University of Groningen

Studying motivation in classroomsStroet, Kim

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2014

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Stroet, K. (2014). Studying motivation in classrooms: effects of teaching practices on early adolescents'motivation. [S.l.]: [S.n.].

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 19-10-2020

Studying motivation in classrooms

This research was supported by grant 411-07-124 from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

© 2014, Kim Stroet

ISBN 978-90-367-7272-3 ISBN E-version 978-90-367-7271-6NUR-code 848

Cover drawing Martine Wilcke | martienwilcke@gmail.comGraphic design Myra Nijman | info@myranijman.nl

Printed by CPI – Koninklijke Wöhrmann

Studying motivation in classrooms

Effects of teaching practices on early adolescents’ motivation

Proefschrift

Ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

op gezag van de

rector magnificus prof. dr. E. Sterken

en volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties.

De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op

donderdag 16 oktober 2014 om 16.15 uur

door

Kim Florence Asta Stroet

geboren op 7 juni 1979

te Amsterdam

Promotor

Prof. dr. A.E.M.G. Minnaert

Copromotor

Dr. M.-C.J.L Opdenakker

Beoordelingscommissie

Prof. dr. M. VansteenkisteProf. dr. Th. WubbelsProf. dr. P. van Geert

Contents

Chapter 1 General introduction

Chapter 2 Fostering early adolescents’ motivation: A longitudinal study

into the effectiveness of social constructivist, traditional, and

combined schools for prevocational education

Chapter 3 Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’

motivation and engagement: A review of the literature

Chapter 4 Development of observed need supportive teaching in social

constructivist, traditional, and combined schools for

prevocational education

Chapter 5 Need supportive teaching in practice: A narrative analysis in

schools with contrasting educational approaches

Chapter 6 What motivates early adolescents for school? A longitudinal

analysis of associations between observed need supportive

teaching and various motivational constructs

Chapter 7 General discussion

References

Rating sheet ‘need supportive teaching’

Summaries (in English and Dutch)

Dankwoord (acknowledgements in Dutch)

Curriculum vitae

7

21

49

89

117

149

171

184

201

215

224

228

General introduction1

8

1.1 Introduction

For students an important prerequisite to their learning is motivation for school. Unfortunately,

many early adolescents are not eager to learn at school and, in particular for the period after the

transition toward secondary education, drops in their motivation have been found. In secondary

education, it is often found that students have problems with self-regulated learning, perform

poorly, or even drop out; especially at the lowest levels (Dutch Inspectorate of Education, 2005).

Why is this the case, and how can students’ motivation be fostered? Available evidence shows that

teaching practices do matter as they have the potential to prevent the declines in early adolescents’

motivation (e.g. Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2011). More research is necessary, however, about what

it is that makes teaching practices effective in this regard.

Each and every school is one-of-a-kind. My personal memory brings me back to grades 5

and 6 of primary school and mine and my classmates’ endeavour to visit all schools for secondary

education in Amsterdam. I remember some schools feeling safe, others exciting, a few unwelcome,

and many muddled; not one school appeared, however, indistinct. Unfortunately, establishing

optimal teaching practices is just as difficult as it was for me to decide which school I liked best.

What effective teaching practices comprise in one context is not necessarily the same as what they

comprise in the next (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974); there is no one-fit-all solution. Consequently, to

understand classrooms as contexts and to reveal consequences of the complex interplay of contextual

elements, next to research conducted “about” classrooms, research conducted “in” classrooms is

necessary (Perry, Turner, & Meyer, 2006). That is, research focusing on (consequences of) what is

actually going on in classrooms.

In the present dissertation, the aim is to gain understanding of what makes teaching practices

effective in fostering early adolescents’ motivation in the complex contexts of classrooms. More

specifically, the five studies (one review and four empirical research studies) revolve around five

features that characterise this dissertation further. The first of these features is that the focus is on

teaching practices taking place in schools and classrooms and not, as often is the case in motivation

research, on derived variables, e.g. student perceptions of these practices (see Perry et al., 2006).

Thereby a high level of ecological validity is purchased. Second, as motivation is known to contain

strong domain-specific components (Bong, 2004) we decided to focus on course-specific instead of

general motivation; the courses we focus on are math and mother language as these are considered

key in the curriculum. Third, while most studies in the domain have been correlational, the four

empirical research chapters of this dissertation share their focus on longitudinal studies. Advantages

of longitudinal studies include that they can shed light on developmental trends and on stability

Gene

ral i

ntrod

uctio

nCh

apter

01

9

of effects of teaching practices over time. Fourth, for the purpose of gaining understanding from

multiple perspectives we applied multiple methods, including in-depth analysis of video-material

and multilevel analysis of large datasets.

A final characterising feature of this dissertation is that all presented studies are strongly

embedded in (one of) two theoretical frameworks. Adding to the complexity of studying motivation

in classrooms is that what is going on is shaped at multiple levels. We aimed to incorporate some

of this multilevel structure by including measures at the level of the type of school as well as at

the levels of the class and the student. Over the past decades, many schools have adapted towards

social constructivism with the aim of enhancing student motivation (Boekaerts, de Koning, &

Vedder, 2006). In educational theory, social constructivist views stand in contrast with traditional

views. Hence, at the highest level, we compare between three types of schools: Prototypical

traditional schools, prototypical social constructivist schools, and schools that substantially

combine elements of both. Traditional and social constructivist educational approaches represent

contrasts, amongst others as in the former teachers are expected to take a large responsibility for

students’ learning, whereas in the latter teaching revolves around helping students in organising

and regulating their own learning. At the lower levels of the class and the student, we analyse

teacher-student interactions from the perspective of Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci &

Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT is an encompassing theoretical framework for studying

motivation in classrooms as based on SDT characteristics of teacher-student interactions can be

linked with students’ motivation. More specifically, teacher-student interactions that support

students’ fundamental needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are expected to positively

affect their motivation. Below is elaborated further on these two theoretical frameworks that

underpin the present dissertation.

In the remaining of this chapter, first, the crucial role of motivation in learning is discussed as

well as why teaching and learning should be considered intricately connected processes (e.g. Shuell,

1996; Vermunt & Verloop, 1999; section 1.2). Then, traditional and social constructivist views

on instruction are elaborated upon (section 1.3), followed by a discussion on Self-Determination

Theory (section 1.4). Further, the period of early adolescence is treated, as well as arguments on

why studying the motivation of early adolescents is of particular interest. In addition, attention

is given to the Dutch educational system and, specifically, prevocational education (section 1.5).

Finally, the remaining chapters of this dissertation are briefly elaborated on (section 1.6).

10

1.2 Teaching and learning as intricately connected processes

and the crucial role of motivation

In modern views, it is emphasised that learning is an active, self-regulated process. Self-regulated

learning cannot be understood without taking students’ motivation into consideration as, by

definition, it involves goals and motivational feelings or beliefs about attaining these goals next

to self-initiated learning processes (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). Accordingly, along with the

increased importance being attached to self-regulated learning, students’ motivation has come

to be recognised as critical to students’ success at academic activities. Research supports the

importance of student motivation for learning as it shows positive associations with a wide array

of learning outcomes, e.g. school achievement (Richmond, 1990; Steinmayr, & Spinath, 2009;

Spinath, Spinath, Harlaar, & Plomin, 2006; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010), transfer of learning (Laine

& Gegenfurtner, 2013), and persistence in learning over time (Richmond, 1990).

The history of motivation research consists of many rich theoretical traditions encompassing

a variety of motivational constructs. What these theories share is that they consider motivation

a process that involves goals, and requires activities that are instigated and sustained (Schunk,

Meece, & Pintrich, 2014); what they vary in are their assumptions about the nature of people and

about the factors that give impetus to action. While initially theory on motivation was focused

on drives and needs, over the past thirty years social cognitive theories have attained a dominant

position, focusing, amongst others, on the motivational significance of individuals’ beliefs and

expectancies, goals, values, and orientations towards learning and performance (Wentzel &

Wigfield, 2006). Central to the definition of motivation in the present dissertation is the question

whether the factors giving impetus to action are positive, e.g. a task being inherently satisfying

or personally valuable, or negative, e.g. avoidance of punishment or shaming. In Section 1.4 is

elaborated on this distinction from the perspective of SDT.

Increasingly, views on motivation as being a characteristic of the individual are extended to

include the social and situational factors that influence student motivation (Schunk et al., 2008;

Perry et al., 2006). Moreover, a slow shift toward situated and social perspectives on learning

has been visible (Perry et al., 2006; Maehr, Karabenick, & Urdan, 2008), and it has come to be

recognised that no single characteristic of an individual or classroom is sufficient to explain student

motivation, but, instead, explanations need to be sought in various combinations of characteristics

(Perry et al., 2006). Learning, in this regard, is seen as a deeply socially embedded process in which

teacher and learner mutually influence each other (Turner & Patrick, 2008).

Research into the question how self-regulated, motivated learning can be fostered indicates

Gene

ral i

ntrod

uctio

nCh

apter

01

11

the importance of providing students with opportunities for self-set learning episodes that trigger

their pursuing of personal goals (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000). While allowing students such an

active role in their own learning processes fits with modern views on learning, the question how

such self-set learning episodes should be organised remains open for debate. Amongst others,

for this purpose it has been suggested that learning and motivation should be co-regulated at

the start, but once learners have internalised the structural and social supports in their learning

environments they are capable of relatively self-regulated learning (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999).

Amongst prominent on-going debates in educational literature is the question how students can be

allowed a more active role in their own learning processes, without running the risk of providing

them with too much freedom and own responsibility too early (Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006).

In research on social or situational factors fostering students’ motivation an important

recognition is that effects never are direct, and, instead, always are mediated by students’

psychological responses to these factors (Deci, 1975; Entwistle, 1991). This recognition brings

along a difficulty for researchers examining effects of teaching practices that can be countered in

several ways. A first way is to focus on relationships with learning outcomes of student perceptions

of teaching practices instead of on the actual practices. In the past decades such research relying

on student perceptions has blossomed (Perry et al., 2006), thereby yielding findings of crucial

importance for validating educational theory. Among important disadvantages of research linking

two variables at student level (e.g. student perceptions of teaching practices and students’ learning

outcomes) is, however, that the level of the class and what happens there is left out completely.

As a result, in this type of research an essential piece of information is missing, namely how these

theoretical findings can be translated to practice and what happens when they are implemented

in the complex contexts of classrooms. Hence, in this dissertation when interpreting teaching

practices as occurring at the level of the class we chose to counter this difficulty in a second way,

namely by interpreting teaching practices within the context in which they occurred thereby

taking the perspective of the students involved.

1.3 Traditional and social constructivist views on instruction

As alluded to above, among defining features of this dissertation is that at the highest level

we compare between three types of schools: Prototypically traditional schools, prototypically

social constructivist schools, and schools that substantially combine elements of both. Such a

comparison fits with this dissertation’s aim of studying motivation in classrooms, as the focus

12

is on consequences of what is actually going on in these types of schools instead of on students’

perceptions of what is going on or on derived variables.

Traditional views on instruction are in correspondence with the stimulus-response framework

(see Shuell, 1996; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996) and relatively much emphasis is put on

learning as being a largely reproductive process that results from transmission of knowledge.

Teachers are expected to take a large responsibility for students’ learning processes and not only

explain subject matter, but also structure the course material itself and the way it is provided

(Gibbs, 1992; Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000; Bolhuis & Voeten, 2001). Social constructivist views

on instruction, on the other hand, have emerged in convergence with theorists such as Vygotsky

(1962, 1978), as well as the modern cognitive science perspective (see Shuell, 1996; Hickey, 1997).

In these views, learning is considered to exist in the active construction and accumulation of

knowledge and instruction should focus upon assisting students in organizing and regulating their

own learning processes.

Social constructivist views on instruction fit with modern views on learning as being

an active, self-regulated process. Further, schools that have incorporated elements of social

constructivist instruction have typically done so with the explicit aim of enhancing student

motivation (Boekaerts, de Koning, & Vedder, 2006), thereby aligning with the recognition that

to foster motivated, self-regulated learning students need to be provided with opportunities for

self-set learning episodes. Indeed, research shows positive effects of singled-out characteristics

of social constructivist instruction on students’ motivation (e.g. Benware & Deci, 1984; Turner,

1995), of the extent to which early adolescents perceived their instruction as social constructivist

(e.g. Nie & Lau, 2010), and of social constructivist interventions (e.g. Wu & Huang, 2007). Despite

these promising findings, scholars have expressed their concerns as well; particularly prominent

in the debate is the concern that social constructivist instruction provides students with too little

instructional guidance and too much freedom and own responsibility, thereby undermining

instead of fostering their (self-regulated) learning (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Mayer,

2004; Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 2000). Currently, research on what is going on in types of

schools is lacking as is research on effectiveness of implementing social constructivist educational

approaches at the level of the school. Such research is, however, crucial as it helps grasp both direct

consequences, i.e. inherent in the educational approach, and indirect consequences, i.e. resulting

of implementation in practice. Hence, in this dissertation we compare between prototypical

traditional, social constructivist, and combined schools.

Gene

ral i

ntrod

uctio

nCh

apter

01

13

1.4 Self-Determination Theory

At the lower levels of the class and the student teaching practices are analysed from the perspective

of Self-Determination Theory (SDT). SDT is an encompassing theoretical framework for studying

optimal conditions for fostering students’ motivated learning as teaching practices, as they take

place in the context of a classroom, are directly linked to students’ motivation. SDT is built on

the assumption that humans are inherently active, curious to learn, and inclined to undertake

challenges. Central is the view that in the long run it is beneficial not so much to pressure people

or make them feel obligated to perform certain tasks, but instead to foster their pursuing of their

own interests and goals they (have come to) value. These interests and personally valued goals can

either be things people find of interest already, or things they come to value as they internalise the

knowledge, customs, and values that surround them. When translated to the context of education,

according to SDT, the aim should be to foster or stimulate students’ valuing of school-related goals

as well as their pursuing of their own school-related interests.

In line with this central SDT-notion, different types of motivation have been distinguished

based on their being regulated more autonomously or more controlled. First, a distinction is made

between intrinsic motivation, which is considered the most autonomous type as it is regulated by

interest in or inherent satisfaction of an activity, and several types of extrinsic motivation. The

more autonomous types of extrinsic motivation are regulated either integrated, by motivation

to attain personally important outcomes, or through identification, by conscious valuing or

acceptance of a goal as being personally valuable. The more controlled types, on the other hand,

are regulated either introjected, by avoidance of guilt or shame or to attain ego-enhancements and

feelings of worth, or external, by motivation to obtain awards or avoid punishments. Research has

consistently shown beneficial effects on student learning of these more autonomous as opposed

to more controlled types, including more volitional persistence, more effective performance, and

greater well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2002).

Teaching practices foster the more autonomous types of motivation when they support

instead of thwart the three fundamental human needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness

(in the preceding referred to as ‘need supportive teaching’). The need for autonomy entails the

desire to be a causal agent and to experience volition. For students to experience autonomy in their

learning, it is of importance that they consider their actions personally interesting or valuable. The

need for competence refers to the striving to exercise and elaborate one’s interests and to seek

challenges (White, 1959), while feeling effective in doing so. Finally, the need for relatedness

concerns the desire to connect with and be accepted by others, and to belong (Baumeister & Leary,

14

1995; Bowlby, 1979; Harlow, 1958; Ryan, 1995). For students to experience relatedness and to feel

encouraged to adapt positive values regarding schoolwork, it is of importance to feel accepted and

supported by their teachers, as well as stimulated to work on school tasks.

The theoretical framework of SDT was not developed for the field of education, but is

applicable much broader. Accordingly, its premises require translation to the context of education.

This is of importance, particularly, as classrooms are specific contexts; not only because schools

and teachers have unique positions in the lives of children, but also because teacher-student

interactions do not occur in isolation but are part of the many things that tend to be happening at

the same time and are witnessed by large proportions of the class (Doyle, 1986). In SDT-literature

on need supportive teaching is agreed upon the existence of three positive and negative dimensions

that complement each other in their effects on students’ need satisfaction (Connell & Wellborn,

1991). These are the positive dimensions of autonomy support, structure, and involvement and

the negative dimensions of autonomy thwart, chaos, and disaffection or reject. Applying SDT fits

with the present dissertation’s aim of studying motivation in classrooms as in SDT is recognised

that need supportive teaching does not consist in a prescribed set of techniques and strategies

(Reeve, 2006) but, instead, should be interpreted in context using a differential approach. In line

with this recognition and our focus on (consequences of) what is actually going on in classrooms,

in this dissertation an observational measure is used that is designed to assess need supportive

teaching in context.

Amongst others, SDT is a useful framework to compare between traditional and social

constructivist educational approaches as the dimensions of need supportive teaching incorporate

the consequences of providing students with too little or too much freedom and own responsibility.

Thereby, SDT can be helpful in answering questions that relate to the debate on how students’

self-set learning episodes should ideally be organised. Specifically, providing students with too

little freedom would translate into low levels of autonomy support (e.g. incorporating students

preferences in the lesson) and high levels of autonomy thwart (e.g. not allowing complaints),

while provision of too much own responsibility would result in low levels of structure (e.g. being

available when students need help) and high levels of chaos (e.g. not monitoring students’ levels

of comprehension).

Gene

ral i

ntrod

uctio

nCh

apter

01

15

1.5 Early adolescent students attending prevocational

secondary education

All empirical research studies presented in this dissertation were conducted among early

adolescents in their first year after the transition toward prevocational secondary education.

In the educational literature, early adolescent students are considered a target group of special

interest not only because their motivation has been found to decline (e.g. Anderman & Maehr,

1994; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001; Peetsma, Hascher, Van der Veen, & Roede, 2005;

Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006; Van der Werf, Opdenakker, & Kuyper, 2008), but also because

it is in this period that students develop their identity at a rapid pace and shape their cognitive

and emotional responses to school (Wigfield, Eccles, & Rodriquez, 1998). In most countries, the

transition toward secondary education takes place when students are in their early adolescence,

with secondary education typically being characterised by less participation, more excessive rules,

and more superficial teacher-student relationships than primary education. It has been argued

this is problematic, particularly, for students in their early adolescence who have a high need for

independence and meaningful social interactions (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1993). In

addition, this group of students faces the changes associated with the onset of puberty that include

cognitive changes and changing social relationships. In this light, it might not be surprising that

many early adolescents discover new areas of interest, with the school potentially attaining a less

dominant place in their lives (Wigfield et al.,1998).

In the Netherlands, it is students attending the prevocational track of secondary education,

particularly, that have been reported to lack motivation (Dutch Inspectorate of Education, 2005).

In the Dutch educational system, the prevocational track (‘vmbo’) is the lowest of the three

mainstream tracks, and is attended by more than half of the students (Dutch Inspectorate of

Education, 2012). Students attending this track are offered an educational program that has a

balanced focus on theory and practice. As a group, students attending prevocational secondary

education are characterised by their relatively high prevalence of learning- and/or behavioural

problems. Further, research has shown this group of students to have relatively high levels of fear

of failure while their future perspectives on school- and career in the long term tend to be less

positive than those of their peers attending one of the higher tracks (Peetsma, 1996). Finally, levels

of school dropout appear three times higher for students attending the prevocational track than

for students attending the other tracks (Dutch Inspectorate of Education, 2005).

16

1.6 Present dissertation

The present dissertation is aimed at studying motivation in classrooms, thereby focusing on

effects of teaching practices on early adolescents’ motivation. To enhance ecological validity, all

empirical research studies are designed to examine (consequences of) what is actually going on in

classrooms. As discussed above, at the highest level comparisons are made between types of schools

that represent contrasts in terms of the educational approach that underlies teaching practices. At

the lower levels of the class and the student, teaching practices as occurring in lessons are analysed

from the perspective of Self-Determination Theory. In the schematic overview presented in

Figure 1, for each of the five empirical chapters that represent the core of this dissertation it

is shown at what levels the explanatory variable and the outcome variable are measured. The

numbers in the figure refer to the respective chapters.

Figure 1 Schematic overview of studies presented in this dissertation.

Before (briefly) elaborating on each the five empirical chapters separately, a general overview is

provided of the data collection from which data were used for all four empirical research studies

that are presented in Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 6. Data were collected in the school year 2010-2011

in 10 schools spread over the Netherlands (with exclusion of the Southern part), 4 of which

teaching practices (type of school)

teaching practices (class)

teaching practices (student) motivation (student)

4 & 5

2

3 & 6

3

Gene

ral i

ntrod

uctio

nCh

apter

01

17

prototypically social constructivist, 4 prototypically traditional, and 2 combining elements of

both. Selection of schools was based on information gathered by Oostdam, Peetsma, Derriks, and

van Gelderen (2006), information from school websites, and information provided by the Dutch

Inspectorate of Education (for elaborate information on school selection see Chapter 2). In each

school, 2 classes participated, yielding a total of 20 classes. All 20 participating classes were at

the prevocational level of Dutch secondary education (‘vmbo’). Furthermore, all 20 classes were

7th grade, which, in the Netherlands, is the first grade after the transition towards secondary

education. Students attending this grade are aged 12 to 13.

Data were collected in five waves. At each of these five waves, questionnaires were

administered to the 489 participating students to assess their motivation. Further, from the 2nd to

5th wave, in each of the 20 classes video-recordings were made of lessons in math and in mother

language. The lessons in math were coded using a rating sheet assessing need supportive teaching

that was developed for the purpose of the present dissertation (see Appendix). In addition, for

one prototypical traditional class and one prototypical social constructivist class lessons in mother

language were coded. Because for the studies presented in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 data collected at the

2nd to 5th wave was incorporated only, in these chapters these waves are referenced to as the 1st

to 4th wave of data collection.

In Chapter 2, effectiveness in fostering early adolescents’ motivation was investigated

of prototypically social constructivist, prototypically traditional, and combined schools for

prevocational education. For this purpose, multilevel analysis was conducted on the measures

collected at the five waves assessing students’ motivation (intrinsic motivation, identified

motivation, values, and performance avoidance; see Chapter 2 for clarification of these

motivational constructs) for mother language and for math in the three types of schools.

In Chapter 3, the aim was to unveil the extent to which available evidence supports SDT,

including the gaps that remain. This study presents a fine-grained review of available literature

on effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement, thereby

incorporating effects of student perceived (level of the student) and observed and teacher perceived

(level of the class) teaching practices. Articles were included when they were published in a

scholarly journal between 1990 and 2011 and when they reported empirical evidence from studies

conducted among students aged between 10 and 14 attending secondary education. Although SDT

was used to focus the selection of studies, empirical evidence from other research traditions that

fitted with (any of) the three dimensions of need supportive teaching was included as well.

In Chapters 4 and 5, SDT was applied to investigate how teaching practices at the level of

the class related to educational approaches of schools. In Chapter 4, for this aim, development of

18

observed need supportive teaching was examined in the three types of schools. Multilevel analysis

was conducted on the ratings of observed need supportive teaching collected in the 20 classes at

the four waves.

Chapter 5 concerned a multiple case study aimed at gaining in-depth understanding of typical

manifestations of need supportive teaching by relating these to educational approaches of schools.

A narrative analysis was conducted of videotaped teacher-student interactions in lessons math

and mother language in two contrasting cases: A highly prototypical traditional class and a highly

prototypical social constructivist class.

In the final empirical chapter, we returned to studying effects of teaching practices as

occurring in classes. The study reported in Chapter 6 focused on associations between ratings of

observed need supportive teaching and early adolescents’ motivation. For this purpose, multilevel

analysis was conducted on the four waves of ratings of observed need supportive teaching in

math classrooms in relation to the four waves of measures of students’ motivation (autonomous

motivation, controlled motivation, amotivation, and performance avoidance; see Chapter 6 for

clarification of these motivational constructs) for math.

Finally, in chapter 7, the findings presented in preceding chapters are summarized and

discussed. Theoretical and practical implications are provided as well as limitations and directions

for future research.

This chapter is based on:

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2014, in press). Fostering early adolescents’ motivation: a longitudinal study into the effectiveness of social constructivist, traditional and combined schools for prevocational education. Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2014.893561

Fostering early adolescents’ motivation: A longitudinal study into the effectiveness of

social constructivist, traditional, and combined schools for prevocational education2

22

Abstract

Over the past decades, many schools have adapted towards social constructivism with the aim

of enhancing students’ motivation. There are a variety of perspectives in educational theory,

with social constructivist views standing in contrast to traditional views. Hence, we compared

students’ motivation (levels and developments) in social constructivist schools, traditional schools,

and schools combining elements of both. A total of 489 grade-7 students from 10 schools and

20 classes of prevocational education participated in five measurement occasions. Multilevel

analysis revealed complex developmental trends differed meaningfully between classes for all four

motivational constructs, i.e. intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, values, and performance

avoidance, for mother language, and even more so, math. For most motivational constructs, levels

were associated with the type of school students attended and appeared lower in combined schools

than in the other two types, while developments were not associated with the type of school

attended.

Keywords

social constructivism early adolescence

learning environmentsmotivation

prevocational education

23

Chap

ter

02

2.1 Introduction

Notions of what learning consists in have changed in modern society. Traditionally, much

emphasis has been on learning as reproduction of knowledge that results from a process of

transmission. In modern views of learning, such a focus on the transmission of knowledge is

no longer considered sufficient. Rather, it is emphasised that for learning to occur, students

have to build up and combine their prior knowledge with new knowledge and restructure and

reconsider their own understanding (Marshall, 1988; Shuell, 1996). Modern societal demands

have also shifted away from the idea of having knowledge towards being equipped for life-long

self-regulated learning (Minnaert & Vermunt, 2006). Over the past decades, many schools have

adapted their learning environments to incorporate these modern views on learning, often as a

part of social constructivist educational reform (Boekaerts, de Koning, & Vedder, 2006). Although

there are many differences among social constructivist schools, what schools of this type share is

a focus on assisting students in the regulation and organization of their own learning processes,

thereby standing in contrast to more traditional schools in which the teachers are expected to take

a large degree of responsibility for students’ learning processes.

Possibly more than anything else, to be well equipped to deal with the modern societal

demand for life-long learning, students need high, sustainable motivation. For many students,

however, motivation for school declines after making the transition to secondary education (e.g.

Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001; Peetsma, Hascher, Van der

Veen, & Roede, 2005; Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006; Van der Werf, Opdenakker, & Kuyper,

2008; Opdenakker, Maulana, & Den Brok, 2012). It is increasingly recognized that the learning

environment can play an important role in enhancing students’ motivation (Pintrich, 2004), and

social constructivist educational reforms have been implemented with this explicit aim in mind

(e.g. Lea, Stephenson, & Troy, 2003; Oostdam, Peetsma, Derriks, & van Gelderen, 2006). In the

US, for example, educational reforms incorporating social constructivist views were implemented

with the purpose of enhancing the motivation of students after their transition to middle school

(grades 6-8; Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) and high school (grades 9-12;

National Research Council, 2004).

Research on the effectiveness of social constructivist schools is scarce, as is research comparing

the effectiveness of different types of schools in general. Ultimately, such research should be

conducted in the schools themselves, as applying an educational philosophy in practice tends to

have much wider consequences than accounted for in theory (Slavin, 2012). In the present study,

we investigated the degree to which the level and development of early adolescents’ motivation

24

is associated with the type of school they attend. A unique asset of this study is that we compared

three types of schools: Prototypically traditional schools, prototypically social constructivist

schools, and schools combining elements of both educational philosophies. For this purpose, we

measured the motivation of students attending these different types of schools at five points in

time over the course of their first year after the transition to Dutch secondary education (grade

7). The context of Dutch education is of interest as it consists of a variety of schools that can be

characterized by distinct underlying educational philosophies. Within this spectrum, traditional

and social constructivist schools represent two contrasting types.

2.2 Theoretical background

Below, we elaborate on the theories of learning and instruction in the educational philosophies

that encompass traditional and social constructivist views respectively, and we relate this to student

motivation as a measure for effectiveness. We then apply the theory to purchase a classification

of ‘prototypically social constructivist’, ‘prototypically traditional’, and ‘combined’ schools, and we

discuss the available evidence on the effectiveness of these three types of schools in practice.

2.2.1 Theoretical views on learning and instruction and student

motivation

2.2.1.1 Traditional and social constructivist views on learning and instruction

Distinct traditions in educational theory have derived from differing perspectives on learning

and instruction. The educational philosophies that encompass traditional or social constructivist

views represent such distinct traditions that they can be contrasted on many aspects of their

views on learning and instruction. This includes the somewhat opposing perspectives on student

motivation, as we will touch upon below and elaborate on in the subsequent section on motivation

as a measure of effectiveness. Both of these educational philosophies influence current educational

practice in Western countries to a large degree.

In traditional views on instruction, the importance is emphasised of reproduction of

knowledge that is transmitted in the learning process, thereby corresponding with the stimulus-

response framework (see Shuell, 1996; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996). In comparison to social

constructivist views, much less emphasis is put on fostering student motivation. In line with

traditional notions of learning, teachers are expected to take a large degree of responsibility for

students’ learning processes, not only explaining subject matter but also structuring the course

25

Chap

ter

02

material itself, as well as the way in which it is provided (Gibbs, 1992; Boekaerts & Niemivirta,

2000; Bolhuis & Voeten, 2001). Ideally, students should be guided systematically through a series

of exercises (Doyle, 1983) until they have reached the learning goals set by the teacher. The

teacher is conceived of as an authority who disseminates knowledge, largely through lectures and

verbal exchanges (Shuell, 1996), while students are expected to focus on the receipt of knowledge,

whereupon they practice assigned exercises individually or in small groups (Greeno et al., 1996;

Prince, 2004). Typically, identical exercises are assigned to the class as a whole. In traditional

learning environments, tasks are often decontextualized in order to avoid distraction by irrelevant

stimuli (Greeno et al., 1996). Finally, the function of assessment is considered to lie in monitoring

how much students have learned and providing them with prompt feedback on the quality of their

performance (Greeno et al., 1996).

After the cognitive revolution of the 1970s, constructivist views on learning started to gain

prominence in education (Marshall, 1988; Shuell, 1996), emphasizing that learners construct

meaning in an active way, and challenging the value of fragmentary, passive learning (Oxford, 1997).

These views have been incorporated into the educational philosophy of social constructivism that

in the past decades has gained prominence in theory on learning and instruction (Shuell, 1996). In

social constructivism, knowledge is considered to be co-constructed; a view that is shared by the

multiple theories that have been developed (Windschitl, 2002; see Prawat, 1999 for a discussion

of these theories). We use the term social constructivism to refer to the theory that has emerged

in convergence with the work of theorists such as Vygotsky (1962, 1978), as well as the modern

cognitive science perspective (see Shuell, 1996; Hickey, 1997). In social constructivist views,

student motivation is considered central to learning. Instruction should be focused on assisting

students in organizing and regulating their own learning processes, thereby leaving them with a

large degree of responsibility for the cognitive and metacognitive aspects of their learning (Gibbs,

1992). Ideally, a gradual transfer of learning functions from teachers to students is realized (Shuell,

1996; Vermunt & Verloop, 1999; Boekaerts, 2002). Implied in the notion that students should be

assisted in self-regulating their learning is the importance of fostering student motivation. This

becomes clear from the definition of self-regulated learning put forward by Zimmerman (1986), as

consisting in students being metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviourally active participants

in their own learning process. The importance of ‘learning to learn’ is also emphasized, in addition

to attaining the learning products (e.g. knowledge and skills).

Social constructivists conceive of learning as a social, cultural, and interpersonal process that

is governed not only by cognitive factors but also by situational and social elements (Shuell, 1996).

The notion that learning is governed by situational elements incorporates the idea that knowledge

26

is always affected by the context within which it is acquired, thereby making the activity within

which knowledge is developed and deployed an integral part of what is learned (Shuell, 1996;

Hickey, 1997). In social constructivist learning environments, tasks are often contextualized, with

learning taking place within an authentic context and students provided with opportunities for

domain-related practice. Moreover, as the specification of an authentic context differs between

students, they are involved in choosing their own learning activities.

The social constructivist notion that learning is governed by social factors has led to an

emphasis on the importance of the social community. In social constructivist views, dialogue

is considered to be of central importance (Shuell, 1996), as it is considered that knowledge is

constructed within it (Toulmin, 1972), and it has been argued that interaction and exchange

promote understanding. More specifically, the importance of assisted learning in the ‘zone of

proximal development’ (as put forward by Vygotsky, 1978) has been emphasized, in which others

actively scaffold the individual’s performance at a level beyond which the individual could perform

alone (Blumenfeld, 1992). Social constructivist learning environments provide students with

opportunities to work together and include learning goals related to social skills that are required

to work in cooperation and achieve shared goals.

Finally, the process-related learning goals that are emphasized in social constructivist

views cannot be fully assessed using traditional tests (Birenbaum & Dochy, 1996). In line with

the emphasis social constructivists put on helping students to develop self-regulated learning

strategies, assessment is expected to provide both the teacher and the student with information

on the student’s learning process (Shepard, 2000; Adams, 2006) because self-evaluations assist

students in developing these strategies (Zimmerman, 2000).

2.2.1.2 Motivation as a measure for effectiveness

Motivation is an important prerequisite for learning. Empirical evidence has indicated that

motivation is predictive not only of school achievement (e.g. Richmond, 1990; Singh, Granville,

& Dika, 2002; Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009; Spinath, Spinath, Harlaar, & Plomin, 2006; Wigfield &

Cambria, 2010; Hodis, Meyer, McClure, Weir, & Walkey, 2011) and school drop-out (Hodis et al.,

2011), but also of the transfer of learning (Laine & Gegenfurtner, 2013) and persistence in learning

over time (e.g. Richmond, 1990). Motivation can be distinguished into forms that are regulated

more autonomously, by intrinsic interest or by personally valuing the task at hand, and forms

for which regulation is more controlled, by feelings of pressure or obligation. The autonomously

regulated forms of motivation in particular have been argued to be important prerequisites for

student learning (e.g. Deci & Ryan, 1985), as has indeed been confirmed by empirical evidence

27

Chap

ter

02

(e.g. Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997; Peetsma & Van der Veen, 2011; for a review see Deci & Ryan,

2000).

As mentioned above, social constructivist educational reforms have explicitly aimed at

enhancing student motivation (e.g. Lea et al., 2003; Oostdam et al., 2006). In social constructivist

theory, the importance of stimulating students to autonomously regulate their motivation

is particularly emphasized (Greeno et al., 1996), as follows from social constructivist views in

two ways. First, the notion that students should perceive their learning processes as their own

responsibility rather than someone else’s is in line with the idea that students should regulate their

motivation autonomously. Second, the notion that learning occurs through the construction of

knowledge entails the importance of deep approaches to learning (as put forward by Marton, 1976;

Säljö, 1975). Such deep approaches appear induced by an intention to understand, and motivated

by intrinsic interest and personal valuation (see Baeten, Kyndt, Struyven, & Dochy, 2010).

The educational literature discusses a number of constructs that relate to autonomously

regulated forms of motivation. As these are the constructs social constructivist educational

reforms aim at fostering, for the purpose of the present study we focus on four such constructs

that constitute a broad representation of components of autonomously regulated motivation (for

a comprehensive overview of motivational constructs the interested reader is referred to the

handbook on motivation by Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009). The first three constructs we focus on

represent distinct components of autonomously regulated motivation. First, intrinsic motivation

refers to motivation for behaviour that is experienced as inherently satisfying. Second, identified

motivation refers to motivation for behaviour of which the consequences are considered to be

personally valuable (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Third, students’ values denote the degree to which

students perceive a task to be personally valuable; thereby, values are closely related to identified

motivation. The fourth motivational construct represents a prerequisite for intrinsic motivation,

as research has consistently indicated the negative effects of performance avoidance goals on

students’ intrinsic motivation and achievement (e.g. Elliot & Murayama, 2008). Performance

avoidance refers to avoidance of situations where students fear that others will notice their

shortcomings.

Below, we continue by means of a discussion of ‘prototypically social constructivist’,

‘prototypically traditional’ and ‘combined’ schools in practice, as well as examining the evidence

on their effectiveness in fostering student motivation.

28

2.2.2 Types of schools and student motivation

2.2.2.1 Classifying social constructivist, traditional, and combined schools

In practice, schools cannot be classified as either completely traditional or completely social

constructivist. Rather, in line with recommendations by Windschitl (2002), when we refer to

‘prototypically social constructivist’ schools we mean schools that adhere strongly to the educational

philosophy of social constructivism, while by ‘prototypically traditional schools’ we mean schools

that are mostly traditional. Based on the wide array of literature on social constructivist instruction

summarized above, we formulated criteria to classify schools as social constructivist in the Dutch

context (Oostdam et al., 2006). Schools were classified as ‘prototypically social constructivist’ when

they met all of five criteria and had worked in accordance with social constructivist views for at

least several years. According to these criteria, social constructivist learning environments can be

distinguished from traditional learning environments in terms of: (1) more attention paid to the

higher order skills of self-regulation and metacognition, (2) students share responsibility for their

own learning process and the learning goals they choose, (3) more formative than summative

evaluation methods are used to evaluate students’ work, (4) learning takes place within an

authentic context, and (5) learning is considered to be a social activity.

We classified schools as ‘prototypically traditional’ when they met none of the criteria for

social constructivist learning environments and met the following three criteria for traditional

learning environments: (1) all lessons are taught in the same groups of students, (2) these

lessons mostly consist of the teacher explaining subject matter frontally and students working

on assignments that the teacher provides to the class as a whole, and (3) more summative than

formative evaluation methods are used.

Often schools do not work in accordance with one educational philosophy alone, but instead

combine elements of different educational philosophies. It is of relevance to investigate the

effectiveness of such combined schools, as they are particularly common. As the present study

was focused on the effectiveness of traditional and social constructivist education in practice,

we classified schools as combined when they met some, but not all of the criteria for social

constructivist learning environments and combined these with some characteristics of traditional

learning environments. Schools belonging to this type scored relatively high on criteria 1 to 3 for

social constructivist learning environments (although lower than prototypical social constructivist

schools) as well as on the first two criteria for traditional learning environments (although lower

than prototypical traditional schools). It is important to note that it was not our aim to classify all

schools; our focus was on those that belonged to one of these three groups of ‘prototypical’ schools.

29

Chap

ter

02

2.2.2.2 Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of the three types of schools

To date, research on the effectiveness of various types of schools in fostering student motivation is

scarce. As mentioned above, ultimately such research should be conducted in the schools themselves,

as applying an educational philosophy in practice tends to have much wider consequences than

accounted for in theory (Slavin, 2012). The lack of evidence on social constructivist schools is

problematic in particular, because constructivist views on learning have been developed further

than views on instruction (Windschitl, 2002), and because the implementation of constructivist

reforms in practice tends to confront teachers with a set of dilemmas (see Windschitl, 2002 for

an overview). Below, we provide a review of available empirical evidence that is of relevance

in answering the question of the effectiveness of social constructivist as well as traditional and

combined schools. For the selection of relevant studies we used search engines such as PsycINFO

and ERIC, studies from reference lists of relevant articles, and our prior knowledge of the literature

in the field.

First, evidence from mainly experimental studies consistently shows each of the five

characteristics that define social constructivist learning environments (see the section ‘Classifying

Social Constructivist, Traditional, and Combined Schools’ above) to be positively associated with

student motivation. For example, research has indicated that students working on self-selected

tasks are more likely to use strategies voluntarily, to persist when work becomes difficult and to

maintain their focus on academic work (Turner, 1995). In addition, students have been found

to be more cognitively engaged when assigned independent work that requires monitoring and

planning (Blumenfeld & Meece, 1988), while students who were allowed to set personal goals

for their learning reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation (e.g. Benware & Deci, 1984).

In a study by Grolnick and Ryan (1987), it was shown that students who were asked to learn

material for a test reported lower interest in the task. Furthermore, empirical evidence indicated

that long-term, problem-focused and meaningful units of instruction positively affected student

motivation (Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, & Palincsar, 1991). Finally, Turner et

al. (2002) found scaffolding within instruction to be positively associated with student reports of

low avoidance behaviours.

Second, the results of studies on social constructivist interventions that focused on enhancing

student responsibility and activity in learning have consistently indicated positive effects on student

motivation (e.g. Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Hickey, Moore, & Pellegrino, 2001; Ben-Ari & Eliassy,

2003; Honkimäki, Tynjälä, & Valkonen, 2004; Milner, Templin, & Czerniak, 2010). This finding

was affirmed by Wu and Huang (2007) for the age group of early adolescence. Interestingly, Nie

and Lau (2010) conducted research in schools and found that students who perceived instruction

30

as more constructivist than didactic reported higher levels of motivation.

Third, we found two studies evaluating the effectiveness of social constructivist schools. In a

study by Smit, De Brabander and Martens (in press), students’ levels of motivation were found to

be higher in social constructivist than in traditional learning environments. In addition, evidence

from a longitudinal study on early adolescents’ self-esteem showed positive effects of the large-

scale educational reform proposed by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989)

that focused on stimulating students to identify and solve complex and meaningful problems and

communicate and work well with others (Felner & Jackson, 1997).

Fourth, there is some empirical evidence on the topic of comprehensive implementation of

social constructivist educational reforms which is of relevance with regard to combined schools.

Although empirical evidence is scarce and only available from two studies, it appears to indicate

potentially detrimental effects of incomprehensive implementation. First, in an intervention

study, Rozendaal, Minnaert and Boekaerts (2005) found that the effects of a social constructivist

intervention depended on the level of teachers’ adherence to the proposed instructional principles.

Specifically, ambivalent teacher adherence was found to be associated with a larger increase in

performance anxiety than weak teacher adherence. Second, in a study on the effects of the large-

scale educational reform proposed by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989),

Felner and Jackson (1997) emphasized the importance of comprehensive implementation, as

schools that had implemented only part of the recommendations were not found to be successful.

Finally, we discuss empirical evidence in favour of traditional schools. Research has indicated

positive effects of characteristics that are more overt in traditional than in social constructivist views

on instruction. Of particular relevance in this respect is that research has consistently indicated

the crucial importance of ‘structured teaching’, including communicating clear expectations and

providing students with prompt feedback and reinforcement (e.g. Scheerens & Bosker, 1997;

Perry, Turner, & Meyer, 2006; Opdenakker & Minnaert, 2011). In addition, of relevance here is

that in the educational literature social constructivist schools have been criticized, with the main

criticism being that they tend to provide students with too little instructional guidance (Kirschner,

Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Mayer, 2004; Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 2000). While social constructivist

theory considers the provision of sufficient guidance to be an explicit aim of instruction (see also

Oostdam, Peetsma, & Blok, 2007), it might well be that when implementing such an approach in

practice, provision of too little instructional guidance is a potential risk.

2.2.3 Present investigation

The research questions of the present study concern the degree to which the level and development

31

Chap

ter

02

of early adolescent motivation is associated with the type of school they attend: A prototypically

social constructivist school, a prototypically traditional school, or a combined school. For this

purpose, we measured the motivation of students attending these different types of schools at five

points in time over the course of their first year after the transition to Dutch secondary education

(grade 7). As the present study is among the first to investigate the effectiveness of these three

types of schools in practice, we will refrain from making any predictions regarding the direction

of effects.

The present study was conducted among early adolescents who had just made the transition to

prevocational education, which in the Dutch educational system is the lowest of three mainstream

tracks and is attended by more than half of all students (Dutch Inspectorate of Education, 2012).

Students attending this track are offered an educational programme that has a balanced focus

on theory and practice. In the Netherlands, it is this group of students especially that has been

reported to lack motivation (Dutch Inspectorate of Education, 2005).

For the purpose of the present study, we have chosen to focus on course-specific rather than

general motivation, as most motivational constructs are known to contain strong domain-specific

components (Bong, 2004). Of the four motivational constructs that we focused on – intrinsic

motivation, identified motivation, values and performance avoidance – the first three have indeed

been shown to differentiate into various domains (Gottfried, 1990; Eccles et al., 1993; Gottfried et

al., 2001; Bong, 2004). We have chosen to focus on motivation for math and mother language, as

these two subjects are known to require distinct learning profiles and are considered key subjects

in the curriculum.

2.3 Method

2.3.1 Participants

A total of 489 students participated in the 5 measurement occasions for the data collection. These

489 students (49.9% girls) were divided over 20 classes, with class sizes ranging from 17 to 31

students, in 10 schools, with 2 classes per school. In conversations with the heads of departments,

it was established that the teachers of math and mother language in the participating classes were

representative of their schools. All 20 participating classes were at the prevocational level of Dutch

secondary education (‘vmbo’). Furthermore, all 20 classes were grade 7, which, in the Netherlands,

is the first grade after the transition to secondary education. Students attending this grade are aged

12 to 13. Parent(s)/guardian(s) of the students were sent information by mail prior to the start

32

of the study, which informed them that they could at any time and without further explanation

decide not to grant permission for their child to participate or continue to participate (as did the

parent(s)/guardian(s) of 1 student prior to the start of the study).

Of the 10 participating schools, 4 were ‘prototypically social constructivist’, 4 ‘prototypically

traditional’, and 2 ‘combined’. Geographically, these schools were spread across the Netherlands,

with the exclusion of the south. For the selection of these schools, we followed a procedure

consisting of four steps, using the criteria as described in the introduction. Initially, we included

all schools in the central and northern parts of the Netherlands that were non-religious, public

(as are nearly all schools in the Netherlands) and offered prevocational education (a total of 141

schools). Schools in the southern part of the Netherlands were excluded for pragmatic reasons,

while religious schools were excluded because it would have been difficult to match the types of

schools on the basis of denomination. The first step involved coding relevant information available

through the websites of schools. Based on these coding, we excluded schools from the selection

that clearly were neither traditional, social constructivist, nor combined (e.g. Montessori schools),

and we provisionally categorized the remaining schools as being potentially ‘social constructivist’,

‘traditional’ or ‘combined’, or as ‘unknown based on website-information’.

The second step involved gathering further information on the schools that had provisionally

been classified as ‘social constructivist’. For this purpose, we consulted a list of social constructivist

schools that Oostdam et al. (2006) had drawn up based on the same criteria we used, and a list of

schools belonging to a network of schools adhering to principles closely related to those of social

constructivist education. Schools had to be on either of these two lists to remain classified as

potentially ‘social constructivist’.

The third step involved gathering additional information on the daily practices in those 30

schools that seemed the best representatives of their respective type. For this purpose we consulted

the Dutch Inspectorate of Education, as in the Netherlands it is only the inspectorate that visits all

schools. We asked inspectors to provide information on specific schools concerning daily practices

that related to our selection criteria for the respective types of schools.

The fourth step involved selecting and contacting schools based on secondary matching

criteria of area (urban/rural, low/high average SES) and school size. Because the prevocational

track is further streamed into classes that are composed of students with comparable levels of

prior achievement, we could also select classes that were similar in this respect. In spring 2010,

heads of departments of the selected schools were sent information packages on the study, the

data collection process and its purpose, which in addition to the administration of questionnaires

included the video-recording of some lessons. A week later, they were contacted by phone by the

33

Chap

ter

02

first author to further discuss the data collection process. Heads of departments decided on their

willingness to participate only after consulting their teams.

2.3.2 Measures

Data were collected at five measurement occasions in the 2010/2011 school year. The first

measurement took place within the first weeks of the start of the school year, while the other

four measurements were spread evenly over the remainder of the school year. The dates for each

measurement occasion were agreed upon with the mentors. Reminders of these dates were sent

by e-mail. When mentors had to cancel measurements at the last minute, new dates were set

for as soon as possible, never more than two or three weeks later (depending upon the original

planning). In the Netherlands, the school year starts and ends at different dates depending on the

school’s location (either one or two weeks apart from each other), which was taken into account

in our planning. On each measurement occasion, students were administered questionnaires

which gathered information on their motivation for math and mother language, focusing on four

motivational constructs. The questionnaires were administered during a regular class by student

mentors. On each measurement occasion, the mentors received a letter containing standardized

instructions to guide the students through the questionnaires. The mentors were instructed not

to check the students’ answers and it was also made clear to the latter that all of the data would be

processed anonymously. All of the items had five response categories, ranging from completely

disagree (1) to completely agree (5), and were in Dutch, the language of instruction in schools in

the Netherlands.

Intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation for math and mother language (Dutch) was assessed

using an adapted version of the intrinsic motivation subscale of the Ryan and Connell (1989) self-

regulation questionnaire, the subscale was made course-specific and consisted of 4 items for each

subject. E.g.: “I work on math because I enjoy it”. In the current study, the scales had Cronbach’s

alphas ranging for the five measurement occasions from .90 to .93 for math and from .88 to .91 for

Dutch, indicating high internal consistencies.

. Identified motivation for math and Dutch was assessed using an adapted

version of the identified motivation subscale of the Ryan and Connell (1989) self-regulation

questionnaire, the subscale was made course-specific and consisted of 4 items for each subject. E.g.:

“I work on math because I want to learn new things”. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .83 to .86 for

math and from .82 to .87 for Dutch in the current study, indicating high internal consistencies.

Values. Values for math and Dutch were assessed by means of an adapted version of the intrinsic

values scale of Pintrich and de Groot (1990), consisting of 8 items for each subject. E.g.: “I think

34

that what I am learning in this class is useful for me to know”. The scales had Cronbach’s alphas

ranging from .88 to .90 for math and from .86 to .89 for Dutch in the current study, indicating

high internal consistencies.

Performance avoidance. Performance avoidance refers to situations where students are afraid

that others will notice their shortcomings and was assessed using the 6-item subscale ‘Self-

Defeating Ego-Orientation’ of the ‘Goal Orientation Questionnaire’ of Seegers, van Putten, and De

Brabander (2002). E.g.: “I feel embarrassed when I have to ask for help during math lessons”. The

Cronbach’s alphas for math and for Dutch ranged from .86 to .95 and from .84 to .94 respectively,

indicating high internal consistencies.

