's"functional significance"—whether its controlling or its informa-tional aspect was salient—that determined its effects (Deci & Ryan,1985b, p. 64). Anticipating this, the investigator made a deliberateeffort to present the video camera in a noncontrolling andnoninvasive context.

Dependent Measures

We organized the dependent measures into objective and subjec-tive categories, following Deci et al. (1982) and Flink et al. (1990).Some of our measures of the teacher's behavior were the same asthose used in these two previous investigations, but we alsoincluded new measures. Overall, we investigated 14 objectivebehaviors and 22 subjective ratings. Two trained raters, who wereunaware of the teacher's PS score, scored each measure fromindependent vie wings of the videotapes. Each rater viewed eachvideotaped session three times. On the first viewing, the rater codedthe conversation measures; on the second viewing, the rater codedthe teacher's utterances and the student's puzzle-solving perfor-mance outcomes; and on the third viewing, the rater coded thesubjective measures. One rater scored all measures for all 61 pairs,whereas a second rater independently scored a random sample ofone third of the sessions (i.e., 20 pairs) to estimate interraterreliability. To estimate intrarater reliability, the first rater again—4months later—scored the same random sample of sessions as didthe second rater.

Objective measures. The raters scored three conversation mea-sures and 11 utterances. In the parentheses below, the first numbercorresponds to the interrater reliability estimate, and the secondnumber corresponds to the intrarater reliability estimate. Theoperational definitions for the three conversation measures were asfollows: time spent talking, cumulative number of seconds theteacher talked (rinttmttI = .79, rintrarater = .95); time spent listening,cumulative number of seconds the teacher attended to the student'sspeech as evidenced by the teacher's verbal or nonverbal signals ofactive, contingent information processing (rs = .50, .88); and timespent holding instructional materials, cumulative number of sec-onds the teacher physically held, manipulated, or otherwise pos-sessed the puzzle, the solutions, or both (rs = .96, .97). Each

measure had a possible range of 0 to 600 s, and more than onecategory could occur at the same time (e.g., the teacher could betalking and holding the instructional materials at the same time).

The operational definitions for the 11 utterances were as follows:directives/commands, frequency of commands such as do, put,turn, and place, for example, "Flip it over" (rinterrater = -83,'•intrarater = -79); should, must, got to statements, frequency ofstatements that the student should, must, has to, or ought to dosomething, such as "You've got to get the base first" (rs = .82,.88); controlling questions, frequency of directives posed as aquestion, such as "Can you make the puzzle look like I showedyou?" (rs = .90, .91); questions asking about student's wants,frequency of questions asked specifically about what the studentwanted or desired, such as "Which pattern do you want to startwith?" (rs = .76, .92); responses to student-generated questions,frequency of the teacher's contingent replies to a student-initiatedquestion (rs = .64, .89); praises, frequency of verbal approvals ofthe student or the student's performance, such as "Good job!"(rs = .83, .35); encouragements, frequency of pep-talk statementsto boost the student's effort, such as "Now you're getting the hangof it; let's go!" (rs = .27, .66); hints given, frequency of sugges-tions about how to make performance progress, such as "This oneworks best if you start with the puzzle upside down" (rs = .80,.74); solutions given, frequency of statements revealing a solutionto one of the puzzle patterns, such as "This is what the 'chair' lookslike" (rs = .86, .99); personal statements, frequency of self-disclosures, such as "That pattern was the hardest one for me"(rs = .83, .74); and perspective-taking statements, empathic state-ments reflecting an understanding of the student's perspective, suchas "I can see that you are starting to get frustrated" (rs = .60, .94).Each utterance was assessed in terms of its frequency of occurrenceduring the 10-min (600-s) session.

Subjective measures. Raters used 1-7 scales to score 22subjective aspects of the teacher's interpersonal style. To select oursubjective measures, we relied on published theory and research asto what teachers do to support students' autonomy (deCharms,1976; Deci, 1995; Deci et al., 1982; Flink et al., 1990; Reeve, 1996;Rogers, 1969). Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were estimatedfor all 22 ratings, and any rating with less than .60 on eitherreliability coefficient was dropped from further consideration asunreliable. Three ratings were excluded on this basis. We thenperformed a principal-components factor analysis with varimaxrotation on the remaining 19 measures. Two factors emerged (basedon the number of factors with eigenvalues greater than 1). The firstfactor extracted accounted for 68% of the variance and wasinterpreted as Supported Intrinsic Motivation. Thirteen items hadfactor loadings greater than .80: treated student as origin, gavechoices, supported initiative, was student centered, understoodstudent's perspective, created opportunities for choice, not demand-ing, not directive, encouraged student decision making, allowedstudent to work in own way, supported student's agenda, pursuedstudent's goals, and was in sync with student. The second factoraccounted for 18% of the variance, was interpreted as SupportedInternalization, and included the following 6 items: negativefeelings okay, provided rationale, promoted a valuing of task,promoted interest in puzzle, supported confidence, and encouragedquestions. To compute the factor score for Supported IntrinsicMotivation, we averaged the first factor's 13 items (because thefactor loadings were all so high and because averaging allowed usto interpret the factor score on a 1-7 scale); to compute the factorscore for Supported Internalization, we averaged the secondfactor's 6 items (for the same reasons).

In addition to the 22 subjective impressions, raters judged threegeneral impressions of the teacher: showed enthusiasm (rinlemaer = .75,>"intrarater = -87), showed interest (rs = .70, .75), and showed expertise


(rs = .79, .77). Following the instructional episode, the teacher andstudent both completed a four-item possession questionnaire askingabout interest, enjoyment, importance of doing well, and puzzle-solvingexpertise of the teacher.

Performance

Raters scored two performance outcomes for each student:number of puzzles solved singly (rinamttec = .87, rimrarater = -96),operationally denned as the number of solutions the student solvedsuccessfully by himself or herself without the teacher's guidinghands or words; and number of puzzles solved by student withteacher's assistance (rs = .73, .95), operationally defined as thenumber of solutions the student solved successfully with theteacher's guidance, collaboration, or intervention. These twomeasures were scored as mutually exclusive categories. Thepossible range for each performance measure was 0-7 solutions.

Results

The descriptive statistics and intercorrelation matrix forthe teachers' PS scores and 16 behaviors appear in Table 3.To test the hypotheses about how autonomy-supportiveteachers teach and motivate students, we relied on partialcorrelations rather than on the zero-order correlations re-ported in Table 3. We report the results from the partialcorrelations (rather than the results from the zero-ordercorrelations) because we wanted to control for differences inthe quality of the student's motivation from one teacher tothe next. To construct this covariate, we averaged thestudent's responses on the postsession questionnaire measur-ing interest, enjoyment, and importance of doing well toreflect extent of self-determined motivation (i.e., intrinsicmotivation and identified regulation; Ryan & Cornell,1989). In actuality, the covariate had little effect on theteacher's behavior, so the magnitude of the hypothesis-testing partial correlations was very similar in all cases to themagnitude of the zero-order correlations shown in Table 3.To conduct 16 independent tests and still protect againstmaking a Type 1 error, we first calculated what each testwisealpha level must be to produce an overall experimentwise(exp) alpha level of .05. The problem was that the 16 tests(using atest = .05, one-tailed) inflated our experimentwisealpha to .56 (based on the formula from Hays, 1994:a«P = 1 - (1 - .05)16). So, to readjust the inflated .56experimentwise alpha level back down to .05, we computedwhat each testwise alpha needed to be for each partialcorrelation test. This value was .006 (based on Hays'formula: atest/number of tests, or 05one.tailed/16).

Teachers' Behaviors

Conversation measures. Motivating style correlated sig-nificantly with two of the three conversation measures (seeTable 3). After controlling for the quality of the student'smotivation, both measures continued to correlate signifi-cantly with motivating style, as relatively autonomy-supportive teachers were more likely to listen to the student(pr = .34, p < .01) and less likely to hold or possess theinstructional materials (pr = - .34, p < .01). Using a <

.006, motivating style continued to predict both time spentlistening and time holding materials.

Utterances. Motivating style correlated significantly withfive utterances (see Table 3). After controlling for the qualityof the student's motivation, all five utterances continued tocorrelate significantly with motivating style, as relativelyautonomy-supportive teachers were more likely to ask aboutthe student's wants (pr = .32, p < .05), to respond tostudent-generated questions (pr = .28, p < .05), and tovolunteer perspective-taking statements (pr = .27, p < .05),and were less likely to use directives (pr = —.30, p < .05)and to reveal the puzzle's solutions (pr = —.37, p < .01).Using a < .006, motivating style continued to predict onlyone utterance: solutions given.

Subjective impressions. Motivating style correlated sig-nificantly with both factors representing the raters' subjec-tive impressions of the teacher's interpersonal style (seeTable 3). After controlling for the quality of the student'smotivation, raters judged the relatively autonomy-support-ive teachers as significantly more supportive of students'intrinsic motivation (pr = .36, p < .01) and internalization(pr = .42, p < .01). Using a < .006, motivating stylecontinued to predict both Supported Intrinsic Motivationand Supported Internalization.