2.3.3 Analytical approach

We used Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM) analysis, thereby following a multilevel approach

to take into account the hierarchical, 3-level (occasions within students within classes) structure

in the data. Students with missing data on one or more measurement occasions were included in

the analyses. In HLM analysis, missing data are unproblematic, provided that all students have

measures on at least one occasion and that data are missing at random. The former of these two

conditions was met; for the purpose of checking whether the latter condition was met as well we

performed an additional analysis (see ‘missing data analysis’). Occasionally, students had missed

items, assumedly at random. The scores to these items were always imputed with the mean of the

scale.

First, the raw data were used to describe the development of students’ motivation over

the course of the school year (Table 1; ‘Development of Students’ Motivation over Time’).

Second, series of unconditional models were used to estimate the proportion of variance within

students, among students and between classes (Table 2; ‘Differences between Classes in Students’

Motivation’). Third, series of models were compared that did not allow (comparison models; not

presented) versus did allow the intercept (models 1), the effect of ‘time’ (measured in units of 2

months starting from the first measurement occasion; models 2), and the effect of ‘(time)2‘ (models

3) to vary between classes (Table 3; ‘Differences between Classes in Students’ Motivation’). In

these models the linear effects of ‘time’ were always included, but the polynomials to the second

degree were included only when inclusion in the comparison models had significantly improved 2 test with

2 test with 2 degrees

of freedom (variance random slope and covariance random intercept and random slope), and of 2 test with 3 degrees of freedom (variance random slope, covariance

35

Chap

ter

02

random intercept and slope, covariance random slopes).

In the final set of analysis, the ‘types of schools students attended’ were added to the model as

explanatory variables. The significance of the increase of fit of these series of models in comparison 2 test with 4 degrees of

freedom (intercepts and slopes for ‘time’ for combined and social constructivist schools; traditional

schools functioned as reference group) (Table 4; ‘Associations between the Attendance of Types of

School and Students’ motivation’).

2.4 Results

2.4.1 Missing data analysis

The vast majority of missing data in the present study consisted of 8 of the 20 classes missing

one measurement point for pragmatic reasons (e.g. miscommunication between mentors). These

missed occasions could not be caught up due to the longitudinal nature of the study and the tightly

scheduled measurement occasions. The second measurement occasion was missed by 2 classes,

the fourth by 4 classes, and the fifth by 2 classes; classes never missed more than 1 measurement

occasion.

In addition, missing data consisted of some students within classes missing one or more

measurement occasion(s). In 12 of the 20 classes more than 15% of the students had not filled in

the questionnaire at the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and/or 5th measurement occasion. As we considered this type of

missing data a potential threat to the assumption of missingness at random in HLM, we verified

that the students who had missed one or more of the later measurements occasions had not scored

different from the rest of the students on the first measurement. For this purpose, we compared

the scores on the first measurement between the students who had filled in the questionnaire and

the students who had not filled in the questionnaire for each measurement occasion, motivational

construct, and subject. When significant differences were found, we checked whether these

differences remained when comparisons were made within school types, respectively schools.

Generally, these comparisons did not reveal the existence of meaningful differences between

students with and without missing data; except for the fifth measurement occasion in one of

the prototypically social constructivist schools. In this school, students who missed the fifth

measurement occasion had scored significantly lower on the first measurements of intrinsic

motivation and identified motivation for math. In the interpretation of the results, violation of

the assumption of missingness at random should be taken into consideration; however, the impact

36

will be small as the assumption appeared violated for the fifth measurement occasion and for one

prototypically social constructivist school only.

2.4.2 Development of students’ motivation over time

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Inspection of the means across the five measurement

occasions revealed different complex trajectories for each of the motivational constructs, with for

all scales a positive trend being visible in the first months of the school year and a developmental

trend with a negative tenor from measurement occasion 2 on. The fluctuation over time appeared

largest for identified motivation and values for math and Dutch, the two of which have general

levels and developmental trends that a very much alike. For intrinsic motivation and performance

avoidance for math and Dutch, the general levels appeared lower, while relatively little fluctuation

over time is visible.

2.4.3 Differences between classes in students’ motivation

The results in Table 2 showed that for all four motivational constructs for both math and Dutch,

meaningful differences between classes were apparent, although most variance was attributable to

student and occasion level. For intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, as well as values, for

math more than for Dutch, a substantial part of the variance was attributable to the class level. A

particularly large part of variance was attributable to the class level for performance avoidance,

for both math and Dutch.

37

Chap

ter

02

Ta

ble

1

Mea

ns (M

), St

anda

rd D

evia

tions

(SD

), an

d Su

bsam

ple w

ithou

t miss

ing

data

(n) f

or In

trin

sic m

otiv

atio

n, Id

entif

ied

mot

ivat

ion,

In

trin

sic v

alue

s, an

d Pe

rfor

man

ce av

oida

nce f

or al

l fiv

e mea

sure

men

t occ

asio

ns

t1

t2

t3

t4

t5

M (

SD

)n

M (

SD

)n

M (

SD

)n

M (

SD

)n

M (

SD

)n

Intr

insi

c mot

ivat

ion

Mat

h2.

86 (1

.24)

450

3.07

(1.1

3)30

92.

91 (1

.10)

406

2.73

(1.0

4)32

82.

85 (0

.99)

369

Dut

ch2.

84 (1

.07)

450

2.86

(1.0

1)30

92.

90 (0

.95)

406

2.72

(0.9

5)32

82.

84 (0

.91)

369

Mat

h3.

68 (0

.92)

450

3.80

(0.8

8)30

93.

64 (0

.89)

406

3.45

(0.8

5)32

83.

50 (0

.81)

369

Dut

ch3.

64 (0

.87)

450

3.71

(0.8

9)30

73.

65 (0

.84)

406

3.44

(0.8

3)32

83.

46 (0

.79)

369

Val

ues

Mat

h3.

52 (0

.84)

447

3.69

(0.8

1)29

13.

52 (0

.80)

387

3.36

(0.7

8)32

63.

38 (0

.72)

360

Dut

ch3.

52 (0

.77)

447

3.58

(0.7

9)29

13.

55 (0

.72)

387

3.37

(0.7

6)32

63.

40 (0

.70)

360

Perf

orm

ance

avo

idan

ce

Mat

h1.

95 (0

.86)

447

1.84

(0.8

6)30

31.

83 (0

.84)

390

1.92

(0.8

8)32

72.

03 (0

.93)

362

Dut

ch1.

90 (0

.80)

447

1.83

(0.8

7)30

41.

84 (0

.85)

390

1.90

(0.8

6)32

72.

05 (0

.95)

362

38

Table 2 Distribution of the total variance over the class, student, and occasion level

Variable Intrinsic

motivation

Identified

motivationValues

Performance

avoidance

math Dutch math Dutch math Dutch math Dutch

Class 6.5% 5.2% 7.1% 4.8% 8.3% 4.0% 9.8% 10.0%

Student 43.2% 42.8% 37.4% 38.9% 37.7% 42.6% 36.7% 34.9%

Occasion 50.3% 52.1% 55.5% 56.3% 54.1% 53.3% 53.4% 55.2%

The results as presented in Table 3 revealed that for all four motivational constructs for both math

and Dutch, the intercept (which indicates the general level) as well as the development over time

varied significantly between classes. The significant variance in the intercept between classes is

indicated by, for all motivational constructs, models 1 providing a better fit to the data than the

comparison models that did not allow random variation between classes. The significant variance

in the development over time between classes is indicated by, in all cases, the models in which

the slopes of ‘time’ and/or ‘(time)2 ‘ were allowed to vary randomly over classes (models 2 and/

or models 3) showing a better fit to the data than the models 1. Below, these differences between

classes are considered in more detail.

For intrinsic motivation the results indicated meaningful differences at the class level for the

intercepts (levels) for math and, to a somewhat lesser extent, for Dutch. This was indicated by the

class-level 95% intervals that ranged for the intercept from 2.14 to 3.61 for math and from 2.38

to 3.37 for Dutch. In addition, meaningful differences were found for the slopes of ‘time’/’(time)2‘

(developments) both for math (-.06 to .89 for ‘time’/ -.37 to -.19 for ’(time)2 ‘) and, to a somewhat

lesser extent, for Dutch ( -.18 to .15 for ‘time’). Moreover, for math the results showed negative

covariance between the intercept and the slope of ‘time’, what indicates that students who initially

scored high on intrinsic motivation for math tended to experience a smaller increase over time

than students whose initial level was lower.

For identified motivation, the results indicated meaningful differences at the class level for

the intercepts for both math and, to a somewhat lesser extent, for Dutch (class-level 95% intervals

ranged from 3.12 to 4.27 for math and from 3.28 to 4.04 for Dutch). In addition, meaningful

differences were found for the slopes of ‘time’/’(time)2 ‘ both for math (.15-.37 for ‘time’) and, again

to a somewhat lesser extent, for Dutch (-.23 to .33 for ‘time’/ -.09 to .03 for ’(time)2 ‘).

For values, the results indicated meaningful differences at the class level for the intercepts

for both math and for Dutch (class-level 95% intervals ranged from 3.04 to 4.03 for math and

39

Chap

ter

02

from 3.30 to 3.77 for Dutch). In addition, meaningful differences were found for the slopes of

‘time’/’(time)2 ‘ both for math (-.01 to .61 for ‘time’ /-.23 to -.17 for ’(time)2 ‘) and, to a somewhat

lesser extent, for Dutch (-.20 to .31 for ‘time’).

For performance avoidance, the results indicated relatively small, but meaningful, differences

at the class level for the intercepts for both math and Dutch (class-level 95% intervals ranged from

1.71 to 2.20 for math and from 1.71 to 2.10 for Dutch). In addition, large differences at the class

level were found for the slopes of ‘time’ /’(time)2 ‘ both for math (-.53 to .27 for ‘time’/-.05 to -.12

for ’(time)2 ‘) and for Dutch (-.54 to .35 for ‘time’ / -.06 to .12 for ’(time)2‘).

2.4.4 Associations between the attendance of types of school and

students’ motivation

The results as presented in Table 4 revealed to what degree the level and development of students’

motivation appeared associated with the type of school they attended. For intrinsic motivation for

math, the intercept (level) was substantially lower in combined schools (-.41) than in the traditional

schools (reference group; this difference approached significance) or social constructivist schools

(.01), whereas the slope of time (-.05/-.04) was not associated with the type of school students

attended. For intrinsic motivation for Dutch, again the intercept appeared considerably lower in

combined schools than in traditional schools or social constructivist schools, whereas the slope of

time was not associated with the type of school students attended. For identified motivation, the

intercepts were considerably lower in combined schools than in traditional or social constructivist

schools; both for math and for Dutch these differences approached significance. In addition, for

Dutch, identified motivation developed somewhat less positively over the course of the school

year in social constructivist than in traditional schools; this difference approached significance.

For math, the slope of time was not associated with the type of school students attended. For

values, the intercepts appeared considerably lower in combined schools than in traditional or

social constructivist schools, both for math and for Dutch. In addition, values for Dutch developed

somewhat less positively over the course of the school year in social constructivist and combined

schools than in traditional schools. For performance avoidance, neither the intercepts nor the

slopes of time appeared associated with the type of school students attended.

40

Ta

ble

3

Resu

lts fr

om th

e HLM

anal

yses

pre

dict

ing

the d

evel

opm

ent o

ver t

ime o

f fou

r mot

ivat

iona

l out

com

es

In

tr

insic

mo

tiv

atio

nId

en

tif

ied

mo

tiv

atio

nV

alu

es

ma

th

Du

tc

hm

ath

Du

tc

hm

ath

Mo

de

l 1

Mo

de

l 2

Mo

de

l 3

Mo

de

l 1

Mo

de

l 2

Mo

de

l 1

Mo

de

l 2

Mo

de

l 1

Mo

de

l 2

Mo

de

l 3

Mo

de

l 1

SESE

SESE

SESE

SESE

SESE

SE

Inte

rcep

t2.

86.0

82.

87.1

02.

88.1

02.

88.0

72.

87.0

72.

87.0

73.

70.0

83.

66.0

63.

66.0

63.

66.0

63.

53.0

6

Tim

e.4

1*.0

1.4

3*.1

1.4

2*.1

2-.0

2^.0

1-.0

2.0

2-.0

2.0

2.2

6*.0

9.0

5.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

5.0

5.2

9*.0

8

(Tim

e)2

-.27*

.07

-.28*

.07

-.28*

.07

-.19*

.06

-.03*

.01

-.03*

.01

-.03*

.01

-.20*

.05

(Tim

e)3

.04*

.01

.04*

.01

.04*

.01

.03*

.01

.03*

.01

Clas

s lev

el

Var

. int

erce

pt.0

8.0

3.1

6.0

6.1

4.0

6.0

5.0

2.0

6.0

3.0

6.0

3.0

9.0

4.0

4.0

2.0

4.0

2.0

4.0

2.0

5.0

2

Var

. slo

pe T

ime

.02

.01

.06

.03

.01

.00

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.02

.01

Var

. slo

pe (T

ime)

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0

Cov.

int.

x T

ime

-.04

.02

-.02

.03

-.01

.01

-.01

.01

-.01

.01

-.00

.00

-.00

.01

Cov.

int.

x (T

ime)

2-.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0

Cov

Tim

e x (T

ime)

2-.0

1.0

1-.0

0.0

0

Indi

vidu

al le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt.5

4.0

5.5

6.0

5.5

6.0

5.4

2.0

4.4

2.0

4.4

2.0

4.2

9.0

3.2

9.0

3.2

9.0

3.2

8.0

3.2

4.0

2

Occ

asio

n le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt.6

1.0

2.5

7.0

2.5

6.0

2.5

1.0

2.4

9.0

2.4

9.0

2.4

1.0

2.3

9.0

2.3

9.0

2.3

9.0

2.3

3.0

1

Dec

reas

e dev

ianc

e28

*69

*11

*20

*24

*24

*12

*21

*0

7*40

*

Not

e: *

p<.

05, ^

p<.1

0

41

Chap

ter

02

Ta

ble

3

cont

inue

d Va

lue

sP

er

fo

rm

an

ce

av

oid

an

ce

ma

th

Du

tc

hm

ath

Du

tc

h

Mo

de

l 2

Mo

de

l 3

Mo

de

l 1

Mo

de

l 2

Mo

de

l 3

Mo

de

l 1

Mo

de

l 2

Mo

de

l 3

Mo

de

l 1

Mo

de

l 2

Mo

de

l 3

SESE

SESE

SESE

SESE

SESE

SE

Inte

rcep

t3.

53.0

73.

53.0

73.

54.0

53.

54.0

43.

54.0

41.

95.0

71.

95.0

51.

96.0

51.

90.0

71.

90.0

51.

91.0

4

Tim

e.3

0*.0

8.3

0*.0

9.0

5.0

3.0

5.0

3.0

5.0

4-.1

3*.0

4-.1

3*.0

4-.1

3*.0

6-.0

9*.0

4-.0

9*.0

4-.0

9.0

6

(Tim

e)2

-.20*

.05

-.20*

.05

-.03*

.0

1-.0

3*.0

1-.0

3*.0

1.0

4*.0

1.0

4*.0

1.0

4*.0

1.0

3*.0

1.0

3*.0

1.0

3*.0

1

(Tim

e)3

.03*

.01

.03*

.01

Clas

s lev

el

Var

. int

erce

pt.0

7.0

3.0

6.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

7.0

3.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

1.0

7.0

3.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

1

Var

. slo

pe T

ime

.01

.00

.03

.02

.00

.00

.02

.01

.01

.00

.04

.02

.01

.00

.05

.02

Var

. slo

pe (T

ime)

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0Co

v. in

t. x

Tim

e-.0

1.0

1-.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

0-.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1

Cov.

int.

x (T

ime)

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0-.0

0.0

0-.0

0.0

0

Cov

time x

(Tim

e)2

-.00

.00

-.00

.00

-.01

.01

-.01

.01

Indi

vidu

al le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt.2

5.0

2.2

5.0

2.2

5.0

2.2

5.0

2.2

4.0

2.2

8.0

3.2

8.0

3.2

8.0

3.2

6.0

3.2

6.0

3.2

6.0

3

Occ

asio

n le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt.3

2.0

1.3

2.0

1.3

0.0

1.2

9.0

1.2

9.0

1.4

0.0

2.3

8.0

2.3

7.0

2.4

1.0

2.3

8.0

2.3

7.0

2

Dec

reas

e dev

ianc

e28

*8*

13*

13*

11*

57*

61*

11*

61*

65*

18*

N

ote:

* p

<.05

, ^p<

.10

42

Ta

ble

4

Resu

lts fr

om th

e HLM

anal

yses

pre

dict

ing

the d

evel

opm

ent o

ver t

ime o

f fou

r mot

ivat

iona

l out

com

es b

y ty

pe o

f sch

ool

Va

ria

ble

In

tr

insic

mo

tiv

atio

nId

en

tif

ied

mo

tiv

atio

nV

alu

es

Pe

rfo

rm

an

ce

av

oid

an

ce

ma

th

Du

tc

hm

ath

Du

tc

hm

ath

Du

tc

hm

ath

Du

tc

h

SESE

SESE

SESE

SESE

Inte

rcep

t2.

96.1

42.

87.0

93.

76.1

13.

67.0

83.

57.0

93.

54.0

51.

88.0

71.

86.0

7

Tim

e.4

3*.1

3.0

3.0

6.2

7*.1

0.0

8.0

5.3

2*.0

9.0

9*.0

4-.1

6*.0

6-.1

3*.0

7

(Tim

e)2

-.28*

.07

-.01

.01

-.19*

.06

-.03*

.01

-.20*

.05

-.03*

.01

.04*

.01

.03*

.01

(Tim

e)3

.04*

.01

.03*

.01

.03*

.01

Soci

al co

nstr

uctiv

ist.0

1.2

0.1

7.1

2-.0

0.1

5.0

9.1

1.0

8.1

3.0

9.0

7.1

5.1

0.0

8.1

0

Soci

al co

nstr

uctiv

ist x

Tim

e-.0

5.0

7-.0

1.0

4-.0

3.0

3-.0

3^.0

2-.0

5.0

3-.0

5*.0

2.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

5

Com

bina

tion

-.41^

.25

-.36*

.14

-.32^

.19

-.25^

.13

-.31*

.16

-.18*

.09

.06

.12

.05

.11

Com

bina

tion

x T

ime

-.04

.09

.02

.06

-.03

.04

-.04

.03

-.02

.05

-.06*

.03

.08

.06

.08

.06

Clas

s lev

el

Var

. int

erce

pt.1

2.0

5.0

2.0

2.0

7.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

5.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1

Var

. slo

pe T

ime

.07

.03

.02

.02

.02

.01

.02

.01

.03

.02

.02

.01

.04

.02

.05

.02

Var

. slo

pe (T

ime)

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0

Cov.

int.

x T

ime

-.03

.03

-.00

.01

-.01

.02

-.00

.01

-.02

.01

-.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

Cov.

int.

x (T

ime)

2-.0

0.0

1-.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0-.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0-.0

0.0

0-.0

0.0

0

Cov

time x

(Tim

e)2

-.01

.01

-.00

.00

-.00

.00

.00

.00

-.00

.00

-.00

.00

-.01

-.01

-.01

.01

Indi

vidu

al le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt.5

6.0

5.4

2.0

4.2

9.0

3.2

8.0

3.2

5.0

2.2

4.0

2.2

9.0

3.2

6.0

3

Occ

asio

n le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt.5

6.0

2.4

9.0

2.4

0.0

2.3

9.0

2.3

2.0

1.2

9.0

1.3

7.0

2.3

7.0

2

Dec

reas

e dev

ianc

e5

13*

9^12

*9^

19*

43

43

Chap

ter

02

Ta

ble

4

Resu

lts fr

om th

e HLM

anal

yses

pre

dict

ing

the d

evel

opm

ent o

ver t

ime o

f fou

r mot

ivat

iona

l out

com

es b

y ty

pe o

f sch

ool

Va

ria

ble

In

tr

insic

mo

tiv

atio

nId

en

tif

ied

mo

tiv

atio

nV

alu

es

Pe

rfo

rm

an

ce

av

oid

an

ce

ma

th

Du

tc

hm

ath

Du

tc

hm

ath

Du

tc

hm

ath

Du

tc

h

SESE

SESE

SESE

SESE

Inte

rcep

t2.

96.1

42.

87.0

93.

76.1

13.

67.0

83.

57.0

93.

54.0

51.

88.0

71.

86.0

7

Tim

e.4

3*.1

3.0

3.0

6.2

7*.1

0.0

8.0

5.3

2*.0

9.0

9*.0

4-.1

6*.0

6-.1

3*.0

7

(Tim

e)2

-.28*

.07

-.01

.01

-.19*

.06

-.03*

.01

-.20*

.05

-.03*

.01

.04*

.01

.03*

.01

(Tim

e)3

.04*

.01

.03*

.01

.03*

.01

Soci

al co

nstr

uctiv

ist.0

1.2

0.1

7.1

2-.0

0.1

5.0

9.1

1.0

8.1

3.0

9.0

7.1

5.1

0.0

8.1

0

Soci

al co

nstr

uctiv

ist x

Tim

e-.0

5.0

7-.0

1.0

4-.0

3.0

3-.0

3^.0

2-.0

5.0

3-.0

5*.0

2.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

5

Com

bina

tion

-.41^

.25

-.36*

.14

-.32^

.19

-.25^

.13

-.31*

.16

-.18*

.09

.06

.12

.05

.11

Com

bina

tion

x T

ime

-.04

.09

.02

.06

-.03

.04

-.04

.03

-.02

.05

-.06*

.03

.08

.06

.08

.06

Clas

s lev

el

Var

. int

erce

pt.1

2.0

5.0

2.0

2.0

7.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

5.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1

Var

. slo

pe T

ime

.07

.03

.02

.02

.02

.01

.02

.01

.03

.02

.02

.01

.04

.02

.05

.02

Var

. slo

pe (T

ime)

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0

Cov.

int.

x T

ime

-.03

.03

-.00

.01

-.01

.02

-.00

.01

-.02

.01

-.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

Cov.

int.

x (T

ime)

2-.0

0.0

1-.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0-.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0-.0

0.0

0-.0

0.0

0

Cov

time x

(Tim

e)2

-.01

.01

-.00

.00

-.00

.00

.00

.00

-.00

.00

-.00

.00

-.01

-.01

-.01

.01

Indi

vidu

al le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt.5

6.0

5.4

2.0

4.2

9.0

3.2

8.0

3.2

5.0

2.2

4.0

2.2

9.0

3.2

6.0

3

Occ

asio

n le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt.5

6.0

2.4

9.0

2.4

0.0

2.3

9.0

2.3

2.0

1.2

9.0

1.3

7.0

2.3

7.0

2

Dec

reas

e dev

ianc

e5

13*

9^12

*9^

19*

43

2.5 Discussion

2.5.1 Overview of findings

In the educational literature, distinct traditions have developed on the basis of differing views

on learning and instruction. The educational philosophies that encompass traditional and social

constructivist views represent such distinct traditions that they can be contrasted on many

aspects. Nevertheless, both continue to have an effect on current educational practice in Western

countries to a large degree. In the present study, we investigated the degree to which the level and

development of student motivation is associated with the type of school they attend: A prototypical

social constructivist school, a prototypical traditional school, or a school combining elements of

both educational philosophies. We focused on early adolescents in their first year after transition

to prevocational secondary education, as motivation for school has been found to decline for this

group.

Corroborating prior evidence (Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2000; Minnaert, 2013), we found

meaningful differences between (school) classes, although most variance in student motivation

appeared attributable to the student and occasion levels. First, regarding students’ general levels of

motivation, we found meaningful differences between classes on all four motivational constructs

that were the focus of the present study – intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, values and

performance avoidance – for mother language, and even more so for math. In answer to the first

part of our research question, we found that for most of these motivational constructs, students’

levels were associated with the type of school they attended. The levels of intrinsic motivation

for mother language and values for math and mother language were lower in combined schools

than in the other two types of schools, while for identified motivation for math and mother

language and intrinsic motivation for math, this same trend approached significance. The levels

performance avoidance were not found to differ between types of schools.

Second, regarding the development of student motivation over the course of the school

year, again we found meaningful differences between classes for all four motivational constructs

for mother language, and even more so, for math. In answer to the second part of our research

question, we found that for most motivational constructs, development over time was not

associated with the type of school students attended; the exceptions were a somewhat less

positive trend for identified motivation for mother language in social constructivist schools than

in traditional schools (approaching significance) and a somewhat less positive trend for values

for mother language in social constructivist and combined schools than in traditional schools

(significant).

44

2.5.2 Interpretation of findings

Interestingly, the above-mentioned results indicate associations between the type of school students

attend and the level of motivation, but not so much for the development of motivation over time.

It is important to realize in this respect that the meaning of the development of a construct over

time might depend upon its initial level; for example, a decline in student motivation might be

more detrimental when the initial level was relatively low as opposed to relatively high. Among

possible explanations for these findings is that whereas the type of school students attend does

affect their motivation, this effect has largely crystallized when students have been at their new

school for a few weeks. An alternative explanation could be that the effects on the development

of student motivation over time are too complex to determine over the course of one school year,

which could have been further complicated by, for example, differences in timing of assignments

or examinations between schools. Future research is necessary to explain these findings further.

An intriguing finding is that while differences between classes in performance avoidance

were larger than for any of the other three motivational constructs, it was precisely this construct

that had no associations with the types of school students attended. The results suggest student

performance avoidance, and in particular its development over time, is associated with elements

of the learning environment, but not necessarily with elements that characterize any of the three

types of schools that were the focus of the present study. Future research into elements of the

learning environment that are of importance in this respect remains necessary.

A prominent finding of the present study is that for most motivational constructs, levels were

lower in combined schools than in the other two types of schools. As we will elaborate on below,

this finding could be interpreted as being due to a selection bias. Alternatively, it could be argued

that this finding corroborates previous empirical evidence that demonstrates the importance of

the comprehensive implementation of social constructivist reforms (Rozendaal et al., 2005; Felner

and Jackson, 1997). In the present study, we compared schools that were prototypically traditional,

prototypically social constructivist, and schools that had characteristics of both educational

philosophies. The schools of one or the other specific types shared the fact that they worked in

accordance with a specific educational philosophy and, therefore, that they tended to maintain an

unambiguous view on education. It could be speculated that in schools that combine characteristics

of different educational philosophies, views on education tend to be less crystallized and, therefore,

teachers’ adherence to respective educational principles is more ambivalent. It has been argued

that such ambivalence can be potentially detrimental to students’ learning (Minnaert, 2013) and

can cause, for example, less clear communication of expectations, while clear communication has

been suggested to be a particularly effective characteristic of educational practice (see Boekaerts &

45

Chap

ter

02

Minnaert, 2003; Perry, Turner, & Meyer, 2006).

Another possible explanation for the relatively low levels of early adolescent motivation

in combined schools is that combining contradictory educational principles is problematic in

itself. Thus, in addition to the teachers in combined schools being more ambivalent in their

adherence to educational principles, contradictions inherent in these educational principles

might also have been problematic. For example, having students share responsibility for their

own learning process and the learning goals they choose (Criterion 2 for social constructivist

learning environments) combined with relatively little attention to the higher order skills of

self-regulation and metacognition (Criterion 1 for social constructivist learning environments)

will for many students result in a lack of instructional guidance. As we elaborated on in the

introduction, social constructivist instruction has been criticized for tending to provide students

with too little instructional guidance. It could be speculated that the students’ lower levels of

motivation in combined schools were due to lack of instructional guidance being a potential risk

of implementing aspects of social constructivist educational reform in particular.

In the interpretation of the above-mentioned findings, it might also be of importance to

consider our experiences in terms of finding schools that were willing to participate in our study.

While most of the combined and social constructivist schools we contacted agreed to participate,

most of the traditional schools did not. It could, therefore, be anticipated that the traditional

schools that did agree to participate tended to be particularly good schools.

As the current study is among the first to investigate the effectiveness of social constructivist,

traditional, and combined schools, our findings should be interpreted with some caution. One of

the most difficult challenges in evaluating differences between schools is to separate the effects

of schooling from the intake characteristics of the students who attend the school (Raudenbush

& Willms, 1995). First, the relatively small number of schools (ten) participating in the present

study can be considered a drawback in this sense, as coincidental differences between the schools

might have influenced the results. We attempted to at least partially counteract this problem by

matching participating schools on key criteria and focusing on students with comparable levels of

prior achievement. Second, a particular difficulty that is always apparent when comparing types

of schools is that students tend to be sorted into these different types of schools not by random

selection processes, but based on their own preferences, as well as of those of their parents or

guardians.

Finally, the use of questionnaire data administered by the students’ mentors could potentially

have resulted in biased answers by some of the students. Although both the questionnaires and the

mentors themselves made it clear to the students that the data would be processed anonymously,

46

and we instructed the mentors not to check the students’ answers, the presence of the mentors

may still have been sufficient to trigger some of the students to give socially desirable answers.

2.5.3 Practical implications and recommendations for future research

In conclusion, despite these limitations, the results of the present study provide further insight

into the effectiveness of traditional, social constructivist, and combined schools in fostering

early adolescents’ motivation. Such insight is crucial for evaluating educational policy and is of

particular relevance considering the large number of schools in Western countries that have

incorporated social constructivist views on instruction. The results point, for example, towards the

potential risk of something that is common practice: Combining elements of distinct educational

philosophies. Interestingly, despite prior research having shown that distinct characteristics of

social constructivist instruction are effective in fostering student motivation, our findings do not

support the notion that social constructivist schools are more effective than traditional schools (or

vice versa). This contrast in the findings seems to confirm the notion that applying an educational

philosophy in practice tends to have much wider consequences than accounted for in theory

(Slavin, 2012). Finally, our findings support the notion that the learning environment can play an

important role in fostering early adolescents’ motivation, and thereby they affirm the importance

of future research into the characteristics of this environment.

One consequence of the present study’s focus on schools that actually worked in accordance

with different educational philosophies is that in the interpretation of our findings we cannot

readily distinguish between factors inherent in the respective educational philosophies

(traditional, social constructivist and combined) and factors that are not inherent but which

have indirectly resulted from these educational philosophies. For example, above we suggested

that the relatively low levels of student motivation in combined schools was perhaps caused by

contradictions inherent in the educational philosophy of this type of school, and/or in the teachers

being more ambivalent in their adherence as an indirect result of the educational philosophy.

While the former explanation would lead to the advice that combined schools stop combining

elements of traditional and social constructivist views in their education, the latter explanation

would lead to the advice that combined schools implement school-based interventions that train

their teachers to express unambiguous views on instruction or provide coaching to schools that

are, for example, in transition from a traditional to a social constructivist approach. For future

research, we would recommend a focus on daily practices in the different types of schools, which

will help determine the level at which there should be intervention. Such research would also be

of particular relevance in providing further insight into the link between educational theory on

47

Chap

ter

02

learning and instruction and its implications in practice.

It is also recommended that future research further investigate the effectiveness of social

constructivist, traditional, and combined schools using a larger sample of schools and including

other countries for the purpose of enhancing the generalizability of the findings. In the present

study, we focused on early adolescents in grade 7, as motivation has been found to decline in

this group of students. It would be of interest, however, to investigate whether our findings can

be generalized to boys and girls belonging to other age groups as well. Furthermore, it would

be of value to do cross-cultural comparisons, as research indicates the importance of culturally

responsive pedagogies in the classroom (see Savage, Hindle, Meyer, Hynds, Penetito, & Sleeter,

2011). Finally, it would be of interest to include more outcome measures in any future research.

In the present study, we chose to focus on motivation because of its relevance to the aims of

social constructivist instruction as well as its recognized importance as a prerequisite for student

learning. Future research might choose to also include outcome measures such as depth of

information processing and self-regulated learning.

This chapter is based on:

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 9, 65-87.

Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A

review of the literature3

50

Abstract

In the present paper, we systematically reviewed the corpus of evidence on the effects of need

supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement for school. Based on Self-

Determination Theory, we defined need supportive teaching in terms of teachers’ provision of

autonomy support, structure, and involvement. The results of an in-depth descriptive analysis of

71 empirical studies that were conducted since 1990 showed clear positive associations between

the three dimensions of need supportive teaching and students’ motivation and engagement,

whereas evidence on singled-out components of need supportive teaching was less conclusive.

Research on unique contributions of the three dimensions of need supportive teaching appeared

scarce, as appeared longitudinal, experimental, and interview studies. Furthermore, we found that

in most of the selected studies student perceptions were used to measure need supportive teaching.

In the small body of studies using observations or teacher perceptions, we found much smaller or

even no associations with students’ motivation and engagement. Finally, the results indicated a

pattern in the design of studies in the sense that a connection existed between the dimension of

need supportive teaching and the outcome measure being studied.

Keywords

early adolescence engagement motivation

teacher-student interactions Self-Determination Theory

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

51

3.1 Introduction

For children the interactions with their teachers matter. From different perspectives, teacher-

student interactions have been connected with students’ motivation and engagement for school.

Teacher-student interactions are considered to be of special importance when students have just

made the transition towards secondary education; a period in which for many students motivation

declines (e.g. Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Van der Werf, Opdenakker, & Kuyper, 2008; Opdenakker,

Maulana, & den Brok 2012; Peetsma, Hascher, Van der Veen, & Roede, 2005; Gottfried, Fleming,

& Gottfried, 2001). Theoretically, the cause of this decline has been argued to be the existence

of a mismatch between early adolescents’ developmental stage and their learning environments

(Eccles, Midgley, & Wigfield, 1993). In recent years, researchers have shown an increasing

interest in the question how teacher-student interactions affect early adolescents’ motivation and

engagement, and now a considerable amount of empirical evidence is available on this topic (see

Opdenakker & Minnaert, 2011).

An encompassing theoretical framework that connects teacher-student interactions with

students’ motivation and engagement is Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985;

2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Based on SDT it can be made explicit how and why characteristics of

the social context are either supportive of or thwarting students’ motivation and engagement.

Important in this respect is the concept of need support. Within SDT, it is assumed that three

fundamental psychological human needs exist, satisfaction of which positively affects motivation

and engagement (see Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000 for an elaborate grounding of

this assumption). Importantly, based on the assumption that people have these three fundamental

needs, the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, in a mini-theory of SDT (Basic

Needs Theory; Ryan & Deci, 2002) three dimensions of the social context are distinguished

that are relevant in terms of need support. Specifically, it is argued that availability of autonomy

support, structure, and involvement within the social context positively affects need satisfaction

and thereby motivation and engagement.

Teachers have a central position in the social context of the classroom. Teachers guide the

students in their learning process and bring the educational approach of the school into act in the

classroom. Consequently, based on SDT need supportive teaching is expected to have an important

positive effect on students’ motivation and engagement (see also Opdenakker & Maulana, 2010).

In the current article we present a fine-grained overview of the available empirical evidence on the

effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement for school.

By aiming at such an overview, we want to unveil the extent to which the available evidence

52

supports SDT, including the gaps that remain. We have used SDT to focus our selection of studies;

nevertheless, it is our purpose to include evidence from as many research traditions as possible.

In our overview of available empirical evidence, we attempt to provide an analysis based on

five considerations. Below, we explain why we suggest these considerations of importance for the

purpose of answering our research question, and we argue why we distinguish between different

kinds of evidence. First, if need supportive teaching affects early adolescents’ motivation, evidence

should be indicative of an association between need supportive teaching and students’ motivation

and engagement. Second, need supportive teaching can be operationalized either in terms of need

supportive behaviour or in terms of students’ perceptions of this behaviour. In the literature, it

has been argued that it is the way students perceive their learning environment that influences

learning, and not the learning environment in itself (e.g. Entwistle, 1991). Ultimately, however,

for the concept to make sense not only from a theoretical perspective, concrete behaviour has

to be identified that makes teaching need supportive and enhances students’ motivation and

engagement. Hence, we consider both evidence on student perceived and observed or teacher

perceived need supportive teaching to have a distinguishable purpose and relevance. Third,

we consider evidence into the (unique) importance of the three dimensions of need supportive

teaching, as well as their specific components, of particular relevance, as such evidence increases

understanding of what it is that makes teaching need supportive. Fourth, implied in every question

on effectiveness is a notion on direction of causality. Of particular relevance in this respect

are experimental studies, interview studies, and longitudinal studies that link need supportive

teaching with the development of students’ motivation and engagement over time. Finally, if need

supportive teaching affects motivation, evidence should be indicative of comparable findings for

each of a variety of constructs that are used to define motivation and engagement.

Before presenting our search strategy and the results of our analysis, we elaborate on the three

dimensions of need supportive teaching, and we provide a brief overview of those concepts of

motivation and engagement that have guided the selection process of the current study.

3.2 Theoretical background

3.2.1 Dimensions of need supportive teaching

Below, we elaborate on the three respective dimensions of need support and give an overview of

their components on the basis of prior theorising in the tradition of Self-Determination Theory.

Within SDT, the distinction between three dimensions of need support originally was prompted

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

53

by the idea that three fundamental needs exist. Although each of these three dimensions of need

support is still associated with a specific need, this connection is neither perfect nor unique

(Connell & Wellborn, 1991). Instead, the three dimensions of need support complement each

other in their effects on students’ satisfaction of each of the respective needs.

3.2.1.1 Autonomy support

The first dimension of need supportive teaching we discuss is autonomy support, as opposed to

autonomy suppression. This dimension is associated with the need for autonomy, which finds its’

origin in the inherent desire people have to be causal agents, to experience volition, and to act in

accordance with their sense of self. For students to feel autonomous, it is crucial to experience

their engagement in learning as a self-chosen act that reflects their own authentic needs and

values. In other words, students who experience autonomy in their willingness to engage in

learning, experience this willingness as unpressured. Feeling autonomous is not the same as feeling

independent of others; autonomously initiated actions can be initiated either independently or in

response to a request of significant others.

Based on prior theorising by Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn, and Connell (1992), by Assor

and Kaplan (2001), and by Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, and Barch (2004) autonomy support

can be distinguished into several components. First, teaching is autonomy-supportive when it

provides students with choice, whereas teaching is autonomy-suppressive when it is controlling

(Belmont et al., 1992) or intruding (Assor & Kaplan, 2001). Providing choice includes enabling

students to choose tasks they perceive as at least somewhat interesting or important (Assor &

Kaplan, 2001; Belmont et al., 1992), and nurturing of inner resources, for example by finding

ways to incorporate students’ interests and preferences (Reeve et al., 2004). Second, teaching is

autonomy-supportive when it fosters relevance (Assor & Kaplan, 2001; Belmont et al., 1992),

whereas teaching is autonomy suppressive when it forces meaningless and uninteresting activities

(Assor & Kaplan, 2001). Teachers can foster relevance by identifying the value of tasks, lessons,

or behaviour (Reeve et al., 2004). Third, teaching is autonomy-supportive when teachers show

respect (Assor & Kaplan, 2001; Belmont et al., 1992), allow criticism (Assor & Kaplan, 2001),

and use informational instead of controlling language that pressures students (Reeve et al., 2004),

whereas teaching is autonomy-suppressive when it shows disrespect or suppresses criticism

(Assor & Kaplan, 2001). An example of allowing criticism is the acceptance of reaction to negative

affect (Reeve et al., 2004).

54

3.2.1.2 Structure

Second, we elaborate on the dimension of structure. This dimension is associated with the need

for competence, which finds its origin in the inherent satisfaction people derive from exercising

and extending their capabilities (White, 1959). The need for competence refers to the need to feel

effective in on-going interactions with the social environment, while at the same time exercising

and expressing one’s capacities. So, to feel competent, it is necessary to have not only effective

functioning but also some continual stretching of one’s capacities. It is the need for competence

that provides the energy for learning.

Because feelings of competence are enhanced as students feel they acquire more control

over school outcomes, teachers’ provision of structure is argued to enhance students’ feelings

of competence. Based on prior theorising by Skinner and Belmont (1993), by Jang, Reeve, and

Deci (2010), and by Belmont et al. (1992), we distinguish structure into four components. First,

teachers can provide structure by means of clarity; defined in terms of giving clear, understandable,

explicit, and detailed instructions and framing upcoming lessons well. Second, teachers can offer

students guidance in their on-going activities, for example by monitoring their work or offering

help or support when needed (Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Jang et al., 2010). Third, teachers can

provide students with structure by means of support and encouragement (Belmont et al., 1992),

thereby making students feel they acquire more control over school outcomes. Teachers can

encourage students by communicating positive expectations regarding their schoolwork. Fourth,

teachers can provide students with constructive, informational feedback, thereby helping them to

gain control over valued outcomes (Jang et al., 2010). Although this might seem counterintuitive,

negative as well as positive informational feedback can enhance students’ feelings of competence

through provision of structure. Opposite to informational feedback is evaluative feedback, what

is defined as making students feel pressured toward doing well. Because of its controlling aspects,

both negative and positive evaluative feedback undermines students’ autonomy (Deci & Ryan,

1985). However, positive evaluative feedback tends to communicate competence at the same time,

thereby (partly) counteracting the negative effects of it being evaluative. Therefore, especially

negative evaluative feedback is expected to have a negative effect on motivation and engagement.

3.2.1.3 Involvement

Third, we elaborate on involvement. This dimension is associated with the need for relatedness,

which concerns the desire to form and maintain strong and stable interpersonal relationships

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bowlby, 1979; Harlow, 1958; Ryan, 1995). More specifically, the need

for relatedness refers to the need to feel connected to others, to care for and to be cared for by

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

55

others, and to belong. In their review of empirical evidence on the need to belong, Baumeister and

Leary (1995) propose that the need for relatedness, or, in their terms, the need to belong, has two

main features. First, people need frequent personal contact that is free from conflict and negative

affect, and, ideally affectively positive and pleasant. Second, people need to perceive that there is

an interpersonal bond or relationship marked by stability, affective concern, and continuation into

the foreseeable future. The need for relatedness can be satisfied within interpersonal relationships

or through feelings of belongingness to social groups.

Within the context of (secondary) education, teacher-student relationships themselves

generally are not strong and stable enough to satisfy students’ needs for relatedness interpersonally.

That does, however, not imply that teacher-student interactions do not affect students’ feelings of

relatedness at school. Rather, evidence indicates teachers’ social support to have very substantial

effects on students’ emotions (enjoyment and anxiety), motivational beliefs, and, via emotions and

motivational beliefs, achievement (Ahmed, Minnaert, Van der Werf, & Kuyper, 2010). When

teachers express their involvement in students’ lives, students are more likely to believe worthy

of respect and cared for by others in their group and to experience feelings of belongingness.

Moreover, when students perceive that their teachers do not value them and that their behaviour

is unwelcome, their sense of relatedness will suffer (Osterman, 2000). Based on prior theorising

by Belmont et al. (1992) we distinguish teachers’ involvement into four components. First,

teachers can express their involvement by showing affection. Second, teachers can express their

attunement, by showing that they understand the student. Third, teachers can dedicate resources

(e.g. time) to the student. Fourth, teachers can make sure that they are dependable, and available

to offer support.

3.2.1.4 General level of need supportive teaching

We expect each of the three respective dimensions of need support to contribute to the general

level of need supportive teaching. Furthermore, we expect that support for one dimension

cannot compensate for lack of support for another dimension. Although, it might be the case

that especially balanced need support contributes to the general level of need supportive teaching

(Sheldon & Niemiec, 2006), based on this prior premise, we still expect each respective dimension

to have a unique effect on students’ motivation and engagement.

3.2.2 Motivation and engagement

Within the field of educational research, motivation and engagement for school are considered

important. It is critical that students become genuinely interested in learning and are motivated to

56

attend school, in such a way that they acquire new knowledge and persist in learning over time.

Student motivation is not only predictive of school achievement, but also of students’ persistence

in learning over time (Richmond, 1990). Motivation and engagement have been the focus of

research from different traditions, what has led to a variety of concepts being used. Below, we

provide a brief overview of those concepts of motivation and engagement that have guided the

selection process of the current study. For a more extensive and complete overview, the interested

reader is referred to handbooks on research on student motivation (e.g. Wentzel & Wigfield,

2009) and engagement (e.g. Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012).

First, in accordance with theories that define motivation in terms of quantity, motivation

for school can be considered high when students invest in their schoolwork and show effort.

Expectancy-Value Theory (e.g. Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) is based on the argument that expectancies

and values determine which tasks people pursue and persist in; therefore, together, expectancies

and values make up motivation. Within Expectancy-Value Theory, expectancies are defined

as students’ beliefs about how well they will do in an upcoming task, and values are defined as

perceived qualities of the task and how those perceived qualities influence children’s desire to do

the task.

Second, in other research traditions, motivation has been defined from an attributional

perspective (deCharms, 1968). In these traditions the central argument is that motivation is of

better quality when it is perceived as having an internal instead of an external locus of causality.

Intrinsic motivation is seen as exemplary of motivation having an internal locus of causality, as

it refers to motivation for behaviour that is experienced as inherently satisfying (see e.g. Deci &

Ryan, 1985). Within SDT, it is argued that the perceived locus of causality is not either internal

or external, but that instead a continuum exists (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Connell, 1989). Based

on this continuum intrinsic motivation and some forms of extrinsic motivation are considered to

be more autonomous, whereas the remaining forms of extrinsic motivation are considered to be

more controlled. Motivation is more autonomous when the outcome to which the behaviour is

instrumental is personally valuable, whereas motivation is more controlled when the outcome is

not being not truly accepted as one’s own.

Another motivational variable is interest. Interest refers to an individual’s focused attention

and/or engagement with particular events and objects. Interest is a cognitive and affective

motivational variable that guides attention and develops through experience (Renninger & Hidi,

2011).

Engagement, what is considered to be an important motivational outcome measure as well,

can be seen as an externalization of motivation. Engagement can be behavioural, as manifested in

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

57

for example persistence or attention, or emotional, as manifested in for example enthusiasm or

enjoyment (e.g. Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008).

3.3 Method

3.3.1 Search strategy

The purpose of the current review is to present an analysis of empirical evidence on the question

if need supportive teaching affects early adolescent students’ motivation and engagement. To

select potentially relevant studies, we conducted a search in November 2011, using the databases

Psychinfo, ERIC, SocIndex, MEDLine, Communication & Mass Media Complete, and Academic

Search Premier for the years 1990 to 2011. We selected references that were published in a

scholarly journal and that described an empirical study. First, articles were selected if teacher-

student interactions were referred to in combination with either a term referring to need support

or to learning environment, and to motivation or engagement in the title, the abstract, and/or

keywords. Furthermore, articles were excluded when a term referring to elementary school or

university was mentioned. For an overview of the exact search terms we refer to Appendix 1 of

this chapter. This initial search yielded 913 unique references.

To refine our selection of articles, we further reduced the number of selected articles by

hand. We only included an article in our final selection if one (or more) of the presented studies

examined the relationship between need supportive teaching and motivation or engagement, and

if the paper was concerned with early adolescents attending a form of secondary education. We

made an exception to the last mentioned criterion for countries or regions where students stay

in elementary school until after they are fourteen, because we considered research among early

adolescents in these countries or regions valuable in answering our research question. Based on

this exception one study from Slovenia was included after all. Furthermore, papers concerning

motivation for physical education or arts were excluded, because of the special position of these

two subjects within the school curriculum.

The main group of excluded references consisted of articles in which the term ‘motivation’

was mentioned in the abstract, but in reference to either the motivation of the authors (e.g. “we

were motivated…”), or of teachers. Another substantial part of articles was excluded because the

research was not done among early adolescents (age 10-14) after the transition towards secondary

education, but among older or younger students, or in a laboratory setting. Finally, a small group

of articles was excluded because the research did not incorporate need supportive teaching at all,

58

or not in relation to students’ motivation or engagement. As the meaning of terms associated

need supportive teaching is not unequivocal, and differences exist between research traditions in

terms of their interpretation, articles were included in the final selection only after inspection of

respectively questionnaire items, coding categories, or interview questions. The final selection

yielded a total of 71 references. See Table 1 and 2 for an overview of the operationalizations

of need supportive teaching (Table 1) and motivation and engagement (Table 2) used in these

studies.

In the remainder of this article we present our in-depth analysis of these papers as well as a

discussion of the findings. For the purpose of unveiling the extent to which the available evidence

supports SDT, including the gaps that remain, we immediately connect our research findings to

the five considerations we suggest to be of relevance for research into need supportive teaching

(see Section 3.1).