Supplemental Analyses

In addition to analyzing how motivating style related tothe teacher's behavioral ways of teaching and motivating,we also assessed the effect of motivating style on howenthusiastic and interested the teacher appeared to be and onhow well the student performed. Motivating style correlatedwith how enthusiastic (but not with how interested) theteacher appeared to be, as relatively autonomy-supportiveteachers were rated as showing the greater enthusiasm(r = .26, p < .05). Motivating style did not correlate withany of the teacher's or with any of the student's self-reportedinterest, enjoyment, importance of doing well, or perceivedexpertise of the teacher. Motivating style did not correlatewith how many puzzles the student solved with the teacher'sassistance (r = .05), but it did correlate significantly withhow many puzzles the student solved singly (r = .26,p < .05), as students with autonomy-supportive teachersoutperformed students with controlling teachers.

Discussion

We found that teachers who said they were autonomysupportive (on the PS questionnaire) actually taught in waysthat supported student autonomy. Compared with theirrelatively controlling counterparts, autonomy-supportiveteachers listened more, held the instructional materials less,resisted giving the puzzle's solutions, and supported thestudent's intrinsic motivation and internalization. Autonomy-supportive teachers also showed a tendency to verbalizefewer directives, ask more questions about what the studentwanted to do, respond more to student-generated questions,and volunteer more perspective-taking statements.


tN

II

II

•id

1 B•* 1

< s q \ c o r o i n * o v £ > O \ J i q oo in r- »n p•^ O ^f C"J " " '"H *•** "^ ^ I ^ i T—< O *""J O v i

r r r i t' r* * * * * * * * * * £ * — , - .^3 O'N i/^ £»«. Q \ £•»» ^5 co ^3 wi r** wN *" r n ^ Jf< ^f IO ^3 ^3 ' ^ 10 f J ^f r~* C^ CO * 1 ^D C J

r • r r r i f r i'* *f- 1 co ^D ^f ^^ c l in c*** <™ ^? " ^3 ^? CN ifS) H T-H Cb C1^ T"H ^^ f ^ l ^^ ^ 5 """ T™H ^ 5 ^ 1

r i rl/^ f " PO C*4 ^* ^t ^? ^^ Ô^H »-H ^ 5 ^H t ^ ^ 3 ^ 5 ^^ ^^

^ ( . . • • |

* * # # # # *

^f t"^ 00 CO 00 t ^ C*l C^ CO C^ ON C*3f<j ^ f ^ H ^ 3 ^^ CO CO y^ ^H T ^ ^^ Ô

r i i* i ' i* i*

* * * * * , .__» _t

o so *"•• *n ^" ^ | ^ es p p P• I f

r * i* *\' ' \' ' ' '

* * * *0 0 OO OO ^ " *"* CN SO *"H j

r ' r r r rcN Os en Os s o ^H en •en *~ *^ ^3 t~t '"H ^^ I

i* r r* * * * *

S CO OS O ^ CO i

\O f S CO Ô CO I

l' ' f ' '* * *

fr ^3 en oo CN I-! <n »*. •*. "->. Ii i

* * * *Os SO <-> ^ ics in en ^; |{ ' i' '

* * *en f- •-" ien vq • * |

f ' l'*^* Os ien

in

00

2Os<*!

100

en

oo

O

insom2enes

O

enr-

oo •* >n —"">c q i n C N O s O s o o ' - ' —2 B 2 2 2 2 2 2—i m o o o o o o

0

p1—4

OS

00

p4

en osc4 c-i

f"- os o in— es 00 — —2 S 2 2 2o»-«o o o

VO OSe n •*->

rn i n >-< e s <-i

SOin

2en

oq J00o

s

i

» 1

*> II V

^2


To gain these insights, we used preservice teachers whotaught a peer in a well-controlled laboratory setting. Thisprocedure allowed us to make a careful test of our hypoth-eses concerning how autonomy-supportive and controllingteachers teach and motivate. Not using a naturalistic settingwith actual teachers and their students, however, raisedconcerns about the external validity of the findings. So, forStudy 3, our goal was to assess the extent to which we couldgeneralize to practicing teachers in an actual classroomsetting our findings in Study 2 with preservice teachers in alaboratory setting. We initiated Study 3 with optimism,because Flink et al.'s (1990) naturalistic study with actualteachers and their students had previously and convincinglyreplicated the findings from Deci et al.'s (1982) laboratorystudy with college students (i.e., fourth-grade teachers maderesponsible for their students performing up to standardstaught in the same controlling way as college students withthe same responsibility—by relying on hints, solutions,pressure, and on ways observers judged to be controlling).

Study 3

We asked separate samples of elementary and high schoolteachers first to complete the PS questionnaire and then todescribe in detail an actual classroom episode from thatweek in which they attempted to teach and motivate astudent. Although our data in Study 2 assessed actualteaching behaviors, we designed Study 3 to assess teachers'self-reports of their actual teaching behaviors. Trained,independent raters then scored each teacher's written essayon six dimensions of autonomy support (described below).We predicted that teachers who scored as relatively au-tonomy supportive on the PS questionnaire would self-report an interpersonal style that revolved around supportingstudents' intrinsic motivation and internalization (i.e., thetwo factors from Study 2). Our prediction recognized,however, that teachers relate to students in controlling orautonomy-supportive ways for reasons in addition to then-personal disposition, including how engaged versus disen-gaged teachers perceive their students to be (Skinner &Belmont, 1993), how pressured teachers feel by administra-tors (Lortie, 1977), the salience of ability assessments(Maehr & Andaman, 1993), a push for performance out-comes (Deci et al., 1982; Flink et al., 1990), a tendency toimitate instructional role models (Williams & Deci, 1996),and a host of additional factors including class size, gender,political ideology, years of teaching experience, and gradelevel taught (Cai, 1994). Recognizing these sociocontextualinfluences on a teacher's motivating style, we asked teachersto self-report a number of control variables that enabled us topartial out statistically some of these confounding influenceson a teacher's classroom approach to teaching and motivating.

Method

Participants

We collected data from two independent samples of teachers in alarge midwestern city. The sample of elementary teachers consistedof 32 teachers (27 women, 5 men) who had full-time teaching

responsibilities for kindergarten through sixth grade. The sample ofhigh school teachers consisted of 14 teachers (7 women, 7 men)who had full-time teaching responsibilities for 9th through 12thgrades.

Procedure

Each school's faculty met together in a large hall, and theinvestigator administered, in sequence, the PS questionnaire, theHow I Teach and Motivate a Disengaged Student questionnaire(described below), and a survey to assess the control variables. Thesurvey included items for gender, race/ethnicity, years of profes-sional experience, class size, grade level taught, political ideology(liberal-conservative), and a rating of how engaged versus disen-gaged the teacher perceived his or her students to be (highlydisengaged-highly engaged). Each teacher answered the questionsindividually, and the testing session lasted 25 min. After collectingthe set of questionnaires, the investigator debriefed the group as awhole.

Measures

How I Teach and Motivate a Disengaged Student questionnaire.The How I Teach and Motivate a Disengaged Student questionnairewas a one-page instrument that began with the following instruc-tion:

Recall an actual classroom experience from this week inwhich you attempted to teach and motivate a disengagedstudent. A disengaged student is one who is behaviorallypassive or who shows negative emotion such as boredom.Picture in your mind one specific, recent teacher-studentinteraction, and in a sentence or two please describe below thedisengaged student you have in mind.

The teacher described the student, and then the instructionscontinued:

In a paragraph or two, outline the approach you took. In doingso, include answers to the following questions: How did youapproach and interact with the student? What did you do?What did you say? What did you try to accomplish?

Subjective impressions of the teacher's style. Two trainedraters independently scored each of the 46 essays on six dimensionsof an autonomy-supportive style. We focused on these six dimen-sions because others have argued that they constitute the essence of"how to promote autonomy" (Deci, 1995, p. 141; see also Deci,1995, chapters 11-12; and Reeve, 1996, chapter 2). Interraterreliabilities were as follows: student centered (r = .92), encour-aged initiative (r = .88), provided rationale (r = .96), nurturedcompetence (r = .85), relied on a noncontrolling communicationstyle (r = .84), and promoted a valuing of task (r = .83). Using theaverage score of the two raters, we entered the six subjectiveimpressions into a principal-components factor analysis withvarimax rotation, and two factors emerged. The first factorextracted accounted for 60% of the variance, was interpreted asSupported Intrinsic Motivation, and included four items with factorloadings greater than .80: student centered, encouraged initiative,nurtured competence, and relied on a noncontrolling communica-tion style. The second factor accounted for 23% of the variance,was interpreted as Supported Internalization, and included twoitems with factor loadings greater than .80: provided rationale andpromoted a valuing of task. To compute our two dependentmeasures, we averaged the four items from Factor 1 into themeasure Supported Intrinsic Motivation (M = 4.47, SD = 1.73,


range = 1-7), and we averaged the two items from Factor 2 intothe measure Supported Internalization (M = 3.52, SD = 1.55,range = 1-7; r between Factors 1 and 2 = .36, p < .05).