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

59

Table 1 Need Supportive Teaching

Dimension & Author(s) Measure

Autonomy support

General measure

Chirkov & Ryan (2001) SP: Autonomy support and control; e.g.: ”My teachers help me choose my own direction”; G

Hardré & Reeve (2003) SP: LCQ; e.g.: “My teachers provide me with choices and options”; “My teachers convey their confidence in my ability to become what I want to become”; G

Jang, Reeve, & Deci (2010) OBS: Autonomy support; observation scheme Reeve et al., 2004; C (1 lesson per class)

Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, Barch (2004)

Manipulation: 1 hour session on being autonomy supportive and self-study using websiteOBS: Autonomy support; observation scheme; relying on extrinsic vs extrinsic motivational resources; use of controlling vs informational language; neglects vs identies value, importance task/lesson/behavior; open vs not open to negative affect; C (1 lesson per class)

Shih (2008) SP: LCQ; G

Shih (2009) SP: LCQ, short version; G

Tucker, Zayco, Herman, Reinke, Trujillo, Carraway, Wallack, Ivery (2002)

SP: Fostering relevance & showing respect (RAPS); e.g: “My teacher doesn’t explain why we have to learn certain things in school”; G

Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay (1997) SP: Autonomy support; e.g.: “I feel that my teachers pressure me to do what they want”; School autonomy; e.g.: “I feel controlled at school”. G

Choice vs control

Assor, Kaplan, & Roth (2002) SP: Provision of choice (RAPS); e.g.: “The teacher encourages me to work in my own way”; Intrusion; e.g.: “The teacher does not allow me to work in my own pace”; C, main teacher

Marchant, Paulson, & Rothlisberg (2001)

SP: Control, Rules and Discipline strategies; e.g.: “My teacher is strict”; C

Roeser & Eccles (1998) SP: Student autonomy; e.g.: “How often are students’ ideas and suggestions used during classroom discussions?”; G

Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff (1998) SP: Student empowerment: Making decisions concerning seating and the selection of work partners, Sharing own ideas in classroom discussions; G

Fostering relevance vs forcing

meaningless activities

Assor, Kaplan, & Roth (2002) SP: Fostering understanding and interest (RAPS); e.g.: “The teacher explains why it is important to study certain subjects in school”; Forcing meaningless and uninteresting activities; e.g.: “The teacher forces me to complete worksheets that do not help me to understand the material we study”; C, main teacher

Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff (1998) SP: Curricular meaningfulness, relevance of problems and material; C, science, English, social studies, & mathematics

Wentzel (2002) SP: Teacher valuing of subject (e.g. mathematics); The teacher tells us why the subject is important”; C

Respect vs disrespect

Assor, Kaplan, & Roth (2002) SP: Allowing of criticism; e.g.: “The teacher listens to my opinions and ideas”; Suppression of criticism; e.g.: “The teacher is willing to listen only to opinions that fit her opinion”; C, main teacher

Murdock, Anderman, & Hodge (2000)

SP: Disrespect and criticism; e.g.: “Teachers usually think my opinions are wrong”. G

60

Structure

General measure

Frey, Ruchkin, Martin, & Schwab-Stone (2009)

SP: Support (feedback, guidance, and encouragement); e.g.: ”Teachers are willing to help students”; “Most of my teachers notice when I am doing a good job and let me know about it”; G

Jang, Reeve, & Deci (2010) OBS: Structure; observation scheme Reeve, et al., 2004; confusing, unclear vs understandable, clear during introduction/directions; poor vs strong leadership; low, easy vs high, hard workload; scaffolding fully absent vs richly present; non-informative vs informative, skill building feedback; C (1 lesson per class)

Nie & Lau (2009) SP: Behavioural control; freq. off correcting and controlling misbehaviours; G

Tucker et al. (2002) SP: Structure (RAPS); e.g.: ”My teacher is fair with me”; “My teacher’s expectations for me are way of base”; G

Yin, Lee, & Zhang (2009) SP: Support and involvement; e.g.: “The teacher always is willing to answer students’ questions”; “The teacher gives advice on students’ learning process”; G

Clarity

Bergen, van Amelsvoort, & Setz (1994)

OBS: clarity, control of teaching-related events, respect for and stimulation of student contribution; C

Knight (1991) SP: Rule clarity; e.g. “The teacher explains what will happen when a student breaks a rule”; G

Murray (2009) SP: Unclear expectations (RAPS); e.g.: ”My teachers don’t make clear what they expect of me in school”; G

Pintrich, Roeser, & De Groot (1994)

SP: Teacher effectiveness (treatment of the subject matter in a clear and interesting manner, good classroom management, and fair grading procedures); e.g.: ”The teacher explains the material well”; The teacher has good control of his class”; C, class in which student took questionnaire

Wentzel (2002) SP: Rule clarity; e.g.: “There is a clear set of rules for students to follow”; “The teacher explains what will happen if a student breaks a rule”. C

Guidance

Alfaro, Umaña-Taylor & Bámaca (2006)

SP: Academic support, help with academics; G

Knight (1991) SP: Help and personal interest; G

Plunkett et al. (2008) SP: Academic support; e.g.: “Teachers helped me to do well in school”; “Teachers care about my education”; G

Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney (2010)

SP: e.g.: “My teacher helps me so I get done quicker”; My teacher lends me things if I need them”; C, class in which student took questionnaire

Encouragement

Dever & Karabenick (2011) SP: Academic press: Providing challenge and demanding effort; e.g.:”Our math teacher accepts nothing less than our full effort”; C, mathematics

Murdock (1999) SP: Academic support: Disinterest, criticism, and encouragement, long-term expectations; G

Murdock, Anderman, & Hodge (2000)

SP: Long-term expectations; e.g.: “My teachers expect I will do well in the future”; G

Roeser, Eccles (1998) SP: Positive expectations; “Do you believe your teachers view you as a good student”?; G

Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff (1998) SP: Positive expectations; “Do you believe your teachers view you as a good student”?; G

Tyler & Boelter (2008) SP: Expectations; e.g.: “My teacher gives me enough time to think before I give an answer”.; G

Table 1 continued

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

61

Wentzel (2002) SP: High expectations, opportunity, and choice; e.g.: “The teacher calls on me to answer questions”; “The teacher trusts me”; C

Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney (2010)

SP: Expectations for academic engagement; e.g.: “The teacher calls on me to answer questions”; “The teacher expects me to learn new things”; G

Woolley, Strutchens, Gilbert, & Martin (2010)

SP: Expectations; e.g.: “My teacher thinks (I/all students) can understand math”; C, mathematics

Feedback

Kelly (2007) OBS: Properties of teachers’ questions and responses that provoke thought and analysis (authentic question; discussion; multiple responses; high level questions) and postpone evaluation (uptake; opening up; not closing down; elaborate response)

Knight (1991) SP: Feedback: Teachers let students know how well they are doing; G

Rakoczy, Klieme, Bürgermeister, & Harks (2008)

OBS: Evaluative feedback during periods of student work; short clear feedback indicating whether a response is correct or incorrect; observation scheme; C, mathematicsOBS: Informational feedback; providing cues on how to proceed; observation scheme; C, mathematics

Wentzel (2002) SP: Negative feedback; e.g.: “The teacher makes me feel bad when I do not have the right answer”; C

Involvement

General measure

Brewster & Bowen (2004) SP: Caring, encouraging, willing to work with students; e.g.: ”My teachers really care about me”; “I am respected and appreciated by my teachers”; G

Daly, Shin, Thakral, Selders, & Vera (2009)

SP: Affection & dedication of resources: Support, cared for, respected, and involved; G

Martin, Marsh, McInerney, Green, & Dowson (2007)

SP: Interpersonal relationships; e.g.: “In general, I get along well with my teachers”; G

Murray (2009) SP: Involvement (RAPS); e.g.: ”My teachers like to be with me”; “My teachers have plenty of time for me”; G

Phelan, Davidson, & Cao (1991) INT: With teachers; concerning effects of patterns of transition between multiple worlds (family, peer, school) on engagementOBS: Classroom; concerning teacher-student interactions and interactions among peers

Rosenfeld, Richman, & Bowen (2000)

SP: Support; e.g.: “My teachers really care about me”; GBased on amounts of teacher, peer, and parent support students were divided over eight

Ryan & Patrick (2001) SP: Support; e.g.: “Does your math teacher try to help you when you are sad or upset?”; C

Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch (1994) SP: Felt security, e.g.: “Although I trust my teachers, I still have my doubts”; Emotional utilization, e.g.: “When I am feeling happy, or have good news, I go to my teachers”; School utilization, e.g.: “If I were having trouble understanding a subject at school, I would talk it over with my teachers”; Emulation; e.g.: “I try to model myself after my teachers”; G

Tamutiene (2008) INT: Individual, semi-structured with 17 children (grade 7-12); concerning use of social motivation, loss of learning of motivation, and choice of being absent from schoolINT: Focus group with 45 children (grade 5-11); concerning use of social motivation, loss of learning of motivation, and choice of being absent from school

Tucker et al. (2002) SP: Involvement (RAPS); G

Proximity

Bergen, van Amelsvoort, & Setz (1994)

SP: Proximity; Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI); e.g.: “This teacher is friendly”; “This teacher looks down on us”; C

Table 1 continued

62

Den Brok, Levy, Brekelmans, & Wubbels (2006)

SP: QTI; C

Den Brok, Wubbels, Veldman, & van Tartwijk (2009)

SP: QTI, short version; C

Lapointe, Legault, & Batiste (2005)

SP: QTI, short version; proximity and influence (not relevant); C

Maulana, Opdenakker, den Brok, & Bosker (2011)

SP: QTI; C

Affection

Davis & Lease (2007) Peer Perception: Third person perception of teacher liking; 1 item per classmate; ‘How much do you think your homeroom teacher likes each student’?; C, homeroom teacher

Dever & Karabenick (2011) SP: Caring; e.g.: “Our math teacher cares about how we feel”; C, mathematics

Khamis, Dukmak, & Elhoweris (2008)

SP: Disciplining and emotional support; G

SP: Personal support; e.g.: ”My teacher really cares about me”; GTP: Liking of students; 1 item for each studentPeer perception: Relationship with teachers; ‘Name three or less classmates that have the best relations with teachers’; 1 item

Nie & Lau (2009) SP: Behavioural care: Freq. of a teacher showing warmth, concern, and acceptance to students; G

Voelkl (1995) SP: School warmth; feelings between students and teachers; e.g.: getting along with teachers, school spirit, interest in students, praise of effort; G

Wentzel (2002) SP: Fairness; e.g.: “The teacher treats some kids better than others”; C

Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney (2010)

SP: Emotional support; e.g.: “My teacher likes me as much as he/she likes other students”; C, classroom students were in at the time of the data collection

You & Sharkey (2009) SP: Teacher support; e.g. “Teachers are interested in students”; G

Dependability

Lee (2007) SP: Cognitive trust (not relevant), Affective trust; e.g.: “Teachers in this school look out for me”; G

Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff (1998) SP: Emotional support; “How often do you feel you can depend on your teacher to help you if you have a social or personal problem at school”?; G

Belongingness

Close & Solberg (2008) SP: Connection to Teachers and to School; e.g.: “Teachers here care about their students”; “I have friends here at this school”; G

Faircloth & Hamm (2005) Peer Perception: Friendship nominationsSP: Time spent in extracurricular activities; Bonding with Teacher; Care and Support; Perceived discrimination based on ethnic group membership; e.g.: “There is a teacher I could go to if I got into trouble”; “My teachers care about how I am doing”; Together these scales measure belongingness

Goodenow (1993) SP: Class belonging vs alienation; e.g.: “I often feel out of place in this class”; G; with regard to both teachers and students

Autonomy support, structure, & involvementCombined measure

Table 1 continued

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

63

Katz, Kaplan, Gueta (2010) SP: Need support; e.g.: “The teachers provide us choice of tasks in homework”; “The teacher matches the difficulty level of the task to each of us”; “The teacher gives us the feeling that she respects us even if we do not succeed in homework”; C, bible studiesSP: Need for need support; e.g.: ‘I need choice of task in homework’; C, bible studies

Klem & Connell (2004) SP: Need support (RAPS); C; 16% of the students fall within the optimal range of need support, 22% is in the risk category, the other 62% is neither in the risk, nor in the optimal category

Lam, Cheng, & Ma (2009) SP: Structure & Autonomy support: Cognitive support; challenge, real-life significance, curiosity, autonomy, recognition, evaluation; project specific; e.g.: “Our teacher lets us work on a topic of the right level, neither too difficult nor too easy”; Involvement: Affective support; e.g.: “My teacher likes me and cares about me”; C, project teacher

Murdock & Miller (2003) SP: Caring: Respect & fairness, long-term expectations, competence/commitment; e.g.: “My teachers expect I will do well in the future”; G

Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann (2008)

SP: Involvement, structure, & autonomy support; e.g.: “My teacher doesn’t seem to enjoy having me in her class”; “My teacher doesn’t make clear what she expects of me in class”; “It seems like my teacher is always telling me what to do”; GTP: Involvement, structure, & autonomy support; e.g.: “Teaching this student is not very enjoyable”; “I try to be clear with this student about what I expect of him/her in class”; “I let this student make a lot of his/her own decisions regarding schoolwork”; G

Spaulding (1995) Manipulation: Psychological presence of the teacher; 2 conditions: writing for English teacher vs writing for researcher; C

Wesely (2009) INT: Reflection on language learning experiences; individual; semi-structured INT: Rank ordering favorites and least favorites in learning French; group; semi-structured

Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipuer, Hanisch, Creed &, McGregor (2006)

SP: Autonomy support, involvement, structure; “Teachers want to know how I think about school and how I do things”; “Teachers let me know they like me”; “My teachers explain the reasons for our classroom rules”; G

Separate measures

Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff (1998) Autonomy support: Choice and relevance; Structure: Encouragement; Involvement: Dependability

Tucker, Zayco, Herman, Reinke, Trujillo, Carraway, Wallack, Ivery (2002)

Autonomy support: Autonomy support; Structure: Structure; Involvement: Dependability

Autonomy support & InvolvementCombined measure

Hardré & Sullivan (2008) SP: Teacher autonomy support: Fostering relevance, respect; Involvement: Support for academic success; e.g.: “In this class mistakes are considered a sign that students can’t learn”; “I feel understood by my teacher”; C

Marchant, Paulson, & Rothlisberg (2001)

SP: Autonomy support: Choice; Involvement: Affection; responsiveness: Interest in and support for students; e.g.: “My teacher believes I have a right to my own opinion”; “My teacher makes me feel good about what I achieve in school”; C

Structure & InvolvementCombined measure

Berti, Molinari, & Speltini (2010) SP: Sense of injustice: Actual experiences of classroom justice (communication in class, principle of equality, principle of effort and need) subtracted from ideals of classroom justice (same topics); e.g.: “A teacher informs his/her students on how s/he makes decisions”; “A teacher is nice and friendly with his/her students”; C

Chua, Wong, & Chen (2009) SP: Involvement: Affection; Structure: Guidance; e.g.:” The Chinese language teacher goes out of his/her way to help me”; C

De Bruyn (2005) SP: Involvement: Affection & attunement; Structure: Role strain; e.g.: “Teacher don’t treat me fairly”; “Many teachers don’t know me”; G

Table 1 continued

64

Garcia-Reid (2007) SP: Teacher support; SSP; e.g.:” My teachers really care about me”; “My teachers expect me to do my best all the time”; G

Garcia-Reid, Reid, & Peterson (2005)

SP: Teacher support; SSP; G

Green, Rhodes, Hirsch, Suárez-Orozco, & Camic (2008)

SP: Structure: Guidance; Involvement: Affection; academic & emotional support from adults and teachers at school; e.g.: ”There is at least one adult in school I can always count on”; “Teachers do not treat me with respect”; G SP: Teacher academic support; e.g.: “My teacher likes to help me learn”; G

Murray (2009) SP: Affection and clarity; Closeness-trust (RAPS); e.g.: “When I am with my teachers, I feel good”; “The rules in my classroom are clear”; G

Thijs & Verkuyten (2009) Manipulation: Description of three hypothetical teachers that are high in structure & involvement (authoritarian type), low in structure & involvement (authoritarian type), or high in structure but low in involvement (authoritarian type)

Van Ryzin, Gravely, Roseth (2009)

SP: Emotional and academic support; e.g.: “My teachers really care about me”; “My teachers want me to do my best in schoolwork”; G

Wentzel (1997) SP: Social and academic support; CLM; e.g.: “My teacher really cares about me”; “My teacher cares about how much I learn”; G

Wentzel (1998) SP: Social and academic support; CLM; G

Separate measures

Dever & Karabenick (2011) Structure: Encouragement; Involvement: Affection

Murray (2009) Structure: Clarity; Involvement: General

Nie & Lau (2009) Structure: General; Involvement: Affection

Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney (2010)

Structure: Guidance, Encouragement; Involvement: Affection

Table 1 continued

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

65

Table 2 Motivation & engagement

Outcome & Author(s) Measure

Engagement

Assor et al. (2002) SP: Behavioral and Cognitive Engagement in Schoolwork Scale; C, main teacherBrewster & Bowen (2004) SP: Engagement: Problem behaviour in school, school meaningfulness; G Chua et al. (2009) SP: Motivation/involvement in classroom learning tasks; CDaly et al. (2009) SP: Engagement; GDe Bruyn (2005) TP (mentor): Engagement: Attentiveness; C Garcia-Reid (2007) SP: Engagement; GGarcia-Reid et al. (2005) SP: Engagement; GGreen et al. (2008) SP: Academic engagement; GHardré & Sullivan (2008) SP: Engagement; CJang et al. (2010) OBS: Collective Behavioral Engagement, Observation Scheme; Task involvement and

influence attempts; CSP: Engagement: Behavioural, cognitive, emotional; C, concerning the previous lesson

Kelly (2007) OBS: Engagement: Participation in classroom discourse; number of instances of asking and answering questions by individual students; C, four lessons per class

Khamis et al. (2008) SP: Desire to participate in the learning process, extent of participation, & vigorousness; G

Klem & Connell (2004) SP: Engagement (RAPS); ongoing engagement, reaction to challenge; GTP: Engagement (RAPS); attentiveness, coming to class prepared, doing more than required; C

Košir et al. (2007) SP: Behavioral and Cognitive Engagement in Schoolwork Scale; GTP: Adapt. Behavioral and Cognitive Engagement in Schoolwork Scale; CPeer perception: ‘Name three or less classmates that are most engaged in lessons’

Martin et al. (2007) SP: Motivation and engagement: Adaptive cognitions, adaptive behaviours, impeding/maladaptive cognitions, maladaptive behaviours; G

Murdock (1999) TP: Engagement in school tasks: Attendance, class participation, assignment completion; G

Murray (2009) SP: Engagement (RAPS); GNie & Lau (2009) SP: Engagement: Attention, effort, and participation in classroom activities; GPhelan et al. (1991) INT/OBS: See table 1, ‘involvement’, ‘general’Reeve et al. (2004) OBS: Collective Behavioral Engagement, Observation Scheme; CRosenfeld et al. (2000) SP: School engagement; GRyan & Patrick (2001) SP: Engagement: Self-regulated learning and disruptive behaviour; CRyan et al. (1994) SP: Academic engagement vs disaffection; GShih (2008) SP: Behavioural engagement, emotional engagement, & boredom; GSkinner et al. (2008) SP: Engagement vs disaffection: Behavioural and emotional; GSpaulding (1995) OBS: Behavior while writing: Task-related behavior; C

SP: Length of essay; Evaluation of the essays; Evaluation of the task; Audience of essaysThijs & Verkuyten (2009) SP: Situational engagement; items referring to three descriptions of a hypothetical

teacherTucker et al. (2002) SP: Engagement (RAPS); emotional engagement, centrality of school, effort, attention,

beyond the call; GTyler & Boelter (2008) SP: Engagement: Emotional, behavioural, cognitive; GVan Ryzin et al. (2009) SP: Engagement vs disaffection: Behavioural and emotional; GVoelkl (1995) SP: Classroom and academic participation: Attendance, preparation; misbehaviour ; G

TP: Classroom and academic participation: Absent-tardy, not-engaged; GYou & Sharkey (2009) SP: Engagement: Participation in school-related activities; GZimmer-Gembeck et al. (2006) SP: Engagement: Behavioural, emotional; G

66

Expectancy

Davis & Lease (2007) SP: Motivation: Self-esteem questionnaire; G; SP: Self-efficacy (adapt. MSLQ); C, 5 subjects

Faircloth & Hamm (2005) SP: Efficacious Attributions for Academic Success; C, 4 subjectsSP: Self-competence attributions; C, 4 subjects

Goodenow (1993) SP: Academic expectancies; CHardré & Sullivan (2008) SP: Perceived ability (ATL); C

SP: Success expectancies; C Hardré et al. (2007) SP: Perceived ability (ATL); C Knight (1991) SP: Academic self-concept; C, language artsLapointe et al. (2005) SP: Self-efficacy (MSLQ); CMarchant et al. (2001) SP: Academic Competence Scale; GMurdock & Miller (2003) SP: Academic self-efficacy (PALS); GMurdock et al. (2000) SP: Academic self-concept; current evaluation and future expectations; GMurray (2009) SP: Competence; GPintrich et al. (1994) SP: Self-efficacy (MSLQ); CRoeser & Eccles (1998) SP: Academic Self-Concept; G

Roeser et al. (1998) SP: Academic competence; C Ryan & Patrick (2001) SP: Academic self-efficacy (PALS); CWoolley et al. (2010) SP: Academic self-efficacy (PALS); C, mathematics

Value

Davis & Lease (2007) SP: Intrinsic value (adapt. MSLQ); C, 5 subjectsFaircloth & Hamm (2005) SP: Valuing of school: School valuation, reasons for trying hard, effort; C, 4 subjectsGoodenow (1993) SP: Intrinsic value; CHardré & Sullivan (2008) SP: Perceived instrumentality of the instruction (ATL); CHardré et al. (2007) SP: Perceived instrumentality of the instruction (ATL); C Lapointe et al. (2005) SP: Intrinsic value (MSLQ); CMurdock & Miller (2003) SP: Intrinsic value (MSLQ); CMurdock et al. (2000) SP: Valuing of educational success; GPintrich et al. (1994) SP: Intrinsic value (MSLQ); GRoeser & Eccles (1998) SP: Valuing of education; GRoeser et al. (1998) SP: Valuing of Academics: Academic importance, intrinsic reasons for going to school,

perceived utility of school as a pathway to later opportunities; C

Effort

Goodenow (1993) TP: Effort; C, EnglishHardré & Sullivan (2008) SP: School Investment Scale; CHardré et al. (2007) SP: School Engagement and Effort Scale; CKelly (2007) SP: Effort on classroom assignments; C, EnglishMurdock & Miller (2003) TP: Effort and academic persistence; C, 5 core subjectsMurdock et al. (2000) SP: Effort: Freq. of attending school, participating in class, completing homework, and

studying for exams; GWentzel (1997) SP: Academic effort; C, 4 subjects

Interest

Den Brok et al. (2009) SP: Interest; CDever & Karabenick (2011) SP: Interest; C, mathRakoczy et al. (2008) SP: Working interest minus dispositional interest; C, mathematics

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

67

Wentzel (1998) SP: Interest in school (SMS); GTP: Interest in class; C

Wentzel (2002) SP: Interest in class (SMS); CWentzel et al. (2010) SP: Interest in class (SMS); CWoolley et al. (2010) SP: Interest (MSLQ)

Autonomous & controlled

motivation

Chirkov & Ryan (2001) SP: Autonomous and controlled motivation (SRSQ-A); GClose & Solberg (2008) SP: Adapt. SRSQ-A; GHardré & Reeve (2003) SP: SRSQ-A; GKatz et al. (2010) SP: Autonomous vs controlled reasons for doing homework ; C, bible studies Maulana et al. (2011) SP: Questionnaire on Motivational Dimensions; C, mathematics, EnglishRyan et al. (1994) SP: SRSQ-A; GShih (2008) SP: SRSQ-A; GShih (2009) SP: SRSQ-A; GTucker et al. (2002) SP: Perceived autonomy (RAPS); GVallerand et al. (1997) SP: Internally and externally regulated motivation, amotivation; G

Intrinsic & extrinsic

motivation

Lam et al. (2009) SP: Intrinsic motivation; C, project-based learningLee (2007) SP: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation; G

Motivation

Alfaro et al. (2006) SP: Academic motivation; GBergen et al. (1994) SP: Enjoyment, value, efficacy, effort; C, Dutch, English, MathematicsBerti et al. (2010) SP: Motivation: Interest, attention, desire to learn; GDen Brok et al. (2006) SP: Pleasure, effort, confidence, relevance; C, EnglishFrey et al. (2009) SP: Academic Motivation; GPlunkett et al. (2008) SP: Academic motivation; GTamutiene (2008) INT: see ‘need support’, ‘involvement’, ‘general’ Wesely (2009) SP: Students’ language learning motivation; C, FrenchYin et al. (2009) SP: Intrinsic value; self-efficacy; test anxiety; strategy use; self-regulation (MSLQ); G

3.4 Results

We have organised our findings along the three dimensions of need support (autonomy support,

structure, and involvement), and their respective components. For each dimension, first, we

present our analysis of those studies that concern associations between student perceptions of

need supportive teaching and motivation and engagement (Section 3.4...1), hence, studies that

have measured need supportive teaching via observations or teacher perceptions (Section 3.4...2),

and longitudinal, intervention, and interview studies (Section 3.4...3) will be presented. The

68

results from these latter types of studies are presented separately, as these studies are more directly

concerned with the direction of causality. In this section, longitudinal studies are included only

when students’ motivation or engagement is measured at least two times, with the final measure

of need supportive teaching preceding the final of these measures. Within each section, first those

studies that are concerned with general need support are presented, and second studies that focus

on one or more specific components of need support. See Table 3 for an overview of the results.

3.4.1 Autonomy support

3.4.1.1 Associations student perceived autonomy support with motivation and

engagement

With respect to the general level of autonomy support, evidence suggests a positive association

with students’ autonomous motivation and their engagement. In two studies, students were

asked about their perceptions of teachers’ general level of autonomy support, using items such as:

“My teachers help me choose my own direction” (high autonomy support), or “I feel controlled

at school” (low autonomy support). The results of these studies indicate a positive relationship

between the general level of autonomy support and autonomous motivation (Chirkov & Ryan,

2001; Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997). This finding is supported by evidence from studies in

which students’ scores on the respective components of autonomy support are aggregated (Hardré

& Reeve, 2003, Shih, 2008; 2009). Furthermore, using this aggregated measure, autonomy support

is found to be predictive of engagement (Shih, 2008). Finally, one study shows the association

between autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation to be mediated by the degree

to which students perceive their needs for autonomy and competence to be satisfied at school

(Vallerand et al., 1997).

For all three specific components of autonomy support, evidence from small numbers of

studies is indicative of positive associations with students’ motivation and engagement. First,

in one study by Assor, Kaplan, and Roth (2002) all respective components of autonomy support

were taken into account simultaneously, thereby, for each component, distinguishing between its

autonomy suppressive and its autonomy supportive part. The results indicate that only fostering

relevance (autonomy supportive part component ‘relevance’) and showing disrespect (autonomy

suppressive part component ‘respect’) are uniquely associated with students’ engagement.

Further evidence concerning the effects of specific components of autonomy support mostly

stems from studies investigating teachers’ provision of choice vs control. Evidence from two

intertwined studies using the same longitudinal dataset shows that student perceived provision of

choice in grade 8 is positively related to changes in expectancy between grade 7 and grade 8, but

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

69

not to changes in students’ valuing of education (Roeser & Eccles, 1998), whereas a specific aspect

of provision of choice, namely student empowerment, is not related to changes in expectancy,

nor value (Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 1998). Furthermore, Marchant, Paulson, and Rothlisberg

(2001) find control (opposite to choice) to be negatively related to expectancy.

Finally, some evidence is available concerning the effects of other aspects of autonomy

support. While Wentzel (2002) finds a positive association between students’ perceptions of their

teachers as fostering relevance and interest, Roeser et al. (1998) find fostering relevance in grade

8 to be related to changes in expectancy and value between grade 7 and grade 8. Furthermore,

Tucker, Zayco, Herman, Reinke, Trujillo, Carraway, and Wallack (2002) find a combined

measure of fostering relevance and showing respect to be related to autonomous motivation as well

as engagement. Focusing on the continuation of the effects of showing respect in grade 7 after

a period of two years with other teachers, Murdock, Anderman, and Hodge (2000) do not find

associations with change in expectancy between grade 7 and 9, value in grade 9, nor effort in grade

91.

3.4.1.2 Association observed autonomy support with motivation and engagement

The evidence described above stems from studies in which teacher autonomy support is measured

by asking students how autonomy supportive they perceive their teacher to be. Additional evidence

is available from one study in which autonomy support is measured via observations by trained

raters. The results of this study indicate a positive association of observed autonomy support with

both observed and student perceived engagement (Jang et al., 2010), although the magnitude of

the latter association appears to be smaller than the associations reported in Section 3.4.1.1.

3.4.1.3 Longitudinal and intervention studies on autonomy support

Finally, evidence is available from one intervention study by Reeve et al. (2004). In this study it is

shown that trained raters tend to rate the behaviours of teachers who have learned to incorporate

autonomy support in their motivating style as more autonomy supportive. Furthermore, the level

of autonomy support appears to be predictive of changes in the ratings of collective engagement

between the pre-measure and the post-measures that took place 4 weeks and 9 weeks after the

intervention.

1 The focus on the continuation of effects over time implies that the results of this study cannot be interpreted as lack of support for the existence of an association per se.

70

Ta

ble

3

Effe

ct M

easu

res

Au

th

or

(s)

Co

un

tr

y,

Ta

rg

et g

ro

up

, G

ra

de

, &

Na

An

aly

sis

Va

ria

ble

s,

& E

ffe

ct m

ea

su

re

s

Alfa

ro, U

mañ

a-T

aylo

r &

Bám

aca (

2006

)U

S; L

atin

o; 9

-10;

310

SEM

Cont

rol:

pare

nt &

pee

r su

ppor

t

Ass

or, K

apla

n, &

Rot

h (2

002)

Is

rael

; (lo

wer

) mid

dle c

lass

; 6-8

, 364

SSA

; reg

ress

ion

enga

gem

ent C

ontr

ol: c

hoic

e; f

oste

ring

rel

evan

ce; r

espe

ct; d

isre

spec

t

Berg

en, v

an A

mel

svoo

rt, &

Se

tz (1

994)

The

Net

herla

nds;

over

repr

esen

tatio

n hi

gher

trac

ks; 7

-9; 4

68

Bert

i, M

olin

ari,

& S

pelti

ni

(201

0)Ita

ly; 9

-12;

400

R

egre

ssio

nSt

ruct

ure &

invo

lvem

ent

R2

Brew

ster

& B

owen

(200

4)U

S; at

risk

for s

choo

l fai

lure

, Lat

ino;

6-1

2;

633

Reg

ress

ion

Invo

lvem

ent –

enga

gem

ent (

Prob

lem

beh

avio

ur (n

eg. e

ffect

) R2

mea

ning

fuln

ess R

2Co

ntro

l: de

mog

raph

ics;

pare

nt su

ppor

t

Chirk

ov &

Rya

n (2

001)

U

S an

d Ru

ssia

; 9-1

2; 2

36 (U

S: 1

16; R

ussia

: 12

0)SE

M

Chua

, Won

g, &

Che

n (2

009)

Si

ngap

ore;

hig

h tr

ack;

9; 1

,460

Corr

elat

ions

Clos

e & S

olbe

rg (2

008)

U

S; U

rban

; 9-1

0; 4

27SE

M

Dal

y, S

hin,

Tha

kral

, Sel

ders

, &

Ver

a (20

09)

US;

low

inco

me,

ethn

ical

ly d

iver

se;

elem

enta

ry/m

iddl

e sch

ool;

7-8;

123

Corr

elat

ions

; reg

ress

ion

Cont

rol:

dem

ogra

phic

s; ne

ighb

ourh

ood

crim

e and

in

civi

litie

s; fa

mily

supp

ort;

peer

supp

ort

Dav

is &

Lea

se (2

007)

U

S; ru

ral;

mai

nly

whi

te; 6

-7; 3

44

Corr

elat

ions

De B

ruyn

(200

5)

The

Net

herla

nds;

pre-

univ

ersit

y tr

ack;

7;

749

Corr

elat

ions

Den

Bro

k, L

evy,

Bre

kelm

ans,

& W

ubbe

ls (2

006)

The

Net

herla

nds;

over

repr

esen

tatio

n pr

e-un

iver

sity

trac

k; 9

; 1,0

41M

ultil

evel

ana

lysi

s

Den

Bro

k, W

ubbe

ls,

Vel

dman

, & v

an

Tar

twijk

(200

9)

The

Net

herla

nds;

urba

n, et

hnic

ally

div

erse

; 8-

11;1

,451

Mul

tilev

el a

naly

sis

Dev

er &

Kar

aben

ick

(201

1)U

S; et

hnic

ally

div

erse

wor

king

clas

s are

a;

7-12

; 3,6

02H

LM

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

71

Ta

ble

3

cont

inue

d

Fairc

loth

& H

amm

(200

5)

US;

soci

o-ec

onom

ical

ly an

d et

hnic

ally

di

vers

e; 9

-12;

5,4

94SE

M

Frey

, Ruc

hkin

, Mar

tin, &

Sc

hwab

-Sto

ne (2

009)

U

S; U

rban

; 8 (w

ave 1

)/9

(wav

e 2);

652

Man

cova

Stru

ctur

e – m

otiv

atio

n R2

Cont

rol:

dem

ogra

phic

s, pa

rent

al co

ntro

l, ex

posu

re to

vio

lenc

e

Gar

cia-

Reid

(200

7)

US;

low

inco

me,

Hisp

anic

; 7; 1

33 g

irls

SEM

Cont

rol:

pare

nt su

ppor

t; pe

er su

ppor

t; ne

ighb

orho

od sa

fety

Gar

cia-

Reid

, Rei

d, &

Pe

ters

on (2

005)

U

S; lo

w in

com

e, L

atin

o; 7

; 226

SEM

Cont

rol:

pare

nt &

pee

r su

ppor

t; ne

ighb

ourh

ood

Goo

deno

w (1

993)

US;

mai

nly

Euro

pean

-Am

eric

an; 6

-8; 3

53

Reg

ress

ion,

Pol

ycho

ric

corr

elat

ions

Belo

ngin

gnes

s (in

divi

dual

) – ex

pect

ancy

R2

2

beha

viou

r) –

expe

ctan

cy R

22

– ef

fort

(TP)

Gre

en, R

hode

s, H

irsch

Su

árez

-Oro

zco,

and

Cam

ic (2

008)

US;

firs

t gen

erat

ion

Latin

Am

eric

an

imm

igra

nt;

4-8

(at w

ave 1

)/7-

12 (w

ave 3

); 13

9 (L

ISA

)

HLM

Cont

rol:

gend

er; s

tudy

com

plet

ion

Har

dré &

Ree

ve (2

003)

US;

rura

l, so

cio-

econ

omic

ally

chal

leng

ed,

whi

te; 9

-12;

483

SEM

Har

dré &

Sul

livan

(200

8)U

S; m

ainl

y Eu

rope

an-A

mer

ican

; 9-1

2; 6

25R

egre

ssio

n

Cont

rol:

peer

supp

ort

Har

dré,

Cro

wso

n, D

ebac

ker,

& W

hite

(200

7)U

S; et

hnic

ally

div

erse

; 9-1

2; 9

00Co

rrel

atio

ns

Jang

, Ree

ve, &

Dec

i (20

10)

US;

20%

free

lunc

h; 9

-11;

1,5

84

HLM

Kat

z, K

apla

n, G

ueta

(201

0)Is

rael

, mid

dle c

lass

; 4 &

8, 1

08R

egre

ssio

n, M

oder

ated

ca

usal

step

pro

cedu

re

Nee

d su

ppor

t – au

tono

mou

s mot

ivat

ion

R2N

eed

supp

ort x

leve

l of n

eeds

R2

Con

trol

: con

trol

led

mot

ivat

ion;

nee

d su

ppor

t; le

vel o

f nee

ds

Kel

ly (2

007)

U

S; 7

&8;

2,0

51

Mul

tilev

el a

naly

sis

elat

ions

hip

not

Feed

back

(disc

ussio

n gi

ni-

elat

ions

hip

not m

oder

ated

by

prio

r

Kha

mis,

Duk

mak

, &

Elho

wer

is (2

008)

U

nite

d A

rab

Emira

tes;

7-10

; 275

Reg

ress

ion

Cont

rol:

dem

ogra

phic

s; be

liefs

abo

ut le

arni

ng; p

aren

t sup

port

; pe

er a

ttitu

des t

owar

ds le

arni

ng; c

urri

culu

m co

nten

t

72

Ta

ble

3

cont

inue

d

Kle

m &

Con

nell

(200

4)

US;

bel

ow av

erag

e inc

ome,

ethn

ical

ly

dive

rse;

6-8

; 1,3

47O

ptim

al ra

nge n

eed

supp

ort –

opt

imal

rang

e eng

agem

ent (

SP) 2

.9 ti

mes

as li

kely

/ op

timal

ra

nge e

ngag

emen

t (T

P) 1

.5 ti

mes

as li

kely

/ ris

k ca

tego

ry en

gage

men

t (SP

) 0.3

tim

es as

lik

ely

/ risk

cate

gory

enga

gem

ent (

TP)

0.5

tim

es as

like

ly /R

isk ca

tego

ry n

eed

supp

ort

– op

timal

rang

e eng

agem

ent (

SP) 0

.3 ti

mes

as li

kely

/ op

timal

rang

e eng

agem

ent (

TP)

0.

7 tim

es as

like

ly to

be i

n th

e opt

imal

rang

e (co

mpa

red

with

aver

age)

/ ris

k ca

tego

ry

enga

gem

ent (

SP) 1

.7 ti

mes

as li

kely

/ ris

k ca

tego

ry en

gage

men

t (T

P) 1

.3 ti

mes

as li

kely

Kni

ght (

1991

) U

S; u

rban

, low

inco

me,

mai

nly

Hisp

anic

; 6-

8; 5

30

Reg

ress

ion

Slov

enia

; 7; e

lem

enta

ry sc

hool

; 404

Corr

elat

ions

Lam

, Che

ng, &

Ma (

2009

) H

ong

Kon

g, 7

-9, 6

31(4

scho

ols t

hat h

ave i

mpl

emen

ted

proj

ect-

base

d le

arni

ng; 1

26 te

ache

rs)

HLM

Lapo

inte

, Leg

ault,

& B

atist

e (2

005)

Ca

nada

; (su

b)ur

ban,

mid

dle t

o up

per

mid

dle S

ES cl

ass;

7 &

8; 5

93

Reg

ress

ion

2

stud

ents

) / R

22

gend

er

Lee (

2007

)K

orea

; 7; 3

17SE

M

Mar

chan

t, Pa

ulso

n, &

Ro

thlis

berg

(200

1)

US;

mai

nly

whi

te, w

orki

ng an

d m

iddl

e cla

ss; 5

-6; 2

30Co

rrel

atio

ns

Mar

tin, M

arsh

, McI

nern

ey,

Gre

en, &

Dow

son

(200

7)

Aus

tral

ia; s

light

ly ab

ove a

vera

ge

achi

evem

ent a

nd in

com

e; 7

-12;

3,4

50SE

M

Cont

rol:

dem

ogra

phic

s; pa

rent

-chi

ld r

elat

ions

hip

Mau

lana

, Opd

enak

ker,

den

Brok

, & B

oske

r (20

11)

Indo

nesia

; 7-9

; 1,0

12M

ultil

evel

ana

lysi

s

Mur

dock

& M

iller

(200

3)U

S; su

burb

an, b

elow

aver

age i

ncom

e,

ethn

ical

ly d

iver

se; 7

-8; 2

06R

egre

ssio

n2

22

ontr

ol: p

aren

tal

atta

chm

ent a

nd su

ppor

t; pe

er su

ppor

t

Mur

dock

(199

9)

US;

7; 4

05

Reg

ress

ion

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

73

Ta

ble

3

cont

inue

d

Mur

dock

, And

erm

an, &

H

odge

(200

0)

US;

(sub

-)ur

ban,

low

er an

d up

per m

iddl

e cla

ss; 7

-9; 4

05 (w

ave 1

)-23

8 (w

ave 2

)R

egre

ssio

n

Cont

rol:

achi

evem

ent;

peer

asp

irat

ions

; eco

nom

ic li

mita

tions

All

in g

rade

7

Mur

ray

(200

9)U

S; lo

w in

com

e, u

rban

, bel

ow av

erag

e ac

hiev

emen

t, 11

% sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n; 6

-8;

104

Corr

elat

ions

; Reg

ress

ion

Cont

rol:

achi

evem

ent;

pare

nt

Nie

& L

au (2

009)

Sing

apor

e; 9

(age

15.

5); 3

.196

HLM

Cont

rol:

dem

ogra

phic

s, co

ntro

l, ca

re

Phel

an, D

avid

son,

& C

ao

(199

1)

US;

des

egre

gate

d ur

ban

scho

ols;

54; m

ainl

y 9

QA

Invo

lvem

ent –

enga

gem

ent S

tude

nts w

ith co

ngru

ent w

orld

s and

smoo

th tr

ansit

ions

be

twee

n th

ese w

orld

s fac

e les

s pro

blem

s in

term

s of e

ngag

emen

t tha

n st

uden

ts fo

r who

m

the t

rans

ition

is h

azar

dous

or i

nsur

mou

ntab

le.

Pint

rich,

Roe

ser,

& D

e Gro

ot

(199

4)

US;

mai

nly

mid

dle c

lass

, whi

te; 7

; 100

Reg

ress

ion

Cont

rol:

gend

er; c

oope

rativ

e and

Plun

kett

et al

. (20

08)

US;

Mex

ican

orig

in, l

ivin

g in

two-

pare

nt

inta

ct fa

mili

es; 9

; 216

Corr

elat

ions

Rako

czy,

Klie

me,

Bü

rger

mei

ster

, & H

arks

(2

008)

Ger

man

y; H

ighe

r and

inte

rmed

iate

trac

k 24

0 R

egre

ssio

n; M

edia

tion

Ana

lysi

s in

tere

st

Reev

e, Ja

ng, C

arre

ll, Je

on,

Barc

h (2

004)

U

S; 9

-12;

480

(20

teac

hers

)A

NCO

VA

; Pai

red-

sam

ples

t-te

st; R

egre

ssio

nCo

ntro

l gro

up v

s exp

erim

enta

l gro

up, m

anip

ulat

ion

auto

nom

y su

ppor

t: tr

aini

ng w

eek

Roes

er &

Ecc

les (

1998

)U

S; 7

-8; 1

,046

Reg

ress

ion

Cont

rol:

dem

ogra

phic

s; sc

hool

goa

l str

uctu

re

74

Ta

ble

3

cont

inue

d

Roes

er, E

ccle

s, &

Sam

erof

f (1

998)

U

S; 7

(wav

e 1),

8 (w

ave 2

); 1,

041

Reg

ress

ion

Cont

rol:

dem

ogra

phic

s; sc

hool

goa

l

Rose

nfel

d, R

ichm

an, &

Bo

wen

(200

0)

US;

6-1

2; 8

27A

NO

VA

Invo

lvem

ent –

enga

gem

ent

no ef

fect

mea

sure

s

Ryan

& P

atric

k (2

001)

U

S; m

ainl

y Eu

rope

an- a

nd A

fric

an-

Am

eric

an, w

orki

ng-c

lass

bac

kgro

und,

75%

fe

mal

e; 7

-8; 2

33

Reg

ress

ion

Cont

rol:

dem

ogra

phic

s; pe

rfor

man

ce g

oals

Ryan

, Stil

ler,

& L

ynch

(199

4)U

S; su

burb

an; 7

-8; 6

06R

egre

ssio

n

Cont

rol:

repr

esen

tatio

ns

Shih

(200

8)T

aiw

an; m

iddl

e cla

ss; 8

; 343

Reg

ress

ion

Shih

(200

9)

Tai

wan

; mid

dle c

lass

; 8; 4

61M

AN

COV

AA

uton

omy

supp

ort (

high

vs l

ow) –

auto

nom

ous m

otiv

atio

n ‘h

igh’

adju

sted

mea

n of

alm

ost

1 po

int h

ighe

r on

a 5-p

oint

scal

e tha

n ‘lo

w’ C

ontr

ol: p

aren

tal a

uton

omy

supp

ort

Skin

ner,

Furr

er, M

arch

and,

&

Kin

derm

ann

(200

8)

US;

rura

l-sub

urba

n, w

orki

ng to

mid

dle

class

; mai

nly

whi

te; 4

-7; 8

05R

egre

ssio

n

Spau

ldin

g (1

995)

US;

urb

an, m

iddl

e and

low

er cl

ass,

spec

ial

educ

atio

n ex

clude

d; 7

; 185

Reg

ress

ion

Nee

d su

ppor

t x ef

ficac

y –

enga

gem

ent (

OBS

) R2

Cont

rol:

teac

her

x ge

nder

; aud

ienc

e x

Tam

utie

ne (2

008)

Lith

uani

a; st

uden

ts w

ith ex

perie

nces

of

abse

ntee

ism; 5

-12;

62

QA

Invo

lvem

ent –

mot

ivat

ion

Stud

ents

who

face

ver

bal a

buse

and

hum

iliat

ion

by th

eir

teac

her f

eel i

gnor

ed o

r rej

ecte

d an

d in

dica

te n

ot fe

elin

g w

elco

me a

t sch

ool a

nym

ore,

as a

cons

eque

nce t

hey

expe

rienc

e los

s of l

earn

ing

mot

ivat

ion.

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

75

Ta

ble

3

cont

inue

d

Thi

js &

Ver

kuyt

en (2

009)

The

Net

herla

nds;

urba

n, lo

w S

ES, e

thni

cally

di

vers

e; 9

; 503

Mul

tilev

el A

naly

sis;

Sim

ple S

lope

ana

lysi

sSt

ruct

ure &

Invo

lvem

ent –

enga

gem

ent e

ffort

R2

2In

tera

ctio

n

Tuc

ker e

t al.

(200

2)

US;

mai

nly

atte

ndin

g af

ter s

choo

l pro

gram

to

enha

nce a

cade

mic

& so

cial

skill

s, lo

w

inco

me,

Afr

ican

-Am

eric

an; 1

-12;

117

Corr

elat

ions

; Reg

ress

ion;

M

edia

tion

anal

ysis

T

yler

& B

oelte

r (20

08)

US;

low

inco

me,

mai

nly

blac

k; 6

-8; 2

62

Reg

ress

ion

Cont

rol:

gend

er; g

rade

Val

lera

nd, F

ortie

r, &

Gua

y (1

997)

Ca

nada

; Fre

nch-

Cana

dian

; 9-1

0; 4

,537

SEM

Cont

rol:

pare

ntal

and

scho

ol a

dmin

istr

ator

aut

onom

y su

ppor

tV

an R

yzin

, Gra

vely

, & R

oset

h (2

009)

U

S; ru

ral,

mid

dle c

lass

mai

nly

whi

te; 7

-8;

283

SEM

Cont

rol:

peer

supp

ort;

auto

nom

ous m

otiv

atio

nV

oelk

l (19

95)

US;

8; 1

3,12

1 (N

ELS)

MA

NO

VA

Affe

ctio

n –

enga

gem

ent (

SP R

22

Wen

tzel

(199

7)

US;

subu

rban

, mai

nly

whi

te; 6

-8; 2

48R

egre

ssio

n2

Cont

rol:

Wen

tzel

(199

8)

US;

6; 1

67R

egre

ssio

nCo

ntro

l: de

mog

raph

ics;

peer

supp

ort;

fam

ily co

hesi

onW

entz

el (2

002)

U

S; sp

ec. e

duca

tion

exclu

ded,

1 sc

hool

ab

ove a

vera

ge ac

hiev

emen

t, m

anly

Eu

rope

an-A

mer

ican

, 1 sc

hool

bel

ow

aver

age a

chie

vem

ent,

mai

nly

Afr

ican

-A

mer

ican

; 6; 4

52

Corr

elat

ions

; Reg

ress

ion

Wen

tzel

, Bat

tle, R

usse

ll, &

Lo

oney

(201

0)

US;

subu

rban

; 6-8

; 358

Reg

ress

ion

Cont

rol:

gend

er; g

rade

;

Wes

ely

(200

9)

US;

6; 6

(mul

tiple

case

stud

y)Q

AN

eed

supp

ort –

mot

ivat

ion

Stud

ents

stre

ss th

e im

port

ance

of n

eed

supp

ortiv

e tea

chin

g in

te

rms o

f hav

ing

an ef

fect

on

thei

r mot

ivat

ion.

W

oolle

y, S

trut

chen

s, G

ilber

t, &

Mar

tin (2

010)

U

S; b

lack

; 6-8

; 933

SE

MCo

ntro

l: te

ache

r re

form

pra

ctice

s and

hig

h sta

ndar

dsYi

n, L

ee, &

Zha

ng (2

009)

H

ong-

Kon

g; 4

-9; 2

,206

SEM

Cont

rol:

stude

nt le

arni

ng co

mm

unity

You

& S

hark

ey (2

009)

U

S; 8

(wav

e 1)/

10 (w

ave 2

)/12

(wav

e 3);

13,8

25 (i

n 93

4 sc

hool

s; N

ELS:

88)

M

ultil

evel

Gro

wth

Cur

ve

Ana

lysi

sCo

ntro

l: de

mog

raph

ics;

teac

her-

stude

nt ra

tio; s

choo

l uns

afet

y;

teac

her-

prac

tice

Zim

mer

-Gem

beck

, Chi

puer

, H

anisc

h, C

reed

, &

McG

rego

r (20

06)

Aus

tral

ia; l

ow m

iddl

e to

uppe

r mid

dle

inco

me,

mai

nly

whi

te; 9

& 1

0; 3

14SE

M, b

ootst

rapp

ing

Co

ntro

l: pe

er su

ppor

t

76

3.4.2 Structure

3.4.2.1 Association student perceived structure with motivation and engagement

With respect to the general level of structure, evidence shows a positive association of structure

with motivation (Frey, Ruchkin, Martin, & Schwab-Stone, 2009; Yin, Lee, & Zhang, 2009) and

engagement (Nie & Lau, 2009; Tucker et al., 2002). Moreover, the association between structure

and engagement is found to be mediated by perceived competence and relatedness (Tucker et al.,

2002).

Evidence on the components of structure indicates positive associations of guidance, both

informational and positive feedback, and encouragement with students’ motivation. We start

with evidence on teachers’ provision of clarity, which is not indicative of a positive association

with students’ motivation. Pintrich, Roeser, and de Groot (1994) do not find an association with

changes in expectancy and value over a period of a half-year, not when clarity is measured at the

classroom level, nor when clarity is measured as individuals’ deviations from the classroom level.

Moreover, unexpectedly, these authors find a negative association between clarity at the level of

the classroom and expectancy. Furthermore, no association between a specific aspect of clarity,

namely rule clarity, and expectancy is found (Knight, 1991). Interestingly, Wentzel (2002) finds

a positive association between rule clarity and interest, but, when control beliefs are added as

explanatory variable in the same analysis, this association becomes negative. Murray (2009) does,

however, find a positive association between clarity and students’ engagement and expectancy. It

should be noted that in some of the selected studies clarity was operationalized with items such as:

“the teacher explains what will happen when a student breaks a rule”. It might be that such items

not only contributed to clarity, but to autonomy suppression as well.

Guidance, defined here in terms of help with academics, is found to be positively associated

with motivation (Alfaro, Umaña-Taylor, & Bámaca, 2006; Plunkett et al., 2008), expectancy

(Knight, 1991), and interest (Wentzel et al., 2010).

Students who believe their teachers to have positive expectations regarding their schoolwork

can be expected to perceive their teachers as providing them with some sort of encouragement. It is

this aspect of encouragement that is the focus of a large amount of studies. Evidence indicates that

students who perceive their teacher to have higher expectations report feeling more self-efficious

(Tyler & Boelter, 2008; Woolley, Strutchens, Gilbert, & Martin, 2010), being more interested

in class (Wentzel, 2002; Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney, 2010; Dever & Karabenick, 2011;

Woolley et al., 2010), and being more engaged (Tyler & Boelter, 2008), while teachers report

these students to be more engaged as well (Murdock, 1999). Furthermore, in two studies a positive

relationship is found between the degree to which students think that their teachers believe them to

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

77

be a good student in grade 8 and changes in both expectancy and value for schoolwork, in this case

between fall in grade 7 and spring in grade 8 (Roeser & Eccles, 1998; Roeser et al., 1998). Focusing

on the continuation of the effects of teacher expectations in grade 7 after a period of two years

with other teachers, Murdock et al. (2000) do not find associations with changes in expectancy

between grade 7 and 9 or value in grade 91. These authors do however find a relationship between

teacher expectations in grade 7 and effort in grade 9.

A relatively large part of the evidence on specific components of structure stems from

studies investigating teachers’ provision of . Two studies that have used

observational measures will be discussed in Section 3.4.2.2. first evidence from two other studies

using student perceptions is elaborated on. As mentioned in Section 3.2.1.2, based on SDT both

positive and negative informational feedback is expected to positively affect students’ motivation

and engagement. In addition, a negative effect of, especially negative, evaluative feedback is

expected. In line with these expectations, negative evaluative feedback is found to be negatively

associated with interest (Wentzel, 2002). In addition, evidence from one study that did not

explicitly operationalize feedback in terms of informational aspects, but instead incorporated this

idea more implicitly, shows no association between the amount to which students perceive their

teachers to let them know how well they are doing and expectancy (Knight, 1991).

3.4.2.2 Association observed structure with motivation and engagement

Evidence is available from several studies in which structure is measured by observations of trained

raters. Focusing on the general level of structure Jang et al. (2010) do not find a relationship between

structure and student-perceived engagement. Interestingly, these authors do find a positive

relationship between observed structure and observed collective behavioural engagement. In

addition, focusing on a specific component of structure, namely clarity, at the level of the class

Bergen, van Amelsfoort, and Setz (1994) do not find a relationship with motivation.

Moreover, two of the studies focusing on used observational measures. With

respect to informational feedback, the results show a positive association between observed

informational feedback (both positive and negative) and the level of interest students report to

have, with this association being mediated by students’ self-reported emotional experience and

cognitive support (Rakoczy, Klieme, Bürgermeister, & Harks, 2008). Observed positive evaluative

feedback is positively associated with students’ interest (Rakoczy et al., 2008), while no association

1 The focus on the continuation of effects over time implies that the results of this study cannot be interpreted as lack of support for the existence of an association per se.

2

2

78

between negative evaluative feedback and interest is found. Opting for another focus, Kelly (2007)

examined patterns of interaction instead of their content; arguing that the form these patterns

take affects the risk for negative evaluation students face. It is assumed that when students face a

low risk of negative evaluation, they are more likely to ask and answer questions and to engage

in classroom discussions, which are ways to ask for feedback. The results of this large scale study

show that when teachers use ‘dialogic instruction’, a form of instruction in which interaction

patterns are considered more optimal than average, students score higher on self-reported effort,

but not on observed engagement. Furthermore, contrary to the authors’ expectations, student

autonomy does not moderate the relationship between dialogic instruction and effort, nor does

dialogic instruction appear to be especially beneficial for low-achieving students.

3.4.3 Involvement

3.4.3.1 Association student perceived involvement with motivation and

engagement

With respect to the general level of teacher involvement, evidence from a series of studies consistently

indicates a positive relationship with motivation and, in particular, engagement. The results show

that students who perceive their teachers to be more involved, also indicate to be more engaged in

their schoolwork (Brewster & Bowen, 2004; Daly, Shin, Thakral, Selders, & Vera, 2009; Martin,

Marsh, McInerney, Green, & Dowson, 2007; Murray, 2009; Rosenfeld, Richman, & Bowen, 2000;

Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994; Tucker et al., 2002), to have higher expectations (Murray, 2009), and

to be more autonomously motivated (Ryan et al., 1994). Furthermore, teacher involvement in

grade 8 is found to be associated with changes in engagement, but not in expectancy, in this case

between grade 7 and grade 8 (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Contrary to what would be expected based

on SDT, one study shows that the relationship between teacher involvement and engagement is

not mediated by student perceived need satisfaction (Tucker et al., 2002).

An influential theoretical framework that guides research on teacher-student relationships

is the Model of Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour (Wubbels, Créton, & Hooymayers, 1985).

Within this model teacher-student relationships are classified along two dimensions: Influence

and proximity; the latter of which is closely related to involvement. Proximity is defined in terms

of the degree to which teachers co-operate with students and act friendly. Evidence supports the

existence of a positive relationship between student-perceived proximity and student-reported

interest (Den Brok, Wubbels, Veldman, & van Tartwijk, 2009), intrinsic motivation, autonomous

motivation (Maulana, Opdenakker, den Brok, & Bosker, 2011), motivation (Bergen et al., 1994), as

well as an aggregated measure of motivation at the level of the class (Den Brok, Levy, Brekelmans,

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

79

& Wubbels, 2005).

Findings with respect to the specific components of teachers’ involvement are indicative of a

positive association of affection and belongingness with motivation and engagement, while only a

small number of studies are available on the other three components of involvement (attunement,

dedication of resources, and dependability). With respect to a positive association is found

with students’ self-reported level of engagement (Khamis, Dukmak, & Elhoweris, 2008; Košir,

by their teachers (Voelkl, 1995; Košir et al., 2007) and their peers (Košir et al., 2007). Finally,

evidence shows a positive association between affection and interest (Dever & Karabenick, 2011;

Wentzel, 2002; Wentzel et al., 2010), while the results of a large scale longitudinal study show

that affection at the level of the school is positively related to engagement as well as to change in

engagement between grade 8 and grade 12 (You & Sharkey, 2009).

Evidence concerning the effects of attunement and dedication of resources, two other components

of involvement, is not available, while the relationship between dependability and motivation and

engagement is investigated in two studies only. The results of these studies show dependability

to be positively related to a combined measure of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Lee, 2007).

Furthermore, dependability in grade 8 is found to be related to change in value between grade 7

and grade 8, but not to change in expectancy between grade 7 and 8 (Roeser et al., 1998).

As argued in Section 3.2.1.3, a profound reason for the importance of teachers’ involvement

lies in its effect on students’ feelings of belongingness to the school or class. In some studies students’

feelings of belongingness were in part defined by this influence of the teacher, and items measuring

teacher involvement were combined with items measuring school or class belongingness, such as

“I often feel out of place in this class” (see Goodenow, 1993). The results of these studies show a

positive relationship between belongingness and autonomous motivation (Close & Solberg, 2008),

expectancy and value (Goodenow, 1993; Faircloth and Hamm, 2005), and teacher-perceived effort

(Goodenow, 1993).

3.4.3.2 Association peer and teacher perceived involvement with motivation and

engagement

Evidence is available from two studies that have used peer and/or teacher perceptions to measure

one specific component of involvement, namely . These studies show that both teacher and

peer perceived teacher affection are related to students’ engagement as perceived by their peers,

their teachers, as well as themselves (Košir et al., 2007), while peer-perceived teacher affection

also is found to be related to students’ self-reported expectancy and value (Davis & Lease, 2007).

80

3.4.3.3 Longitudinal and interview studies on involvement

The evidence described above all stems from correlational studies. Complementary support for

the existence of an effect of teachers’ involvement on students’ motivation and engagement can be

found in a longitudinal study and two interview studies. First, in a longitudinal study, Lapointe,

Legault, and Batiste (2005) find students’ perceptions of proximity in winter to be related to

changes in their expectancies and values between fall and spring. Interestingly, these authors find

the strength of the relationship between proximity and expectancy to be considerably smaller for

‘learning disabled’ students than for ‘average’ and ‘talented’ students.

Second, additional evidence concerning the relationship between teacher involvement and

motivation originates from two interview studies. Tamutiene (2008) conducted a study among

a group of absentee students, whom the author interviewed about their experiences with being

bullied by the teacher. The results show that students respond by withdrawing from class or

school if teachers make them suffer tension and fear. Students indicate that they do not want to

come to class anymore when they are afraid of the teacher, and the teacher, “as a rule” (p.123),

yells at them. Quite often, these children face different forms of verbal abuse and humiliation

by their teacher, such as a lack of contact or being told unworthy. As a consequence, children

feel ignored or rejected by their teachers, and indicate not feeling welcome at school anymore;

something that clearly contributes to children’s loss of learning motivation. Finally, evidence

from another qualitative study concerns the negotiating of boundaries of family, peer, and school

cultures (Phelan, Davidson, & Cao, 1991). The results show that students with congruent worlds

and smooth transitions between these worlds as well as students who live in different worlds,

but manage to cross boundaries face less problems in terms of engagement in schoolwork than

students for whom the transition between different worlds is hazardous or insurmountable.

3.4.4 General level of need supportive teaching

3.4.4.1 Association student perceived general level of need supportive teaching

with motivation and engagement

With respect to student perceptions of the general level of need supportive teaching, evidence rather

consistently shows a positive association with students’ motivation and engagement. General

need support is found to be related to students’ self-reported intrinsic motivation in a project-

based learning activity (Lam, Cheng, & Ma, 2009), autonomous motivation for bible studies

(Katz, Kaplan, & Gueta, 2010), as well as engagement in schoolwork (Klem & Connell, 2004;

Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipuer, Hanisch, Creed, & McGregor, 2006), but not to teacher reports of

students’ engagement (Klem & Connell, 2004). Moreover, aspects of autonomy support (respect),

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

81

structure, and involvement in grade 8 are found to be related to changes in expectancy and value

between grade 7 and grade 8, as well as to teacher perceived effort in grade 8 (Murdock & Miller,

2003). Interestingly, in one study it is investigated if the relationship between general need

support and autonomous motivation is moderated by individual differences in students’ expressed

needs, measured with items such as: “I need choice of task in homework” (Katz, Kaplan, & Gueta,

2010). The authors do find the relationship between need support and autonomous motivation

to be somewhat stronger for students who express a high level of needs, but this difference is

not statistically significant. In another study, in line with SDT, the results show the relationship

between general need support and engagement to be mediated by students’ general level of need

satisfaction (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006). In general, inspection of the effect measures shows

the magnitudes of the associations with students’ motivation and engagement to be larger for

the general level of need supportive teaching than for each of the specific dimensions of need

supportive teaching separate.

Additional evidence is available from studies focusing on combined effects of (components) of

two dimensions of need supportive teaching. With respect to combined measures of (components

of) autonomy support and involvement, evidence is available from a small body of research. The

results show positive associations with expectancy (Hardré & Sullivan, 2008; Marchant et al.,

2001, choice and affection), value, effort, as well as engagement (Hardré & Sullivan, 2008). With

respect to the combined level of (components of) structure and involvement that is offered by the

teacher, evidence from a large number of studies rather consistently shows a positive association

with students’ motivation and engagement. The results show a positive association with student

perceived expectancy and engagement (Murray, 2009; clarity and affection), teacher perceived

engagement (de Bruyn, 2005), as well as student perceived engagement at the individual level,

and at the level of the class (Chua, Wong, & Chen, 2009; guidance and affection). Furthermore,

evidence indicates a positive relationship between structure and involvement in grade 8 and

change in effort between grade 6 and grade 8 (Wentzel, 1997). Further evidence stems from a

study defining equal treatment in terms of students’ sense of injustice: The difference between

students’ ideals of classroom justice and how they perceive the actual classroom to be (Berti,

Molinari, & Speltini, 2010). The results show a positive relationship between the combined level

of structure and involvement, defined in this way, and students’ motivation.

In many studies the combined level of components of structure and involvement is

operationalized in terms of ‘teacher support’ (not to be confused with teachers’ need support).

Teacher support can consist of social support, academic support, and student appreciation (Dicke,

2011), and often is defined in terms of a combination of these three aspects. Evidence indicates

82

students’ perceptions of how supportive their teachers are, to be positively related to students’

self-reported engagement (Košir et al., 2007; Garcia-Reid, 2007; Garcia-Reid, Reid, & Peterson,

2005), peer perceived engagement (Košir et al., 2007), expectancy, value, effort (Hardré, Crowson,

Debacker, & White, 2007), and both student and teacher perceived interest (Wentzel, 1998), but

not to teacher-perceived engagement (Košir et al., 2007). Moreover, no relationship is found

between mean teacher support over a three-year period and students’ initial engagement (Green,

Rhodes, Hirsch, Suárez-Orozco, & Camic, 2008)2.

3.4.4.2 Association of teacher perceived need supportive teaching with motivation

and engagement

Evidence from a study by Skinner et al. (2008) shows ‘teacher support’ (combined measure

components structure and involvement) in grade 7 to be positively predictive of changes in engaged

behaviour between grade 7 and grade 8, but no relationship with any of the other dimensions of

engagement are found (disengaged behaviour and engaged and disengaged emotion).

3.4.4.3 Longitudinal studies, intervention studies, and interviews on general need

support

Additional evidence originates from a longitudinal, experimental, and an interview study.

First, Skinner et al. (2008) find need supportive teaching in fall to be predictive of changes in

engagement between fall and spring. Second, Spaulding (1995) manipulated students’ experience

of psychological presence by the teacher, by asking them to write a text for either the teacher (high

psychological presence) or the researcher (low psychological presence). Her results show that

students who are assigned to the condition in which they experience a high degree of psychological

presence by the teacher are more engaged in their schoolwork than the students who are assigned

to the other condition, but only when they report a low level of linguistic competence; for students

reporting a high level of linguistic competence, the results are reversed. Third, Wesely (2009)

presents evidence from interviews concerning the potential of relationships with teachers to have

a substantial influence on students’ language learning motivation, both positively and negatively.

Although the interview protocol did not contain any questions specifically designed to elicit such

reflections, all the student participants spoke about the influence of teachers, thereby stressing the

importance of the teacher being available to answer questions, receiving students kindly, listening,

and being patient.

2 The focus on the continuation of effects over time implies that the results of this study cannot be interpreted as lack of support for the existence of an association per se.

3

3

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

83

In addition, evidence is available from a longitudinal and an intervention study that focus on

combined effects of (components) of two dimensions of need supportive teaching. Focusing on

combined levels of components of structure and involvement, operationalized in terms of ‘teacher

support’, research shows a positive relationship of student-perceived teacher support in fall with

student-reported engagement in spring (Van Ryzin, Gravely, & Roseth, 2009). Furthermore,

using vignettes, Thijs and Verkuyten (2009) find that students indicate that they would be more

engaged when taught by a teacher who scores higher on both structure and involvement. This

effect is stronger among females and among students who score low on personal engagement.

3.4.4.4 Unique associations dimensions of need support with motivation and

engagement

As argued in Section 3.2.1.4, based on SDT, we expect support for each of the three needs to

have with motivation and engagement. Evidence from studies in which separate

measures of support for two or three needs are combined is mixed. While, on the one hand, evidence

indicates that support for autonomy, structure, and an aspect of involvement (dependability) each

is uniquely associated with students’ autonomous motivation and engagement (Tucker et al., 2002),

and (aspects of) structure and involvement are found to be uniquely associated with engagement

(structure and affection; Nie & Lau, 2009) as well as interest (guidance, encouragement and

affection; Wentzel et al., 2010). On the other hand, other studies show no unique association of

aspects of structure and involvement with engagement, or expectancy (clarity, involvement, and

a combined measure of affection and clarity; Murray, 2009), or interest at the level of the class

(encouragement and affection; Dever & Karabenick, 2011). Furthermore, Roeser et al. (1998) find

components of both autonomy support (relevance) and involvement (dependability) to be uniquely

and positively associated with changes in expectancy and value between grade 7 and grade 8, while

a component of structure (encouragement) is uniquely associated with value. These authors do

however not find another component of autonomy support (choice) to be uniquely associated

with change in expectancy or value, nor do they find a component of structure (encouragement)

to be uniquely associated with expectancy.

3.5 Conclusion and discussion

In Self-Determination Theory (SDT) it is argued that availability of autonomy support, structure,

and involvement positively affects satisfaction of fundamental needs and, thereby, motivation and

84

engagement. In the current review, we aimed at bringing together educational research among

early adolescents that fits within the SDT framework. Through a fine-grained overview of research

into effectiveness of need supportive teaching, this review brings forth several conclusions on the

extent to which available evidence supports SDT, including the gaps that remain. We continue by

means of a discussion of these conclusions, classified along the five considerations we suggested to

be of relevance in section 3.1.

First, we conclude that students’ perceptions of need supportive teaching are positively associated

with their motivation and engagement. This finding is replicated in a large body of studies.

Consistently, positive associations of the general level of need supportive teaching are found,

and, of a somewhat smaller magnitude, of each of the respective dimensions of need supportive

teaching. In SDT, it is assumed that it is not the behaviour of others per se that influences one’s

motivation, but rather how one psychologically responds to this behaviour (Deci, 1975). Research

focusing on student perceived need supportive teaching is of particular importance, as it provides

insight in the relevance of the SDT framework for early adolescents’ motivation and engagement.

Second, we conclude that evidence is available from a small number of studies only that

have used observations or teacher perceptions of need supportive teaching. In addition, in the small

body of studies that is available, much smaller or even no associations between need supportive

teaching and students’ motivation and engagement are found. We consider this a striking finding

as, ultimately, practitioners need information on the concrete, observable behaviour that makes

students perceive teaching as need supportive. Future studies using observations and teacher

perceptions of need supportive teaching are recommended.

Several plausible explanations can be thought of for the fact that evidence on observed and

teacher perceived need supportive teaching is mixed. First, based on SDT, it can be expected

that student perceptions have a larger impact on motivation and engagement than concrete

teaching behaviour. Evidence from educational research does, however, suggests concrete

teaching behaviour is meaningful as well, as students who are taught by the same teacher tend

to differ less in terms of their motivation than students who are taught by different teachers (e.g.

Opdenakker et al., 2012). Second, it might be that we are better able to measure the abstract entity

of perceived need support than we are able to measure the concrete, observable behaviour that

underlies these perceptions. This could be, for example, because trained raters and teachers differ

from early adolescents in terms of the characteristics of teaching behaviour that are salient to

them. Specifically, whereas early adolescents base their perceptions on a comprehensive set of

experiences, trained raters cannot do so. For future research, studies that link observations and

student perceptions of need supportive teaching are strongly recommended.

A r

evie

w o

f SD

T li

tera

ture

Chap

ter

03

85

Third, although evidence indicates positive associations of each of the three dimensions of

need supportive teaching with students’ motivation and engagement, research on their

importance is scarce. Moreover, evidence does not consistently indicate effectiveness of each of the

of these dimensions of need supportive teaching, as research in this respect is

scarce and findings are mixed. Future research should explicitly focus on the (unique) importance

of the three dimensions of need supportive teaching, as well as their specific components. Such

research is of particular relevance, as it increases our understanding of what it is that makes

teaching need supportive.

Fourth, although a large body of correlational research is available, research that is more directly

concerned with the presumed causality of associations of need supportive with students’ motivation

and engagement is scarce. Considering causality is of importance in deciding on generality, as it is

relevant in deciding about why associations exist and, thereby, under what conditions. Based on

this review we can draw some conclusions about causality and about the generality of our findings.

First, evidence from the small body of available longitudinal studies, experiments, and interviews

does indicates need supportive teaching to positively students’ motivation and engagement.

Second, the fact that need supportive teaching is found to be associated with students’ motivation

and engagement in multiple countries is an indication of the generality as well.

Fifth, our findings indicate a pattern in the design of studies; a connection exists between the

dimension of need supportive teaching and the outcome measures being used. Specifically, all

studies on the general level of autonomy support have focused on students’ autonomous motivation

or engagement, while studies on the general level of teachers’ involvement generally have just used

engagement as outcome measure (with those studies that have operationalized involvement in

terms of proximity being an exception). Such an incomplete pattern implies a current gap in our

knowledge, and might, at the same time, unveil an unfolding trend.

In conclusion, our findings clearly indicate the importance of need supportive teaching for

early adolescents’ motivation and engagement. At the same time, our review provides insights for

future research. Considerably more work needs to be done on observed need supportive teaching,

as well as on determining the relative importance of specific components of need support. Finally,

if the debate is to be moved forward, more evidence needs to be gathered on the presumed causality

of the association between need supportive teaching and students’ motivation and engagement.

86

Appendix Searching terms

1. Teacher-student interaction

teacher N1 student N2 interaction Or teacher N1 pupil N2 interaction Or teacher N1 student N2

relation* Or teacher N1 pupil N2 relation* Or teacher N1 student N2 dialog* Or teacher N1 pupil

N2 dialog* Or teacher N10 student N10 communication Or teacher N10 student N10 instructional

N10 behaviour Or teacher N10 student N10 instructional N10 practice Or student N10 teach*

N1 behaviour Or pupil N10 teach* behaviour Or teach* N1 style And (student Or pupil) Or

(instruction* N1 style Or communication N1 style Or interaction N1 style Or interpersonal N1

interaction) And teacher And (student Or pupil) Or (class Or classroom) N10 (dynamic Or climate

Or interaction)

2. Learning environment

learning N1 context Or learning N1 environment Or class N1 environment Or classroom N1

environment Or interpersonal N1 teach* N2 behaviour Or competen* Or structure Or chaos

Or autonomy Or self-determin* Or control* Or relatedness Or relational Or relationship Or

attachment Or bonding Or involv* Or support* N10 teacher Or reject*

3. Motivation & engagement

motivation* Or amotivation* Or demotivation* Or engage* Or disaffection Or effort Or interest

Or expectancy N2 value

4. School

Not (crèche Or kindergarten Or prekindergarten Or preschool Or elementary N1 school Or

elementary N1 education Or primary N1 education Or elementary N1 math* Or elementary

N1 physics Or elementary N1 grammar Or elementary N1 English Or elementary N1 spelling

Or elementary N1 vocabulary Or elementary N1 social N2 studies Or elementary N1 science

Or tertiary N1 education Or senior N1 high N2 school Or higher N1 education Or bachelor N1

student Or master N1 student Or college Or university Or adult N1 education Or undergraduate

N1 student Or graduate N1 student Or graduate N1 school)

all combinations of letters are accepted

This chapter is based on:

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2014, submitted). Development of observed need supportive teaching in social constructivist, traditional, and combined schools for secondary vocational education.

Development of observed need supportive teaching in social constructivist,

traditional, and combined schools for prevocational education 4

90

Abstract

The first years of secondary education are precarious for students, as their commitment to

education tends to decline. Teaching practices can be critical in this regard. Yet, little is known

on how teaching practices develop over time or differentiate between types of schools in this

period. In the present study, in 20 math classes belonging to types of schools with contrasting

educational approaches, at four time-points spread over the school year, daily teaching practices

were videotaped and coded to asses levels of need supportive teaching from the perspective of

Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Multilevel analysis showed

declining trends for two out of three positive dimensions of need supportive teaching, i.e. for

autonomy support and involvement, but not for structure. Regarding the negative dimensions,

decreasing trends were found for chaos, but not for autonomy thwart and disaffection. Further,

differences were found between types of schools. Net levels of need supportive teaching were

higher in social constructivist than in traditional schools, and, even more so, than in schools

that combined elements of both. Levels of structure were higher in social constructivist than in

combined schools (approaching significance), levels of autonomy thwart were lower in social

constructivist than in the other two types, and levels of disaffection were lower in both social

constructivist and traditional schools (approaching significance) than in combined schools. In the

last step of the analyses, these differences between types of schools were examined qualitatively to

establish what teaching practices had induced them.

Keywords

self-determination theory social constructivism

early adolescenceteacher-student interactions

prevocational education

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

91

4.1 Introduction

Schools can be classified into types by the views on instruction that ground their educational

approach. Two types of schools that are prominent and contrasting in their views on learning and

instruction are traditional and social constructivist schools. Over the past decades, many schools

in Western countries have incorporated social constructivist views on instruction, thereby aiming

to stimulate students to organise and regulate their own learning processes and to foster their

motivation (Boekaerts, de Koning, & Vedder, 2006). Social constructivist schools are student-

centred and emphasise that for learning to occur students have to build up and combine their

prior knowledge with new knowledge and restructure and reconsider their own understanding

(Marshall, 1988; Shuell, 1996). In contrast, schools that work in accord with more traditional

views on instruction are much more teacher-centred and emphasise the importance of knowledge

reproduction. In this latter type of schools, the teachers take a large responsibility for students’

learning processes by disseminating knowledge, largely through lectures and verbal exchanges

(Shuell, 1996), and by structuring the course material (Gibbs, 1992; Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000;

Bolhuis & Voeten, 2001).

It is the teachers who bring the educational approach of their school into practice; yet

research comparing daily teaching practices between types of schools is scarce. An encompassing

theoretical framework for examining teaching practices is Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci

& Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Based on SDT, teacher-student interactions can be classified

as beneficial or detrimental to students’ learning outcomes. This classification is based on the

assumption that people have fundamental needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness that

can be supported within teacher-student interactions, thereby fostering students’ learning, or

thwarted, thereby undermining students’ learning. Indeed, a wide array of research is indicative

of positive associations of need supportive teaching with students’ motivation and school

achievement (for reviews see Reeve, 2002; 2009; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Chapter 3).

Theoretical notions on instruction are shared more between SDT and social constructivist

views than between SDT and traditional views; e.g. as SDT and social constructivism share their

emphasis on providing students with appropriate levels of own responsibility. This does not

imply that daily teaching practices in social constructivist schools are more need supportive than

in traditional schools, however, as implementing educational theory in practice tends to have

much broader consequences than accounted for in theory (Slavin, 2012). In the present study, we

examined how teaching practices developed over the course of the year in three types of schools for

prevocational education. We included schools that were prototypically traditional, prototypically

92

social constructivist, and schools that combined elements of both. We decided to include this latter

type as combined schools are common and as prior research has suggested distinctive mechanisms

to be operative in this type of schools (Rozendaal, Minnaert, & Boekaerts, 2005; Chapter 2).

For the purpose of assessing levels of need supportive teaching, we analysed large amounts of

videotaped lessons using a rating sheet that we developed for this aim.

The present investigation was conducted in the context of the first year of Dutch prevocational

education. This context is particularly suitable as the importance of teaching practices for students’

learning has been stressed for the first year after the transition toward secondary education

specifically (e.g. Eccles et al., 1993) and as in the Dutch educational system schools can be categorised

into types based on their educational approaches. Further, we focused our investigation within the

subject-domain of math. We choose to focus on math classrooms as math is a key-subject in the

curriculum and as, in the Netherlands, lessons can be compared relatively well as differences in

terms of subject-content between schools are small. Next to the present study being among the

first to compare daily teaching practices between types of schools, its longitudinal perspective and

its relying on observations instead of student perceptions of need supportive teaching render it

unique among prior SDT-research as well.

Below, we discuss prior research on time-consistency in teaching practices (4.2.1). Then, we

pursue a classification of traditional, social constructivist, and combined schools (4.2.2), we discuss

the theoretical underpinnings of SDT and the three dimensions of need supportive teaching

(4.2.3), and we elaborate on prior research on the link between traditional, social constructivist,

and combined instruction and SDT (4.2.4). Next, we discuss the present investigation and we

formulate some focus points and preliminary expectations (4.2.5).

4.2 Theoretical background

4.2.1 Teaching practices in the first years of secondary education: Time

consistency

The first years after the transition toward secondary education have been argued precarious

in terms of the development of students’ academic interests, commitment to education, and

motivation (e.g. Goodenow, 1993). Evidence indicates that teaching practices do matter for this

group of students, for example as teachers’ social support is found to have very substantial effects

on these early adolescents’ emotions, motivational beliefs, and, via emotions and motivational

beliefs, math achievement (Ahmed, Minnaert, Van der Werf, & Kuyper, 2010). In the present

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

93

study, we choose to focus on students in their first years of prevocational education because in

the Netherlands it is this group of students that has been reported to lack motivation especially

(Dutch Inspectorate of Education, 2005). In the Dutch educational system, the prevocational track

of secondary education is the lowest of three mainstream tracks that is attended by more than half

of the students (Dutch Inspectorate of Education, 2012) and offers an educational program that

has a balanced focus on theory and practice.

Longitudinal research on teaching practices is scarce. Given the importance that is given to

teaching practices for fostering early adolescents’ learning, the lack of longitudinal studies among

students in this age group is surprising particularly. Below, we provide an overview of the small

body of relevant studies we could trace, including, but not excluded to, SDT-research. Because

it seems probable that changes in teaching practices over the course of the school year represent

both a general effect of a teacher and his/her class getting acquainted and an effect that is grade-

specific, we discuss empirical evidence of relevance for establishing either of these two trends or

the combination of both in the first years of secondary education.

First, studies on the development of quality indicators over the course of the school year

typically indicate small but persistent declines. Such a decline has been found in grades 7-11 for

student perceived interpersonal teacher behaviour (Wubbels, Créton, & Hooymayers, 1985)

over the first sixteen week of the school years (Mainhard, Brekelmans, Den Brok, & Wubbels,

2011), as well as in grade 7 over the complete school year (Opdenakker, Maulana, & den Brok,

2012). In addition, declining trends were found in various student perceived quality indicators in

grade 7 (Maulana, Opdenakker, & Bosker, 2013) and in observed quality indicators in grade 6-9,

particularly so at the end of the school year (Evertson & Veldman, 1981). Finally, two SDT-studies

showed declines in observed involvement over the course of grade 7 (Maulana, Opdenakker,

Stroet, & Bosker, 2013) and in grade 3-5 of elementary school in student perceived involvement

between the beginning and the end of school years but not in student perceived autonomy support

or structure (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

Second, in a study focusing on grade-specific differences a declining trend was found in

students’ perceptions of school climate (including student autonomy and clarity and consistency in

school rules) in spring over the course of grade 6-8 (secondary education; Way, Reddy, & Rhodes,

2007). Finally, in a cross-sectional study, students who had entered secondary education in grade

6 were found to experience lower levels of classroom quality in their first year of secondary

education than students who were still in elementary school, while students who had entered in

grade 5 were not (Holas & Huston, 2012).

In conclusion, most of the studies described above focused on student perceptions of teaching

94

practices, although two studies using observational measures were available as well (Evertson &

Veldman, 1981; Maulana et al., 2013). The findings suggest declining developmental trends in

quality indicators of teaching practices. The present study being aimed at comparing developments

of need supportive teaching between types of schools, we continue by pursuing a classification of

prototypical traditional, social constructivist, and combined schools.

4.2.2 Prototypically traditional, social constructivist, and combined

schools

For classifying instruction as social constructivist, based on the wide spectrum of literature on

this topic, criteria have been formulated by Oostdam, Peetsma, Derriks, and van Gelderen (2006).

According to these criteria social constructivist instruction can be distinguished from traditional

instruction as: (1) more attention is paid to higher-order skills of self-regulation and metacognition,

(2) students share responsibility for their own learning process and the learning goals they choose,

(3) more formative instead of summative evaluation methods are used to evaluate students’ work,

(4) learning takes place within an authentic context, and (5) learning is considered to be a social

activity. In traditional instruction, on the other hand, (1) all lessons are taught in the same groups

of students, (2) these lessons mostly consist of the teacher explaining subject matter frontally and

students working on assignments that the teacher provides to the class as a whole, and (3) more

summative than formative evaluation methods are used.

We classified schools as ‘prototypically social constructivist’ when they met all of the five

criteria of social constructivist instruction, none of those of traditional instruction, and had

worked in accord with social constructivist views for at least several years. We classified schools

as ‘prototypically traditional’ when they met all of the criteria for traditional instruction, none of

the criteria for social constructivist instruction, and had worked in accord with traditional views

on instruction for at least several years. We classified schools as ‘combined’ when elements of

both traditional and social constructivist instruction had been merged. In this type of schools,

the lessons for a substantial part consist of the teacher explaining subject matter frontally and the

students working on assignments that are provided by the teacher to the class as a whole. At the

same time, in these lessons more attention is paid to higher-order skills of metacognition and

self-regulation than is the case in traditional schools and, at times, students are required to share

responsibility for their own learning process and the learning goals they choose.

We continue by a discussion of SDT, and the three dimensions of need supportive teaching.

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

95

4.2.3 Self-Determination Theory

According to SDT, students should be provided with opportunities to exercise and elaborate their

own interests and to pursue those goals they (have come to) personally value. Learning contexts

that are optimal in providing these opportunities satisfy students’ needs for autonomy, competence,

and relatedness. The need for autonomy refers to people’s inherent desire to be causal agents and

to experience volition. For students to experience autonomy in their learning, it is of importance

not so much by whom their actions have been initiated, but to which degree they consider these

actions personally interesting or valuable. The need for competence refers to people’s innate

striving to exercise and elaborate their interests and to seek challenges (White, 1959), while

feeling effective in doing so. The need for relatedness, finally, pertains to the desire to form and

maintain strong and stable interpersonal relationships, to connect with and be accepted by others,

and to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bowlby, 1979; Harlow, 1958; Ryan, 1995). According to

SDT, when people feel related to an individual or a social group, they will consider adopting the

values of related others when encouraged to do so. For students to experience relatedness and to

feel encouraged to adopt positive values regarding schoolwork, it is of importance that they feel

accepted and supported by their teachers, as well as stimulated to work on school tasks.

Based on the SDT-argument that people have fundamental needs for autonomy, competence,

and relatedness, three dimensions of need support/thwart have been described. These three

dimensions complement each other in their effect on students’ general level of need satisfaction

(Connell & Wellborn, 1991). A need supportive teaching style is not a prescribed set of techniques

and strategies (Reeve, 2006) and because a statement cannot be detached from the situation in which

it has been uttered teacher-student interactions should always be interpreted in their context (e.g.

Malinowski, 1930). The first positive dimension of need supportive teaching is autonomy support

what includes adopting students’ perspectives and providing explanatory rationales when choice

is constraint. The first negative dimension is autonomy thwart what incorporates the assertion

of power to overcome students’ complaints or display of impatience for students to produce the

right answer. The second positive dimension is provision of structure, including communication

of clear and consistent guidelines and expectations and providing of step-by-step directions and

constructive feedback versus the negative dimension of chaos, including providing contradictory

expectations, not being available when students have questions, and discouraging them. The third

positive dimension is involvement versus the negative dimension of , referring

to the distinction between showing as opposed to not showing interest in the individual students,

understanding of what is of importance for them, and availability to offer support.

We proceed with a discussion of research that is of relevance for linking prototypical traditional,

96

social constructivist, and combined schools with dimensions of need supportive teaching.

4.2.4 Link three types of schools and need supportive teaching

As we mentioned in the Introduction, studies comparing between teaching practices in types

of schools are scarce. Research is available, however, that links elements of traditional, social

constructivist, and combined educational approaches with dimensions of need supportive

teaching. We will discuss these studies below as they provide information on how and why

educational approaches and need supportive teaching might be related. For two reasons, however,

we do not consider the results of these studies directly translatable into differences between types

of schools. First, because elements might interact in their effects on need supportive teaching.

Second, because indirect effects that have resulted of implementing educational approaches in

practice cannot always be taken into account at forehand as prior research on such indirect effects

is largely lacking.

Firstly, social constructivist instruction has been linked with autonomy support as opposed to

autonomy thwart. Provision of autonomy support is somewhat embedded in social constructivist

views on instruction as students are expected to self-regulate their learning and share

responsibility for their own learning processes and the learning goals they choose. In addition, by

making connections with real-world situations teachers can stress the importance of the learning

task, and, thereby foster relevance (Resnick, 1987). Further, evidence indicates that cooperative

learning, what is related to the characteristic of social constructivist instruction of learning being

considered a social activity, enhances students’ perceived autonomy (Hänze and Berger, 2007);

according to the authors because students have more leeway in structuring their learning process

than is the case in traditional settings. Finally, it is argued that typically interactions with teachers

and peers in a (social) constructivist setting tend to provide the students with choices as well

as a sense of controllability, and, thereby allow them to experience agency (Nie & Lau, 2010;

Smit, de Brabander, & Martens, 2013). However, although, from a theoretical perspective the

link between social constructivist instruction and provision of choice appears straightforward,

empirical evidence on this link is not conclusive. A study by Sturm and Bogner (2008) showed,

for example, that students perceived higher levels of choice and value when they were taught in a

student-oriented setting in which they self-guided their work in small groups of students, but only

so when they were provided an introduction that prepared them for the learning task.

Secondly, traditional instruction has been linked with provision of structure as opposed to

chaos. Evidence indicates that less well-defined problems tend to decrease students’ feelings of

competence because they feel they acquire less control over their school outcomes (Schunk, 1991).

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

97

In traditional schools the teachers have a large responsibility for students’ learning processes,

whereas in combined and social constructivist schools this responsibility is shared between

teachers and students to a much larger degree. Consequently, particularly these latter two types

of schools would be expected to be at risk for providing their students with too little clarity and

instructional guidance. Indeed, social constructivist instruction has regularly been criticised for

not providing students with sufficient instructional guidance (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006;

Mayer, 2004; Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 2000). Although limited provision of instructional

guidance is by no means a defining characteristic of social constructivist instruction (Oostdam,

Peetsma, & Blok, 2007), it does not seem implausible that it would be a potential risk when

implementing social constructivist instruction in practice (see also Hickey, Moore, & Pellegrino,

2001). Prior research has suggested potential negative effects of implementing elements of social

constructivist instruction only (Felner & Jackson, 1997; Rozendaal et al., 2005; Chapter 2) as is

done in combined schools.

Thirdly, it has been argued that in social constructivist schools teachers develop stronger

relationships with their students as they are expected to function as coach and engage in dialogues

with students (Savery & Duffy, 2001). Although strong teacher-student relationships provide

teachers with opportunities for involvement as well as disaffection, we do not consider this link

strong enough to have implications for establishing links in terms of levels of need supportive

teaching.

4.2.5 Present investigation

The first research question of the present study concerns the development of observed need

supportive teaching over the course of the first year of prevocational education. Based on the small

body of available research on the development of quality indicators of teaching practices over

time, we hypothesised negative developmental trends for the three positive dimensions of need

supportive teaching (autonomy support, structure, and involvement) and positive developmental

trends for the three negative dimensions (autonomy thwart, chaos, disaffection).

The second research question concerns the development of need supportive teaching over

the course of the school year in three types of schools for prevocational education: Prototypical

traditional, combined, and social constructivist schools. Although prior evidence is available that

links elements of traditional, social constructivist, and combined educational approaches with

dimensions of need supportive teaching, the present study is among the first to compare teaching

practices between types of schools. Therefore, the expectations and focus points we formulate

are preliminary only. First, for the positive dimension of autonomy support we expect levels to

98

be highest in prototypically social constructivist and lowest in prototypically traditional schools,

while we expect a reversed pattern for the negative dimension of autonomy thwart. Second, for

the positive dimension of structure and the negative dimension of chaos focus points are the levels

of its components of clarity and no clarity and guidance and no guidance in the three types of

schools.

4.3 Method

4.3.1 Participants

A total of twenty grade-7 classes (first year of secondary education) at the prevocational level of

secondary education (‘vmbo’) and their teachers in math participated in the data collection. In total

16 teachers in math (6 of which female, teaching in 40% of the classes) were involved; the reason for

this total being less than 20 is that in some cases a teacher taught in two of the participating classes.

The size of the classes varied from 17 to 31 students. All classes used one of the two textbooks that

are used by a large majority of schools in the Netherlands (“Getal en Ruimte1” (60%) and “Moderne

Wiskunde1” (30%); Noordhoff publishers, personal communication, January 2, 2014).

The 20 participating classes were equally divided over 10 schools; 4 of which prototypically

traditional, 4 prototypically social constructivist, and 2 combined. The selection of these schools

consisted of three steps. Initially, we included all schools that were state-funded (as nearly all

schools in the Netherlands are) in the central and northern part of the Netherlands, that did

not have a religious denomination, and offered prevocational education (a total of 141 schools).

Schools in the southern part of the Netherlands were excluded for pragmatic reasons, while

religious schools were excluded because we wanted to match the three types of schools on the

basis of denomination. The first step involved coding relevant information available through the

websites of schools, using the criteria of Oostdam et al. (2006; described in section 4.2.2). Based on

these coding, we excluded schools from the selection that clearly were ‘neither social constructivist

nor traditional’ (e.g. Montessori schools), and we temporarily categorized the remaining schools

as being ‘social constructivist’, ‘traditional’, or as ’unknown based on website-information’. The

second step involved gathering further information on the remaining schools. The information we

gathered included a list of schools that had been drawn up for the purpose of the study by Oostdam

et al. (2006), information on membership of schools of networks closely relating to the ideas of

social constructivist schools, and information from the Dutch Inspectorate on daily practices.

1 Groningen, the Netherlands: Noordhoff Publishers

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

99

Based on all information gathered, a list was constructed of 30 schools (10 prototypically social

constructivist, 12 prototypically traditional, and 8 combined schools) meeting all the criteria of

their respective types as defined in section 4.2.2). The third step involved selecting and contacting

these schools based on secondary matching criteria of area (urban/rural; low/high average SES)

and school size. Because the prevocational track is streamed further into classes that are composed

of students with comparable levels of prior achievement, we could select classes that were similar

in this respect as well.

4.3.2 Measures

Over the course of the school year 2010-2011, there were 4 measurement occasions; starting

approximately 11 weeks after the start of the school year, and being approximately 9 weeks apart

from each other. At each measurement occasion, in each of the 20 classes, at least 1 and whenever

this was considered desirable (e.g. when we were not sure the first lesson we videotaped was a

regular lesson) 2 lesson(s) in math were videotaped. In the end in 57 of 80 cases we videotaped 2

instead of 1 lesson, yielding a total of 137 (80 + 57) videotaped lessons. Classrooms were equipped

with two cameras: One ‘fixed’ camera, which faced the class, and one ‘action’ camera at the back

of the class operated by a cameraman, which was directed to the teacher, or, when the teacher

was talking with an individual or small group of students, to teacher-student interactions. In

order for all teacher-student interactions to be audible on the videotapes, including softly spoken

interactions with an individual or small group of students, the teachers were asked to carry a small

wireless microphone. The videos were shot by four cameramen in total: Three trained university

students and the first author. The cameramen always tried to limit interference to an absolute

minimum, so the teacher and the class could proceed with their lesson as usual. It was made

clear to both the teachers and the students that the interest of the study was in normal classroom

communication, and it was emphasised that all material would be processed anonymously. Before

the start of the study, consent letters had been sent to the parent(s)/guardian(s), none of whom

declined participation of their child.

Need supportive teaching. In the Appendix of this dissertation, the rating sheet we developed to

assess need supportive teaching is presented. This rating sheet is based on examination of existing

rating sheets (i.e. Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004 (autonomy support); Wiebenga, 2008

(need supportive teaching); Maulana, Opdenakker, Stroet, & Bosker, 2013 (involvement)), as well

as an extensive review of available SDT-literature on practices of need support and thwart within

teacher-student interactions (e.g. Ryan, 1982; Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1992; Deci

& Ryan, 1994; Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1996; Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Alfi, Katz, & Assor,

100

2004; Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner, 2004; Katz & Assor, 2006; Reeve, 2006; Tsai,

Kunter, Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Ryan, 2008; Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010; Vansteenkiste, Niemiec,

& Soenens , 2010; for complete information on theoretical grounding see the Appendix of this

dissertation), and includes not only the three dimensions of need supportive teaching, but also its

respective components.

We used ‘teacher-student interaction’ as unit of analysis what implicated that each teacher-

student interaction was coded as either providing students with one or more components of

need support or thwart, or as not being relevant in terms of need support or thwart. A teacher-

student interaction was defined as the whole of conversation that regarded one topic; e.g. when

a student posed a question and the teacher responded, the whole of conversation on the topic of

this question made up one teacher-student interaction. Occasionally, codes referred to complete

lessons instead of to teacher-student interactions (see rating sheet in Appendix). Teacher-student

interactions were interpreted in terms of their providing support or thwart of a component of

need supportive teaching from what we considered the perspective of the student(s) and within

their context of a complete lesson, thereby following the notions that what makes teaching need

supportive can be something different for the one student than for the another (e.g. Deci, 1975),

and that a statement cannot be detached from the situation in which it has been uttered (e.g.

Malinowski, 1930). Examples of codings are discussed elaborately in Chapter 5. All our codes were

linked to the complete video fragments they related to, so we could adequately map both frequency

of occurrence and duration. For the positive dimensions of autonomy support and structure and

the negative dimensions of autonomy thwart and chaos we considered durations of teacher-

student interactions to most properly indicate expressions of need support/thwart. For example,

as longer provision of step-by-step directions seemed indicative of higher levels of structure or as

the more time teachers took to provide autonomy support, the higher levels of autonomy support

appeared. For the positive dimension of involvement and the negative of disaffection, however,

for two reasons we considered frequency the most appropriate indication of its expression. First,

because, more than is the case for the other dimensions, utterances seemed to provide involvement

or disaffection rather independent of their duration. Second, because we found expressions of

involvement and disaffection often to be manifest in part of a teacher-student interactions only,

so that a focus on durations would somewhat mask the data.

All coding was conducted by the first author. For the purpose of enhancing validity and

establishing reliability of the rating sheet we followed several steps. First, the video material of

two classes (one prototypically traditional and one prototypically social constructivist) was studied

in-depth, and the codes of large amounts of fragments were discussed among the authors and with

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

101

university students, thereby following recommendations on data sessions by Heath, Hindmarsh,

and Luff (2010). Second, another researcher working on SDT coded some of the video-material

to establish interrater reliability. To establish levels of agreement with the first author, for two

lessons the unweighted kappa coefficient (Cohen, 1960) was calculated, yielding values of .70

for the dimension of autonomy support/autonomy thwart, .71 for structure/chaos, and .75 for

involvement/disaffection. Third, in the coding process, when in doubt, the coder discussed

fragments with other researchers working on SDT to reach a decision. Finally, to determine

reliability of final coding, we used four videos to calculate the intrarater reliability, yielding values

of the unweighted Kappa coefficient of .78 for the dimension of autonomy support/autonomy

thwart, .85 for structure/chaos, and .83 for involvement/disaffection.

4.3.3 Analytical approach

The coded teacher-student interactions were used to calculate per class, per measurement occasion,

the percentages of lesson-time teachers provided autonomy support, autonomy thwart, structure,

and/or chaos, and the frequencies per hour teachers expressed their involvement or disaffection.

For determining net levels of need supportive teaching per class, per measurement occasion,

durations of the negative dimensions (autonomy thwart, chaos, and disaffection) were subtracted

from durations of the positive dimensions (autonomy support, structure, and involvement).

For the purpose of answering our research questions, we used Hierarchical Linear Modelling

(HLM) analysis, thereby following a multilevel approach to take into account the longitudinal and

hierarchical structure in the data. First, series of unconditional models were used to estimate the

proportion of variance within classes and between classes (Table 2).

Second, the effect of ‘time’ on levels of need support and thwart was modelled (Table 3, models

1) to estimate the development of the (positive and negative) dimensions of need supportive

teaching over the course of the school year. In these models, the linear effects of ‘time’ were always

included as fixed effects; random slopes of ‘time’ for classes, polynomials to the second degree, and

random slopes of ‘(time)2’ for classes were included only when this significantly improved the fit

of the model. The significance of the increase in fit of models 1 relative to comparison models

that did not include ‘time’ or ‘(time)2’ as explanatory variables (not presented) was determined 2 tests on the decrease in deviance with a minimum of 1 (‘time’) to a maximum of 6

degrees of freedom (‘time’, ‘(time)2‘, variance random slope and covariance random intercept and

slope ‘time’ and ‘(time)2’).

Third, the ‘types of schools’ were added to the model as explanatory variables (Table 3, models

2 and 3). The significance of the increase of fit of these series of models in comparison to the models

102

2 test with 2 degrees of freedom (for models 2: intercepts for

combined and social constructivist schools; traditional schools functioned as reference groups. For

models 3: Intercepts for traditional and social constructivist schools; combined schools functioned

mean that in combined schools on average teachers are autonomy supportive in 1% more time of

the lessons than in traditional schools.

Fourth, we further examined the significant differences we had found between types of schools

in the fourth step of the analyses. It was our aim to identify teaching practices that were shared

between classes belonging to the same type of schools and had induced the differences between

types of schools. For this intend, we selected the video-material that we had coded in terms of the

(positive or negative) dimensions of need supportive teaching for which we had found differences

between types of schools. We conducted a qualitative analysis of this video-material, thereby using

our more detailed coding of specific components of the dimensions of need supportive teaching

as input.

4.4 Results

4.4.1 Development over the course of the school year of dimensions of

need supportive teaching

In the graphs presented in Figure 1, developments of dimensions of need supportive teaching are

shown. From the first graph it can be seen how levels of autonomy support and autonomy thwart

were comparable initially and separated over the course of the year as autonomy support decreased

and autonomy thwart increased. From the second graph it is visible how levels of structure were

higher than levels of chaos. In the third graph, it is displayed how levels of teacher involvement

initially appeared higher than levels of disaffection while the decrease in teacher involvement and

the increase in disaffection resulted in a reversed pattern at the end of the year.