Results

All teachers described a one-on-one interaction at the topof the How I Teach and Motivate a Disengaged Studentquestionnaire. One elementary teacher, for instance, wrote,"He does not engage himself to his intellectual level. Doesthe minimum work and does not want to do more than that."A high school teacher described a disengaged student thisway: "Does not take notes, gets up and walks to other partsof room, sleeps or reads a book instead of participating inclass discussion, has sloppy, poorly done assignments."Teachers then wrote a short essay to self-report what theysaid and did to teach and motivate that student. Oneelementary teacher, for instance, wrote:

During class discussion when the student was talking to anexcess, I did in a matter-of-fact tone say that, "F., thatconversation is not acceptable at this time." Later, when wehad a break before recess, talked to F. about what is acceptableconversation in the class, and also how his talking is notshowing respect for his classmates. I tried to help F. see that bydisrupting the class, he is not showing respect.

A high school teacher wrote:

I talked to the student individually in a neutral setting beforeschool. I checked his schedule to see if my preparation timematched with a study hall. I went over the material with thestudent—he had difficulty reading. He wasn't as disinterestedas he appeared—he wasn't understanding the material. Ihoped to interest the student in the subject matter.

It was these essays that the raters judged to score the sixdimensions of an autonomy-supportive style.

We collapsed the data from the elementary and highschool teachers into a single sample after we found in ourpreliminary analyses (using t tests) that the two groups ofteachers did not differ on the predictor variable (motivatingstyle) or on either dependent measure (Supported IntrinsicMotivation, Supported Internalization). The two groups ofteachers did, however, differ on two of the control variables:gender, x2O. N = 46) = 18.00, p < .05, and years ofteaching experience, t(44) = 2.95, p < .01, as the elemen-tary teachers were more likely to be women and to have lessexperience. Most teachers (43 of 46, 93%) were CaucasianWhite, so we could not conduct meaningful analyses on therace/ethnicity variable. Also, grade level taught was difficultto determine accurately because many teachers taughtmultiple grade levels, especially among the high schoolteachers. For these reasons, we dropped race/ethnicity andgrade level taught from our list of control variables. As agroup, the 46 teachers scored as somewhat autonomysupportive on the PS questionnaire (M = 1.89, SD = 3.24,range = -3.50-10.33).

Motivating style correlated with both dependent mea-sures: Supported Intrinsic Motivation, r(46) = .45, p < .01,and Supported Internalization, r(46) = .34, p < .05. To testthe hypotheses, we computed partial correlations betweenmotivating style and the two dependent measures by first

removing the variance in motivating style attributable togender, years of teaching experience, class size, politicalideology, and perceived student engagement. Gender (beingfemale), r(46) = .37, p < .01, and political ideology (beingliberal), r(46) = - .32, p < .05, both correlated with (anautonomy-supportive) motivating style, but no control vari-able correlated significantly with either dependent measure.After controlling for these five variables, motivating stylecontinued to predict both impressions of the teacher'sself-reported style: Supported Intrinsic Motivation,pr(39) = .52, p < .01, and Supported Internalization,pr(39) = 34,p<.05.

General Discussion

On the basis of our findings, we draw two conclusions.First, the validity of the PS questionnaire was confirmed byall three studies. We found it necessary to modify thequestionnaire's scoring system in Study 1, but, once done,we were able to confirm its conceptual validity. We con-firmed the questionnaire's predictive validity in Studies 2and 3. Specifically, in Study 2, preservice teachers whoscored as autonomy supportive on the PS questionnairedistinguished themselves by listening, allowing the studentto work in his or her own way, not giving the solution, andsupporting the student's intrinsic motivation and internaliza-tion. In Study 3, actual teachers who scored as autonomysupportive on the PS questionnaire distinguished themselvesby self-reporting that they teach and motivate by supportingstudents' intrinsic motivation and internalization. Althoughwe find these data encouraging and are able to providesupport for the questionnaire's predictive validity, the ulti-mate validity test of the PS questionnaire remains to bedemonstrated, namely, whether it can predict teachers'actual ways of interacting with a classroom full of motiva-tionally diverse students.