In Table 1 descriptive statistics are presented. The results in Table 2 showed that for need

supportive teaching total, autonomy support, and structure a little more variance was attributable

to the class level than to the occasion level, while for autonomy thwart, chaos, and disaffection this

was the other way around. For involvement, the amount of variance attributable to class level was

relatively small as most variance was attributable to the occasion level.

The results as presented in Table 3 revealed a negative developmental trend for the total

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

103

level of need supportive teaching (-3.07), thereby confirming our hypothesis. For autonomy

support, we found a negative developmental trend as well (-1.01), while the developmental trend

for autonomy thwart did not differ significantly from 0. For structure, again, the developmental

trend did not differ significantly from 0, while for chaos, unexpectedly, a negative developmental

trend was found (-.38) that approached significance. Finally, for involvement, we found a negative

developmental trend (-1.13), while for disaffection the developmental trend did not differ

significantly from 0.

Table 1 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for the positive and negative dimensions of need supportive teaching

t1 t2 t3 t4

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Autonomy support 5.98 (7.76) 5.80 (9.72) 4.38 (4.38) 3.19 (3.65)Autonomy thwart 5.59 (6.34) 7.74 (7.13) 7.64 (6.62) 8.73 (9.50)Structure 9.93 (10.6) 11.3 (11.4) 10.5 (11.9) 10.6 (10.9)Chaos 2.20 (3.57) 2.98 (3.65) 1.93 (1.87) 1.24 (1.68)Involvement 7.69 (4.45) 7.07 (6.74) 5.88 (3.02) 4.51 (2.07)Disaffection 4.77 (6.09) 5.98 (6.36) 5.93 (5.21) 6.36 (7.02)

Table 2

Variable Total Autonomy

support

Autonomy

thwart

Structure Chaos Involvement Disaffection

Class 62.0% 51.9% 30.9% 53.6% 40.5% 4.5% 49.5%Occasion 38.0% 48.1% 69.1% 46.4% 59.5% 95.5% 50.5%

4.4.2 Associations between types of schools and levels and development

over time of need supportive teaching

Not included in the analysis is our coding per lesson (instead of per teacher-student interaction; see

rating sheet). Analysis of this coding revealed that in all three types of schools almost all teachers

did typically seem available to answer students’ questions; both on guidelines and expectations

and on content (elements of the positive dimension of structure). Moreover, for all three types of

schools, it appeared uncommon for the teachers to come across as unfair in the sense of treating

students inconsequent (an element of the negative dimension of disaffection).

From Figure 2, developments of need supportive teaching in the three types of schools are

104

Figure 1 Development over time of need supportive teaching and its respective (positive and negative) dimension

2

Autonomy supportAutonomy thwart

3 4 5

10,00

8,00

6,00

4,00

2,00

0,00

2

InvolvementDisaffection

3 4 5

8,00

6,00

4,00

2,00

0,00

2

StructureChaos

3 4 5

10,00

8,00

6,00

4,00

2,00

0,00

12,00

time

time

time

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

105

Figure 2 Development over time of need supportive teaching and its respective (positive and negative) dimensions in traditional, combined, and social constructivist schools

2 3 4 5

30,00

20,00

10,00

0,00

-10,00

-20,00

40,00

2 3 4 5

10,00

8,00

6,00

4,00

2,00

0,00

time

Tot

alA

uton

omy

supp

ort

time

Educational approach

TraditionalCombinedSocial constructivist

Educational approach

TraditionalCombinedSocial constructivist

2 3 4 5

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00

Aut

onom

y th

war

t

time

Educational approach

TraditionalCombinedSocial constructivist

106

Stru

ctur

e

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

20,00

10,00

15,00

8,00

10,00

6,00

4,00

5,00

2,00

0,00

0,00

Chao

s

time

time

Educational approach

TraditionalCombinedSocial constructivist

Educational approach

TraditionalCombinedSocial constructivist

Figure 2 continued

Invo

lvem

ent

2 3 4 5

10,00

8,00

6,00

4,00

2,00

0,00

12,00

time

Educational approach

TraditionalCombinedSocial constructivist

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

107

visible. The results as presented in Table 3 revealed to what degree need supportive teaching

appeared associated with types of schools. For the total net levels of need supportive teaching, the

results did not indicate significant differences between traditional and combined schools, whereas

these levels appeared higher in social constructivist schools than in traditional schools (19.75),

and, even more so, than in combined schools (28.99). For autonomy support, the results did not

indicate significant differences between the three types of schools. For autonomy thwart, the

results did not indicate significant differences between traditional and combined schools, whereas

the levels of autonomy thwart appeared lower in social constructivist than in traditional schools

(-8.17), and than in combined schools (-7.39). For structure, the results did not indicate significant

differences between traditional and combined schools, nor between traditional and social

constructivist schools, whereas the levels of structure appeared higher in social constructivist than

in combined schools (9.09; this difference approached significance). For chaos, the results did not

indicate significant differences between types of schools. For involvement, the results did not

indicate significant differences between the types of schools. For disaffection, the results showed

higher levels in combined schools than in traditional schools (4.73; this difference approached

significance), and, even more so, than in social constructivist schools (-7.02), whereas the results

did not indicate significant differences between traditional and social constructivist schools.

Figure 2 continued

2 3 4 5

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00

time

Educational approach

TraditionalCombinedSocial constructivist

Disa

ffect

ion

108

Ta

ble

3

Va

ria

ble

Ge

ne

ra

lA

uto

no

my

su

pp

or

tA

uto

no

my

th

wa

rt

Mod

el 1

Mod

el 2

Mod

el 3

Mod

el 1

Mod

el 2

Mod

el 3

Mod

el 1

SESE

SESE

SESE

SE

Inte

rcep

t15

.37

6.21

9.31

7.32

.08

9.48

7.54

1.77

6.70

2.23

5.36

2.88

4.69

2.06

Tim

e-3

.07*

1.56

-3.0

7*1.

56-3

.07*

1.56

-1.0

1*.4

8-1

.01*

.48

-1.0

1*.4

81.

03.6

4

Tra

ditio

nal

9.23

10.4

31.

343.

15

Com

bina

tion

-9.2

310

.43

-1.3

43.

15

Soci

al co

nstr

uctiv

ist19

.75*

8.52

28.9

9*10

.43

2.78

2.57

4.12

3.15

Clas

s lev

el

Var

. int

erce

pt37

3.73

135.

2223

6.70

92.2

224

.11

9.29

21.3

78.

4317

.33

8.51

Occ

asio

n le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt21

3.00

38.9

321

3.24

38.9

320

.52

3.75

20.5

23.

7536

.28

6.62

Dec

reas

e dev

ianc

e4*

8*

5*2

3

Not

e: *

p<.

05, ^

p<.1

0

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

109

Ta

ble

3

cont

inue

d

Va

ria

ble

Au

to

no

my

th

wa

rt

Str

uc

tu

re

Ch

ao

s

Mod

el 2

Mod

el 3

Mod

el 1

Mod

el 2

Mod

el 3

Mod

el 1

Mod

el 2

Mod

el 3

SESE

SESE

SESE

SESE

Inte

rcep

t8.

112.

097.

332.

4010

.15

2.89

9.62

3.57

4.43

4.59

3.11

.77

.55

1.60

1.37

1.68

Tim

e1.

03.6

41.

03.6

4.1

6.7

9.1

6.7

9.1

6.7

9-.3

8^.2

32.

021.

342.

021.

34

(Tim

e)2

-.47^

.26

-.47^

.26

Tra

ditio

nal

.79

2.06

5.19

4.99

Com

bina

tion

-.79

2.06

-5.1

94.

99-1

.21

1.23

Soci

al co

nstr

uctiv

ist-8

.17*

1.68

-7.3

9*2.

063.

904.

089.

09^

4.99

-1.4

51.

00

Clas

s lev

el

Var

. int

erce

pt2.

233.

9463

.83

24.6

852

.64

21.1

63.

331.

433.

391.

432.

931.

29

Occ

asio

n le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt36

.28

6.62

55.1

910

.08

55.1

910

.08

4.59

.84

4.35

.79

4.35

.79

Dec

reas

e dev

ianc

e17

* 0

36*

32

N

ote:

* p

<.05

, ^p<

.10

110

Ta

ble

3

Var

iabl

eCh

aos

Invo

lvem

ent

Disa

ffect

ion

Mod

el 4

Mod

el 1

Mod

el 2

Mod

el 3

Mod

el 1

Mod

el 2

Mod

el 3

Mod

el 4

SESE

SESE

SESE

SESE

Inte

rcep

t.1

71.

829.

291.

309.

081.

448.

221.

655.

761.

074.

361.

625.

731.

4310

.46

2.02

Tim

e2.

021.

34-1

.13*

.45

-1.1

3*.4

5-1

.13*

.45

.52

.46

(Tim

e)2

-.47^

.26

Tra

ditio

nal

1.21

1.23

.86

1.41

-4.7

3^2.

48

Com

bina

tion

-.86

1.41

4.73

^2.

48

Soci

al co

nstr

uctiv

ist-.2

41.

23.9

51.

151.

811.

41-2

.29

2.02

-7.0

2*2.

48

Clas

s lev

el

Var

. int

erce

pt1.

381.

98.9

11.

8418

.26

7.30

18.3

67.

3011

.70

5.24

Occ

asio

n le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt17

.39

3.18

17.3

93.

1818

.66

3.41

18.2

53.

3318

.66

3.41

Dec

reas

e dev

ianc

e6*

21

7^

Not

e: *

p<.

05, ^

p<.1

0

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

111

4.4.3 Further examination of differences between types of schools

The results as presented in section 4.4.2 revealed differences that were significant or approached

significance between types of schools for the dimensions of autonomy thwart, structure, and

disaffection. Below, we further examine these differences to identify teaching practices that were

shared between classes belonging to the same type of schools and had induced the differences

between types of schools.

4.4.3.1 Autonomy thwart

For autonomy thwart the lower levels in social constructivist than in the other two types of schools

appeared mainly induced by the teachers in these latter types of schools being more controlling.

More specifically, whereas the teachers in the traditional and combined schools regularly provided

their students with answers before they had time to reflect by themselves, thereby disrupting their

natural rhythm, for the teachers in the social constructivist schools this was very uncommon.

Further, for the teachers in the combined schools but not for the teachers in the other two types of

schools it was rather common to disrupt students’ natural rhythm by not allowing them to realise

the action plans they had initiated.

4.4.3.2 Structure

For structure, we found the higher levels in social constructivist than in combined schools

(approaching significance) primarily induced by the teachers in the former type of school spending

more time on guidance in the sense of providing step-by-step directions, thereby adjusting to the

students. In these interactions with individual or small groups of students, the teachers tended to

elaborate on content and to monitor and adjust to the students’ prior understanding.

4.4.3.3 Disaffection

For disaffection, the higher levels in combined schools than in traditional schools (approaching

significance) and in social constructivist schools seemed induced mainly by it for all teachers in the

combined schools being more common to talk to the students in an unfriendly tone and to treat

them unfair in the sense of being inconsequent.

4.5 Discussion

In the present study, we aimed to further understanding of how teaching practices develop over

112

time and relate to educational approaches of schools. For this intend, in three types of schools

for prevocational education we examined teaching practices from the perspective of Self-

Determination Theory. At four moments spread over students’ first year, teaching practices were

coded using an observational measure that assessed need supportive teaching.

The first research question concerned the development over time of need supportive teaching

across types of schools. For net levels of need supportive teaching the results showed declining

developmental trends, thereby corroborating the small body of prior research on the development

of quality indicators of teaching practices over time. Further, for the positive dimensions of need

supportive teaching of autonomy support and involvement we found declining trends over the

course of the school year, and, for the negative dimension of chaos, unexpectedly, we found a

somewhat decreasing trend (approaching significance). For the dimension of structure (positive),

autonomy thwart, and disaffection (negative) results were not indicative of differences over time.

These findings lay bare gaps in current educational theory and point towards directions for

future research. Firstly, because the results suggest that as a result of getting acquainted with their

classes teachers are triggered to develop a less need supportive teaching style. Thus far, little is

known about the mechanisms that could be at play here. Why do teachers become less autonomy

supportive and involved as the school year advances? But also, why do levels of chaos decrease?

Future research is needed to sort out answers to these questions and to generate insights that are

of use to advance educational practice.

Secondly, the declining trends we found could potentially explain the decrease in student

motivation and engagement a large body of research is indicative of (e.g. Anderman & Maehr,

1994; Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006; van der Werf, Opdenakker, & Kuyper, 2008). Although

it is increasingly recognised that teaching practices have an important effect on early adolescents’

motivation, research sorting out the longitudinal relationship between both is scarce (see e.g.

Chapter 3 for a review of SDT-studies). The findings of the present study point toward the

potential fruitfulness of such investigations that we would, therefore, recommend for future

research.

The second research question concerned a comparison of need supportive teaching between

prototypically traditional, social constructivist, and combined schools. The results indicated

differences between types of schools in levels of need supportive teaching. Specifically, we found

net levels of need supportive teaching to be higher in social constructivist than in traditional

schools and, even more so, than in combined schools, while the results did not indicate differences

between traditional and combined schools. As we will discuss below, for the respective (positive

and negative) dimensions of need supportive teaching the results partly corroborated and partly

Nee

d su

ppor

t in

type

s of s

choo

lsCh

apte

r 04

113

contradicted prior research on singled-out elements of the educational approaches. Because the

present study was among the first to compare teaching practices between types of schools we

had refrained from formulating hypotheses. Below, we will discuss findings in the light of the

preliminary expectations and focus points we formulated.

For autonomy support we did not find differences between types of schools. Thereby, findings

did not support our preliminary expectation that levels would be highest in prototypically social

constructivist schools and lowest in prototypically traditional schools. This finding is surprising

as the importance of autonomy support is explicitly embedded in social constructivist views on

instruction. Future research is necessary to sort this finding out, but among plausible explanations

is that autonomy supportive teaching is expressed not so much in teacher-student interactions but

much more, for example, in choices incorporated in assignments that are provided to students.

Partially in line with preliminary expectations, for autonomy thwart we found lower levels in

the prototypically social constructivist than in the other two types of schools. These differences

appeared induced by the teachers in the prototypical traditional and combined schools more

regularly disrupting the students’ natural rhythms. This finding suggests that indeed, as would be

expected based on prior theorizing, teachers in prototypically social constructivist schools tend to

provide their students with a sense of controllability and provide some leeway in structuring their

learning processes. Interestingly, for combined schools findings did not indicate the same. Future

research is necessary to sort out why the teachers in the combined schools appeared as triggered

to thwart the autonomy of students as teachers in traditional schools, despite elements of social

constructivist instruction being incorporated in the former type of schools.

For the positive dimension of structure and the negative dimension of chaos, we had anticipated

that especially combined and social constructivist schools could be at risk for providing relatively

little structure and much chaos. The results indicated lower levels of structure in the combined

than in the social constructivist schools (approaching significance), while no differences were

apparent with traditional schools. For chaos no differences were found between types of schools.

These findings do not substantiate the argument that social constructivist schools are more at

risk for providing little structure and much chaos than are traditional schools, they do, however,

somewhat corroborate prior research suggesting potential detrimental effects of implementation

of elements of social constructivist instruction only (Felner & Jackson, 1997; Rozendaal et al.,

2005; Chapter 2). Specifically, the findings indicated the teachers in the combined schools to spend

less time on providing students with individual guidance (a component of structure) than did the

teachers in the social constructivist schools. Future research is necessary to sort why it is that the

teachers in the combined schools tended to provide their students with relatively little guidance.

114

For teacher involvement, the results were not indicative of differences between types of schools,

while for disaffection we found lower levels in combined schools than in social constructivist and

traditional schools (approaching significance). These differences appeared induced by it being

more common for the teachers in the combined schools to talk to the students in an unfriendly tone

and treat them unfair in the sense of being inconsequent. Again, we recommend future research to

focus on sorting out what triggered these relatively high levels of disaffection in combined schools.

Several limitations of the present study can be thought of. The first of these, we already made

reference to above, is that in our analysis we did not include everything that was going on in

students’ learning contexts, but focused on what happened in teacher-student interactions only.

For the future, it would be of interest to combine studies on comparisons between types of schools

of teacher-student interactions with studies focusing on other aspects of the learning context, e.g.

content of assignments and peer-interactions, to get a more complete picture of students’ learning

contexts in different types of schools.

Second, the participating teachers and students being aware of the video cameras that

were present in their classrooms might have affected their behaviour. Potentially this could be

considered a limitation of the present study, especially as having cameras in the classrooms is

more common practice in social constructivist and combined schools than in traditional schools.

We tried to counteract this potential limitation by regularly emphasising the fact that all video-

material would be processed anonymously. From our conversations with the teachers in all three

types of schools we did not get the impression that either the teachers or the students behaved

different from how they would normally have. This impression was strengthened by the fact that

both teachers and students regularly indicated to have forgotten about the cameras being present.

In conclusion, despite these limitations findings advance understanding of how teaching

practices develop over time and relate to educational approaches of schools. Particularly intriguing

for educational practice and for future research is, firstly, the finding that teachers appear triggered

to engage in less need supportive teaching as the school year advances. And, secondly, the finding

that teachers in combined schools are less need supportive than teachers in prototypical traditional

and social constructivist schools.

This chapter is based on:

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2014, in press). Need supportive teaching in practice: A narrative analysis in schools with contrasting educational approaches. Social Psychology of Education.

Need supportive teaching in practice: A narrative analysis in schools with contrasting

educational approaches 5

118

Abstract

Research on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) has shown that positive learning outcomes accrue

in classrooms that support students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Studies

on what need supportive teaching entails in practice are, however, scarce. In the present study,

we aimed to gain in-depth understanding of typical manifestations of the positive (autonomy

support, structure, involvement) and negative (autonomy thwart, chaos, disaffection or reject)

dimensions of need supportive teaching by relating these to educational approaches of schools.

For this purpose, we conducted a narrative analysis of teacher-student interactions in two

contrasting cases: A prototypical traditional class and a prototypical social constructivist class.

In both classes, we analysed lessons in math and in mother language spread over the grade-7

year of secondary education. The results indicated striking differences between both classes in

manifestations of need supportive teaching as well as similarities. The findings have implications

for translating SDT to educational practice as they help make concrete the theoretical construct

of need supportive teaching as well as further understanding of how SDT-interventions can be

implemented in practice.

Keywords

self-determination theory social constructivism

teacher-student interactionsearly adolescence

lesson observation

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

119

5.1 Introduction

Motivation and engagement are critical for the active, self-constructed, and intentional process

of learning. In Self-Determination Theory (SDT, Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000), it is

assumed that curiosity about the environment and interest in both learning and skill development

are inherent in human nature; the daily practices in a classroom can, however, either foster or

undermine these volitional motivational processes. Whereas SDT-research is clear in showing

that positive learning outcomes accrue in classrooms that support students’ needs for autonomy,

competence, and relatedness (for reviews see Reeve, 2002; 2009; Niemiec and Ryan, 2009;

Chapter 2), much less is known about the multiple ways in which need supportive teaching is

manifested in practice. The present study is positioned within the increasing number of studies

focused on gaining in-depth understanding of what is going on in classrooms (Stefanou,

Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner, 2004; Perry, Turner, & Meyer, 2006) as we conducted a fine-

grained comparison between typical manifestations of need supportive teaching in schools with

contrasting educational approaches.

The types of schools that were the focus of this study either had a more traditional, teacher-

centred approach to education or a social constructivist approach that was highly innovative and

student-centred. In traditional views, the importance is emphasised of reproduction of knowledge

that is transmitted in the learning process and teachers are expected to take a large degree of

responsibility in structuring their students’ learning processes (Shuell, 1996). In contrast, in social

constructivist views learning is considered not so much a reproductive but instead an active and

constructive process, responsibility for which should gradually be transferred to the students

themselves (Marshall, 1988; Shuell, 1996). Both approaches to education are influential in Western

countries, as over the past decades many have schools have incorporated elements of innovative,

student-centred instruction, often to combine these with elements of traditional instruction.

What need supportive teaching entails in practice relates to educational approaches of schools.

Theoretical notions on instruction are partially shared between SDT and social constructivism,

e.g. both emphasise students’ autonomy or volition in their learning. Consequently, social

constructivist schools would be expected to (intentionally) trigger specific manifestations of

autonomy support. Because implementing an educational approach in practice tends to have

much broader consequences than accounted for in theory (Slavin, 2012), next to such direct and

“intended” triggers, in both types of schools, indirect and “unintended” triggers will be apparent.

In the present study, we incorporated effects of both as we related typical manifestations of need

supportive teaching to educational approaches as implemented in practice. For this aim, we

120

compared types of schools in the context of Dutch education, which is particularly suitable as

Dutch schools differ in the educational approaches that ground their practice.

In the next section, we continue by means of theoretical elaborations on SDT on need

supportive teaching (5.2.1). Then, we elaborate on traditional and social constructivist views on

learning and instruction, provide criteria for classifying schools working in accord with these

respective educational approaches (5.2.2), and discuss potential triggers of manifestations of

need supportive teaching apparent in these educational approaches (5.2.3). Finally, the present

investigation is discussed (5.2.4).

5.2 Theoretical background

5.2.1 Self-Determination Theory

SDT is a macro theory on human motivation that is built on two core assumptions. First, it is

assumed that people possess an active tendency towards psychological growth. As a consequence

of this tendency, people have innate strivings to exercise and elaborate their interests and to

seek challenges, thereby stretching their capacities and expressing their talents. Second, it is

assumed that people possess an active tendency towards integration, with the integration of that

what is experienced providing the basis for a coherent sense of self. As a consequence of this

latter tendency, people have innate strivings both to be causal agents (autonomous aspect) and

to integrate themselves with others, thereby internalising the knowledge, customs, and values

that surround them (homononous aspect). When people are able to act in accord with these

two natural tendencies, they will be motivated to learn and develop their skills by exercising

and elaborating their personal interests or by pursuing those goals they personally value. Such

motivation is regulated autonomously, and contrasts motivation that is regulated by control, i.e.

by feelings of pressure by others or obligation to perform the task at hand (Deci & Ryan, 1985;

Ryan & Connell, 1989). Autonomous motivation has been shown to provoke high quality learning

(e.g. Gottfried, 1985; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991).

Based on the two core assumptions of SDT described above, three fundamental human needs

can be distinguished, satisfaction of which fosters the volitional processes involved in high quality

learning. First, the need for autonomy stems from the inherent desire people have to be causal

agents and to experience volition. This need is closely associated with the autonomous aspect of

the tendency towards integration. Second, the need for competence is closely related to people’s

active tendency toward psychological growth, as it refers to the need to feel effective, while at the

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

121

same time exercising and expressing one’s capacities. Third, the need for relatedness concerns the

desire to form and maintain strong and stable interpersonal relationships, to connect with and be

accepted by others, and to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bowlby, 1979; Harlow, 1958; Ryan,

1995). The need for relatedness is associated with the homononous aspect of the tendency toward

integration that incorporates people’s tendency to internalise the knowledge, customs, and values

that surround them, particularly when encouraged to do so by related others.

A need supportive teaching style might imply beliefs about the nature of student motivation,

but it is not a prescribed set of techniques and strategies (Reeve, 2006). Consequentially,

a differential approach is required in studying teacher-student interactions that takes into

consideration the context in which teaching takes place (e.g. Malinowski, 1930). A potential

difficulty in the interpretation of teacher-student interactions is that they take place within the

context of a classroom, with a large number of students being present. In a classroom, which is

a public place where behaviour is witnessed by a group of people, and in which a lot of things

happen at the same time, competing for the attention of both the students and the teacher (Doyle,

1986), teacher-student interactions affect not only the student(s) involved in the interaction itself,

but also those who are not directly involved.

Despite these potential difficulties in interpreting teacher-student interactions, educational

literature generally agree upon three dimensions of need supportive teaching that complement

each other in their effects on students’ need satisfaction (Connell & Wellborn, 1991). The first

positive dimension of need supportive teaching is autonomy support, which opposes the first

negative dimension of autonomy thwart. Teaching is autonomy supportive when it provides

students with opportunities to express their own feelings, thoughts, and perspectives on the

tasks at hand; whether positive or negative. Further, teachers can provide autonomy support

by offering their students choices, or, when choice is constrained, by fostering relevance by

meaningfully connecting the learning activity to a goal that is of personal value to the student(s).

More recent literature distinguishes between cognitive and non-cognitive autonomy support. For

example, Stefanou et al. (2004) have argued in this regard that supporting students’ autonomy by

giving them choices on tasks, task material, or issues of organisation will foster their autonomy

concerning form, media, or presentation, but not so much the cognitive process of learning. For

this latter aim, ‘cognitive choices’ on content are required, i.e. setting problems for students that do

not have clear-cut solutions and asking for explanations (Kunter & Baumert, 2007) so that students

can choose their own way of approaching a problem and define their own solution paths. It is this

latter type of autonomy support that these authors argued for to support students’ independent

thinking, foster their autonomy, and trigger their intrinsic desire to learn.

122

The second positive dimension is provision of structure, which opposes the negative

dimension of provision of chaos. Teachers can provide structure by communicating clear and

consistent guidelines and by being available when students have questions. Further, provision of

structure entails the fostering of students’ views that success in the tasks learned in class depends

mostly on internal controllable factors rather than inborn talent, and the provision of constructive,

non-comparative feedback. Finally, an important component of structure is provision of guidance

through giving step-by-step directions, thereby adjusting to the student(s).

The third positive dimension is involvement, which opposes the dimension of disaffection or

rejection. Teachers can express their involvement by demonstrating their affection and interest, by

encouraging empathy and pro-social behaviour in the class, and by being available to all students

in class. Further, teacher involvement consists in showing commitment to students’ learning.

5.2.2 Traditional and social constructivist instruction

In the educational literature, distinct traditions have derived from different views on learning and

instruction. Traditional and social constructivist educational approaches represent such distinct

traditions that can be contrasted on many of their perspectives on learning and instruction.

5.2.2.1 Traditional and social constructivist views on learning and instruction

In traditional views on instruction, teachers are conceived as authorities who should take a large

responsibility for the various steps in students’ learning processes. The teachers are expected to

disseminate knowledge through lectures and verbal exchanges (Shuell, 1996), and structure the

course material itself, as well as the way in which it is provided (Gibbs, 1992; Boekaerts & Niemivirta,

2000; Bolhuis & Voeten, 2001). Students are expected to focus on the receipt of knowledge

(Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Prince, 2004), and practice assigned exercises individually or

in small groups. Ideally, they should be guided through a series of exercises systematically (Doyle,

1983), until they have reached the learning goals as set by the teacher. In order to avoid distraction

by irrelevant stimuli, tasks should largely be decontextualized (Greeno et al., 1996). Finally, the

function of assessment is considered to be in monitoring how much students have learned and

providing them with prompt feedback on the quality of their performance (Greeno et al., 1996).

After the cognitive revolution of the 1970’s, prominent views on learning and instruction

changed. These changed views have been incorporated in the social constructivist approaches

toward education that emerged in convergence with theorists such as Vygotsky (1962, 1978),

as well as the modern cognitive science perspective (see Shuell, 1996; Hickey, 1997). In these

social constructivist views, the teachers are expected to provide students with guidance (Shuell,

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

123

1996), while, at the same time, leaving them with a large responsibility for the cognitive and

metacognitive aspects of their own learning processes such as their choice of learning goals

(Gibbs, 1992). Ideally, a gradual transfer of learning functions from teachers to students is realized

(Shuell, 1996; Vermunt & Verloop, 1999; Boekaerts, 2002). Further, learning is considered to be

governed not only by cognitive, but also by situational and social factors. The former of these two

notions entails the importance of providing students with contextualised tasks in an authentic

context (Shuell, 1996); as individual differences exist in what defines authentic contexts, students

should be involved in choosing their own learning activities. The latter of these two notions stems

from the idea that knowledge is constructed within dialogue (Toulmin, 1972), and has resulted

in the social constructivist view that both dialogue among students and between students and

teachers should be stimulated (Shuell, 1996). Finally, in social constructivist views, the function

of assessment is in providing both the teacher and the student with information on the student’s

learning process, and, therefore, should primarily be formative instead of summative (Shepard,

2000; Adams, 2006).

5.2.2.2 Traditional and social constructivist schools

When we refer to ‘prototypically traditional’ or ‘prototypically social constructivist’ schools, we

mean schools that adhere strongly to the respective educational approach. Criteria for classifying

schools as ‘prototypically traditional’ are that (1) all lessons are taught in the same groups of

students, (2) these lessons mostly consists of the teacher explaining subject matter frontally and

students working on assignments that the teacher provides to the class as a whole, and (3) more

summative instead of formative evaluation methods are used.

For the purpose of selecting ‘prototypical social constructivist schools’, we used the criteria

formulated for the Dutch context by Oostdam et al. (2006) based on the wide array of literature

on social constructivist instruction. According to these criteria, social constructivist schools can

be distinguished from traditional schools as: (1) more attention is paid to higher-order skills of

self-regulation and metacognition, (2) students share responsibility for their own learning process

and the learning goals they choose, (3) more formative instead of summative evaluation methods

are used to evaluate students’ work, (4) learning takes place within an authentic context, and (5)

learning is considered to be a social activity.

5.2.3 Possible triggers entailed in traditional and social constructivist

views on instruction

In the introduction, we argued that manifestations of need supportive teaching are shaped by

124

the triggers entailed in schools’ educational approaches. Thus far, little is known on how need

supportive teaching is shaped by contextual triggers. An exception is the work of Reeve (2009),

who, mainly referring to experimental SDT-literature, provided an overview of what he labelled

“pressures from above” (Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque, & Legault, 2002) that trigger teachers to adopt

an autonomy thwarting motivational style. We continue by elaborating on two pressures that

seem of relevance to the present study.

The first “pressure from above” consists in teachers feeling they have to ensure that their

students perform up to a certain standard (based on Deci, Spiegel, Ryan, Koestner, & Kauffman,

1982), triggering them to adopt a controlling motivational style that includes using directives and

criticisms and providing little opportunities for student input. Although this pressure might be

valid for teachers in all types of schools, the effect of this pressure from above might be reinforced

by a traditional educational approach in which the teachers explicitly are expected to take a large

responsibility for the various steps in students’ learning processes.

The second pressure consists in the inherent power differences that define teacher-student

relationships. Again, we expect this pressure to be more apparent in a traditional than in a social

constructivist educational approach, as in traditional views teachers are authorities, whereas in

social constructivist views learning is a social process and dialogue between teachers and students

should be stimulated.

5.2.4 Present investigation

In the present study, we aimed to gain understanding of what need supportive teaching entails

in practice by relating manifestations of need supportive teaching to educational approaches

of schools. For this intend, we conducted a narrative analysis of videotaped teacher-student

interactions in two classes highly prototypical for their respective educational approach. In both

classes, we analysed lessons in math and in mother language, as these are considered key subjects

in the curriculum.

5.3 Method

5.3.1 Participants

5.3.1.1 Participating schools

The collection of video-material in the two cases that were the focus of the present study was

part of a larger data-collection that took place in the school year 2010-2011. In this larger

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

125

data-collection, a total of 20 grade-7 classes (age 12-13) and their teachers in math and mother

language (Dutch) participated. All of these classes were at the prevocational level of secondary

education (‘vmbo’), which is the lowest of the three mainstream tracks in the Dutch educational

system, and is attended by more than half of the students (Dutch Inspectorate of Education,

2012). The participating classes were divided over prototypical traditional and prototypical social

constructivist schools as well as schools that combined elements of both.

For the selection of these schools, we used the criteria for prototypical traditional and

prototypical social constructivist schools as described in the theoretical background. For the aim

of gathering information we coded information provided on websites of 141 schools and we

gathered information on daily practices in these schools collected for a study by Oostdam et al.

(2006) and provided by the Dutch Inspectorate of Education (for a more detailed report of school

selection, the interested reader is referred to Chapter 2). Schools were classified as prototypically

traditional when they met all of the criteria for prototypically traditional schools, none of those for

prototypically social constructivist schools, and had worked in accord with a traditional approach

for at least 4 years. Schools were classified as prototypically social constructivist when they met

all of the criteria for prototypically social constructivist schools, none of those for prototypically

traditional schools, and had worked in accord with a social constructivist approach for at least

4 years. Schools were classified as combined when they combined elements of both educational

approaches.

Head of departments of selected schools were contacted and asked to participate in the study;

they decided on their willingness to do so after consulting their teams only.

5.3.1.2 Case studies

We selected 2 classes as contrasting and critical cases for the present study: 1 drawn from the group

of prototypical traditional schools and 1 drawn from the group of prototypical social constructivist

schools. We categorised the schools from which we draw these 2 classes as representing strong

contrasts because they scored even more positive on the criteria for their respective types than

the other schools did. For example, in the selected traditional school lessons did not only mostly,

but almost completely consist in the teacher explaining subject matter frontally and students

working on assignments that the teacher provided to the class as a whole (criterion 2). We based

this categorisation on information gathered during the selection process as well as in lesson

observations and discussions with teachers and head of departments. Further, in conversations

with the heads of departments, we established both classes that were selected as cases, as well

as their teachers to be representative for their school. The 2 teachers in math and 2 teachers in

126

mother language (1 of each per class) that participated in the present study had worked in the

respective schools for at least 3 years.

The prototypical traditional class (class T) was located in a middle-class, urban area in the

Western part of the Netherlands and consisted of 24 students: 11 girls and 13 boys. The vast

majority of students were of Dutch origin. Both participating teachers in this class were aged

between 35 and 45; the math teacher was male, the teacher in mother language female. All lessons

in class T had a scheduled duration of 45 minutes, with students having six lessons a day on average.

Weekly, four lessons in math and four lessons in mother language were scheduled. All lessons

were taught in the same group of students and consisted of a frontal part and a part in which the

students simultaneously worked on assignments provided to the class as a whole. For math, one

of two prominent textbooks was used (“Moderne Wiskunde1” and not “Getal en Ruimte1”; a large

majority of schools in the Netherlands uses either of these two textbooks2 ). For mother language,

a textbook was used in combination with learning material designed by the teachers themselves.

The prototypical social constructivist class (class SC) was located in an upper-class, urban

area in the Western part of the Netherlands and consisted of 27 students: 16 girls and 11 boys.

The vast majority of students were of Dutch origin. The math teacher in this class was a male,

aged between 25 and 35, and the teacher in mother language was a female aged between 35 and

45. As in class T, all lessons in class SC had a scheduled duration of 45 minutes, with students

having six lessons a day on average. For math, the same textbook was used as in class T, and for

mother language, as in class T, a textbook was used combined with learning material designed by

the teachers themselves. Contrasting class T, in class SC different types of lessons were scheduled,

and students were provided with period-assignments for which they had several weeks to finish.

For both math and mother language, every week the teachers used one frontal lesson to explain

subject matter and new period-assignments, while the other three lessons students could use to

work on their period-assignments.

5.3.2 Procedure of data collection

Before the start of the study, consent letters had been sent to the parent(s)/guardian(s) of the

students, none of whom declined participation of their child. At the beginning of the school year,

the participating teachers received information packages that included global information on

1 Groningen, the Netherlands: Noordhoff Publishers

2 “Getal en Ruimte” (60%) and “Moderne Wiskunde ” (30%); Noordhoff publishers, personal communication, January 2, 2014

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

127

the purpose of the study, information on the data collection, and a signed document assuring

the anonymous processing of all video-material. Throughout the data-collection it was clear for

both students and teachers that the interest was in classroom communication as usual and it was

emphasised that the video-material would be accessible to involved researchers only.

At 4 times over the course of the school year, in each class 2 lessons in math and 2 lessons in

mother language were videotaped, yielding a total of 16 videotaped lessons per class. The videos

were shot by 4 cameramen in total (3 trained university students and the first author); 1 or 2 of

which were present at a time. Classrooms were equipped with 2 cameras: 1 ‘fixed’ camera, facing

the class, and 1 ‘action’ camera, operated by a cameraman at the back of the class and directed to the

teacher (during frontal instruction) or to on-going teacher-student interactions (when students

were working individually or in small groups). In order for all teacher-student interactions,

including those that were softly spoken, to be audible on the videotapes, the teachers were asked

to carry a small wireless microphone. The cameramen always tried to limit interference to an

absolute minimum, so the teacher and the class could proceed with their lesson as usual.

5.3.3 Analytical approach

To relate manifestations of need supportive teaching to educational approaches of schools we

carried out a fine-grained narrative analysis of videotaped teacher-student interactions in two

classes highly prototypical for their respective educational approach. To gain insight into how

educational approaches of schools triggered typical manifestations of need supportive teaching, we

relied on qualitative process analysis. This type of analysis is based on the idea that the existence

of causal relations can be established not only by repeatedly associating events, but that it would

also suffice to observe one case in which cause, effect, as well as causal relation are present (see

Maxwell, 2004; Flyvbjerg, 2006). In our analysis, we pursued gaining insight into causal processes

by closely observing and discussing the video-material as well as by relating it to theory on the

respective educational approaches.

In this research the prototypical traditional and the prototypical social constructivist class is

considered as representing not only contrasting but also critical cases (e.g. Flyvbjerg, 2006). A

critical case permits logic deduction of the type: “If this is (not) valid for this case, then it applies

to all (no) cases.” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 230). In our reasoning, if typical manifestations of need

supportive teaching would not be linked to educational approaches in classes highly prototypical

for these educational approaches, they would not be linked to educational approaches in other

classes either.

The analyses were limited to teacher-student interactions and communication among students

128

that did not involve the teacher was not taken into consideration. Further, the analyses were

focused, first and foremost, on comparing need supportive teaching between class T and class

SC, and not on differences between individual teachers or on development of need supportive

teaching over time. Whenever we found clear differences between teachers or over time, these

are, however, discussed. In the results section, the research question is answered by a discussion

of narratives originating from both classrooms. In our interpretation of these narratives, we used

a differential approach and followed the notion that a statement cannot be detached from the

situation in which it has been uttered (e.g. Malinowski, 1930).

5.3.4 Procedure of analysis

In preparation of the narrative analysis, the first author coded all video-material using a rating

sheet that assessed need supportive teaching (Appendix of this dissertation) and a rating sheet

that assessed lesson phases (based on Klette et al., 2005; for descriptions see below). These coding

provided us with a clustering of video-fragments useful for detecting patterns in manifestations of

need supportive teaching in both classes. In addition, the coding provided quantitative information

on levels of need supportive teaching in both classes that we used as background information.

To analyse the videotaped narratives, the first author initiated discussion-sessions both among

the authors and with university students, thereby following recommendations on data sessions by

Heath, Hindmarsh, and Luff (2010). These recommendations include taking time to scrutinise

selected video-fragments to try and work out what is happening instead of quickly moving over

to other examples.

Lesson phases. The rating sheet we used to assess lesson phases is based on the work of Klette et

al. (2005) and is presented in Table 1. The rating sheet distinguished between teacher-individual/

small group interactions and class instruction, as these two phases of lessons have very different

dynamics. Further, lessons were distinguished in phases of task management, content, and

process. Phases of task management consisted of the teachers providing instructions regarding

assignments, including homework, material resources, and grouping, as well as in ordering

procedures, including comments on misbehaviour. Phases of content consisted of instruction or

discussion on subject matter. In phases of process students’ learning processes were discussed.

Finally, phases were not included in the analysis when they consisted of other business, such as the

class getting prepared to start the lesson or messages regarding school trips. Consequently, these

phases were coded as ‘other’.

Need supportive teaching. The rating sheet we used to assess need supportive teaching was

used and validated previously in schools for secondary education (Chapter 4). Teacher-student

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

129

interactions were classified as either not being relevant in terms of need supportive teaching or

as providing students with one or more of the positive dimensions (autonomy support, structure,

and/or involvement) or negative dimensions (autonomy thwart, chaos, and/or disaffection or

reject) of need supportive teaching. If a teacher-student interaction could not be coded (e.g.

because it was inaudible), then a “no code” was used; in practice this did not occur. All our codes

were linked to the complete video fragments they related to, so we could adequately map both

frequency of occurrence and duration.

Table 1 Rating sheet Lesson phases3

Tables. The quantitative background information that was generated by our coding is

presented in Tables 2 and 3. In Table 2, duration and frequency are presented for the positive and

negative dimensions of need supportive teaching; split up for Class T and class SC and for class and

individual/small group instruction. In both tables, the results of the coding have been aggregated

over teachers (2 per class) as well as measurement occasions (4 per class).

Duration refers to the percentage of time spent on teacher-student interactions relevant in

terms of a specific dimension of need supportive teaching. For example, a (fictitious) duration of

‘10’ for ‘Class T’, ‘Class instruction’, ‘Autonomy support’, would mean that 10% of class instruction

in class T is spent on autonomy supportive interactions. Frequency refers to the number of

times per hour that teacher-student interactions take place that are relevant in terms of a specific

dimension of need supportive teaching. For example, a (fictitious) frequency of ‘10’ for ‘Class T’,

‘Class instruction’, ‘Involvement’, would mean that within class instruction in class T teachers

expressed their involvement in on average 10 interactions per hour. In Table 3, the relative

3 Transitions coded.

130

durations of the respective lesson phases are presented. Moreover, for autonomy support and

autonomy thwart, durations of autonomy support and autonomy thwart are further divided over

all the respective lesson phases. In the text we regularly refer to the levels of (dimensions of) need

supportive teaching being high, low, or apparent occasionally. High refers to more than 17%, low

refers to less than 7%, and occasionally refers to everything in between. We have set these cut-off

numbers based on insights acquired from watching the videos; we considered lessons high on a

dimension to differ meaningfully from lessons low on the same dimension when we used these

cut-off scores.

For the positive dimensions of autonomy support and structure and the negative dimensions

of autonomy thwart and chaos we considered durations of teacher-student interactions to most

properly indicate expressions of need support/thwart. For example, as longer provision of step-

by-step directions seemed indicative of higher levels of structure or as the more time teachers took

to provide autonomy support, the higher levels of autonomy support appeared. For the positive

dimension of involvement and the negative dimension of disaffection, however, we considered

frequency the most appropriate indication of its expression for two reasons. First, because, more

than was the case for other dimensions, utterances seemed to provide involvement or disaffection

rather independent of their duration. Second, because we found expressions of involvement and

disaffection often to be manifest in part of a teacher-student interactions only, so that a focus on

durations would somewhat mask the data.

In section 5.4, we start with a brief overview of the quantitative background information on

duration of lesson phases and levels of need supportive teaching as generated by our coding (5.4.1).

Then, we continue with our narrative analysis of manifestations of need supportive teaching

in both classes (5.4.2). Per class, these results have been organised into instruction directed to

the class respectively individual or small groups of students. The paragraph is concluded with

a discussion of manifestations of need supportive teaching that appeared typical in both classes.

5.4 Results

5.4.1 Quantitative background information for class T and class SC

5.4.1.1 Lesson phase durations

The results as presented in Table 3 revealed three striking differences in terms of lesson phase

durations between both classes. First, larger proportions of lessons were attributed to instruction

to the class as a whole in class T (60.3%) than in class SC (27.5%). Second, larger proportions

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

131

of interactions were attributed to content in class T (46.6% + 13.7%) than in class SC (15.1% +

21.9%). Third, whereas in both classes approximately half of individual/small-group instruction

was attributed to task management (13.5÷28.5% vs. 31.4÷64.0%), the other halves of these phases

were divided between content and process in class SC (21.9% & 10.7%) but attributed solely to

content in class T (13.7% & 1.8%).

5.4.1.2 Need supportive teaching

The results as presented in Table 2 revealed striking differences between both classes for durations

of autonomy support both in phases of class and individual/small group instruction (8.9% / 4.6%

in class T vs. 26.9% / 28.8% in class SC). Moreover, in phases of individual/small group instruction

striking differences between classes were found for durations of autonomy thwart (26.6% in class

T vs. 0.8% in class SC), durations of structure (16.6% in class T vs. 36.7% in class SC) and frequency

of disaffection (13.9 in class T vs. 1.3 in class SC). From Table 3 it can be seen that for class

instruction the differences in durations of autonomy support stemmed from differences both in

instruction on task management (0.9% in class T vs. 22.7% in class SC) and on content (11.2% in

class T vs. 30.6% in class SC). The differences between both classes in levels of autonomy support

and thwart in phases of individual/small group instruction appeared apparent both in instruction

on task management (3.8% / 10.8% in class T vs. 23.1% / 1.6% in class SC) and instruction on

content (1.9% / 41.0% in class T vs. 11.5% / 1.5% in class SC) as well.

The results as presented in Table 2 also revealed similarities in levels of need supportive

teaching between both classes. In phases of class instruction it was relatively uncommon for the

teachers to provide their students with autonomy thwart, chaos or disaffection, both in class T

(3.7% / 6.7% / 2.2) and in class SC (0.8% / 4.5% / 0.4). Moreover, the teachers did occasionally

provide their students with structure as well as involvement both in class T (10.4% / 11.1) and in

class SC (10.8% / 6.5). In phases of individual/small group instruction, it was uncommon for the

teachers to provide the students with chaos and they regularly expressed their involvement, both

in class T (3.3% / 11.0) and in class SC (1.7% / 10.9).

Not included in the tables is our coding per lesson phase. Analysis of this coding revealed

that in both classes the teachers were typically available to answer students’ questions, both on

guidelines and expectations and on content. Moreover, for both classes, we did not observe either

of the two teachers to come across as unfair in the sense of treating students inconsequent (an

element of disaffection or reject).

Below, we continue with the results of the narrative analysis of manifestations of need

supportive teaching. In this analysis, we mainly focused on differences between both classes;

132

although similarities are briefly discussed as well to provide a more complete depiction of typical

lessons. We found the positioning of these differences to show strong, but not perfect, overlap

with the differences in terms of the levels of need supportive teaching described above.

5.4.2 Narrative analysis of manifestations of need supportive teaching

in classes T and SC

For class instruction, the main differences between class T and class SC appeared to concern

manifestations of autonomy support and thwart; both in lesson phases on task management and

on content (see 5.4.2.1 & 5.4.2.3).

For individual/small group instruction, the main differences between classes appeared to

concern manifestations of autonomy support and thwart in both instruction on task management

and content, as well as structure in instruction on content. Moreover, an important difference

that related to manifestations of need supportive teaching appeared the time that was spent on

instruction on process (see 5.4.2.2 & 5.4.2.4).

Finally, similarities between both classes in manifestations of need supportive teaching existed

as well. In phases of class instruction, manifestations of structure and chaos appeared rather similar

in both classes, as did manifestations of involvement and disaffection. In phases of individual/

small group instruction, it was manifestations of encouragement and informational feedback as

components of structure, chaos, and involvement that appeared rather similar between classes

(see 5.4.2.5).

5.4.2.1 Class T, class instruction

In class T, the lessons consisted of instruction to the class as a whole varied with time for students to

work on assignments individually or in small groups. In line with traditional views on instruction,

the teachers directed the students’ learning processes and made all decisions that concerned the

design of the lessons as well as the tasks students worked on. This typically resulted in the teachers

beginning their lesson with an overview of their lesson plan, as in the extract4 below.

4 All extracts have been translated from Dutch to English (original Dutch versions are available upon request). Names of students and teachers have been made anonymous.

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

133

Ta

ble

2

Leve

ls (d

urat

ion

and

freq

uenc

y) o

f nee

d su

ppor

t and

nee

d th

war

t in

class

T an

d cla

ss S

C

Clas

s TCl

ass S

C

Clas

sIn

divi

dual

/sm

all g

roup

Clas

sIn

divi

dual

/sm

all g

roup

Dur

.1Fr

eq.2

Dur

.1Fr

eq.2

Dur

.1Fr

eq.2

Dur

.1Fr

eq.2

Aut

onom

y su

ppor

t8.

917

.84.

65.

126

.929

.428

.815

.9

Aut

onom

y th

war

t3.

77.

526

.619

.40.

80.

42.

01.

7

Stru

ctur

e10

.415

.516

.613

.910

.810

.836

.717

.8

Chao

s6.

710

.53.

34.

64.

53.

51.

71.

5

Invo

lvem

ent

4.1

11.1

7.7

11.0

8.1

6.5

20.0

10.9

Disa

ffect

ion

or re

ject

ion

1.1

2.2

10.5

13.9

1.4

0.4

2.2

1.3

1 Re

lativ

e dur

atio

n ex

pres

sed

as p

erce

ntag

es o

f tot

al p

hase

s.

2 Rel

ativ

e fre

quen

cy ex

pres

sed

as n

umbe

r of t

imes

per

hou

r.

Ta

ble

3

Rela

tive d

urat

ion

less

on p

hase

s (‘ta

sk m

anag

emen

t’, ‘c

onte

nt’, a

nd ‘p

roce

ss’)

and

divi

sion

of le

vels

(dur

atio

n) o

f aut

onom

y su

ppor

t and

auto

nom

y th

war

t ove

r the

se le

sson

pha

ses i

n cla

ss T

and

class

SC

Clas

s TCl

ass S

C

Clas

sIn

divi

dual

/sm

all g

roup

Clas

sIn

divi

dual

/sm

all g

roup

Dur

atio

n160

.328

.527

.564

.0

Tas

kCo

nt.

Proc

.T

ask

Cont

.Pr

oc.

Tas

kCo

nt.

Proc

.T

ask

Cont

.Pr

oc.

Dur

atio

n113

.546

.60.

213

.013

.71.

812

.315

.10.

131

.421

.910

.7

Aut

onom

y su

ppor

t20.

911

.20.

03.

81.

930

.622

.730

.60.

023

.111

.578

.6A

uton

omy

thw

art2

2.7

3.8

38.4

10.8

41.0

27.2

1.8

0.0

0.0

1.6

1.5

4.4

1 R

elat

ive d

urat

ion

expr

esse

d as

per

cent

ages

of t

otal

less

ons.

Per c

lass

, per

cent

ages

do

not c

ompl

etel

y ad

d up

to 1

00 as

the p

hase

‘oth

er’ w

as n

ot in

clude

d in

the a

naly

ses.

2 R

elat

ive d

urat

ion

expr

esse

d as

per

cent

ages

of t

otal

pha

ses.

N

ote:

‘Tas

k’ re

fers

to ta

sk m

anag

emen

t, ‘C

ont.’

refe

rs to

cont

ent,

‘Pro

c.’ re

fers

to p

roce

ss.

134

In the extract above, the teacher refrained from bringing up her plans for discussion. Although

she did indicate she wanted “to propose” a plan, she asked for input only when she wanted to make

sure that everybody had understood what they were supposed to do (“Is it clear for everybody what

we are going to do?”). By not asking her students for other input, she did not seem open to adapt

her lesson plan to incorporate students’ choices or preferences; something that was affirmed by

remarks as “Melissa, yes we want that”. Because the students did not initiate discussions on the

value of learning activities or call into question lesson plans, in teacher-student interactions on

task management the teachers tended neither to support nor thwart students’ autonomy. Indeed,

the lack of discussion on task management appeared related to this class’ traditional educational

approach as the traditional view that teachers are expected to structure the course material and

the way it is provided would have been somewhat at odds with asking students for an elaborate

input on lesson plans.

Class instruction on content consisted in the teachers explaining new content while engaging

in a dialogue with their students. The teachers actively encouraged the students to participate in

these dialogues; either voluntarily or by turn-taking. Such teacher-class dialogues can yield good

opportunities for teachers to provide cognitive autonomy support, in the sense of creating space

for students to choose their own ways of approaching a problem and to define their own solution

paths. At the same time, in such dialogues teachers can potentially thwart their students’ cognitive

autonomy by pressuring them and providing solution paths before they have had the time to

reflect by themselves. Interestingly, we found the teacher-class dialogues in class T to vary a lot

in this regard. First, a typical example is given of what we considered a teacher-class dialogue

high in cognitive autonomy supporIn the extract above, the teacher encouraged the students to

come up with different solutions by asking questions as: “Everybody agrees with Adam? -2?” or

“Sure?”. Wrong answers were never ignored or corrected. The teacher did not actively encourage

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

135

the students to elaborate on their strategies or different ways of thinking. He did, however, allow

them time to reflect on their own and their classmates’ solutions, thereby handing over part of the

responsibility for their learning processes to the students. The students responded by elaborating

on their thoughts, e.g. making remarks as “No wait, nothing goes minus here”.

us

Interestingly, the students responded enthusiastically to their teacher’s encouragements to engage

in discussions. Despite their having little input in defining lesson plans or choosing the tasks they

were working on, in these teacher-class dialogues they did seem to experience autonomy support

indeed. From the SDT-literature, it is known that students will only experience autonomy when

they perceive the choices they are given as meaningful. An obvious prerequisite for cognitive

autonomy support in teacher-class dialogues to be perceived as meaningful by students is that the

136

topic of discussion fits within the students’ current ability levels; in other words, the questions

posed should not be too easy nor too difficult. In class T, as a result of its traditional educational

approach, the students had been working on the same assignments simultaneously. Accordingly, it

was relatively easy for the teachers to find topics of discussion that fitted all students.

As we mentioned above, in class T the teacher-class dialogues on content varied a lot. Below,

a typical example is provided of such a dialogue that stands in contrast to the one presented above.

Here, we considered the teacher to thwart the student’s cognitive autonomy as he did not allow

him time to reflect by himself. Instead, remarks as “this has been told yesterday” indicated that the

teacher had very clear ideas on how the student should approach the problem and pressured him

to follow a pre-defined solution path. This interpretation was confirmed further by the teacher’s

lack of response when the student proposed a wrong answer (“A full angle minus a straight angle”).

5.4.2.2 Class T, individual/small group instruction

When students were working on assignments individually or in small groups the teachers tended

to check on all of them to affirm they knew how to continue with their work, e.g. with remarks as:

“You can check your work?” or “Is everything clear?”. Such regular checking on students is in line

with the traditional notion that teachers have a large responsibility for the various steps in their

students’ learning processes. Because the time students had available for working individually or in

small groups was limited (28.5% of 45-minute lessons, mostly divided over two phases, yielding a

little over 6 minutes per phase), teacher-student interactions had to be short. Indeed, the teachers’

nonverbal and verbal behaviour regularly were indicative for the feeling of being somewhat in a

hurry. This was clear, for example, from their often slowly walking back even before an interaction

has come to an end already, thereby expressing their willingness to move on.

As in class instruction, lesson plans or value of assignments was not discussed. Accordingly,

next to the teachers checking on clarity of assignments, interactions on task management mostly

were of disciplinary nature. At times, in these interactions the teachers thwarted their students’

autonomy by being directive and inducing conditional regard. Below an extract of such an

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

137

autonomy thwarting interaction is provided.

Teacher-student interactions on content typically consisted in the teachers providing brief

answers to their students’ questions. By always being available to answer questions when students

needed help or support the teachers provided structure. However, the limited time they had

available per interaction restrained their opportunities for discussion. Consequently, the teachers

did not engage in providing structure by means of individual guidance, i.e. providing step-by-

step directions thereby adjusting to the student(s). Further, the teachers typically did not support

students’ (cognitive) autonomy in these interactions, as they did not take time to encourage

them to discuss their own thoughts or solution paths. Below, a typical example is provided of an

interaction on content.

From the extract above, it can be seen how the teacher does not provide individual guidance, as

he does not adjust to the student’s prior understanding. Although he begins with asking her to tell

him the answer she had in mind, when the answer she gives is not correct he does not follow-up

on her response. Instead, he gives a very brief explanation only and does not check whether the

student has understood. Further, he thwarts her cognitive autonomy by giving the correct answer

before giving her any time for reflection, what is indicated, amongst others, by his not waiting for

a reply the second time he posed the question “How much is that one?”.

Finally, in contrast to class SC, we found that the teachers regularly (13.9 times per hour)

expressed their disaffection, typically via remarks such as: “Will you please act normally”.

138

5.4.2.3 Class SC, class instruction

Different from class T, in class SC lessons either consisted in class instruction or in instruction

to individual or small groups of students. Class instruction was used for explaining the period

assignments students were handed and for providing brief introductions on relevant content. The

teachers had designed global plans for these lessons, but students were encouraged to contribute

additional ideas that could be incorporated.

When new period assignments were introduced, the teachers encouraged the students to

express their thoughts on these assignments. In the extract below, a typical example is provided of

a typical interaction on this topic.

Introducing a period assignment on poetry

In the extract above, it can be seen how a student is encouraged to express her thoughts. The

teacher listened carefully and acknowledged her student’s perspective, amongst other by ending

the interaction with “OK”, spoken in very friendly tone. By accepting the students’ opinions as

valid, even when these were negative, the teacher supported her autonomy. The student appeared

to respond by expressing her thoughts honestly. Interestingly, the teacher does not try to convince

the student of the assignment’s value. Later on in the lesson, however, when other students are

asked to express their thoughts, they do provide arguments of why the assignment is of (added)

value.

Whereas in class T substantial proportions of class instruction were contributed to teacher-

initiated teacher-class dialogues on content, in class SC such dialogues were much rarer. Firstly,

because in class SC much smaller proportions of class instruction were spent on content (15.1%)

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

139

than in class T (46.6%). Further, in line with social constructivist notions that students’ share

responsibility for their own learning processes and that learning is a social process, students were

encouraged to contribute topics for discussion themselves. Below, a typical example is provided of

such a student-initiated discussion.

Intriguingly, discussions on content in class SC tended to have a very different nature than did

the teacher-class discussions on content in class T. As can be seen from the extract above, it was

mainly the student initiating the discussion and the teacher who were talking. The only other

student joining expressed her disinterest, by uttering “Ooh…”. In conclusion, it seemed that

neither were the students enthusiastic to participate, nor did the teacher encourage them do to

so. Accordingly, for the teachers in class SC it was very untypical to provide their students with

cognitive autonomy support in teacher-class dialogues.

However, in the extract above the teacher did support the cognitive autonomy of the one

student who initiated the discussion. Not only did the teacher listen carefully to the students’

thoughts and ideas, remarks as “and you are right” also indicated his willingness to take the

student’s perspective. Further, the teacher fostered relevance of the method he has just explained

140

by connecting the goal of using this method to effectively solving mathematical problems. By

starting from the complaint uttered by the student “this is a very long way” and by concluding with

asking the student whether he agreed, the teacher clearly aimed at convincing instead of coercing

the student to agree, what is crucial to fostering relevance in an autonomy supportive manner.

5.4.2.4 Class SC, individual/small group instruction

In the lessons consisting in instruction to individual or small groups of students, the teachers

intended to check on all of the students at least once a week. Further, they were available when

students had questions. Because lesson time was longer and because they did not intend to check

on their students as frequently, the teachers in class SC had more time available per interaction

than did the teachers in class T.

Different from class T and similar to class instruction, the teachers regularly supported their

students’ autonomy by fostering relevance both of the tasks at hand and content. In the extract

below, an example is provided of such an autonomy supportive teacher-student interaction.

During arithmetic class

In the extract above, the teacher fostered relevance by providing a meaningful rationale

(“arithmetic is a skill”) and linking this to the student’s personal interest of hockey. By

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

141

involving the student in his argument he seems to be able to convince her that practicing

arithmetic is useful indeed, as indicated, for example, by her remark “You will become tardy”.

In interactions on content, the teachers regularly fostered their students’ relevance as well; for

example through the remarks such as “There are two ways. This is more the economist’s way.

I don’t find that very handy for then you don’t see so well what you have to do and when”.

In interactions on content, the teachers typically provided structure by means of individual

guidance, i.e. giving step-by-step directions thereby adjusting to the student(s). Further, by

allowing students to follow their own solution paths they tended to support their students’

cognitive autonomy.

In the extract below, an example of a teacher-student interaction on content is given.

do you do

In the extract above, the teacher continuously monitored the student’s comprehension by asking

her questions, e.g. “What is 100 percent?”. Further, by fashioning his step-by-step directions along

142

the questions he posed, he could adjust to her prior understanding. Next to providing structure in

this sense, the teacher supported the student’s cognitive autonomy. By asking questions he actively

encouraged her to engage in the interaction, thereby providing her with opportunities to express

her thoughts and ideas. When she did, implicitly, propose an alternative solution path to approach

the problem by saying: “Divided by 100 and then times 20. Yes, I get it”, the teacher’s remarked

“Yes, you can do that too”, thereby supporting her to work in her own way.

A trigger for teachers to thwart students’ autonomy has been argued to consist in the inherent

power differences apparent in teacher-student relationships (Reeve, 2009). In class SC, power

differences appeared relatively small as was indicated, for example, by more informal remarks

both by the teachers and the students, such as: “What are you occupying yourself with, except

wearing a very cool t-shirt?” or interactions such as the extract below.

The fact that in class SC it was very rare for the teachers to thwart students’ autonomy in

interactions of disciplinary nature, unlike in class T, possibly resulted from relatively small power

differences.

Next to teacher-student interactions on task management and content, in class SC interactions

on students’ learning processes were common as well. As in class T this type of interactions did not

occur, in the extract below an example of such an interaction is provided.

Interaction in reference to a student’s headache during a test.

In the extract above, the teacher was found to support the student’s autonomy by providing her with

space to express her feelings and thoughts on her own learning process. Initially, we interpreted

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

143

the question “Could it also be caused by stress?” as the teacher imposing his own interpretation

on the student. On second thought, we recognised that by voicing this interpretation that the

teacher provided the student with the opportunity to discuss possible stress she experienced

without having to be afraid to come across as complaining. Further, in this interaction we found

the teacher to provide structure and involvement, by helping her directly as well as showing

commitment to her learning process.

5.4.2.5 Similarities in manifestations of need supportive teaching

To provide a more complete depiction of what typical lessons, and more specifically, manifestations

of need supportive teaching, looked like in both classes we continue by means of a brief discussion

of manifestations of need supportive teaching that appeared typical in both classes.

In both classes, the teachers regularly provided their students with structure in the sense of

encouragement and by giving informational feedback, for example, by brief remarks such as “Yeah,

that one is difficult. David, can you help Nathan?” or “Bien, bien. Well checked.”, or in longer

comments during class instruction, as for example: “I am very glad someone made a little mistake,

for what I find important is that if you write this down, this I have to do, and then, by accident,

you make a typo or a small error in your calculations and you write down a wrong answer, than I

don’t mind so much”. In both classes chaos appeared rare (see Table 2), but did occur at times, as

the teachers gave evaluative feedback or discouraged their students, for example in remarks such

as: “You don’t make pretty sentences, Daniel“.

Moreover, in both classes the teachers regularly expressed their involvement via brief remarks

such as “Sorry to interrupt you, Tim” or “Did you already finish that completely? Super”.

5.5 Discussion

5.5.1 Overview of findings

In the present study, we aimed to gain in-depth understanding of what need supportive teaching

entails in practice. For this purpose, we related manifestations of need supportive teaching

to educational approaches of schools. Our narrative analysis of videotaped teacher-student

interaction revealed striking differences as well as similarities between a prototypical traditional

and a prototypical social constructivist class.

First, we found differences in manifestations of cognitive autonomy support. Cognitive

autonomy support consists in providing students with problems that do not have clear-cut

144

solutions, thereby giving them leeway in choosing their own approach and defining their own

solution paths. In recent SDT-literature, the importance of cognitive autonomy support has

been stressed for triggering students’ intrinsic desire to learn (e.g. Stefanou et al., 2004; Kunter

& Baumert, 2007; Tsai, Kunter, Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Ryan, 2008). In the traditional class, we

found the teachers to occasionally initiate autonomy supportive teacher-class dialogues, to which

the students responded by actively engaging in discussions on the problem posed. In the social

constructivist class such teacher-class dialogues did not occur. The teachers in this class did,

however, regularly support their students’ cognitive autonomy during individual or small group

instruction, something that was uncommon for the teachers in the traditional class.

This first difference between classes related to their respective educational approaches. In the

social constructivist class opportunities to engage in autonomy supportive teacher-class dialogues

seemed restricted by the differences in current knowledge levels between students that had resulted

from the social constructivist notion that students share responsibility for their own learning

process and the learning goals they choose. In addition, opportunities were hampered, as, in line

with social constructivist views, during class instruction the teachers tended to encourage the

students to initiate discussions on content instead of initiating these themselves. Typically, these

student-initiated discussions did not trigger active participation by classmates. In the traditional

class, on the other hand, teachers’ opportunities to support students’ cognitive autonomy in

individual/small group instruction were restricted. Resulting from the traditional notion that

teachers have a large responsibility for the various steps in students’ learning processes, they

had little time available per interaction. Accordingly, they lacked time to engage in the dialogues

necessary for providing cognitive autonomy support.

Second, an important manifestation of autonomy supportive teaching when choice is

constraint consists in acknowledging students’ thoughts and feelings and fostering relevance.

Teachers can foster relevance of a learning task by providing a rationale that is meaningful to the

student(s). In the social constructivist class, the teachers regularly encouraged their students to

express their opinions on the tasks at hand; both during class and during individual/small group

instruction. When students expressed negative opinions, either the teacher or the class tended

to respond by fostering relevance, thereby seemingly aiming to convince instead of coerce the

student to agree (what is crucial to fostering relevance in an autonomy supportive manner). In

the traditional class, discussions on the value of tasks did not occur; neither the teachers nor the

students initiated such discussions. Indeed, this appeared in line with the traditional notion that

teachers are expected to structure the course material as well as the way it is provided; something

the students seemed to accept.

A n

arra

tive a

naly

sis o

f nee

d su

ppor

tCh

apte

r 05

145

Third, an essential element of structure is providing individual guidance by giving step-by-

step directions, thereby adjusting to the student’s prior understanding. In the social constructivist

class such individual guidance was very common, while in the traditional class it did not occur.

Because giving individual guidance takes time, the first prerequisite is that teachers have time to

do so. As mentioned above, for the teachers in the traditional class this prerequisite was not met

which is the result of the traditional notion that teachers have a large responsibility in the various

steps of students’ learning processes and thus they had very limited time available per interaction.

Fourth, whereas in the traditional class we regularly found the teachers expressing their

disaffection, in the social constructivist class this was very uncommon. Further, the interactions

on students’ learning processes that were common in the social constructivist class but not in

the traditional class yielded specific manifestations of need supportive teaching; e.g. providing

structure by guiding students in directing their learning processes. Finally, in the traditional class

the teachers occasionally thwarted their students’ autonomy in interactions of disciplinary nature,

while in the social constructivist class this did not occur. Following Reeve (2009), we argued this

finding might have resulted from the relatively small power differences in the social constructivist

class.

Fifth, following Reeve (2009), we argued that a traditional educational approach can

strengthen teachers’ feelings that they have to ensure their students’ progress and, thereby, trigger

an autonomy thwarting motivational style. Indeed, the results of our quantitative background

analysis were indicative of relatively high levels of autonomy thwart in the traditional class; based

on the narrative analysis we could, however, not draw conclusions on causal processes underlying

this finding.

Finally, similarities between both classes consisted in the teachers regularly providing students

with structure in the sense of encouragement and by giving informational feedback, whereas

chaos appeared rare. Moreover, in both classes the teachers regularly expressed their involvement.

5.5.2 Limitations and recommendations for future research

A first limitation relates to the difficulties that are inherent in interpreting teacher-student

interactions in classrooms, namely that not everything that is going-on in these complex contexts

can be reckoned with. Because the main focus of this study was on communication that did take

place and not on communication that did not take place, we might have missed manifestations of

need thwart that resulted of a lack of attentiveness. In this regard, for example, the fact that the

teachers in the social constructivist class did not check on their students as regularly as the teachers

in the traditional class did, could have had negative implications that we did not anticipate. Despite

146

this limitation, for the aim of translating educational theory to practice and securing ecological

validity research conducted in the complex contexts of classrooms is crucial.

Second, because prior research on daily teaching practices in different types of schools is

scarce, we had deliberately chosen a research design that limited interference by the researchers to

an absolute minimum. This choice implied a limitation as it required, amongst others, to conduct

interviews. For future research, it would be of interest to complement observational research with

data from interviews and video-stimulated recall to provide information on the students’ (and

teachers’) own experiences and to deepen understanding of classrooms as contexts.

Finally, for the future we recommend more studies that are focused on mapping what triggers

teachers to adopt (elements of) need supporting or need thwarting motivational styles. Fortunately,

in recent years SDT-researchers have begun shifting their attention to this topic and, amongst

others, studies have been conducted on triggers in populations of students (Hornstra, Mansfield,

Van der Veen, Peetsma, & Volman, 2013) and educational policies (Ryan & Niemiec, 2009). More

research remains necessary, however, to further the applicability of SDT into educational practice.

5.5.3 Implications for educational theory and practice

The present study was innovative as it focused on gaining in-depth understanding of what need

supportive teaching entails in practice. The findings contribute to translating SDT to educational

practice in two ways. First, by helping to translate the theoretical construct of need supportive

teaching into practice. Having comprehension of the daily teaching practices that need supportive

teaching and need thwarting teaching entail is of value for designing SDT-interventions. In

addition, discussion on the basis of narratives can move forward the theoretical debate on what

makes teaching need supportive (e.g. Stefanou et al., 2004; Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002).

Second, the findings of this study further comprehension of how SDT-interventions

can be implemented in practice. The results showed how educational approaches of schools

triggered specific manifestations of teachers’ need support and need thwart, and shaped teachers’

opportunities for need supportive teaching. For implementing SDT-interventions, this implies

that long-lasting effects would be expected of interventions directed at individual teachers

only when these are tailored to fit educational approaches of schools (in line with Boekaerts &

Minnaert, 1999 or Rozendaal, Minnaert, & Boekaerts, 2005). Further, these findings suggest that

in some situations first identifying such boundaries will result in deciding on interventions that

are school-wide or focused on educational policy instead of on individual teachers.

This chapter is based on:

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2014, submitted). What motivates early adolescents for school? A longitudinal analysis of associations between observed teaching and motivation.

What motivates early adolescents for school? A longitudinal analysis of associations between observed need supportive teaching and various

motivational constructs6

150

Abstract

For many early adolescent students, motivation for school declines after their transition toward

secondary education. Increasingly, the decisive importance of teachers in shaping early adolescents’

motivation is stressed; thus far, however, both longitudinal and observational studies on this topic

have remained scarce. The present study aimed to investigate how early adolescents’ interactions

with their math teachers affected the development of their motivation for math. Following Self-

Determination Theory, videotaped teacher-student interactions were coded in terms of their

being supportive or thwarting of the three fundamental human needs for autonomy, competence,

and relatedness; i.e. in terms of their providing autonomy support, structure, and involvement. To

assess need supportive teaching, at four measurement occasions equally spread over the first year

of secondary education video-analysis was conducted of, in total, 137 complete math lessons in

20 math classes (40% female teachers). To assess developments in motivation at each of the same

four measurement occasions questionnaires were distributed to the 489 students (aged 12-13;

49.9% girls) of the 20 math classes. Multilevel analysis did not indicate associations of autonomy

supportive teaching with any of the four motivational constructs that were incorporated in the

study (autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, amotivation, and performance avoidance).

For structure, associations in expected directions were found with autonomous motivation

(positive) and amotivation (negative), but not with the other two motivational constructs. For

teacher involvement, associations in the expected direction were found with all four motivational

constructs. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for research and educational

practice.

Keywords

early adolescence teacher-student interactions

motivation self-determination theory

Nee

d su

ppor

t and

mot

ivat

ion

Chap

ter

06

151

6.1 Introduction

Motivation is an important prerequisite for learning that has been shown predictive of, amongst

others, school achievement (e.g. Richmond, 1990; Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009; Wigfield &

Cambria, 2010), transfer of learning (Laine & Gegenfurtner, 2013), and persistence in learning

over time (e.g. Richmond, 1990). For many early adolescent students, however, motivation for

school declines after their transition towards secondary education (e.g. Anderman & Maehr, 1994;

Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001; Peetsma, Hascher, Van der Veen, & Roede, 2005; Wigfield,

Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006; Van der Werf, Opdenakker, & Kuyper, 2008), making this a particular

urgent period for studying motivation and how it can be fostered. This decline is worrisome,

especially, because it is in their early adolescence that children develop their identity at a rapid

pace and shape their cognitive and emotional responses to school (Wigfield, Eccles, & Rodriguez,

1998). As more and more it is emphasised that social and situational factors can be of decisive

importance in shaping students’ motivation (Pintrich, 2004; Perry, Meyer, & Turner, 2006), in

the present study we focused on the question how early adolescents’ motivation for math can

be fostered in their math classrooms. Because in these classrooms the teachers have a central

position, specifically, we aimed to relate characteristics of teacher-student interactions to various

motivational constructs.

An encompassing theoretical framework for linking teacher-student interactions with

students’ motivation is Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

According to SDT three fundamental human needs exist –i.e. needs for autonomy, competence,

and relatedness– support or thwart for which affects students’ motivation. A wide array of

research is already available indicating positive associations between the degree to which early

adolescents perceive their teachers as need supportive and their motivation (see Chapter 3 for

a review). Among prior SDT-research, two features render the present study unique. First, we

focused on observed instead of student perceived need supportive teaching to enhance ecological

validity and help bridge the gap between educational theory and practice. Second, we measured

the development over the course of a school year of both need supportive teaching and student

motivation to further understanding of how teacher-student interactions affect the development

over time of various motivational constructs. We choose to focus on math classrooms as math is a

key-subject in the curriculum and as, in the Netherlands, lessons can be compared relatively well

as differences in terms of subject-content between schools are small.

Below, we continue by a discussion of need supportive teaching as defined from the perspective

of Self-Determination Theory (6.2.1), we discuss various motivational constructs and their

152

relationship with students’ learning (6.2.2), and we provide an overview of empirical evidence on

effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation (6.2.3).

6.2 Theoretical background

6.2.1 Need supportive teaching

‘What motivates early adolescent students for school?’ A first interpretation of this question

relates to social and situational factors that shape motivation. Next to, amongst others, early

adolescents’ home environments and peer groups, research shows that it matters what happens

in students’ classrooms (Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2011; Opdenakker, Maulana, & Den Brok, 2012;

Chapter 2). A prominent theoretical framework in current educational research is SDT. As we

mentioned in the introduction, in these classrooms teachers can foster their students’ motivation

by supporting their students’ fundamental needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The

need for autonomy finds its origin in people’s desire to be causal agents and to experience volition.

For students to experience autonomy in their learning, it is crucial that they consider their actions

as personally valuable and interesting. The need for competence refers to the innate striving

people have to exercise and elaborate their interests and to seek challenges, while at the same time

feeling effective in doing so (White, 1959). Finally, the need for relatedness concerns the desire to

form and maintain strong and stable interpersonal relationships, to connect with and be accepted

by others, and to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bowlby, 1979; Harlow, 1958; Ryan, 1995).

The need for relatedness can be satisfied within interpersonal relationships or through feelings of

belongingness to social groups.

A need supportive teaching style might imply beliefs about the nature of student motivation,

but it is not a prescribed set of techniques and strategies (Reeve, 2006). In the SDT-literature,

three dimensions of practices of need supportive teaching have been described that complement

each other in their effect on students’ general level of need satisfaction (Connell & Wellborn,

1991). When interpreting teacher-student interactions in terms of these dimensions, this should

be done in context, as a statement cannot be detached from the situation in which it has been

uttered (e.g. Malinowski, 1930). The first dimension of need supportive teaching is autonomy

support what includes adopting students’ perspectives and providing explanatory rationales

when choice is constraint, versus autonomy thwart what incorporates the assertion of power to

overcome students’ complaints or display of impatience for students to produce the right answer.

The second dimension is provision of structure, including communication of clear and consistent

Nee

d su

ppor

t and

mot

ivat

ion

Chap

ter

06

153

guidelines and expectations and providing of step-by-step directions and constructive feedback

versus chaos, including providing contradictory expectations, not being available when students

have questions, and discouraging them. The third dimension is involvement versus disaffection

or rejection, referring to the distinction between showing as opposed to not showing interest in

the individual students, understanding of what is of importance for them, and availability to offer

support.

6.2.2 Motivational constructs and their associations with students’

learning

A second interpretation of the question ‘what motivates early adolescent students for school’ relates

to the factors that give impetus to action or lack thereof. SDT discerns between motivation that

is autonomous, i.e. regulated by personal interest or valuing of the task at hand and motivation

that is controlled, i.e. regulated by feelings of pressure by others or obligation to perform a task.

In addition, SDT distinguishes amotivation, i.e. the state of lacking intention to act. According to

SDT, need supportive teaching would be expected to have positive effects on students’ autonomous

motivation and negative effects on their controlled motivation and amotivation.

The decline in early adolescents’ motivation has been shown to be induced by declines in

(elements of) autonomous motivation particularly (Gottfried et al., 2001; Otis, Grouzet, & Pelletier,

2005; Corpus, McClintic-Gilbert, & Hayenga, 2009; Opdenakker et al., 2012). Autonomous

motivation is considered pivotal to students’ learning as it has been linked with, amongst

others, creativity (Amabile, 1996), adaptive coping strategies (Boggiano, 1998; Ryan & Connell,

1989), deep conceptual learning strategies (Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988) and academic

achievement (Gottfried, 1985; Boggiano, 1998; Spinath, Spinath, Harlaar, & Plomin, 2006).

Controlled motivation, in contrast, has been associated with negative outcomes such as negative

emotions (Dowson & McInerney, 2001; Harter, 1992; Ryan & Connell, 1989), maladaptive coping

strategies (Boggiano, 1998; Ryan & Connell, 1989), and poor academic achievement (Lepper,

Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005) although positive associations with self-regulation (Miller, Greene,

Montalvo, Ravindran, & Nichols, 1996) and adjustment to secondary education (Otis et al., 2005)

were found as well.

Another motivational construct that has consistently been shown a good predictor of students’

engagement in learning in general and learning math in particular is performance avoidance.

Need supportive teaching would be expected to have a negative effect on performance avoidance

as it refers to students’ avoidance of situations where others will notice their shortcomings.

Performance avoidance is closely associated with test anxiety (Elliot & McGregor, 1999) and has

154

predominantly been found negatively related to students’ achievement (e.g. Elliot & Murayama,

2008) and transfer of training (see Laine & Gegenfurtner, 2013 for a meta-analysis).

Below, we continue by providing an overview of prior research on effects of need supportive

teaching as defined in SDT and early adolescents’ motivation, thereby paying special attention to

the motivational constructs described above.

6.2.3 Need supportive teaching and early adolescents’ motivation: An

overview of prior research

A large body of research is available that links student-perceived need supportive teaching and

early adolescents’ motivation in correlational studies. These studies showed positive associations

of need supportive teaching (Katz, Kaplan, & Gueta, 2010) and of autonomy supportive teaching

(Chirkov & Ryan, 2001; Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997; Hardré & Reeve, 2003; Shih, 2008; 2009;

Tucker et al., 2002) with students’ autonomous motivation. In addition, in one study a negative

association with controlled motivation was found (Chirkov & Ryan, 2001), while in another

study, contrary to expectations, a positive association was found (Shih, 2008). For (measures

closely related to) teacher involvement positive associations were found with autonomous

motivation (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994; Maulana, Opdenakker, den Brok, & Bosker, 2011), and

no associations with controlled motivation (Maulana et al., 2011). Finally, in one study autonomy

support, structure, and involvement each appeared uniquely associated with students’ autonomous

motivation (Tucker et al., 2002).

Thus far, most SDT-studies among early adolescents have relied on student perceptions

(Chapter 3). Increasingly, however, the importance of conducting observational research in

classrooms is emphasised to enhance ecological validity of findings and to help bridge the gap

between educational theory and practice (Perry et al., 2006; Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, &

Turner, 2004). The few studies that did use observational measures typically related observed

autonomy support and student engagement, finding positive associations (Stefanou et al., 2004;

Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010). Further, a teacher training on autonomy support was found to generate

positive effects on observed autonomy support and levels of the latter appeared predictive of

changes in engagement between the pre-measure and the post-measures that took place 4 weeks

and 9 weeks after the intervention (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004). In addition, while

in one study associations between observed structure and observed engagement but not student

perceived engagement were found (Jang et al., 2010), in another study the development of

observed need supportive teaching over time was shown negatively related to the development of

controlled motivation but not autonomous motivation (Maulana, Opdenakker, Stroet, & Bosker,

Nee

d su

ppor

t and

mot

ivat

ion

Chap

ter

06

155

2013).

Next to studies relying on observational measures of need supportive teaching, longitudinal

SDT-studies among early adolescents have remained scarce (see Chapter 3). Such research is

crucial, however, for furthering understanding of how the development of students’ motivation

is associated with their teachers being need supportive. Next to the studies by Reeve et al. (2004)

on observed autonomy support and Maulana et al. (2013) on observed involvement described

above, we could trace three longitudinal studies using student perceptions. These studies showed

need supportive teaching in fall associated with changes in engagement between fall and spring

(Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008), while no associations were found of structure

in fall with changes in motivation between fall and spring (Pintrich, Roeser, & de Groot, 1994).

Finally, (a measure closely related to) involvement in winter was found positively associated with

changes in student motivation between fall and spring (Lapointe, Legault, & Batiste, 2005).

In conclusion, together these studies do further our understanding of associations among early

adolescents of need supportive teaching with various motivational constructs. At the same time,

they point towards gaps in the available empirical evidence supporting SDT. Next to longitudinal

studies and research relying on observations instead of student perceptions being scarce, they

point toward a lack of studies linking the dimension of structure with autonomous motivation and

of studies focusing on amotivation or performance avoidance in general.

6.2.4 Present investigation

The present study concerned the relationship between math teachers’ levels of need supportive

teaching and the development over time of their students’ motivation for math (in four waves).

We focused on students in their first year after the transition toward secondary education. For

measuring need supportive teaching, we used an observational measure that distinguished

between the three dimensions of autonomy support versus thwart, structure versus chaos, and

involvement versus disaffection. We choose to focus on math because this is considered a key-

subject in the curriculum and because, in the Netherlands, for math differences in terms of subject-

content between schools are small as a large majority of schools use one of two popular textbooks

(“Getal en Ruimte1” (60%) and “Moderne Wiskunde1” (30%); Noordhoff publishers, personal

communication, January 2, 2014).

Following recommendations by Snijders and Bosker (2012), we included as predictors both

the math teachers’ average levels of need supportive teaching over measurement occasions and

their deviations of these levels per measurement occasion. For both, we hypothesised positive

1 Groningen, the Netherlands: Noordhoff Publishers

156

associations of each of the three dimensions of need supportive teaching with developments of

autonomous motivation for math and negative associations with developments of controlled

motivation, amotivation, and performance avoidance for math.

6.3 Method

6.3.1 Participants

The data collection consisted of four waves, with at each wave 489 students participating. These

489 students (49.9 % girls) were divided over 20 classes, with class-sizes ranging from 17 to 31

students, in 10 schools, with 2 classes per school. In total 16 teachers in math (6 of which female,

teaching in 40% of the classes) were involved; the reason for this total being less than 20 is that

in some cases a teacher taught in two of the participating classes. The 20 classes all were grade

7, which in the Netherlands is the first year after the transition toward secondary education.

Students attending this grade are aged 12-13. Further, all classes were at the prevocational level

of Dutch secondary education (‘vmbo’) and worked in accord with a variety of diverse educational

approaches. All classes used one of the two textbooks that are prominent in Dutch education (see

‘Present Investigation’). In the Dutch educational system, the prevocational level is the lowest

track of the three mainstream tracks, and is attended by more than half of the students (Dutch

Inspectorate of Education, 2012). Heads of school departments decided upon participation in the

study in consultation with their teams. Prior to the start of the study parent(s)/guardian(s) of the

students had received information letters informing them that, at any time, they could decide

not to grant permission for taheir child (to continue) participating in the study. The parent(s)/

guardian(s) of 1 student decided not to grant permission for the questionnaire-part of the study.

6.3.2 Measures

Need supportive teaching. The first wave of the data collection took place around 11 weeks after

the start of the school year 2010-2011, while the other 3 waves were evenly spread over the rest of

the school year. At each measurement occasion, in each of the 20 classes, at least 1 and whenever

considered desirable (e.g. when we were not sure the first lesson we videotaped was a typical

lesson) 2 lesson(s) in math were (was) videotaped. As in the end in 57 of 80 cases we videotaped

2 instead of 1 lesson this yielded a total of 137 (80 + 57) videotaped lessons. The videos were

shot by four cameramen: Three trained university students and the first author. Classrooms

were equipped with 2 cameras: 1 ‘fixed’ camera that faced the class, and 1 ‘action’ camera that

Nee

d su

ppor

t and

mot

ivat

ion

Chap

ter

06

157

was operated by a cameraman at the back of the class. The ‘action’ camera was directed at the

teacher, or, when the teacher was talking to an individual or small group of students, at the on-

going teacher-student(s) interaction. Teachers were equipped with a small wireless microphone,

so that all teacher-student interactions would be audible on the videotapes; including softly

spoken interactions with individual or small groups of students. The cameramen tried to limit

interference to an absolute minimum, so the teacher and the class could proceed with their lesson

as usual. It was made clear to both the teachers and the students that the interest of the study was

in normal classroom communication, and it was emphasised that all material would be processed

anonymously.

The videotaped lessons were coded using an existing rating sheet assessing need supportive

teaching from the perspective of SDT. This rating sheet was used and validated previously in

schools for prevocational education (Chapter 4) and is presented in the Appendix of this

dissertation. In the development of this rating sheet existing rating sheets were considered (i.e.

Reeve et al., 2004 (autonomy support); Wiebenga, 2008 (need supportive teaching); Maulana

et al., 2012 (involvement)), and an extensive review was conducted of available SDT-literature

on practices of need support and thwart within teacher-student interactions (e.g. Ryan, 1982;

Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1992; Deci & Ryan, 1994; Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1996;

Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Alfi, Katz, & Assor, 2004; Stefanou et al, 2004; Katz & Assor, 2006;

Reeve, 2006; Tsai, Kunter, Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Ryan, 2008; Jang et al., 2010; Vansteenkiste,

Niemiec, & Soenens , 2010).

Teacher-student interactions were classified as either not being relevant in terms of need

supportive teaching or as providing students with one or more of its dimensions (autonomy

support versus autonomy thwart, structure versus chaos, and/or involvement versus disaffection

or reject). If a teacher-student interaction could not be coded (e.g. because it was inaudible), then

a “no code” was used; in practice this did not occur. Teacher-student interactions were interpreted

in context and from what we considered the perspective of the student(s). All our codes were

linked to the complete video fragments they related to, so we could adequately map both frequency

of occurrence and duration. For the dimensions of autonomy support versus autonomy thwart

and structure versus chaos we considered durations of teacher-student interactions to most

properly indicate its expressions. For example, as longer provision of step-by-step directions

seemed indicative of higher levels of structure or as the more time teachers took to provide

respect by listening carefully to students, the higher levels of autonomy support appeared. For the

dimension of involvement versus disaffection, however, for two reasons we considered frequency

the most appropriate indication of its expression. First, because more than is the case for the other

158

two dimensions, utterances seemed to provide involvement or disaffection rather independent

of their duration. Second, because we found expressions of involvement and disaffection often

to be manifest in part of a teacher-student interactions only, so that a focus on durations would

somewhat mask the data. All coding was conducted by the first author. To determine reliability of

final coding, we used four videos to calculate Cohen’s kappa yielding values between .78 and .85

what indicates good to very good agreement.

Student motivation. Next to the collection of video-material, questionnaires were administered

at each wave to measure students’ motivation for math, thereby focusing on four motivational

constructs, i.e. autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, amotivation, and performance

avoidance. These questionnaires were administered during regular lessons by the students’

mentors. On each measurement occasion, the mentors received a letter containing standardized

instructions to guide the students through the questionnaires. The mentors were instructed not to

check the students’ answers and to make clear that all of the data would be processed anonymously.

All items had five response categories, ranging from completely disagree (1) to completely agree

(5), and were in Dutch, students’ school language.

Autonomous motivation for math was assessed using an adapted and shortened version of

the intrinsic and identified motivation subscales of the Ryan and Connell (1989) self-regulation

questionnaire. The subscales were made course-specific and consisted of 8 items: E.g.: “I work

on math because I enjoy it”, “I work on math because I want to learn new things”. In the current

study, the scales had Cronbach’s alphas ranging for the five measurement occasions from .88 to

.92, indicating high internal consistencies.

Controlled motivation for math was assessed using an adapted and shortened version of the

introjected and extrinsic motivation subscales of the Ryan and Connell (1989) self-regulation

questionnaire. The subscales were made course-specific and consisted of 8 items. E.g.: “I work on

math because I want others to think I am smart”, “I work on math because I have to”. Cronbach’s

alphas ranged from .77 to .83 indicating high internal consistencies.

Amotivation for math was assessed using an adapted and shortened version of the amotivation

subscale of the Vallerand, Blais, Brière, and Pelletier (1989) academic motivation scale. The

subscale was made course-specific and consisted of 3 items. E.g.: “I don’t know why I work on

math. Sometimes I feel I am wasting my time”. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .80 to .86 for the

four measurement occasions, indicating high internal consistencies.

Performance avoidance refers to situations where students are afraid that others will notice

their shortcomings and was assessed using the 6-item subscale ‘Self-Defeating Ego-Orientation’ of

the ‘Goal Orientation Questionnaire’ of Seegers, van Putten, and de Brabander (2002). E.g.: “I feel

Nee

d su

ppor

t and

mot

ivat

ion

Chap

ter

06

159

embarrassed when I have to ask for help during math lessons”. The Cronbach’s alphas ranged from

.86 to .95, indicating high internal consistencies.

6.3.3 Analytical approach

The coded teacher-student interactions were used to calculate the percentages of lesson-time

teachers spent on providing autonomy support, autonomy thwart, structure, and/or chaos, and

the frequencies per hour teachers expressed their involvement or disaffection. For determining

the net levels of autonomy support and structure per class, per measurement occasion durations

of autonomy thwart respectively chaos were subtracted from durations of autonomy support

respectively structure. For determining the net levels of involvement, per class, per measurement

occasion frequencies for disaffection were subtracted from frequencies for involvement.

For the purpose of answering our research questions, we used Hierarchical Linear Modelling

(HLM), thereby following a multilevel approach to take into account the longitudinal and

hierarchical structure in the data. Students with missing data on one or more measurement

occasions were included in the analyses. In HLM, missing data are unproblematic, provided that

all students have measures on at least one occasion and that data are missing at random. The

former of these two conditions was met; for the purpose of checking whether the latter condition

was met as well we performed an additional analysis (see ‘missing data analysis’). Occasionally,

students had missed items, assumedly at random. The scores to these items were always imputed

with the mean of the scale.

First, series of unconditional models were used to estimate the proportion of variance within

students, among students, and between classes (Table 2).

Second, comparison models were estimated that included the effects of ‘time’ and ‘gender’

(boys functioned as reference group) on motivational constructs (not presented). In these models,

the linear effect of ‘time’ was always included as fixed effect; random slopes of ‘time’ for classes

and polynomials to the second degree were added in turn when this significantly increased the fit 2 tests with 2

degrees of freedom for the random slope of ‘time’ (variance random slope and covariance random

intercept and random slope), and 1 degree of freedom for the fixed effect of ‘(time)2’.

Third, in turn each of the three dimensions of need supportive teaching was added to the

model (Models 1, 2, and 3 of Table 3). In these models as predictors were included both the

teachers’ average levels of need supportive teaching over the four measurement occasions and the

deviations of these average levels per measurement occasions. The significance of the increase of 2

160

motivation would mean that an increase of 1 in the net average level of autonomy support is

associated with an increase of 1-point on the 5-point scale of autonomous motivation.

6.4 Results

6.4.1 Missing data analysis

The vast majority of missing data in the measures of student motivation in the present study

consisted in 8 of the 20 classes missing one measurement occasion for pragmatic reasons (e.g.

miscommunication between mentors). These missed occasions could not be caught up due to

the longitudinal nature of the study and the tightly scheduled measurement occasions. The first

measurement occasion was missed by 2 classes, the third by 4 classes, and the fourth by 2 classes;

classes never missed more than 1 measurement occasion.

In addition, missing data consisted of some students within classes missing one or more

measurement occasion(s). In 12 of the 20 classes more than 15% of the students had not filled

in the questionnaire at one or more of the measurement occasions. As we considered this type

of missing data a potential threat to the assumption of missingness at random in HLM, for each

measurement occasion we verified that the students with missing data had not scored differently

from the other students on a premeasure of motivation for math administered at the beginning of

the school year. Data on this premeasure were nearly complete. Whenever we found significant

differences, we checked if these remained when comparing students within schools only. These

comparisons typically did not reveal differences between students with and without missing data;

except for 1 school for the fifth measurement occasion. Although this finding yields a violation

of the assumption of missingness at random, the impact will be small as the assumption appeared

violated for the fifth measurement occasion and for one school only

6.4.2 Associations of need supportive teaching with the development of students’

motivation over time

The results as presented in Table 1 and in Figure 1 showed somewhat declining trends for all four

motivational constructs. For the three dimensions of need supportive teaching, for autonomy

support and involvement declining trends are visible while for structure the general trend appears

rising.

Nee

d su

ppor

t and

mot

ivat

ion

Chap

ter

06

161

Table 1 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Subsample without missing data (n) for the dimensions of need supportive teaching and motivational constructs for all four measurement occasions

t1 t2 t3 t4

M (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD) n

Need supportive teaching

Autonomy support .07 (1.1) 20 -.16 (1.3) 20 -.33 (.92) 20 -.54 (1.1) 20

Structure .81 (1.0) 20 .86 (1.2) 20 .89 (1.2) 20 .97 (1.1) 20Involvement .32 (.77) 20 .12 (1.1) 20 -.01 (.63) 20 -.19 (.73) 20

Motivational constructs

Autonomous motivation 3.44 (.90) 308 3.27 (.91) 406 3.09 (.85) 328 3.18 (.78) 365

Controlled motivation 2.42 (.81) 305 2.36 (.74) 406 2.49 (.76) 328 2.53 (.77) 365Amotivation 1.99 (.98) 306 2.13 (.99) 406 2.37 (.97) 328 2.33 (.98) 365

Performance avoidance 1.83 (.86) 302 1.83 (.84) 390 1.92 (.88) 327 2.02 (.93) 358

Table 2 Distribution of the total variance over the class, student, and occasion level

Variable Autonomy

support

Structure Involvement Autonomous

motivation

Controlled

motivation

Amotivation Performance

avoidance

Class 57.6% 65.1% 50.5% 9.3% 4.8% 10.6% 14.3%Student 48.8% 47.4% 42.5% 43.1%Occasion 42.4% 34.9% 49.5% 41.8% 47.8% 46.9% 42.6%

The results as presented in Table 2 showed that for autonomy support, structure, and involvement

(well) over half of the variance was attributable to class level, while for all three dimensions

substantial proportions of variance appeared attributable to the occasion level as well. Further,

although for all four motivational constructs most variance was attributable to student and occasion

level, meaningful differences between classes were apparent as well. For autonomous motivation,

amotivation, and, in particular, performance avoidance substantial parts of the variance were

attributable to the class level. For controlled motivation a smaller but still meaningful part of the

variance was attributable to the class level.

The results as presented in Table 3 showed that for autonomous motivation, amotivation,

and performance avoidance a linear effect with a random slope at the class level was sufficient for

modelling the effect of ‘time’, whereas for controlled motivation adding a polynomial to the second

degree significantly increased the fit of the model. No effects were found of gender on autonomous

motivation. For controlled motivation, amotivation, and performance avoidance negative effects

of gender were found, indicating lower scores on these three motivational constructs for girls t

162

Ta

ble

3

Resu

lts fr

om th

e HLM

anal

yses

pre

dict

ing

the d

evel

opm

ent o

ver t

ime o

f fou

r mot

ivat

iona

l out

com

es b

y au

tono

my

supp

ort,

stru

ctur

e, an

d

in

volv

emen

t

Var

iabl

eA

uton

omou

s mot

ivat

ion

Cont

rolle

d m

otiv

atio

nM

odel

1M

odel

2M

odel

3M

odel

1M

odel

2M

odel

3SE

SESE

SESE

bSE

Inte

rcep

t3.

60.1

23.

38.1

23.

56.1

12.

61.1

22.

68.1

32.

64.1

2T

ime

-.12*

.03

-.11*

.03

-.12*

.0

3-.1

5^.0

9-.1

5.0

9-.1

5^.0

9(T

ime)

2.0

4*.0

2.0

4*.0

2G

ende

r-.1

2.0

7-.1

2.0

7-.1

2.0

7-.1

6*.0

6-.1

6.0

7-.1

6*.0

6A

uton

omy

supp

ort (

aver

age)

.09

.08

-.04

.05

Aut

onom

y su

ppor

t (de

viat

ion)

-.03

.02

.01

.02

Stru

ctur

e (av

erag

e).2

1*.0

6-.0

7.0

5St

ruct

ure (

devi

atio

n)-.0

3.0

2-.0

0.0

2In

volv

emen

t (av

erag

e).2

5*.1

0-.1

8*.0

6In

volv

emen

t (de

viat

ion)

-.03

.03

-.02

.03

Clas

s lev

el

Var

. int

erce

pt.1

8.0

8.1

8.0

8.1

5.0

7.0

7.0

4.0

7.0

4.0

6.0

3V

ar. s

lope

Tim

e.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0V

ar. S

lope

(Tim

e)2

Cov.

Inte

rcep

t x sl

ope T

ime

-.04

.02

-.04

.02

-.03

.02

-.02

.01

-.02

.01

.-02

.01

Cov.

Inte

rcep

t x sl

ope (

Tim

e)2

Cov.

Tim

e x (T

ime)

2

Indi

vidu

al le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt.3

8.0

3.3

8.0

3.3

8.0

3.2

7.0

3.2

7.0

3.2

7.0

3O

ccas

ion

leve

l

Var

. int

erce

pt.2

9.0

1.2

9.0

1.2

9.0

1.2

7.0

1.2

6.0

1.2

6.0

1D

ecre

ase d

evia

nce

212

*6^

12

8*

N

ote:

* p

<.05

. ^p<

.10

(Due

to ro

undi

ng o

f b an

d SE

exac

t p-v

alue

s can

not b

e ded

uced

from

the T

able

).

Nee

d su

ppor

t and

mot

ivat

ion

Chap

ter

06

163

Ta

ble

3

cont

inue

d

Var

iabl

eA

mot

ivat

ion

Perf

orm

ance

avoi

danc

e

Mod

el 1

Mod

el 2

Mod

el 3

Mod

el 1

Mod

el 2

Mod

el 3

SESE

SESE

SESE

Inte

rcep

t1.

97.1

12.

17.1

32.

02.1

01.

88.1

01.

89.1

21.

88.0

9T

ime

.14*

.03

.13*

.03

.14*

.03

.04

.03

.05

.03

.04

.03

(Tim

e)2

Gen

der

-.29*

.07

-.29*

.07

-.28*

.07

-.19*

.06

-.19*

.06

-.19*

.06

Aut

onom

y su

ppor

t (av

erag

e)-.1

3.0

9.0

1.0

9A

uton

omy

supp

ort (

devi

atio

n).0

2.0

3-.0

2.0

3St

ruct

ure (

aver

age)

-.19*

.08

-.03

.08

Stru

ctur

e (de

viat

ion)

.03

.03

-.01

.03

Invo

lvem

ent (

aver

age)

-.39*

.10

-.21^

.11

Invo

lvem

ent (

devi

atio

n).0

1.0

4-.0

3.0

3

Clas

s lev

el

Var

. int

erce

pt.1

4.0

7.1

5.0

7.0

8.0

5.1

1.0

5.1

1.0

5.0

8.0

4V

ar. s

lope

Tim

e.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1V

ar. S

lope

(Tim

e)2

Cov.

Inte

rcep

t x sl

ope T

ime

-.02

.02

-.03

.02

-.02

.01

-.02

.02

-.02

.01

-.02

.01

Cov.

Inte

rcep

t x sl

ope (

Tim

e)2

Cov.