Second, we are now in a position to say what autonomy-supportive teachers say and do during moment-to-moment,person-to-person interaction. We can use the findings fromStudy 2 to offer classroom teachers concrete answers to theirquestions about what they can say and do if they areinterested in teaching and motivating students in an au-tonomy-supportive way. Conceivably, this information canbe used either as a guiding benchmark or as prescriptiveadvice as to what it means to support students' autonomy.Using the findings as a benchmark, we can offer a behavioralpoint of reference to a teacher so that he or she can diagnosehis or her motivating style as relatively autonomy supportiveor not. Using the findings as prescriptive advice, we canilluminate what a teacher can do (or not do) in the effort todevelop a more autonomy-supportive motivating style,assuming that the teacher has an interest in doing so.

Validating the PS questionnaire and articulating what itmeans to be autonomy supportive during interaction are onlytwo uses of our findings. We can go further and offer apromising theoretical lead that begins to explain whystudents benefit when teachers support their autonomy.Others have shown convincingly that students benefit devel-opmentally and academically when teachers support their


autonomy (see, e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1987). But in none ofthese studies have researchers yet identified any specificinterpersonal and instructional behavior that might serve as apossible mediating variable to explain just what autonomy-supportive teachers are doing (and what controlling teachersare not doing) to contribute to students' developmental andacademic welfare. As a case in point, when teachers supportstudents' autonomy, then students' perceptions of compe-tence and self-determination increase (see, e.g., Vallerand etal., 1997; Williams, Weiner, Markakis, Reeve, & Deci,1994). Although researchers have been successful in replicat-ing this effect, it remains unclear just what these autonomy-supportive teachers are doing day in and day out thatsomehow nurtures students' perceptions of competence andself-determination. On the basis of the correlations reportedin Table 2, it appears reasonable to advance each of thefollowing behaviors as a possible candidate for explainingwhy students benefit from autonomy-supportive teachers:time spent listening, time spent holding instructional materi-als, frequency of directives, frequency of questions aboutwhat the student wants, frequency of contingent responses tothe student's questions, number of solutions verbalized,number of perspective-taking empathic statements, extent ofsupport for intrinsic motivation (supports initiative, is stu-dent centered), and extent of support for internalization(provides rationale, promotes value of education).

Identifying autonomy-supportive teachers' specific waysof teaching and motivating might be a more important and amore practical program of research than it first appears.Until specific ways of interacting with students can be linkedto students' positive outcomes, then teachers have littlereason to embrace specific autonomy-supportive instruc-tional strategies. Although research finds that studentsgenerally benefit when teachers support their autonomy, theutility of engaging in specific behaviors such as askingstudents what they want, providing rationales for requests,and listening carefully to students' agendas remains un-proven. If teachers are to embrace the behavioral particularsof an autonomy-supportive motivating style, then they mustbe able to see benefits in doing so.

One limitation of our investigation is that our findings fellshort of documenting how much the student learned aboutthe puzzle or how much skill the student acquired. Wefocused so much on the instruction teachers were providingthat we did not stop to assess students' learning or acquiredskill. We recommend that future research focus on howspecific autonomy-supportive behaviors (e.g., questions aboutwhat the student wants) contribute to students' performancesand skill development. Such a program of research canbenefit both from past studies and from our present findings.As to past studies, others have assessed how autonomy-supportive and controlling instruction affects students' learn-ing and performing as measured with a follow-up, postin-structional assessment. In these studies, students ofautonomy-supportive teachers showed relative gains inperformance (Boggiano et al., 1993) and in conceptualunderstanding of what they had learned (Benware & Deci,1984; Flink et al., 1990; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; McGraw &McCullers, 1979). In our Study 2, students of autonomy-

supportive teachers solved more puzzles by themselvesduring the instructional episode than did students of control-ling teachers (see number of puzzles solved singly). Weinterpret this finding as a confirmation that students used thetime allocated to them by autonomy-supportive teachers inways that were productive (i.e., they learned about andsolved the puzzle).