Tim

e x (T

ime)

2

Indi

vidu

al le

vel

Var

. int

erce

pt.4

1.0

4.4

1.0

4.4

1.0

4.3

3.0

3.3

3.0

3.3

3.0

3O

ccas

ion

leve

l

Var

. int

erce

pt.4

3.0

2.4

3.0

2.4

3.0

2.3

1.0

1.3

1.0

1.3

1.0

1D

ecre

ase d

evia

nce

26^

12*

10

4

Not

e: *

p<.

05. ^

p<.1

0 (D

ue to

roun

ding

of b

and

SE ex

act p

-val

ues c

anno

t be d

educ

ed fr

om th

e Tab

le).

164

Figure 1

than for boys.

Further, the results as presented in Table 3 showed to what degree the development of

students’ motivation over time appeared associated with levels of need supportive teaching. For

autonomous motivation, associations were found neither with average levels of autonomy support

nor with deviations of these levels. Positive associations were found with average levels of

structure (

with average levels of involvement (

For controlled motivation, associations were found neither with average levels of autonomy

support or structure nor with deviations of these levels. Further, negative associations were found

10,00

5,00

0,00

-5,00

-10,00

time

Autonomy supportStructureInvolvement

1 2 3 4

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

time

Autonomous motivationControlled motivationAmotivationPerformance avoidance

1 2 3 4

Nee

d su

ppor

t and

mot

ivat

ion

Chap

ter

06

165

with average levels of involvement (

For amotivation, associations were found neither with average levels of autonomy support nor

with deviations of these levels. Negative associations were found with average levels of structure

(

average levels of involvement (

For performance avoidance, associations were found neither with average levels of autonomy

support or structure nor with deviations of these levels. Finally, negative associations were found

with average levels of involvement (

these levels.

6.5 Discussion

In the present study, we investigated how the development over time of early adolescents’

motivation for math was associated with their math teacher being need supportive. Following

Self-Determination Theory (SDT), we defined need supportive teaching in terms of support for

the fundamental human needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The results of this

study notably advance research on motivational classroom practices as two features rendered

it unique. The first is that whereas most research on effects on student motivation of teaching

practices has relied on students’ perceptions of these practices (Perry et al., 2006), we used an

observational measure. Although research on student perceptions is important for investigating

the premises underlying educational theory, ultimately, to enhance ecological validity and for

translating theory to practice observational research is necessary that is conducted in classrooms.

The second discerning feature of this study was its longitudinal nature, incorporating both

measures on the development over the course of the school year of need supportive teaching and

of student motivation. Whereas the decline in early adolescents’ motivation is well-documented,

research has scarcely been focused on identifying factors that affect the development of early

adolescents’ motivation over time.

For the various motivational constructs we incorporated the results revealed distinct patterns.

We found positive associations of teachers’ provision of structure and of teacher involvement, but

not of autonomy support, with the development over time of students’ autonomous motivation.

Further, the results showed negative associations of teacher involvement and not of the other

two dimensions of need supportive teaching with the development of controlled motivation

(the first of three motivational constructs having a negative connotation). We found negative

166

associations of provision of structure and teacher involvement, but not of autonomy support with

the development of amotivation. Finally, we found negative associations of teacher involvement

(approaching significance) and not of the other two dimensions with the development of

performance avoidance. In the analyses, for each dimension of need supportive teaching we

included two conceptualisations. First, teachers’ average levels of need support over the school

year (1 measure per teacher) were included. Second, for each of four measurement points teachers’

deviations of their individual average levels (4 measures per teacher) were included. In the results

described above, all reported positive and negative associations concerned the teachers’ average

levels of need supportive teaching; we did not find any associations of deviations of these levels

with students’ motivation.

The results have implications both for educational research and practice. First, they advance

support for SDT among early adolescents by partly corroborating prior research relying on student

perceptions. Because teaching practices can only affect students via their psychological responses

to these practices (Deci, 1975), an often conveyed argument to refrain from using observations is

that this would not yield the same strength of effects as relying on student perceptions would. The

results of this study show, however, that observed need supportive teaching can be associated with

early adolescents’ motivation directly. Thereby, our findings substantiate the idea that SDT can

be applied to define and observe characteristics of need supportive teaching, what is an essential

prerequisite for SDT-interventions to be effective.

Second, although our findings do corroborate prior evidence in support of SDT, they do

so neither for all dimensions of need supportive teaching nor for all motivational constructs. A

striking finding in this regard is that for none of the motivational constructs we found associations

with autonomy support. This is surprising, particularly, as others have found observed autonomy

support associated with (observed) engagement. Different from our study, these studies used

observational measures of engagement (Reeve et al., 2004; Stefanou et al., 2004; Jang et al.,

2010) and/or brief questionnaires that concerned engagement in the observed lessons and were

administered immediately after these lessons (Jang et al., 2010). A possible interpretation of

these differences in findings would be that although autonomy supportive teaching does have an

immediate effect on students’ engagement in the task(s) at hand, this effect is short-term only and

does not result in changes in their levels of motivation. Future research is necessary to sort this

out. In addition, more research would be recommended on further defining autonomy supportive

teaching practices and linking these to early adolescents’ motivation.

For teachers’ provision of structure, we found associations with development over time of

some motivational constructs (autonomous motivation and amotivation), but not with others.

Nee

d su

ppor

t and

mot

ivat

ion

Chap

ter

06

167

Although prior SDT-research has typically not related provision of structure to any of these

four motivational constructs and the only observational study that was conducted showed mixed

results (Jang et al., 2010), our findings do indicate that provision of structure can indeed motivate

students for math. Future research is necessary to sort out differences between motivational

constructs.

Teacher involvement appeared the dimension of need supportive teaching most strongly

associated with the development over time of all four motivational constructs. Interestingly,

even for performance avoidance associations with teacher involvement appeared stronger than

associations with structure; despite this construct being closely related to students’ feelings

of competence, which is the need most closely associated with the dimension of structure. It

could be speculated that for early adolescents not to feel the urge to avoid situations where their

shortcomings will be noticed, it is of particular importance to feel accepted in their classrooms by

teachers who are involved; for example by demonstrating affection, encouraging empathy, and

being responsive to emotional distress. In conclusion, these findings indicate the importance of

teacher trainings directed at enhancing their involvement with their students.

Third, our findings extend prior SDT-research by showing how need supportive teaching is

associated with the development of early adolescents’ motivation over time. An unexpected and

intriguing finding that is consistent over the four motivational constructs is that associations were

apparent of the teachers’ average levels of need supportive teaching but not of their deviations of

these levels with student motivation. In other words, students appeared more motivated when

they were taught by a teacher who—on average, over the course of the school year—showed higher

levels of need support. However, students’ motivation as measured at a specific time-point was not

associated with their teachers at that time-point being more or less need supportive than usual.

Among plausible explanations is that although need supportive teaching does have a positive

impact on students’ motivation, this impact is not immediate. A possible cause for such a delay

of effects could be that teachers changing their practices to become more need supportive has a

negative side-effect resulting of change, whether positive or negative, causing unpredictability.

Another possible explanation would be that positive effects of need supportive teaching depend

on students being prepared to act upon the opportunities their teachers provide them with. For

example, it could be that for provision of structure in the sense of a teacher providing step-by-step

directions to have a positive effect on students’ motivation students need to prepare their questions

accordingly. It could even be that some students who expect a straightforward answer and,

instead, appear expected to share their own thoughts on the solution respond by disappointment

or anxiousness instead of enhanced motivation. Both these explanations relate to the notion that

168

students’ role beliefs are hard to change because students do not have a clear conceptualization of

their own needs and aspirations regarding their own learning (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000).

Future research is necessary to further investigate the circumstances in which teachers becoming

more need supportive does or does not foster students’ motivation. For this aim, amongst others,

longitudinal intervention research would be recommended to distinguish between immediate

and long-term effects (such as Reeve et al., 2004 for autonomy support; Minnaert, Boekaerts, de

Brabander, 2007 in vocational education). In line with the plausible explanations we suggested

above, it could be crucial for teachers to properly introduce any changes in their practices (see

also Sturm & Bogner, 2008). Further, long-term implementation of SDT-interventions could be

beneficial; e.g. by making these school-based.

In addition, for future research it would be recommended to determine generalizability of

findings beyond this study’s target group of students just starting secondary education. A target-

group specific plausible explanation for findings would, for example, be that whereas at first

establishing good teacher-student relationships is critical, it is later on only that having autonomy

support starts to gain weight. This interpretation would be in line with Minnaert, Boekaerts, de

Brabander, & Opdenakker (2011) who showed relatedness to best predict students’ situational

interest at the start of a six month project, while later on in the project the importance of autonomy

increased.

Several limitations of the present study can be thought of. The first of these relates to our

use of an observational measure of need supportive teaching. Because in SDT need supportive

teaching is not considered to exist in a prescribed set of techniques and strategies (Reeve, 2006)

but should always be interpreted in context, the rating sheet we used had to entail a high degree of

interpretation by the coders. Although we tried to counter this limitation by performing several

steps to assure a degree of objectivity (e.g. elaborate discussions of video-fragments), the subjectivity

of our coding sheets remains a limitation that is inherent to studying need supportive teaching in

classrooms. For the future, it would be of interest to conduct more research into the question what

need supportive teaching entails in the daily practice of early adolescents’ classrooms, amongst

others by conducting more research on links between observed need supportive teaching, early

adolescent students’ perceptions of teaching practices, and their motivation.

A second potential limitation is that the teachers and students who participated in our

study might have changed their behaviour because of the video cameras that were present in

their classrooms. Although we did emphasize the fact that all video-material would be processed

anonymously, it might still have been the case that both teachers and students behaved differently

than they would have normally. From our regular conversations with the teachers we did,

however, not get this impression as they regularly indicated to have forgotten about the cameras

and told us that the students acted the same as they did when no cameras were present, at least

after the first parts of the first lessons that we videotaped.

Despite these limitations, our findings advance SDT-research and provide insights of value for

answering the question ‘what motivates early adolescent students for school’? As our findings have

a high level of ecological validity, some of these findings can be translated to educational practice

directly. Particularly, our results indicate that teacher involvement and provision of structure have

the potential to lessen the decline in early adolescents’ motivation for school.

General discussion7

172

7.1 Introduction

For many early adolescent students, motivation for school declines after the transition towards

secondary education. This dissertation aimed to identify how these motivational developments are

affected by teaching practices. Next to the longitudinal nature of this research, a unique asset for

the domain is that studies were conducted “in” classrooms; that is, the focus was on (consequences

of) what is actually going on in current educational practice instead of on, for example, how

students perceive what is going on. In the five interrelated studies (four empirical research studies

and one review study), multiple methods were employed to examine teaching practices at distinct

levels and from distinct theoretical frameworks.

At the highest level, comparisons were made between three types of schools that can be

contrasted on their educational approach: Prototypically traditional schools, prototypically

social constructivist schools, and schools that substantially combine elements of both. A focus

on social constructivist and combined schools fits this dissertation’s aim of studying motivation

in classrooms because schools have typically implemented (elements of) of a social constructivist

educational approach with the aim to enhance student motivation. Traditional schools represent

contrasts because in educational theory social constructivist views contrast traditional views. In

traditional views, teachers should take large degrees of responsibility for students’ learning and put

relatively much emphasis on their students reproducing knowledge, while in social constructivist

views teachers should assist their students in organising and regulating their own learning

processes and put emphasis on their students actively constructing and accumulating knowledge.

At the lower levels of the class and the student, (effects of) teacher-student interactions were

examined. For this purpose Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci,

2000) was applied. According to SDT, to foster active, self-regulated, and motivated learning

teachers should stimulate their students to (come to) personally value school-related goals and to

pursue their own school-related interests. Teachers can do this by supporting instead of thwarting

their students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Teaching is need supportive

when it provides the positive dimensions of autonomy support, structure, and involvement and

not the negative dimensions of autonomy thwart, chaos, and disaffection or reject (based on

Connell & Wellborn, 1991).

In the empirical research studies incorporating students’ motivation as outcome measure,

a distinction was made between motivation with a positive impetus to action, e.g. a task being

inherently satisfying or personally valuable and motivation with a negative impetus e.g. avoidance

of punishment or shaming. Whereas motivation with a positive impetus is pivotal to students’

Gen

eral

dis

cuss

ion

Chap

ter

07

173

active, self-regulated learning (e.g. Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Boggiano, 1998; Ryan &

Connell, 1989), motivation with a negative impetus tends to relate to students’ learning negatively

(e.g. Ryan & Connell, 1989; Dowson & McInerney, 2001; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005).

Further, as motivation is known to contain strong domain-specific components (Bong, 2004) we

decided to focus on course-specific motivation. Specifically, we focused on motivation for math

and mother language as these are considered key subjects in the curriculum.

In the remainder of this final chapter, first a summary of main findings is presented (7.2). Then,

theoretical and practical implications (7.3) are discussed. Finally, limitations and recommendations

for future research (7.4) are elaborated on.

7.2 Summary of main findings

The summary of findings presented below is clustered along two themes. First, findings are

summarised on developmental trends in early adolescents’ motivation and in teachers’ observed

need support. Second, effects of teaching practices are examined as teacher-student interactions

and types of schools are interlinked and related to (developments in) early adolescents’ motivation.

7.2.1 Developmental trends

The results as presented in the first empirical chapter of this dissertation (Chapter 2) indicated

positive developmental trends in early adolescents’ motivation for school over the first months

of the school year, followed by developmental trends with a negative tenor as the school year

advanced. These findings were replicated for all motivational constructs that were the focus

of this study, for both math and mother language, i.e. negative trends were found for intrinsic

motivation, identified motivation, and values, while a positive trend was found for the negative

construct of performance avoidance. The complex trajectories were found to differ between

constructs. Further, for all motivational constructs for mother language, and, even more so for

math the results showed developmental trends to differ meaningfully between classes.

The results presented in Chapter 4 corroborated a small body of prior research on

developments of quality indicators of teaching practices over time as they indicated negative

developmental trends for total levels of observed need supportive teaching. Further, concerning

the positive dimensions of need supportive teaching developmental trends were negative for

autonomy support and involvement, while for structure they did not differ significantly from

0. Concerning the negative dimensions, unexpectedly, a slightly negative developmental trend

174

was found for chaos (approaching significance), while for autonomy thwart and disaffection

developmental trends did not differ significantly from zero.

7.2.2 Effects of teaching practices

The study reported in Chapter 2 concerned the association of early adolescents’ motivation as

measured at five measurement points with the type of school students attended: A prototypically

social constructivist school, a prototypically traditional school, or a combined school. The results

of multilevel analysis indicated substantially lower levels over measurement occasions (significant

or approaching significance) of intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, and values, but not

performance avoidance, for math and mother language in combined schools than in the other

two types of schools. No indications were found of differences in levels between prototypically

traditional and prototypically social constructivist schools. Further, for most motivational

constructs developmental trends were not found to differ between types of schools; exceptions

were the developmental trends being somewhat more negative for identified motivation for

mother language in social constructivist than in traditional schools and for values of mother

language in social constructivist and in combined schools than in traditional schools.

SDT was applied to examine how teacher-student interactions related to educational

approaches of schools as well as to developments of early adolescents’ motivation. First, the review

study in Chapter 3 pursued to unveil the extent to which available evidence supported SDT,

including the gaps that remained. For this purpose, a systematic review of available empirical

evidence on effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement

was conducted. Studies were incorporated that focused on early adolescents in the first years after

their transition toward secondary education and that were conducted between 1990 and 2011.

The findings of an in-depth analysis of 71 studies showed clear positive associations between the

three dimensions of need supportive teaching, whereas evidence on singled-out components was

less conclusive. Research on unique contributions of the three dimensions of need supportive

teaching was scarce, as were longitudinal, experimental, and interview studies. In addition, in

most of the selected studies student perceptions were used to measure need supportive teaching,

while in the small body of studies relying on observations or teacher perceptions much smaller or

even no associations were found with students’ motivation and engagement.

In Chapter 4, levels of observed need supportive teaching were examined in the three types

of schools. The results of multilevel analysis indicated higher net levels of need supportive

teaching (levels of its negative dimensions subtracted from levels of its positive dimensions) in

prototypically social constructivist school than in prototypically traditional schools, and, even more

Gen

eral

dis

cuss

ion

Chap

ter

07

175

so, than in combined schools. Further, levels of autonomy thwart were lower in prototypically

social constructivist than in the other two types of schools. This difference was induced by the

teachers in the former type less frequently disrupting their students’ rhythms than the teachers in

latter two types of schools. In addition, levels of structure were higher in the prototypically social

constructivist than in the combined schools (approaching significance) as the teachers in this

former type spent more time on individual guidance than the teachers in the latter type. Finally,

levels of disaffection were lower in both prototypically social constructivist and traditional schools

(approaching significance) than in combined schools. This difference was induced by it being less

common for the teachers in the former types than in the latter type to talk to the students in an

unfriendly tone and treat them unfair in the sense of being inconsequent.

In Chapter 5, a narrative analysis of teacher-student interactions was conducted in two

contrasting cases: A highly prototypical traditional and a highly prototypical social constructivist

class. The findings showed the educational approaches to trigger striking differences in typical

manifestations of need support and thwart, while similarities were apparent as well. Among

differences were the typical manifestations of cognitive autonomy support, what refers to giving

students leeway in choosing their own approach and defining their own solution paths. Whereas

in the traditional class the teachers occasionally provided cognitive autonomy support in teacher-

class dialogues on content, in the social constructivist class they did so in individual or small

group instruction only. A further difference concerning the dimension of autonomy support was

that the teachers in the social constructivist class regularly acknowledged students’ thoughts and

feelings and fostered relevance of tasks, while in the traditional class discussions on the value of

tasks did not occur. Regarding the dimension of structure a difference appeared that while the

teachers in the social constructivist class regularly provided students with individual guidance, for

the teachers in the traditional class this was uncommon. Further, we found that the teachers in

the traditional class more regularly expressed their disaffection and thwarted students’ autonomy

in interactions of a disciplinary nature. A final difference was that the interactions on students’

learning processes that were common in the social constructivist but not in the traditional class

yielded specific manifestations of need supportive teaching; e.g. providing structure by guiding

students in directing their learning processes. Similarities between classes included regular

provision of structure by means of encouragement and informational feedback, manifestations of

chaos being rare, and regular expression of involvement through brief remarks.

In Chapter 6, developments over four time-points of observed need supportive teaching in

math classes and early adolescents’ motivation for math were related. For this study, net levels of

need supportive teaching were determined by subtracting each of the three negative dimensions

176

from each of the three positive dimensions; e.g. the net level of autonomy supportive teaching was

determined by subtracting levels of autonomy thwart from levels of autonomy support. Multilevel

analysis did not indicate associations of autonomy supportive teaching with any of the four

motivational constructs that were incorporated in the study (autonomous motivation, controlled

motivation, amotivation, and performance avoidance). For structure, substantial associations

in expected directions were found with autonomous motivation (positive) and amotivation

(negative), but not with the other two motivational constructs. For teacher involvement,

substantial associations in the expected direction were found with all four motivational constructs.

In the analyses, a distinction was made between two conceptualisations of teachers’ need

support. First, teachers’ average levels of need support over the school year (1 measure per

teacher) were considered. Second, for each of four measurement points, teachers’ deviations of

their individual average levels (4 measures per teacher) were considered. Surprisingly, associations

with students’ motivational developments were found for average levels but not for deviations.

In other words, students appeared more motivated when they were taught by a teacher who—on

average, over the course of the school year—showed higher levels of need support. However,

students’ motivation as measured at a specific time-point was not associated with their teachers at

that time-point being more or less need supportive than usual.

Finally, when combining findings from Chapters 2, 3, and 6 a summary can be provided on

the multiple motivational constructs that were used in this dissertation’s studies. First, the review

of Chapter 3 indicated a pattern in the design of studies in the sense that connections existed

between the dimension of need supportive teaching and the outcome measures being studied.

Specifically, in all studies on autonomy support either autonomous motivation or engagement

was used as outcome measure, whereas teacher involvement typically was related to student

engagement. Second, in both Chapters 2 and 6 associations of teaching practices with early

adolescents’ motivation appeared mostly lacking for the construct of performance avoidance while

for the other constructs such associations were found. The findings did, however, suggest that

what is going on in the classroom affects early adolescents’ performance avoidance as it was for

this construct that relatively large parts of variance were at the level of the class (instead of at

student or occasion level).

7.3 Implications

The findings of this dissertation further understanding of what makes teaching practices effective

Gen

eral

dis

cuss

ion

Chap

ter

07

177

in fostering early adolescents’ motivation in the complex contexts of classrooms. As such, the

findings have implications for both theory and practice.

7.3.1 Developments over time

Results corroborated the large body of research indicating declines in students’ motivation after

their transition toward secondary education. At the same time, findings extended prior research as

they showed this negative tenor to be shared between multiple motivational constructs. Combined

with the finding that students’ developmental trends were dependent on the class they belonged

to, these results affirm the relevance of studying motivation in classrooms among students in their

first years of secondary education.

For developments in teachers’ need support, findings largely corroborated a small body of

prior research that is indicative of declining trends in quality indicators of teaching practices over

time. It seems that as a result of getting acquainted with their classes teachers are triggered to

develop less need supportive teaching styles. Educational practice can benefit from teachers and

educational supervisors being alert and anticipating such fluctuations and trends.

7.3.2 Comparing between educational approaches

The findings have several implications that regard the educational approaches that were the

focus of this dissertation. As argued in the Introduction, the presented studies on this topic were

innovative by focusing on effects of educational approaches as implemented in schools and–in

doing so–purchasing a high level of ecological validity.

First, findings did not corroborate the promising results of prior research showing positive

effects on students’ motivation of singled-out characteristics of social constructivist instruction

(e.g. Benware & Deci, 1984; Turner, 1995), of the extent to which early adolescents perceived

their instruction as social constructivist (e.g. Nie & Lau, 2010), and of social constructivist

interventions (e.g. Wu & Huang, 2007). Explanations for differences in findings must be sought

in this dissertation’s focus on comparisons between (prototypical) types of schools and, thereby,

it’s incorporating not only of effects of social constructivist instruction per se, but also of its

implementation in practice. The focus of this dissertation was on prototypical types of schools, i.e.

schools that had well-implemented all characteristics of their respective educational approaches.

This does not imply that implementation effects are not apparent, because also well implementing

an educational philosophy in practice tends to have much broader consequences than accounted

for in theory (Slavin, 2012).

Although the focus of this dissertation was not on separating effects resulting from social

178

constructivist instruction per se and effects resulting of its implementation in practice, the

narrative analysis of Chapter 5 does shed some light on this issue. An illustrative example is that

findings suggested a social constructivist approach to trigger teachers to refrain from initiating

teacher-class dialogues, and thereby from having class discussions on problems that do not have

clear-cut solutions. The latter being considered an important manifestation of autonomy support

(e.g. Stefanou et al., 2004; Kunter & Baumert, 2007; Tsai, Kunter, Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Ryan,

2008), this effect clearly was not accounted for in social constructivist educational theory that

emphasises the importance of awarding students autonomy and volition in their learning. In

conclusion, findings implicate the importance of incorporating implementation effects as they

suggest these—partly—responsible for differences between types of schools. Accordingly, the

other way around, implementation of an educational approach with potential in fostering early

adolescents’ motivation does not necessarily result in effective types of schools and, sometimes,

instead of alternations in the approach itself alterations in its implementation should be considered.

Second, the findings did suggest teacher-student interactions in prototypically social

constructivist schools to have potential to foster early adolescents’ motivation. In the educational

literature, the importance is emphasised of providing students with opportunities for self-set

learning episodes and allowing them an active role in their learning processes to foster motivation

and self-regulated learning (e.g. Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000). Here the crux is that students are

given sufficient freedom and own responsibility, what is closely related to autonomy supportive

teaching as defined in SDT. By showing higher levels of need supportive teaching and lower levels

of autonomy thwart in the prototypically social constructivist than in the prototypically traditional

schools, findings supported the idea that a social constructivist approach allows students the

sufficient levels of own responsibility that have been argued lacking in traditional schools (e.g.

Simons, van der Linden, & Duffy, 2000). Further, the results of the narrative analysis confirmed

that expressions of autonomy supportive teaching such as encouraging students to express their

opinions and fostering relevance when choice is constrained are related to a social constructivist

educational approach.

Third, in the educational literature social constructivist schools have been criticised as well:

For providing students with too much freedom and too little instructional guidance, thereby

undermining their learning (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Mayer, 2004; Anderson,

Reder, & Simon, 2000). This criticism is not unfounded; e.g. as in the Dutch context large-

scale implementation of ‘het studiehuis’ (a social constructivist educational reform) more than

a decade ago resulted in ill-prepared students abruptly being handed over a large degree of own

responsibility for their learning process while, ideally, a gradual transfer of learning functions from

Gen

eral

dis

cuss

ion

Chap

ter

07

179

teachers to students should be realised (Shuell, 1996; Vermunt & Verloop, 1999; Boekaerts, 2002).

For the prototypical social constructivist schools, however, the findings of this dissertation did not

substantiate this criticism. Whereas daily teaching practices providing too much freedom too early

would have resulted in relative low levels of structure (e.g. being available when students need help)

and high levels of chaos (e.g. not monitoring students’ levels of comprehension), this dissertation

did not show such differences (effects were in opposite direction). Further, the narrative analysis

indicated providing structure in the sense of giving step-by-step directions, thereby adjusting to the

students, related to a social constructivist instead of a traditional educational approach. Amongst

others, it seems plausible that the prototypical social constructivist schools having had a tradition

in social constructivist instruction helped to overcome negative effects that were reported earlier.

Fourth, the results indicated potential detrimental effects of combining elements of a

traditional and a social constructivist educational approach. For most motivational constructs,

levels were lower in combined schools than in the other two types of schools. Further, levels

of need supportive teaching were lowest in the combined schools, although the difference

with the prototypical traditional schools was not significant. These findings corroborate prior

evidence demonstrating the importance of comprehensive implementation of social constructivist

educational reforms (Rozendaal, Minnaert, & Boekaerts, 2005; Felner and Jackson, 1997). A

plausible explanation is that when combining elements of different educational approaches a

certain degree of ambivalence tends to be apparent; either because views on instruction are less

crystalized or because contradictions are inherent in the educational approach. This can result in

inconsistencies or lack of clarity in individual teachers’ practices, as well as in large differences

between teachers causing unpredictability for students. Such ambivalence has been argued

to be potential detrimental to students’ learning (Minnaert, 2013), while clear and consistent

communication is considered of particular importance (see Boekaerts & Minnaert, 2003; Perry

et al., 2006). In conclusion, an important implication of these findings is that caution is required

when combining elements of distinct educational approaches in practice.

7.3.3 Need supportive teaching

In this dissertation, teacher-student interactions were examined from the perspective of SDT.

Innovative elements of the presented studies included their relying on an observational measure

to asses need supportive teaching in context as well as their longitudinal nature.

First, the findings implicated support for SDT. The review study of Chapter 3 supported

SDT by consistently showing positive associations of student perceived need supportive

teaching with early adolescents’ motivation and engagement. Further, the findings in Chapter

180

6 indicated substantial positive associations of observed structure and involvement, but not

autonomy support, with developments of early adolescents’ motivation over time. These findings

importantly advanced support for SDT by substantiating its premise that observed characteristics

of need supportive teaching can be identified; a premise that is crucial for translating SDT to

educational practice. In conclusion, these findings implied the potential value of teacher trainings

aimed at enhancing teachers’ provision of structure and involvement as well as their incorporation

in programmes educating and professionalising (future) teachers. For the dimension of autonomy

support, more research is necessary to sort findings out.

Second, this dissertation contributed to translating the theoretical construct of need supportive

teaching to educational practice and furthered understanding of what need supportive teaching

entails. Having comprehension of the daily practices that make up need supportive teaching is

of value for designing SDT-interventions, as well as for moving forward the theoretical debate

on this issue (e.g. Stefanou et al., 2004; Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002). By incorporating a newly

developed rating sheet, an overview was provided of characteristics of need supportive teaching.

This overview had firm theoretical grounding as it was based on an extensive review of SDT-

literature on need supportive teaching practices. Further, the narrative analysis of Chapter 5

provided fine-grained information on manifestations of need supportive teaching in practice;

thereby being among the first studies conducted among early adolescents to do so (see for an

exception Stefanou et al., 2004).

Third, the results yielded points of attention for implementing SDT-interventions in

educational practice. Of relevance in this regard is the study of Chapter 6 that revealed substantial

associations with student motivation of teachers’ average levels of need supportive teaching

over the course of the school year, but no associations of teachers’ deviations of these average

levels at single-measurement points. In other words, it seemed that whereas in the long run need

supportive teaching had a positive effect on early adolescents’ motivation, this effect was not

immediate. A plausible explanation for this finding is that changes in teaching practices, whether

in a positive or in a negative direction, at first generate negative side effects because they cause

unpredictability. Such negative side effects could have masked potential positive effects resulting

of enhanced need supportive teaching. A related explanation is that need supportive teaching

generates positive effects only when students are well prepared to act upon the opportunities their

teachers provide them with. Both these explanations align with the suggestion above, in reference

to implementing (elements) of a social constructivist educational reform, that inconsistencies and

unpredictability can have detrimental effects on early adolescents’ motivation. Regarding SDT,

these findings suggest the importance of long-term implementation of interventions as well as of

Gen

eral

dis

cuss

ion

Chap

ter

07

181

preparing students for change that is coming up.

Of further relevance is the study of Chapter 5, as the findings of this narrative analysis of teacher-

student interactions in a prototypical traditional and a prototypical social constructivist class

showed that teachers’ opportunities are—in many ways—bounded by the (type of) school they

work at. An illustrative example is that teachers in prototypical traditional schools did not seem

to have much opportunity for contingent, differentiated instruction, which is an important means

to foster students’ need for competence. Accordingly, when the aim is to stimulate teachers to

differentiate their instruction—among the main targets of current Dutch educational policy—

interventions need to be tailored to educational approaches of schools (in line with Boekaerts &

Minnaert, 1999; Rozendaal et al., 2005). Amongst others, this could be accomplished by involving

teachers in the development of their own training program, as recommended by Aelterman et al.

(2013) to foster teachers’ motivated participation. In addition, these findings implicate that for

realising changes that do not fit the educational approach of a school, school-based interventions

are necessary. An additional advantage of such school-based interventions is that these would

attend to the issue raised above (in reference to combined schools) that large differences between

teachers can result in inconsistencies and unpredictability for students, thereby undermining their

motivation.

7.4 Limitations and recommendations for future research

A major strength of this dissertation is its focus on studying what makes teaching practices

effective in the complex contexts of classrooms. Because the complexity of classrooms cannot be

fully incorporated in any research design, a challenge inherent in such an approach is that well-

considered choices need to be made. Several limitations of this dissertation can be thought of that

relate to this challenge and inform directions for future research.

A first limitation is that although the studies of Chapters 2 and 4 informed about developments

over time and effects of the educational approaches as implemented in practice, they did not

incorporate examination of underlying mechanisms. For the future it would be recommended to

conduct in-depth studies on the educational approaches’ potential in fostering early adolescents’

motivation as well as on bottlenecks when implementing these approaches in practice. In such

studies it would be advisable to incorporate not only what is going on in classrooms, but to also

map processes occurring at the level of the school; e.g. ambivalence and unpredictability resulting

of large differences between teachers. Specifically, the findings of this dissertation suggest

182

some focus points for further research. First, more research is necessary to sort out if a social

constructivist educational approach has the potential to be more beneficial for early adolescents’

motivation than a thoroughly implemented traditional approach. Second, a question of relevance

is what are the mechanisms underlying negative effects of combined schools on need supportive

teaching and student motivation. Finally, more research would be of interest on the question what

triggers teachers to develop less need supportive teaching styles as the school year advances.

A second limitation is that at the level of the class it was only teaching practices that were

examined, and not, for example, peer interactions or wording of assignments. Future research

combining such different aspects would be recommended to generate richer pictures of what is

going on in classrooms. Further, such research could shed light on the question how the complex

interplay between contextual events affects students’ motivation. Amongst others, of interest in

this vein would be to examine effects on students’ performance avoidance, as for this motivational

construct findings suggested that differences between students can be explained by what is going

on in classrooms but not by teaching practices, at least not as operationalized in this dissertation,

alone.

Third, a limitation is that in the analyses the individual- and context specificity of what

effective teaching practices entail were not explicitly incorporated. In this vein, it has been

suggested, for example, that optimal provision of structure could be something different for

students with learning difficulties than for students with behavioural problems, gifted students,

or ‘regular’ students. In addition, it has been argued that meanings and understandings derived

from the different cultures in which students operate, i.e. their school but also home and peer

culture, combine to affect students’ engagement in learning (Phelan, Davidson, & Cao, 1991). This

would imply, for example, that the match with a student’s home environment could influence

effectiveness of a type of school. For the future, research on such individual- and context specific

differences would be recommended.

An alternative way to incorporate individual- and context specificity would be to adopt a

dynamic systems approach, thereby analysing how the teacher and the student(s) mutually influence

each other and continuously negotiate meaning (see Kunnen & van Geert, 2011). Although in this

dissertation we did consider both the students’ and the teachers’ expressions in our interpretation

of teacher-student interactions, we did not comprehensively map their dynamic interplay over

time. Advantages of using a dynamic systems approach include its potential to incorporate the

complex interplay between contextual events. Specifically, for future research, adopting a long-

term, dynamic approach would be of value to shed light on how prior experiences shape students’

responses in teacher-student interactions and how a gradual transfer of learning functions from

teachers to students can be realised.

184

References

Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. , (3), 243–257.

Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., De Meyer, J., Van den Berghe, L., & Haerens, L. (2013). Development and evaluation of a training on need-supportive teaching in physical education: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Teaching and Teacher Education, , 64–75.

Ahmed, W., Minnaert, A., van der Werf, G., & Kuyper, H. (2010). Perceived social support and early adolescents’ achievement: The mediational roles of motivational beliefs and emotions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, (1), 36–46.

Alfaro, E. C., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Bámaca, M. Y. (2006). The influence of academic support on Latino adolescents’ academic motivation. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 55(3), 279-291.

Alfi, O., Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2004). Learning to allow temporary failure: Potential benefits, supportive practices and teacher concerns. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, (1), 27–41.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, , 287–309.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Applications and misapplications of cognitive psychology to mathematics instruction. Texas Education Review, (2), 29–49.

Assor, A., & Kaplan, H. (2001). Mapping the domain of autonomy support: Five important ways to enhance or undermine students’ experience of autonomy in learning. In A. Efklides, R. Sorrentino, & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 99-118). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, (2), 261–278.

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, (5), 397–413.

Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costs of parents’ conditional regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality, (1), 47–88.

Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, (3), 243–260.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, (6), 3296–319.

Barber, B. K., & Harmon, E. (2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological control of children and adolescents. In B. K. Barber (Eds.), (pp. 15–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, (3), 497–529.

Referen

ces

185

Belmont, M., Skinner, E., Wellborn, J., & Connell, J. (1992). Two measures of teacher provision of involvement, structure, and autonomy support. Technical report. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.

Ben-Ari, R., & Eliassy, L. (2003). The differential effects of the learning environment on student achievement motivation: A comparison between frontal and complex instruction strategies. Social Behavior and Personality, (2), 143–166.

Benware, C. A. & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational

Research Journal, (4), 755–765.

Bergen, T., Amelsvoort, J. V., & Setz, W. (1994). Het lesgedrag van docenten in relatie tot de vakspecifieke motivatie van leerlingen. [Teacher behavior related to subject-specific motivation of students] Pedagogische Studiën, 71(4), 256-270.

Berti, C., Molinari, L., & Speltini, G. (2010). Classroom justice and psychological engagement: students’ and teachers' representations. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 13(4), 541-556.

Bierman, K. L. (2011). The promise and potential of studying the “invisible hand” of teacher influence on peer relations and student outcomes: A commentary. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, (5), 297–303.

Birenbaum, M., & Dochy, F. (1996). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational

Psychology, (3), 272–281.

Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Task Factors, teacher behavior, and students’ involvement and use of learning strategies in science. The Elementary School Journal, (3), 235–250.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, , 369–398.

Boekaerts, M. (2002). Bringing about change in the classroom: Strengths and weaknesses of the self-regulated learning approach. Learning and Instruction, , 589–604.

Boekaerts, M., & Minnaert, A. (1999). Self-regulation with respect to informal learning. International Journal of Educational

Research, (6), 533–544.

Boekaerts, M., & Minnaert, A. (2003). Measuring behavioral change processes during an ongoing innovation program: Scope and limits. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments:

Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 71–87). New York, NY: Pergamon.

Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), (pp. 417–450). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Boekaerts, M., de Koning, E., & Vedder, P. (2006). Goal-directed behavior and contextual factors in the classroom: An innovative approach to the study of multiple goals. Educational Psychologist, (1), 33–51.

Boggiano, A. K. (1998). Maladaptive achievement patterns: A test of a diathesis-stress analysis of helplessness. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, (6), 1681–95.

Bolhuis, S., & Voeten, M. J. (2001). Toward self-directed learning in secondary schools: What do teachers do? Teaching and

Teacher Education, (7), 837–855.

186

Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task value, achievement goal orientations, and attributional beliefs. The

Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 287–298.

Bowlby, J. (1979). . London: Tavistock.

Bozack, A. R., Vega, R., McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (2008). Teacher support of student autonomy in comprehensive school reform classrooms. Teachers College Record, (11), 2389–2407.

Brewster, A. B., & Bowen, G. L. (2004). Teacher support and the school engagement of Latino middle and high school students at risk of school failure. , 21(1), 47-67.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). . New York: Carnegie Corporation

Chirkov, V. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy-support in Russian and U.S. adolescents: Common effects on well-being and academic motivation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 618-635.

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). New York, NY: Springer US.

Chua, S. L., Wong, A. F. L., & Chen, D.-T. (2009). Associations between Chinese language classroom environments and students’ motivation to learn the language. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 9, 53-64.

Close, W., & Solberg, S. (2008). Predicting achievement, distress, and retention among lower-income Latino youth. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 31-42.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement (1), 37–46.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M.R. Gunnar, & L.A. Sroufe (Eds). Self-processes and development: The Minnesota symposia on child development, vol.23 (pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, (4), 715–730.

Corpus, J. H., McClintic-Gilbert, M. S., & Hayenga, A. O. (2009). Within-year changes in children’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations: Contextual predictors and academic outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, (2), 154–166.

Daly, B. P., Shin, R. Q., Thakral, C., Selders, M., & Vera, E. (2009). School engagement among urban adolescents of color: Does perception of social support and neighborhood safety really matter? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 63-74.

Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to distress and warmth to child outcomes. Child Development, 77(1), 44–58.

Davis, H. A., & Lease, A. M. (2007). Perceived organizational structure for teacher liking: The role of peers’ perceptions of teacher liking in teacher-student relationship quality, motivation, and achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 10(4), 403-427.

De Bruyn, H. E., (2005). Role strain, engagement and academic achievement in early adolescence. Educational Studies, 31(1), 15-27.

DeCharms, R. (1968). New York, NY: Academic Press

Referen

ces

187

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 Psychology, (6), 852–859.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

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

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1994). Promoting self-determined education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, (1), 3–14.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. , (4), 227–268.

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, (1), 119–142.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, (1), 1-27.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning. Learning and Individual

, (3), 165–183.

Den Brok, P., Levy, J., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2005). The effect of teacher interpersonal behaviour on students’ subject-specific motivation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(2), 20-23.

Den Brok, P., Wubbels, T., Veldman, I., & van Tartwijk, J. (2009). Perceived teacher-student interpersonal relationships in Dutch multi-ethnic classes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(2), 119-135.

Dever, B. V., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Is authoritative teaching beneficial for all students? A multi-level model of the effects of teaching style on interest and achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(2), 131-144.

Dicke, A. (2011, October). The assessment of teacher support and its relation to student interests. Paper presented at the 1st NORIM workshop. Trondheim, Norway.

Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2001). Psychological parameters of students’ social and work avoidance goals: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Educational Psychology, (1), 35–42.

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic Work. Review of Educational Research, (2), 159–199.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), (pp. 3rd ed., 392–431). New York, NY: McMillan.

Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). Oxford, UK: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Dutch Inspectorate of Education (2005). . De Meren, the Netherlands: Inspectie van het onderwijs.

Dutch Inspectorate of Education (2012). . De Meren, the Netherlands: Inspectie van het onderwijs.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Iver, D. M. (1993). Development during adolescence. The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. The

American Psychologist, (2), 90–101.

188

Eccles. J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In C. Ames, & R. E., Ames (Eds.), (pp. 139–186). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (4), 628–44.

Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal

of Educational Psychology, (3), 613–628.

Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Introduction to the special issue. Higher Education, , 201–204.

Evertson, C. M., & Veldman, D. J. (1981). Changes over time in process measures of classroom behavior low-inference ratings high-inference ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, (2), 156–163.

Faircloth, B. S., & Hamm, J. V. (2005). Sense of belonging among high school students representing 4 ethnic groups. Journal

of Youth and Adolescence, 34(4), 293-309.

Felner, R., & Jackson, D. (1997). The impact of school reform for the middle years: Longitudinal study of a network engaged in Turning. Phi Delta Kappan, (7), 528–542.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. , (2), 219–245.

Frey, A., Ruchkin, V., Martin, A., & Schwab-Stone, M. (2009). Adolescents in transition: School and family characteristics in the development of violent behaviors entering high school. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 40(1), 1-13.

Garcia-Reid, P. (2007). Examining social capital as a mechanism for improving school engagement among low income Hispanic girls. Youth & Society, 39(2), 164-181.

Garcia-Reid, P., Reid, R. J., & Peterson, N. A. (2005). School engagement among Latino youth in an urban middle school context. Education & Urban Society, 37(3), 257-275.

Gibbs, G. (1992). Assessing more students. Oxford: Oxford Brooks University.

Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, (1), 21–43.

Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 77(6), 631–645.

Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, (3), 525–538.

Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A.W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 3-13.

Green, G., Rhodes, J., Hirsch, A. H., Suarez-Orozco, C., & Camic, P. M. (2008). Supportive adult relationships and the academic engagement of Latin American immigrant youth. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 393-412.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In R. C. Berliner, & D.C. Calfee (Eds.), of Educational Psychology (pp. 15–46). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Referen

ces

189

Grolnick, W. S. (2003). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (5), 890–898.

Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In J. E. Grusek, & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting

(pp. 135–161). New York, NY: Wiley.

Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, (4), 508–517.

Hänze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, (1), 29–41.

Hardré, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students’ intentions to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, (2), 347–356.

Hardré, P. L., & Sullivan, D. W. (2008). Student differences and environment perceptions: How they contribute to student motivation in rural high schools. , 18(4), 471-485.

Hardré, P. L., Crowson, H. M., Debacker, T. K., & White, D. (2007). Predicting the academic motivation of rural high school students. Journal of Experimental Education, 75(4), 247-269.

Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, (12), 673–685.

Harter, S. (1992). The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational orientation within the classroom: Processes and patterns of change. In T. S. Boggiano, & A. K., Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-

(pp. 77–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hassandra, M., Goudas, M., & Chroni, S. (2003). Examining factors associated with intrinsic motivation in physical education: A qualitative approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, (3), 211–223.

Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). London: Sage Publications.

Hickey, D. T. (1997). Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional perspectives. Educational Psychologist, (3), 175–193.

Hickey, D. T., Moore, A. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational

Research Journal, (3), 611–652.1

Hodis, F. A., Meyer, L. H., McClure, J., Weir, K. F., & Walkey, F. H. (2011). A longitudinal investigation of motivation and secondary school achievement using growth mixture modeling. Journal of Educational Psychology, (2), 312–323.

Holas, I., & Huston, A. C. (2012). Are middle schools harmful? The role of transition timing, classroom quality and school characteristics. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, (3), 333–45.

Honkimäki, S., Tynjälä, P., & Valkonen, S. (2004). University students’ study orientations, learning experiences and study success in innovative courses. Studies in Higher Education, (4), 431–449.

190

Hornstra, L., Mansfield, C., Van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M. (2013). Motivating teacher practices: The role of beliefs and context. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, (3), 588–600.

Kaplan, H., & Assor, A. (2012). Enhancing autonomy-supportive I–Thou dialogue in schools: Conceptualization and socio-emotional effects of an intervention program. Social Psychology of Education, (2), 251–269.

Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2006). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational Psychology Review, (4), 429–442.

Katz, I., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2006). Interest as a motivational resource: Feedback and gender matter, but interest makes the difference. Social Psychology of Education, 9(1), 27–42.

Katz, I., Kaplan, A., & Gueta, G. (2010). Students’ needs, teachers' support, and motivation for doing Homework: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Experimental Education, (2), 246–267.

Kelly, S. (2007). Classroom discourse and the distribution of student engagement. Social Psychology of Education, 10(3), 331-352.

Khamis, V., Dukmak, S., & Elhoweris, H. (2008). Factors affecting the motivation to learn among United Arab Emirates middle and high school students. Educational Studies, 34(3), 191-200.

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,

(2), 75–86.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.

Klette, K., Lie, S., Anmarkrud, Ø., Arnesen, N., Bergem, O. K., Ødegaard, M., & Zachariassen, J. H. (2005). Coding categories for

Oslo, Norway.

Knight, S. L. (1991). The effects of students’ perceptions of the learning environment on their motivation in language arts. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 26(2), 19-23.

Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, (3), 233–248.

academic achievement. Review of Psychology, 14(1), 43-58.

Kunnen, S., & van Geert, P. (2011). General characteristics of a Dynamic Systems Approach. In E. S. Kunnen (Ed.), A Dynamic

(pp. 15–34). London-New York: Psychology Press.

Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2007). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 231–251.

Laine, E., & Gegenfurtner, A. (2013). Stability or change? Effects of training length and time lag on achievement goal orientations and transfer of training. International Journal of Educational Research, , 71–79.

Lam, S.-F, Cheng, R. W.-Y, & Ma, W. Y. K. (2009). Teacher and student intrinsic motivation in project-based learning. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 37(6), 565-578.

Referen

ces

191

Lapointe, J. M., Legault, F., & Batiste, S. J. (2005). Teacher interpersonal behavior and adolescents’ motivation in mathematics: A comparison of learning disabled, average, and talented students. International Journal of Educational Research, , 39–54.

Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning : Beyond “educational bulimia”? Studies in Higher Education, (3), 321–334.

Lee, S.-J. (2007). The relations between the student-teacher trust relationship and school success in the case of Korean middle schools. Educational Studies, 33(2), 209-216.

Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184–196.

Maehr, M. L., Karabenick, S. A., & Urdan, T. C. (2008). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Mainhard, M., Brekelmans, M., Den Brok, P., & Wubbels, T. (2011). The development of the classroom social climate during the first months of the school year. Contemporary Educational Psychology, (3), 190–200.

Malinowski, B. (1930). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In I. A. Ogden, & C.K., Richards (Eds.), The meaning

of meaning (pp. 296–336). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

Marchant, G. J., Paulson, S. E., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (2001). Relations of middle school students’ perceptions of family and school contexts with academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 38(6), 505-519.

Marshall, H. H. (1988). Work or learning: Implications of classroom metaphors. Educational Researcher, (9), 9–16.

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., McInerney, D. M., Green, J., & Dowson, M. (2007). Getting along with teachers and parents: The yields of good relationships for students’ achievement motivation and self-esteem. Australian Journal of Guidance

& Counselling, 17(2), 109-125.

Marton, F. (1976). On non-verbatim learning: II. The erosion effect of a task-induced learning algorithm. Scandinavian Journal

of Psychology, (1), 41–48.

Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Bosker, R. (2013). Teachers’ instructional behaviours as important predictors of academic motivation in middle school early adolescents: Changes and links across the school year. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M.-C., den Brok, P., & Bosker, R. (2011). Teacher-Student interpersonal relationships in Indonesia: Profiles and importance to student motivation. , (1), 33–49.

Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M.-C., Stroet, K., & Bosker, R. (2013). Changes in teachers’ involvement versus rejection and links with academic motivation during the first year of secondary education: a multilevel growth curve analysis. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, (9), 1348–71.

Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, (2), 3–11.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, (1), 14–9.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, (4), 514-523.

192

Miller, R.B., Greene, B.A., Montalvo, G.P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology,

, 388–422.

Milner, A. R., Templin, M. A., & Czerniak, C. M. (2010). Elementary science students’ motivation and learning strategy use: Constructivist classroom contextual factors in a life science laboratory and a traditional classroom. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, (2), 151–170.

Minnaert, A. (2013). Goals are motivational researchers’ best friend, but to what extent are achievement goals and achievement goal orientations also the best friend of educational outcomes? International Journal of Educational Research, , 85–89.

Minnaert, A., & Vermunt, J. (2006). 25 jaar Onderwijspsychologie in Nederland en Vlaanderen in de periode 1980 tot 2005: Trends, pendels en grensverleggers. [25 years of educational psychology in the Netherlands and in Flanders during 1980 till 2005.]. Pedagogische Studiën, (4), 260–277.

Minnaert, A., Boekaerts, M., & de Brabander, C. (2007). Autonomy, competence, and social relatedness in task interest within project-based education. (2), 574–586.

Minnaert, A., Boekaerts, M., de Brabander, C., & Opdenakker, M.-C. (2011). Student experiences of autonomy, competence, social relatedness and interest within a CSCL environment in vocational education: The case of commerce and business administration. 175-190.

Murdock, T. B, & Miller, A. (2003). Teachers as sources of middle school students’ motivational identity: Variable-centered and person-centered analytic approaches. Elementary School Journal, 103(4), 383-399.

Murdock, T. B, Anderman, L. H., & Hodge, S. A. (2000). Middle-grade predictors of students’ motivation and behavior in high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(3), 327-350.

Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivational predictors of alienation in middle school. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 91(1), 62-75.