In addition to describing how autonomy-supportive teach-ers teach and motivate students, a second driving purpose forthe present investigation was to improve our understandingof why teachers are autonomy supportive or controlling withstudents. To date, researchers have confirmed how situ-ational pressures (Deci et al., 1982; Flink et al., 1990),exposure to autonomy-supportive and controlling models(Williams & Deci, 1996), and the disengagement of one'sstudents (Skinner & Belmont, 1993) affect a teacher'smotivating style. Here, we illustrated how personality based,dispositional influences further affect motivating style. Asmight be expected, some ways of motivating studentsemerged as common to teachers influenced both by situ-ational pressures and by disposition, as both relied more ondirectives and solutions and less on promoting conceptualunderstanding and time for independent work. But what is ofparticular importance is that a situationally induced control-ling motivating style (as studied in past research) alsobrought out additional controlling behaviors not necessarilyfound among the controlling teachers we identified throughpersonality assessment, as situationally pressured teacherstalked more, communicated with should statements, usedfrequent praise and criticism, asked controlling questions,stated deadlines, and generally created an atmosphere char-acterized by pressure. What these behaviors have in com-mon is the teacher's emphasis on directing students toward aright answer. Although not absent from the teaching andmotivating of our personality-assessed controlling teachers,such a performance-driven pressure was less salient. On theother hand, when we identified motivating style as emanat-ing from the personality, our autonomy-supportive teachersshowed autonomy-supportive ways of relating to studentsthat nonpressured teachers in earlier studies did not show, asthey listened more, encouraged student initiative with theinstructional materials, asked questions about the student'swants, replied to questions, and offered empathic perspective-taking statements. What these behaviors have in commonis a flexible, student-centered approach to teaching andmotivating.

Thus, whether it emanates from the personality or fromthe situation, motivating style has a core set of behaviorsassociated with its controlling and autonomy-supportivemanifestations. Situationally induced pressures, however,bring out additional aspects of interpersonal control (i.e.,those associated with performance pressures toward a prede-termined answer), whereas dispositionally rooted autonomysupport brings out additional aspects of interpersonal au-tonomy support (i.e., those associated with a flexible,student-centered approach to instruction).

The characterization of an autonomy-supportive style thatemerges from our list of autonomy-supportive behaviorsmight lead some to take our findings with a grain of salt,


because it seems to endorse a passive, even laissez-faire,approach to teaching (e.g., listen a lot, allow students time towork in their own way). But our autonomy-supportiveteachers were not passive and were in fact judged by theraters as significantly more enthusiastic during instructionthan were their controlling counterparts. Instead of showingthat autonomy-supportive teachers adopted a passive ap-proach, our findings lead us to conclude that these teachersinvested their attention and effort in a qualitatively differentway and with a qualitatively different purpose than did thecontrolling teachers. That is, in the classroom, autonomy-supportive and controlling teachers engage in many of thesame instructional behaviors—gaining students' attention,asking questions, giving feedback, setting and enforcinglimits, encouraging persistence, demonstrating proceduresand skills, assessing learning, and so on. But autonomy-supportive teachers seek a student's initiative in theseendeavors by supporting intrinsic motivation and internaliza-tion, whereas controlling teachers seek a student's compli-ance in these endeavors by introducing consequences andverbal directives. To the extent that autonomy-supportiveteachers support students' intrinsic motivation and intemal-ization, they choose to teach and motivate by listening,allowing time for independent work, and asking questionsabout what the students want to do. Instructional behaviorssuch as showing and telling how to do something are active,but they do not fit with an autonomy-supportive style. Theseare not so much differences in how actively or passively ateacher teaches as they are differences in the quality of ateacher's instructional style.

A final point for discussion concerns the possibility ofrevising the PS questionnaire's MA scale. In Study 1, wefound that the current version of the MA scale reflects an SCmotivating style. An effort to revise the MA scale wouldtherefore revolve around constructing solutions that trulysupport students' autonomy. Conceptually, autonomy sup-port revolves around the teacher's effort to identify andsupport students' interests and volitional internalization ofthe school's values and agenda. Translated into self-determination theory (e.g., Deci et al., 1991), autonomysupport therefore revolves around supporting not onlystudents' intrinsic motivational processes but also their"identified regulation," which means that the student comesto internalize or "to value the behavior" (p. 329). The HAscale certainly shows strong respect for the student's agenda,as the scale's operational definition revolves around askingthe student to diagnose the problem, generate a solution, andtry it out. It would make sense, then, to provide an MA scalethat showed an equally strong respect for and valuing of theschool's agenda (within a context of the student's self-determination). As such, a revised MA scale might revolvearound (a) providing students with the rationale underlyingthe school's agenda and (b) promoting their internalizationand valuing of tasks or ways of behaving. In this spirit, wepropose the following MA solution to the vignette featuredin the introduction ("Jim is an average student...."): "Putthe lesson aside for the moment and explain why participat-ing in class and completing assignments is important to

developing his reading skills." This revision of the MA scaleshould position the questionnaire particularly well to applyto supporting not only the autonomy (i.e., intrinsic motiva-tion) of highly engaged, skilled students but also theautonomy (i.e., internalization or identified regulation) ofless engaged students exhibiting behavioral problems orlarge skill deficiencies.

References

Benware, C , & Deci, E. L. (1984). The quality of learning with anactive versus passive motivational set. American EducationalResearch Journal, 21, 755-765.

Boggiano, A. K., Rink, C , Shields, A., Seelbach, A., & Barrett, M.(1993). Use of techniques promoting students' self-determina-tion: Effects on students' analytic problem-solving skills. Motiva-tion and Emotion, 17, 319-336.

Cai, Y. (1994). Control versus autonomy: School contexts asdeterminants of teaching style. Unpublished master's thesis,Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy,and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-esteem pro-cesses. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes indevelopment: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol.23, pp. 167-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

deCharms, R. (1972). Personal causation training in the schools.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 95-115.

deCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in theclassroom. New York: Irvington.

Deci, E. L. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics ofpersonal autonomy. New York: Penguin Books.

Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics ofthe rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 40, 1-10.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). The General CausalityOrientations Scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 19, 109-134.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Intrinsic motivation andself-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy andthe control of behavior. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 53, 1024-1037.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self:Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), NebraskaSymposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation(pp. 237-288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). Aninstrument to assess adults' orientations toward control versusautonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation andperceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73,642-650.

Deci, E. L., Spiegel, N. H., Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Kauffman,M. (1982). Effects of performance standards on teaching styles:Behavior of controlling teachers. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 74, 852-859.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991).Motivation in education: The self-determination perspective.Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-346.

Eccles, J., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Develop-mentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C.Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education:Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). New York: Aca-demic Press.


Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C , & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student,teacher, and observer perceptions of the classroom environmentbefore and after the transition to junior high school. Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 8, 133-156.

IHink, C , Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controllingteaching strategies: Undermining children's self-determinationand performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,59, 916-924.

Flink, C , Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., Barrett, M., & Katz, P. A.(1992). Children's achievement-related behaviors: The role ofextrinsic and intrinsic motivational orientations. In A. K. Boggi-ano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: Asocial-developmental perspective (pp. 189-214). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adoles-cent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement.Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 21-43.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children'slearning: An experimental and individual difference investiga-tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890-898.

Hays, W. L. (1994). Statistics (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HarcourtBrace.

Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Settinglimits on children's behavior: The differential effects of control-ling versus informational styles on intrinsic motivation andcreativity. Journal of Personality, 52, 233-248.

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1975). Turning play into work:Effects of adult surveillance and extrinsic rewards on children'sintrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 31, 479-486.

Lortie, D. C. (1977). The balance of control and autonomy inelementary school teaching. In D. Erikson (Ed.), Educationalorganization and administration (pp. 335-371). Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.

Maehr, M. L., & Anderman, E. M. (1993). Reinventing schools forearly adolescents: Emphasizing task goals. Elementary SchoolJournal, 93, 593-610.

McGraw, K. O., & McCullers, J. C. (1979). Evidence of adetrimental effect of extrinsic incentives on breaking a mentalset. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 285-294.

Midgley, C , Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacherrelations and attitudes toward mathematics before and after thetransition to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 981-992.

Patrick, B. C , Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). Whatmotivates children's behavior and emotion? Joint effects ofperceived control and autonomy in the academic domain.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 781-791.

Plant, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and theeffects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involve-ment: An investigation of internally controlling styles. Journalof Personality, 53, 435-449.

Reeve, J. (1989). The interest-enjoyment distinction in intrinsicmotivation. Motivation and Emotion, 13, 83-103.

Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivationalresources. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Rigby, C. S., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1992).Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Self-determination inmotivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 165-185.

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E.Merrill.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causalityand internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two do-mains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,749-761.

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in theclassroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individualdifferences in children's perceptions. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 50, 550-558.

Ryan, R. M., & Powelson, C. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness asfundamental to motivation and education. Journal of Experimen-tal Education, 60, 49-66.

Shapira, Z. (1976). Expectancy determinants of intrinsically moti-vated behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,34, 1235-1244.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in theclassroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and studentengagement across the school year. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 85, 571-581.

Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward amotivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 72, 1161-1176.

Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 616-622.

Williams, G. C , & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsycho-social values by medical students: A test of self-determinationtheory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,767-779.

Williams, G. C , Weiner, M. W, Markakis, K. M., Reeve, J., &Deci, E. L. (1994). Medical students' motivation for internalmedicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 9, 327-333.

Received June 23,1998Revision received December 14, 1998

Accepted December 14,1998 •

Autonomy-Supportive Teachers: How They Teach and Motivate Students€¦ · How They Teach and...

Documents

Transcript of Autonomy-Supportive Teachers: How They Teach and Motivate Students€¦ · How They Teach and...