Murray, C. (2009). Parent and teacher relationships as predictors of school engagement and functioning among low-income urban youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(3), 376-404.

National Research Council (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2009). Complementary roles of care and behavioral control in classroom management: The self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(3), 185-194.

Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, , 411–423.

Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144.

Oostdam, R., Peetsma, T., & Blok, H. (2007). [Considerations on new learning in primary

and secondary education: An exploratory note for the ministry of education, culture, and sci- ence] (pp. 1–36). Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.

Referen

ces

193

Oostdam, R., Peetsma, T., Derriks, M., & Van Gelderen, A. (2006). . [Learning from new learning: Case studies in secondary education] Amsterdam, the Netherlands: SCO-

Kohnstamm Instituut.

Opdenakker, M-C., & Maulana, R. (2010, April). Teacher-student relationships and academic engagement: How do they develop and link? In Th. Wubbels, P. den Brok, J. van Tartwijk, J. Levy, B. Fraser (Eds.), International conference on interpersonal relationships in education (ICIRE) 25-29 April 2010, Boulder, Colorado, USA. (pp. 19-19). Eindhoven, the Netherlands: TUe-UU-LU

Opdenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Relationship between learning environment characteristics and academic engagement. Psychological Reports, (1), 259–284.

Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (2000). Effects of schools, teaching staff and classes on achievement and well-being in secondary education: Similarities and differences between school outcomes. ,

(2), 165–196.

Opdenakker, M.-C., Maulana, R., & den Brok, P. (2012). Teacher–student interpersonal relationships and academic motivation within one school year: Developmental changes and linkage. , (1), 95–119.

Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367.

Otis, N., Grouzet, F. M. E., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). Latent motivational change in an academic setting: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 170–183.

Oxford, R. L. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-shifting, substance, and teacher education applications. Peabody Journal of

Education, (1), 35–66.

Patrick, B.C., Hisley, J., & Kempler, T. (2000). “What’s everybody so excited about?”: The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. The Journal of Experimental Education, (3), 217–236.

Peetsma, T. T. D. (1996). Pupils’ fear of failure in secondary education. In L. A. Bakken, C. L. Jacobson, & K. L. Schnare (Eds.), Upgrading of the social sciences for the development of post-socialist countries (pp. 287–294). Kaunas: University of Kaunas.

Peetsma, T., & Van der Veen, I. (2011). Relations between the development of future time perspective in three life domains, investment in learning, and academic achievement. Learning and Instruction, (3), 481–494.

Peetsma, T., Hascher, T., van der Veen, I., & Roede, E. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ self-evaluations, time perspectives, motivation for school and their achievement in different countries and at different ages. European

Journal of Psychology of Education, (3), 209–225.

Pelletier, L. G., Séguin-Lévesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, (1), 186–196.

Perry, N. E., Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2006). Classrooms as contexts for motivating learning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H., Winne (Eds.), (2nd ed., pp. 327–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Cao, H. T. (1991). Students’ multiple worlds: Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, (3), 224–250.

Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, (4), 385–407.

194

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, (1), 33–40.

Pintrich, P. R., Roeser, R.., & De Groot, E. (1994). Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents’ motivation and self-regulated learning. The Journal of Early Adolescence, (2), 139–161.

Plunkett, S. W., Henry, C. S., Houltberg, B. J., Sands, T., & Abarca-Mortensen, S. (2008). Academic support by significant others and educational resilience in Mexican-origin ninth grade students from intact families. The Journal of Early

Adolescence, 28(3), 333-355.

Prawat, R. S. (2009). Social constructivism and the process-content distinction as viewed by Vygotsky and the pragmatists. Mind, Culture, and Activity, (4), 255–273.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active Learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, (3), 223–231.

Radel, R., Sarrazin, P., Legrain, P., & Wild, T. C. (2010). Social contagion of motivation between teacher and student: Analyzing underlying processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, (3), 577–587.

Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Bürgermeister, A., & Harks, B. (2008). The interplay between student evaluation and instruction: Grading and feedback in mathematics classrooms. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 216(2), 111-124.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Willms, J. D. (1995). The estimation of school effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , 307–335.

Reeve, J. (2002). Self-Determination Theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), self-determination research (pp. 183–232). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.

Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. The

Elementary School Journal, (3), 225–236.

Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, (3), 159–175.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, (2), 147–169.

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational

Psychologist, 46(3), 168-184.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, (9), 13–20.

Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, (39), 181–195.

Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of middle school: Relation to longitudinal changes in academic and psychological adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(1), 123-158.

Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (1998). Academic and emotional functioning in early adolescence: Longitudinal relations, patterns, and prediction by experience in middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10(2), 321-352.

Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, G. L. (2000). Social support networks and school outcomes: The centrality of the teacher. , 17(3), 205-226.

Referen

ces

195

Roth, G., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Bibi, U. (2011). Prevention of school bullying: The important role of autonomy-supportive teaching and internalization of pro-social values. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, (Pt 4), 654–66.

Rozendaal, J. S., Minnaert, A., & Boekaerts, M. (2005). The influence of teacher perceived administration of self-regulated learning on students’ motivation and information-processing. Learning and Instruction, (2), 141–160.

Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460.

Ryan, R. M, & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (5), 749–61.

Ryan, R. M, & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, (1), 68-78.

Ryan, R. M, & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.). (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M, Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 226-249.

Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, (3), 450–461. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.43.3.450

Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, (3), 397–427.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (5), 749–61.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, (1), 68–78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination theory and the empirical study of authenticity, awareness, and will. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T.E. Pyszczynski (Eds.),

(pp. 449–479.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2009). Self-determination theory in schools of education: Can an empirically supported framework also be critical and liberating? Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 263–272.

Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. The Journal of Early Adolescence, (2), 226–249.

Säljö, R. (1975). Qualitative differences in learning as a function of the learner’s conception of a task. Acta Universitatis

Gothoburgensis (Vol. 46).

Savage, C., Hindle, R., Meyer, L. H., Hynds, A., Penetito, W., & Sleeter, C. E. (2011). Culturally responsive pedagogies in the classroom: indigenous student experiences across the curriculum. , (3), 183–198.

196

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). . Bloomington, IN: Centre for Research on Learning and Technology Technical Report, 16, University of Indiana

Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). . Oxford: Elsevier Science, Ltd.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, , 207–231.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). (4rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.

Seegers, G., van Putten, C. M., & de Brabander, C. J. (2002). Goal orientation, perceived task outcome and task demands in mathematics tasks: Effects on students’ attitude in actual task settings. The British Journal of Educational Psychology,

, 365–84.

Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2006). It’s not just the amount that counts: Balanced need satisfaction also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2), 331-41.

Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, (7), 4–14.

Shih, S.-S. (2008). The relation of self-determination and achievement goals to Taiwanese eighth graders’ behavioral and emotional engagement in schoolwork. The Elementary School Journal, (4), 313–334.

Shih, S.-S. (2009). An examination of factors related to Taiwanese adolescents’ reports of avoidance strategies. Journal of

Educational Research, (5), 377–388.

Shuell, T. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C.Calfee (Eds.). psychology (pp. 726–764). New York, NY: Prentice Hall International.

Simons, R.-J., van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (Eds.). (2000). New learning. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, Netherlands.

Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, (6), 323–332.

Skinner, E. A. & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, (4), 765–781.

Slavin, R. E. (2012). (10th ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Pearson.

Smit, K., de Brabander, C., & Martens, R. (2014, in press). Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environment in pre-vocational secondary education: Psychological needs, and motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research.

Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). . London: Sage Publications.

Referen

ces

197

Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, (1), 74–99.

Soenens, B., Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Dochy, F., & Goossens, L. (2012). Psychologically controlling teaching: Examining outcomes, antecedents, and mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, (1), 108–120.

Spaulding, C. L. (1995). Teachers’ psychological presence on students' writing-task engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 88(4), 210-219.

Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2006). Predicting school achievement from general cognitive ability, self-perceived ability, and intrinsic value. Intelligence, (4), 363–374.

Stefanou, C.R., Perencevich, K.C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, (2), 97–110.

Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as a predictor of school achievement. Learning and

, (1), 80–90.

Sturm, H., & Bogner, F. X. (2008). Student-oriented versus teacher-centred: The effect of learning at workstations about birds and bird flight on cognitive achievement and motivation. International Journal of Science Education, (7), 941–959.

Tamutiene, I. (2008). School violence: Experiences of absentee students. Journal of School Violence, 7(1), 115-130.

Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2009). Students’ anticipated situational engagement: The roles of teacher behavior, personal engagement, and gender. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170(3), 268-286.

Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tsai, Y.-M., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, (2), 460–472.

Tucker, C. M., Zayco, R. A., Herman, K. C., Reinke, W. M., Trujillo, M., Carraway, K., & Wallack, C. (2002). Teacher and child variables as predictors of academic engagement among low-income African American children. Psychology in

the Schools, (4), 477-488.

Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research

Quarterly, (3), 410–441.

Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2008). How does motivation develop and why does it change? Reframing motivation research. Educational Psychologist, , 119–131.

Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational

Psychology, (1), 88–106.

Tyler, K. M., & Boelter, C. M. (2008). Linking black middle school students’ perceptions of teachers' expectations to academic engagement and efficacy. Negro Educational Review, 59(1), 27-44.

Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G. (1989). Construction et validation de l’échelle de Motivation en Éducation (EME) [On the construction and validation of the French form of the Academic Motivation Scale].

, , 323–349.

198

Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (5), 1161–1176.

Van der Werf, M., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Kuyper, H. (2008). Testing a dynamic model of student and school effectiveness with a multivariate multilevel latent growth curve approach. , (4), 447–462.

Van Ryzin, M. J., Gravely, A. A., & Roseth, C. J. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 1-12.

Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, (A), 105–165.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development, (2), 483–501.

Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Verstuyf, J., & Lens, W. (2009). `What is the usefulness of your schoolwork?’: The differential effects of intrinsic and extrinsic goal framing on optimal learning. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 155–163.

Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2005). Experiences of autonomy and control among Chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 468–483.

Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: Inevitable or not? Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, (2), 199–216.

Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280.

Voelkl, K. E. (1995). School warmth, student participation, and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 63(2), 127-138.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Way, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students’ perceptions of school climate during the middle school years: Associations with trajectories of psychological and behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, (3-4), 194–213.

Wentzel, K. R, & Wigfield, A. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of motivation at school. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411-419.

Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209.

Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301.

Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (2009). . New York, NY: Routledge.

Referen

ces

199

Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., & Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 193-202.

Wesely, P. M. (2009). The language learning motivation of early adolescent French immersion graduates. Foreign Language Annals, 42(2), 270-286.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, , 297–333.

Wiebenga, N. (2008). (unpublished master's thesis).

University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, (1), 1–35.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, (3), 420–432.

Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J.P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Development during early and middle adolescence. In P. A. Alexander, & P. H., Winne (Eds.), (2nd ed., pp. 87–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children’s motivation in school contexts. Review of

Research in Education, (1998), 73–118.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, (2), 131–175.

Woolley, M. E., Strutchens, M. E., Gilbert, M. C., & Martin, W. G. (2010). Mathematics success of black middle school students: Direct and indirect effects of teacher expectations and reform practices. Negro Educational Review, 61(1-4), 41-59.

Wu, H.-K., & Huang, Y.-L. (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-centered technology-enhanced learning environments. Science Education, (5), 727–749.

Wubbels, T., Créton, H.A., & Hooymayers, H. P. (1985). Discipline problems of beginning teachers, interactional teacher behaviour mapped out. Chicago, IL

Yin, H., Lee, J. C. K., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Examining Hong Kong students’ motivational beliefs, strategy use and their relations with two relational factors in classrooms. Educational Psychology, 29(6), 685-700.

You, S., & Sharkey, J. (2009). Testing a developmental-ecological model of student engagement: A multilevel latent growth curve analysis. Educational Psychology, 29(6), 659-684.

Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Chipuer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. A., & McGregor, L. (2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 911-933.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational

Psychology, , 307–313.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Rating sheet‘need supportive teaching’

202

Appendix Rating sheet

Rating sheet ‘Need supportive teaching’

Teachers’

Choice vs. Control

Incorporating students’ interests, preferences, choices, curiosity, or sense of challenge into the lesson.

Keeping possession of and monopolizing the learning material.

Creating opportunities for students to work in their own way.

Not allowing students to realise their action plans and disrupting their natural rhythm.

Providing solutions before students have time to reflect by themselves.

Includes exertion of pressure on students; e.g. via incentives, deadlines, assignments, directives, controlling questions, conditional regard, guilt induction, or shaming.

Fostering relevance vs. Forcing meaningless activities

Providing a meaningful and realistic rationale when choice is constraint, thereby taking the students’ perspectives.

Actively attempting to compel students to do things they find boring or meaningless, thereby neglecting students’ inner resources.

Providing a specific goal that is realistically and meaningfully connected to a referenced intrinsic goal of the learning activity (via value, meaning, use, benefit, importance).

Providing a goal that is connected to a referenced extrinsic goal of the learning activity.

Communicating negative values on schoolwork.

Showing respect vs. Showing disrespect

Not only responding to, but also elaborating on the things students say.

Listening carefully to students and acknowledging their feelings, thoughts, and perspectives.

Not allowing expression of opinions that differ from those expressed by the teacher.

Open to complaints and negative affect; accepts as OK, valid reaction.

Not allowing complaints and negative affect; it is not OK, change it.

1 Need support and thwart are coded per teacher-student interaction, unless indicated otherwise.

Rat

ing

shee

t

203

Teachers’ provision of

Clarity vs. no clarity

Communicating clear, detailed, and consistent guidelines and expectations (coded per lesson or per phase).

Communicating unclear, vague, confusing, or contradicting guidelines and expectations (coded per lesson or per phase).

Being available to answer questions when guidelines or expectations are unclear (coded per lesson or per phase).

Not being available to answer questions when students clearly find guidelines or expectations unclear.

Clear organisation (coded per lesson or per phase).

Organisation not clear (coded per lesson or per phase).

Providing students with options to check consistency of guidelines.

Discouraging students to check consistency of guidelines.

Guidance vs. no guidance

Providing step-by-step directions when needed, thereby adjusting to the student(s).

Being available to answer questions when students need help or support (coded per lesson or per phase).

Not being available to answer questions when students indicate they need help or support (coded per lesson or per phase).

Entails monitoring of and adjusting to students’ comprehension (for frontal instruction coded for the whole phase).

Not monitoring of or adjusting to students’ level of comprehension (for frontal instruction coded for the whole phase).

Encouragement vs. discouragement

Fostering students’ views that success in the tasks learned in class depends mostly on internal controllable factors rather than inborn talent.

Fostering students’ views that success in the tasks depends mostly on inborn talent.

Fostering non-competitive, cooperative, learning structures.

Fostering competitive learning structures.

Entails demanding effort. Not demanding effort.Poor performance is treated evaluative.

Informational feedback vs. evaluative feedback

Providing students with constructive, non-comparative, feedback that is focused on helping them to gain control over valued outcomes.

Providing students with comparative feedback or feedback that is focused on evaluating their performance.

Providing students with feedback in the form of cues on how to proceed.

Providing feedback using controlling locution, e.g.: “Good, you did just as you should”.

204

Teachers’ involvement/disaffection or rejection

Affection vs. disaffection

Talking in a friendly tone. Talking in an unfriendly tone.Demonstrating affection and interest. Showing a lack of interest.Showing warmth.Treating students fair in the sense of being

consequent (coded per lesson or per phase)Treating students unfair in the sense of being

inconsequent (coded per lesson or per phase).

Encouraging empathy and pro-social behaviour in the class.

Discouraging empathy and pro-social behaviour in the class.

Fostering a sense of connectedness and making students feel they belong to a social group.

Communicating that students do not belong.

Attunement vs. no attunement

Showing understanding of the students on what is of importance for them.

Showing no understanding of the students on what is of importance for them.

Dedication of resources vs. no dedication of resources

Being available to all students in class (coded per lesson or per phase).

Clearly neglecting some or all students in class.

Not being available for students during the lesson, e.g. appearing occupied with other things or walking out of the classroom.

Dependability vs. no dependability

Showing availability to offer support, for example by being responsive to emotional distress.

Showing unavailability to offer support, for example by ignoring emotional distress.

Showing commitment to students’ learning. Clearly showing no commitment to students’ learning.

Rat

ing

shee

t

205

Literature rating sheet ‘Need supportive teaching’

In the text below, an overview is given of the Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000; SDT)-literature that grounded the rating sheet ‘Need supportive teaching’. Literature was included that contained operationalization of (dimensions or components of) need supportive teaching. While some general SDT-literature was included, the majority concerned educational SDT-literature.

Need support

Benware & Deci (1984): Passive vs active involvement with the learning material.

Spaulding (1995): Encourage ownership by making students write for other audiences than their teachers.

Reeve, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch (2004): Arrange learning materials so that students manipulate objects and conversations rather than passively watch and listen.

Patrick, Hisley, & Kempler (2000); Radel, Sarrazin, Legrain, & Wild (2010): Social contagion of motivation (e.g. positive effects on motivation of enthusiasm).

Reeve & Jang (2006): Autonomy supportive: Teachers’ effort to identify students’ inner resources: Time listening, time student talking, and communicating perspective-taking statements. Teachers’ efforts to nurture students’ inner resources: Time allowing students to work in own way, praise as informational feedback, offering encouragements, offering hints, and being responsive to student-generated questions.

Reeve et al. (2004): Nurturing of inner resources.

Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt (1984): Informational like four-step sequence Ginot (1959; 1961 in Koestner et al., 1984): 1. Acknowledge the child’s feelings or wishes, 2. State the limit clearly on a specified act, 3. Where possible point out alternative channels for expression of feeling, 4. Help the child express feelings of resentment which are “bound to arise” when constraints are invoked. Further, it is suggested that statements of limits should be stated succinctly and impersonally, e.g: “Walls are not for painting”, rather than “You must not paint on the walls”.

Reeve & Jang (2006): Controlling: Leading students toward a teacher-defined right way of behaving: Exhibiting solutions/answers, uttering solutions/answers, and time holding/monopolizing learning materials. Pressuring language: Uttering directives/commands, making should/got to statements, and asking controlling questions.

Autonomy support vs control

Kaplan & Assor (2012): Four characteristics of autonomy supportive meaningful dialogue:

206

1. Autonomy support does not imply that teachers should always accept their students views, ignore their own personal needs, or allow students to frustrate educators own needs.

2. When appropriate and there is no ego-involvement, teachers should share their feelings of being hurt, angry, or disappointed. Thus, an authentic autonomy supportive dialogue can involve the sharing of disagreements and negative feelings (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984).

3. Importance of self-awareness and authenticity (e.g. Ryan & Deci, 2004). Otherwise elicit of self-awareness and reduce of authenticity.

4. Taking the position of the detached technical expert can undermine the quality of autonomy support. “For example, based on their knowledge of some SDT principles teachers may offer choices and think this supports students’ need for autonomy; yet in the absence of a dialogue that truly seeks to understand the child perspective, they might fail to understand that the choices offered do not match the students’ authentic needs”(e.g. Katz & Assor, 2006).

Reeve et al. (2004): “If the teacher cannot spark students’ interest, enjoyment, or sense of challenge, she continues to rethink how she might present that same activity so that student engagement will be more likely to include the accompanying support from students’ underlying inner motivational resources”.

Soenens, Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Dochy, & Goossens (2012): Psychological controlling teaching (Barber, 1996; Barber & Harmon, 2002; PCT): Use of intrusive and sometimes subtle behaviours that pressure students to think, act, and feel in particular ways (OR1 respect). Common to these inductive behaviours (including guilt induction, shaming, and expression of disappointment) is that they convey a conditionally approving attitude from teachers toward students (OR choice). Teachers use their own values and opinions as an exclusive frame of reference and ignore their students’ perspective (OR respect). PCT is largely incompatible with teacher autonomy support and with need supportive teaching in general (Grolnick, 2003; Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, & Soenens, 2005).

Soenens & Vansteenkiste (2010): Psychological control as an instance of controlling socialization.

Based on prior theorising by Assor and Kaplan (2001), Reeve et al. (2004), and by Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn, and Connell (1992), we distinguish autonomy support in four components. Below, we provide an overview of those characteristics of need supportive teaching that have been described in the literature and that we have classified as being autonomy supportive. We have further classified these characteristics along the four components of autonomy supportive teaching.

Choice vs control

Reeve et al. (2004): Nurturing of inner motivational resources, for example

1 ‘OR’ refers to own remark

Rat

ing

shee

t

207

by finding ways to incorporate students’ choices in the lessons.

Assor, Kaplan, & Roth (2002): Enabling students to choose tasks that they perceive as consistent with their goals and interests.

Reeve et al. (2004): Create opportunities for students to work in their own way.

Reeve (2006): Provide students with a freedom for choice, voice, and initiative.

Katz & Assor (2006): Overview attributes of choice that are need satisfying/need frustrating.

Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner (2004): It is only cognitive (and not so much procedural and organisational) choice that fosters a more enduring psychological investment in deep-level thinking. Cognitive choice encourages ownership of the learning and can include teacher behaviours such as: 1. Asking students to justify or argue for their point; 2. Asking students to generate their own solution paths; 3. Asking students to evaluate their own and others’ solutions or ideas (Logan, DiCintio, Cox, & Turner, 1995 in Stefanou et al., 2004). Conditions for students to become initiators of their own learning pursuits: Requiring students to: 1. Justify strategy choice; 2. Understand their own thinking or solution path; 3. Use multiple approaches to tasks. Or (4.) Declare appreciation for unanticipated solutions.

Tsai, Kunter, Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Ryan (2008): Cognitive autonomy support: More than one student presents a solution to the task (Kunter & Baumert, 2006).

Assor, Kaplan, & Roth (2002): Disrupting of natural rhythm, thereby not allowing students to realise their action plans.

Assor, Kaplan, Kanat-Maymon, & Roth (2005): Not letting children work at their preferred pace, continually giving directives to children.

Radel, Sarrazin, Legrain, & Wild (2010): Provide solutions before students have time to reflect by themselves.

Reeve et al. (2004): Keep possession of and monopolize the learning materials; physically exhibit worked-out solutions and answers before students have time to work on the problem independently. Tell students the right answer instead of allowing them time and opportunity to discover it.

Deci & Ryan (1994): Imposed goals.

Reeve et al. (2004): Neglects students’ inner resources (value, meaning, use, benefit, importance) and instead tries to manufacture extrinsic motivation by offering incentives, consequences, directives, deadlines, or assignments (OR also control).

208

Radel et al. (2010): Attempt to motivate students by exerting pressure on them (e.g. using threats, criticism, and deadlines) (OR also controlling language).

Assor et al. (2005; based on Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1996): Controlling behaviours such as: Imposing deadlines, surveillance, giving directives (OR also controlling language).

Reeve et al. (2004): Use controlling questions as a way of directing students’ work (e.g. “Can you do what I showed you?”).

Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens (2010): Controlling individuals direct the thoughts, feelings, and behaviours of those they socialize.

Vansteenkiste et al. (2010): Use of overt, externally pressuring tactics (e.g. controlling language, punishments) or more covert, subtle techniques of manipulation, including conditional regard (Assor, Roth, & Deci, 2004) (OR also discouragement), guilt induction (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Soenens, & Matos, 2005), and shaming (for a review see Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010).

Informational vs controlling language

Reeve et al. (2004): Flexible.

Ryan (1982): Controlling language: E.g. should, must, have to, and ought to.

Reeve et al. (2004); Radel et al. (2010): Utter directives and commands.

Deci & Ryan (1994): Threats of punishments. (OR also control).

Radel et al. (2010): Attempt to motivate students by exerting pressure on them (e.g. using threats, criticism, and deadlines) (OR also control).

Assor et al. (2005; based on Deci et al., 1996): Controlling behaviours such as: Imposing deadlines, surveillance, giving directives (OR also control).

Fostering relevance vs forcing meaningless activities

Ryan (1982): Externally provided reason articulating why effort during the activity was useful.

Reeve et al. (2004): Finding ways of initiating students’ activity by incorporating students’ interests, preferences, choices, curiosity, or sense of challenge into the lesson (OR partly also choice).

Reeve et al. (2004): Promoting value in uninteresting activities. Identifies value, use, meaning, benefit, importance. E.g.: “This is important because…”

Reeve et al. (2004): “This understanding allows a process of internalization to occur, as students essentially say to themselves: “Yeah, okay, that makes sense; I will do it’.

Rat

ing

shee

t

209

Reeve et al. (2004): Help students coordinate their inner resources with their moment-to-moment activity, instead of pushing, pressuring, or coercing them to comply with their own agenda.

Assor et al. (2002): Explaining the contribution of the learning task to students’ personal goals.

Vansteenkiste et al. (2010): Offer a meaningful and realistic rationale when choice is constraint.

Vansteenkiste, Soenens, Verstuyf, & Lens (2009): Provide a specific, rather than vague, goal and realistically and meaningfully connect the referenced intrinsic goal to the learning activity so that the learners accept the promoted goal. Refrain from extrinsic goal framing as it undermines both learning and the beneficial effects of intrinsic goal framing.

Roth, Kanat-Maymon, & Bibi (2010): Provide rationale or relevance and take the student’s perspective.

Reeve et al. (2004): Neglects students’ inner resources (value, meaning, use, benefit, importance) and instead tries to manufacture extrinsic motivation by offering incentives, consequences, directives, deadlines, or assignments (OR also control).

Assor et al. (2002): An active attempt to compel students to do things that they find boring or meaningless.

Showing respect vs showing disrespect

Bozack, Vega, McCaslin, & Good (2008): Not only responding to, but also elaborating on, the things their students say and engaging students’ own experiences, expertise, and perspectives in the learning process.

Deci & Ryan (1994): Acknowledging feelings.

Deci & Ryan (1994): Importance of considering the students’ frame of reference.

Deci & Ryan (1994; see Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994): Acknowledgement of a person’s feelings, so he/she will feel understood.

Radel et al. (2010): Listen carefully to students and acknowledge their perspectives

Assor et al. (2002): Expression of dissatisfaction by students might cause teachers to make learning tasks more interesting or provide a more convincing rationale (OR in this case a necessary first step for providing of relevance to occur).

Assor et al. (2002): Attempt to understand students’ feelings and thoughts concerning the learning task.

210

Ryan (1982): Acknowledgement of negative affect participants might experience (in particular when providing rationale).

Reeve et al. (2004): Acknowledgement and acceptance of students’ expressions of negative affect. Listens carefully; open to complaints; accepts as OK, valid reaction.

Jang, Reeve, & Deci (2010): Inquire about and acknowledge students’ feelings.

Vansteenkiste et al. (2010): Try to understand the other’s perspective.

Assor et al. (2002): Not allowing students to inform teachers about aspects of the task and the learning context that interfere with the realisation of their interests and goals.

Assor et al. (2005): Not allowing children to voice opinions that differ from those expressed by the teacher.

Ryan (1982): Negative affect participants might experience is not acknowledged (in particular when providing rationale).

Reeve et al. (2004): It is not OK, change it: Negative affect is unacceptable; tries to fix, counter, or change into something else.

Based on prior theorising by Skinner and Belmont (1993), Jang et al. (2010), and by Belmont et al. (1992), we distinguish structure into four components. Below, we provide an overview of those characteristics of need supportive teaching that have been described in the literature and that we have classified as providing students with structure. We have further classified these characteristics along the four components of providing students with structure.

Structure vs chaos

Clarity

Vansteenkiste et al. (2010): Clarity of rules and expectations that are introduced.

Soenens & Vansteenkiste (2010): Communication of clear and consistent guidelines and expectations; introduction of clear rules, delineate the consequences of not following the rules, and follow through when rules are transgressed (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997); provision of help when children engage in a task or make a decision, the communication of informational feedback, and an attitude expressing confidence in the child’s ability to perform and behave well (Reeve, 2002). Providing children with a sense of predictability and a sense of personal efficacy. To meet challenges and to competently execute instrumental actions.

Jang et al. (2010): Presenting clear, understandable, explicit, and detailed directions.

Rat

ing

shee

t

211

Jang et al. (2010): Clearly communicating expectations and directions, and providing consistency in the lesson (ref. provided).

Jang et al. (2010): Teachers are confusing or contradicting, fail to communicate clear expectations and directions, and ask for outcomes without the means to attain them.

Guidance

Offering guidance in students’ on-going activities, for example by monitoring their work or offering help or support when needed (Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Jang et al., 2010).

Alfi, Katz, & Assor (2004): Assist students in planning their work on the task.

Reeve et al. (2004): Offering progress-enabling hints when students seem stuck.

Jang et al. (2010): Taking the lead during some instructional activities, providing strong guidance during the lesson, providing step-by-step directions when needed, scheduling student activities, marking the boundaries of activities and orchestrating the transitions between them.

Optimal challenge

Allowing experience of temporal failure (Alfi et al. 2004).

Alfi et al. (2004): Conduct initial assessment to make the task optimally challenging.

Alfi et al. (2004): Identify specific steps that can help students master the components that caused the temporal failure.

Encouragement vs discouragement

Making students feel they acquire more control over school outcomes. Teachers can encourage students by communicating positive expectations regarding their schoolwork.

Alfi et al. (2004): Foster students’ views that success in the tasks learned in class depends mostly on internal controllable factors rather than inborn talent.

Alfi et al. (2004): Foster non-competitive, cooperative, learning structures.

Reeve et al. (2004): Poor performance is treated as a problem that needs to be solved.

Reeve et al. (2004): Encourage effort and persistence; praise signs of improvement and mastery.

Review Chapter 3: Providing challenge and demanding effort.

212

Review Chapter 3: Uttering positive expectations.

Reeve et al. (2004): Poor performance is treated evaluative.

Informational feedback vs evaluative feedback

Jang et al. (2010): Providing students with constructive, informational feedback, thereby helping them to gain control over valued outcomes.

Deci & Ryan (1994): Positive effects of positive feedback have been found to generate effects on perceived competence only when the positive feedback resulted from self-determined action or was presented in a non-controlling style.

Alfi et al. (2004): Provide continual, informative, non-comparative feedback that instructs pupils regarding components of the task they have mastered and components they can master following some additional practices.

Deci, Koestner, & Ryan (2001): Overview research on effects of different types of rewards.

Jang et al. (2010): Offering task-focused and personal control-enhancing feedback.

Reeve (2006): Information-rich, competence-affirming utterances to identify and explain why students are doing well or making progress.

Katz, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Bereby-Meyer (2006): Interest as a buffer for lack of positive feedback.

Deci et al., (1996): Positive feedback using controlling locution, e.g.: “Good, you “did just as you should”.

Deci et al. (1996): Potential positive effects of negative feedback not well studied.

Based on prior theorising by Belmont et al. (1992), we distinguish involvement into four components. Below, we provide an overview of those characteristics of need supportive teaching that have been described in the literature and that we have classified as expressing involvement. We have further classified these characteristics along the four components of expressing involvement.

Involvement vs neglect or disaffection

Vansteenkiste et al. (2010): Fostering a sense of connectedness, love, and understanding within relationships.

Osterman (2000): Making students feel they belong to a social group.

Rat

ing

shee

t

213

Affection vs disaffection

Hassandra, Goudan, & Chroni (2003): Friendly tone.

Alfi et al. (2004): Demonstrate affection and interest in relation to each pupil.

Alfi et al. (2004): Enforce rules that do not allow violence in the classroom; encourage empathy and pro-social behaviour in the class.

Vansteenkiste et al. (2010): Warmth (or the ability to amicably connect with others and to partake in mutually enjoying activities) (Davidov & Grusec, 2006).

Review Chapter 3: Fairness; “My teacher likes me as much as he/she likes the other students”.

Attunement

Belmont et al. (1992): Show understanding of the students, as well as knowledge on what is of importance for them.

Dedication of resources

E.g. time.

Dependability

Belmont et al. (1992): Demonstrating dependability and availability to offer support.

Vansteenkiste et al. (2010): Responsiveness to distress (or the ability to emphasise with and respond to others’ unpleasant feelings in a way that provides solace and comfort) (Davidov & Grusec, 2006).

Reeve & Jang (2006): Being responsive to students’ questions and comments.

Summaries

217

Summary

Studying motivation in classrooms.

Effects of teaching practices on early adolescents’ motivation.

For many early adolescent students, motivation for school declines after the transition toward

secondary education. This dissertation aimed to identify how these motivational developments

are affected by teaching practices, thereby intending to—ultimately—help schools diminish or

counter the declines. Next to the longitudinal nature of this research, a unique asset for the domain

is that studies were conducted “in” classrooms; that is, the focus was on (consequences of) what is

actually going on in current educational practice instead of on, for example, how students perceive

what is going on.

Findings indicated, indeed, developmental trends in early adolescents’ (489 students divided

over 20 classes and 10 schools) motivation to have a negative tenor. While upward trends were

visible for the first months of the first year of prevocational secondary education, for the remainder

of this first school year the students’ motivation declined.

From multiple perspectives, the studies in this dissertation showed that teaching practices do

matter and can indeed alter early adolescents’ motivational developments. Explanatory variables

were at the level of the type of school as well as at the levels of the class and the student. At the highest

level, students’ motivational developments were found to differ between types of schools. Included

in this comparison were prototypical traditional schools, prototypical social constructivist schools,

and schools that substantially combined elements of both. A focus on social constructivist and

combined schools fits this dissertation’s aim of studying motivation in classrooms because schools

that have implemented (elements of) of a social constructivist educational approach have typically

done so with the aim of enhancing student motivation. Traditional schools represent contrasts

because in educational theory social constructivist views contrast traditional views. In traditional

views, teachers should take large degrees of responsibility for students’ learning and put relatively

much emphasis on their students’ reproducing knowledge, while in social constructivist views

teachers should assist their students in organising and regulating their own learning processes

and put emphasis on their students actively constructing and accumulating knowledge. Results

showed levels of student motivation to be substantially lower in combined schools than in the

other two types of schools, while (for most motivational constructs) developmental trends were

not found to differ between types of schools. No differences were found (for most motivational

constructs) between prototypical traditional and social constructivist schools.

At the lower levels of the class and the student, (effects of) teacher-student interactions

Sum

mar

y

218

were examined. For this purpose, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) was applied and it was

hypothesised that teachers supporting instead of thwarting their students’ fundamental needs

for autonomy, competence, and relatedness would result in higher levels of student motivation.

First, a review of the literature was conducted, thereby pursuing to unveil the extent to which

available evidence supported SDT, including the gaps that remained. Findings from 71 empirical

studies conducted since 1990 showed clear positive associations between teachers’ need support

and early adolescents’ motivation. However, amongst others, longitudinal studies appeared scarce.

Moreover, in most studies teachers’ need support was measured via student perceptions instead of

via observations or teacher perceptions.

In line with this dissertation’s aim of studying motivation in classrooms, SDT was applied to

analyse videotaped teacher-student interactions. Because longitudinal analyses were conducted,

this dissertation helped fill the gaps both of observational and longitudinal SDT-research

among early adolescents. Further, this research was among the first to compare teacher-student

interactions between types of schools. Prior SDT literature was consulted to develop a rating

sheet and lessons math (137 complete lessons) were analysed in the 20 classes participating in this

study. Findings indicated declines in teachers’ need support over the course of the school year

that consisted of declines in support of the needs for autonomy and relatedness. Further, levels

of observed teacher need support appeared higher in prototypically social constructivist schools

than in prototypically traditional schools and, even more so, than in combined schools. Regarding

manifestations of teachers’ need support, a narrative analysis of lessons math and mother language

(Dutch) showed striking differences as well as similarities between a prototypical traditional and a

prototypical social constructivist class.

Further, positive associations with students’ motivational developments for math were

found for observed need support of their math teachers. In the analyses, a distinction was made

between two conceptualisations of teachers’ need support. First, teachers’ average levels of need

support over the school year (1 measure per teacher) were considered. Second, for each of four

measurement points teachers’ deviations of their individual average levels (4 measures per teacher)

were considered. Surprisingly, associations with students’ motivational developments were found

for average levels but not for deviations. In other words, students appeared more motivated when

they were taught by a teacher who—on average, over the course of the school year—showed higher

levels of need support. However, students’ motivation as measured at a specific time-point was not

associated with their teachers at that time-point being more or less need supportive than usual.

In conclusion, the findings described above do not imply support for the idea that incorporating

(elements of) a social constructivist approach is beneficial for student motivation, although

219

levels of observed teachers’ need support did appear somewhat higher in prototypical social

constructivist than in prototypical traditional schools. Concurrently, findings do not substantiate

the critique expressed in educational literature of social constructivist schools tending to provide

their students with too much freedom too early, thereby undermining their learning. At least for

the prototypical social constructivist schools no indications were found for this to be the case.

Among prominent findings of this dissertation is that from different angles they point towards

the importance of teachers being consistent: Both in their individual practices and as a team

of teachers working at the same school. First, findings on differences between types of schools

can be interpreted in this light. Among plausible interpretations for the lower levels of both

student motivation and teachers’ need support in combined schools than in the other two types

of schools is that when combining elements of different educational approaches a certain degree

of ambivalence tends to be apparent; either because views on instruction are less crystallized or

because contradictions are inherent in the educational approach. This can result in inconsistencies

or lack of clarity in individual teachers’ practices, as well as in large differences between teachers

causing unpredictability for students. Second, findings on associations between teachers’ need

support and students’ motivational developments seem to indicate that teachers’ need support

does have an effect on early adolescents’ motivation, but not an immediate effect. A plausible

interpretation is that for students to benefit, teachers need to have been need supportive for a

while so that students are well prepared to adequately use the support their teachers provide them

with. This interpretation, again, points towards the importance of teachers being consistent, and

implies the importance of well-preparing students when implementing SDT-based interventions

in educational practice as well as making interventions long-lasting.

A final prominent finding also relates to implementation of SDT-interventions in practice.

Results of a narrative analysis of teacher-student interactions in a prototypical traditional and

a prototypical social constructivist class showed that teachers’ opportunities are—in many

ways—bounded by the (type of) school they work at. An illustrative example is that teachers

in prototypical traditional schools do not seem to have much opportunity for contingent,

differentiated instruction, which is an important means to foster students’ need for competence.

Accordingly, when the aim is to stimulate teachers to differentiate their instruction—among the

main targets of current Dutch educational policy—interventions should be directed not only at

individual teachers, but also at the level of the school.

Sum

mar

y

220

Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)

Motivatie onderzocht in de klas.

Invloed van de leeromgeving op de motivatieontwikkeling van vroeg-adolescenten.

Na de overstap naar het voorgezet onderwijs daalt voor veel leerlingen de motivatie voor school.

Het doel van dit proefschrift was om inzicht te geven in hoe de leeromgeving van invloed is op deze

ontwikkeling, zodat de kennis die dit oplevert—uiteindelijk—door scholen gebruikt kan worden

om dalingen in de motivatie tegen te gaan. De uitgevoerde studies zijn onderscheidend binnen

het domein vanwege hun longitudinale karakter en omdat onderzoek “in” klassen is gedaan. Dat

wil zeggen dat de focus lag op (het effect van) wat er werkelijk in klassen gebeurt, in plaats van,

bijvoorbeeld, wat de percepties zijn die leerlingen hebben van hun leeromgeving.

De resultaten lieten zien dat, zoals verwacht, de motivatie van de leerlingen (489 leerlingen

verdeeld over 20 klassen en 10 scholen) daalde. Hoewel de motivatie in de eerste maanden van de

1ste klas VMBO steeg, was voor de rest van het schooljaar een dalende trend zichtbaar.

Uit de resultaten bleek vanuit verschillende invalshoeken dat de motivatieontwikkeling van

leerlingen afhankelijk is van hun leeromgeving. Verklarende variabelen in dit kader waren op

het niveau van het schooltype, van de klas en van de individuele leerling. Op het hoogste niveau

werd gevonden dat de motivatie van leerlingen afhing van het type school waar zij op zaten: op

een prototypisch traditionele school, op een prototypisch sociaal constructivistische school, of

op een school die elementen van beide combineerden. De focus op ‘sociaal constructivistische’ en

‘gecombineerde’ scholen paste binnen dit proefschrift gericht op motivatieonderzoek in de klas,

omdat een belangrijk doel voor scholen van het implementeren van (elementen van) een sociaal

constructivistische benadering is om de motivatie van de leerlingen te verhogen. De prototypisch

‘traditionele’ scholen vormden een contrast omdat sociaal constructivistische uitgangspunten in

onderwijstheorieën haaks staan op traditionele uitgangspunten. In de traditionele benadering

hebben docenten een grote mate van verantwoordelijkheid voor het leerproces van hun

leerlingen en ligt veel nadruk op kennisreproductie. In een sociaal constructivistische benadering

daarentegen, wordt van docenten verwacht dat zij hun leerlingen helpen om hun eigen leerproces

te organiseren en reguleren en ligt meer nadruk op kennisconstructie. De resultaten van het

onderzoek lieten zien dat leerlingen die op een gecombineerde school zaten minder gemotiveerd

waren dan leerlingen op één van de andere twee schooltypes, maar er is (voor de meeste

motivatieconstructen) niet gebleken dat de motivatieontwikkeling af hing van het schooltype. Er

bleken (voor de meeste motivatieconstructen) geen verschillen tussen de prototypisch traditionele

en sociaal constructivistische scholen.

221

Op het niveau van de klas en van de leerling werden (de effecten van) docent-leerling

interacties bestudeerd. Hiertoe werd “Self-Determination Theory” (SDT) toegepast en werd de

hypothese geformuleerd dat het een positief effect heeft op de motivatie als leerlingen worden

onderwezen door docenten die hun fundamentele basisbehoeften aan autonomie, competentie en

verbondenheid ondersteunen. Een review van 71 empirische SDT-studies die sinds 1990 waren

uitgevoerd onder leerlingen in hun vroege adolescentie, toonde een duidelijke bevestiging van de

theorie. Echter, het bleek dat de meeste studies die waren uitgevoerd correlationeel waren, en niet

longitudinaal of experimenteel, en zich baseerden op leerling percepties om ondersteuning van

de basisbehoeften te meten. Het gebruik van docent percepties of van observaties bleek zeldzaam.

In lijn met de focus van dit proefschrift op het onderzoeken van motivatie “in” de klas

werden video’s van lessen geanalyseerd om de ondersteuning van de drie basisbehoeften te

meten. Omdat de analyses longitudinaal waren leverde het onderzoek een bijdrage aan het vullen

van de hiaten van observationeel en longitudinaal SDT-onderzoek onder vroeg-adolescenten.

Een ander vernieuwend element was dat de analyses werden gebruikt voor vergelijkingen

tussen schooltypes. Op basis van SDT literatuur werd een observatieschema ontwikkeld om

docent-leerling interacties te analyseren. Analyses van de wiskundelessen (137 complete lessen

in 20 klassen) lieten zien dat docenten de basisbehoeften van hun leerlingen minder gingen

ondersteunen naarmate het schooljaar vorderde. Deze daling werd veroorzaakt door een afname

in de ondersteuning van de behoeften aan autonomie en aan betrokkenheid. De docenten in de

prototypisch sociaal-constructivistische scholen boden iets meer ondersteuning dan de docenten

in de prototypisch traditionele scholen en veel meer dan de docenten in de gecombineerde scholen.

Een narratieve analyse van lessen wiskunde en Nederlands liet zien dat de ondersteuning van

de basisbehoeften er anders uitzag in een prototypisch traditionele klas dan in een prototypisch

sociaal constructivistische klas, hoewel er ook duidelijke overeenkomsten waren.

De ontwikkeling van de motivatie voor wiskunde van leerlingen bleek positief samen te

hangen met de mate waarin hun wiskundedocent de basisbehoeften ondersteunde. Het construct

‘ondersteuning van basisbehoeften’ werd in de analyses op twee manieren geoperationaliseerd.

De eerste manier was dat voor elke docent de gemiddelde ondersteuning over het schooljaar heen

werd berekend (1 score per docent). De tweede manier dat voor ieder van de vier meetmomenten

voor elke docent de afwijking van dit eigen gemiddelde werd bepaald (4 scores per docent). Uit

de resultaten kwam naar voren dat alleen het gemiddelde zelf, en niet de afwijkingen van dit

gemiddelde, gerelateerd waren aan de motivatieontwikkeling van de leerlingen. Anders gezegd:

leerlingen waren gemotiveerder naarmate hun wiskundedocenten meer ondersteuning—

gemiddeld, over het schooljaar heen—van hun basisbehoeften bood. Echter, als een docent op

Sam

enva

tting

222

een bepaald moment meer of minder ondersteuning ging bieden dan leidde dat niet direct tot een

hogere of lagere motivatie.

Alle uitkomsten overziend is geen ondersteuning gevonden voor het idee dat het implementeren

van (elementen van) een sociaal constructivistische benadering een positieve invloed heeft op

de motivatieontwikkeling van vroeg-adolescenten. Er zijn echter wel aanwijzingen dat docenten

in de prototypisch sociaal constructivistische scholen de basisbehoeften van hun leerlingen (iets)

meer ondersteunen dan docenten in prototypisch traditionele scholen. Tegelijkertijd gaven

de bevindingen ook geen ondersteuning voor de kritiek die wel wordt geuit, dat een sociaal

constructivistische benadering het leren ondermijnt door de leerlingen veel vrijheid te bieden

terwijl zij daar (nog) niet aan toe zijn. Voor de prototypisch sociaal constructivistische scholen

werden geen aanwijzingen gevonden dat dit aan de orde zou zijn.

Een belangrijke conclusie is dat de resultaten op meerdere manieren wijzen op het belang

van consequent handelen van docenten. Het lijkt belangrijk te zijn dat docenten zelf consequent

zijn, maar ook dat zij als team op één lijn zitten. Zo is een plausibele verklaring voor de relatief

lage motivatie van leerlingen in gecombineerde scholen dat doordat in dit schooltype elementen

van verschillende onderwijsbenaderingen worden gecombineerd er een zekere mate van

ambivalentie aanwezig is. Dit kan bijvoorbeeld komen doordat de visie op instructie minder

is uitgekristalliseerd of doordat er tegenstrijdigheden in de benadering zitten. Als gevolg van

deze ambivalentie handelen docenten wellicht minder consequent of zijn de verschillen tussen

docenten groter, wat voor de leerlingen tot onvoorspelbaarheid leidt. De uitkomst dat leerlingen

gemotiveerder zijn naarmate hun docent hun basisbehoeften meer ondersteunt, maar dat het

geen direct effect heeft als de ondersteuning toe of afneemt kan in hetzelfde licht worden bezien.

Een voor de hand liggende verklaring is dat docenten enige tijd ondersteuning moeten hebben

geboden voordat leerlingen goed zijn voorbereid om hier adequaat gebruik van te kunnen maken.

Voor het implementeren van SDT-interventies in de praktijk zou dit betekenen dat leerlingen

goed moeten worden voorbereid, maar ook dat het van belang is te waarborgen dat interventies

een langdurig effect hebben.

Een belangrijke conclusie die ook betrekking heeft op de vraag hoe SDT-interventies kunnen

worden geïmplementeerd in het onderwijs is dat de mogelijkheden van docenten worden beperkt

door het type school waar zij werken. Deze conclusie komt voort uit de narratieve analyse van

docent-leerling interacties in een prototypisch traditionele en in een prototypische sociaal

constructivistische klas. Een voorbeeld, ter illustratie, is dat docenten in prototypisch traditionele

scholen weinig mogelijkheden hebben voor gedifferentieerde instructie (een belangrijke manier

om het competentiegevoel van leerlingen te ondersteunen). Dat betekent dat om gedifferentieerde

223

instructie te bevorderen—een belangrijk streven in het huidige Nederlandse onderwijsbeleid—

interventies nodig zijn die niet alleen op individuele docenten zijn gericht, maar ook ingrijpen op

het niveau van de school.

Sam

enva

tting

224

Dankwoord (Acknowledgements in Dutch)

Bij het doen van mijn promotieonderzoek en het schrijven van dit proefschrift ben ik geholpen

en gesteund door verschillende mensen. De afgelopen jaren heb ik dan ook regelmatig gedacht:

“Over persoon X ga ik Y zeggen in mijn dankwoord”. Nu het zover is heb ik toch besloten mijn

dankwoord kort te houden. Sommige persoonlijke herinneringen zijn geschikter om in gesprekken

te memoreren (wat ik zeker zal doen). Dit proefschrift is echter niet volledig zonder dat een aantal

mensen die een belangrijke bijdrage hebben geleverd zijn genoemd en bedankt.

Mijn (co-)promotoren, Marie-Christine Opdenakker en Alexander Minnaert. Jullie hebben

mij wegwijs gemaakt in jullie vakgebied, in het doen van onderzoek op dit gebied en in het

schrijven van artikelen. Ik heb er veel aan gehad dat jullie niet snel tevreden waren en mij er

altijd toe probeerden te zetten een stuk beter te maken (hoewel ik soms hoopte dat jullie gewoon

zouden zeggen: “Zo is het goed”). Het is dankzij jullie goede begeleiding dat ik de afgelopen jaren

veel heb geleerd. Marie-Christine, van jou heb ik geleerd om mijn teksten goed te structuren, om

zo te schrijven dat mensen ook begrijpen wat ik wil zeggen en om alle details grondig te checken.

Bedankt daarvoor, voor je betrokkenheid bij het onderwerp van mijn onderzoek en voor je altijd

uitgebreide, kritische en gedetailleerde commentaar op mijn hoofdstukken. Alexander, de manier

waarop jij mee kon gaan in mijn gedachtegang was bijzonder en maakte dat je mij kon dwingen

kritisch te reflecteren. Het was ook prettig dat jij altijd het geheel van een hoofdstuk of van het

proefschrift overzag. Van jou heb ik geleerd om te blijven twijfelen aan mijn argumentatie en om

mijn resultaten in een breder perspectief te plaatsen. Bedankt daarvoor.

De afgelopen jaren heb ik met heel veel plezier bij de afdeling orthopedagogiek gewerkt. Ik wil

alle collegae die—op welke wijze dan ook—een bijdrage hebben geleverd aan de totstandkoming

van dit proefschrift hartelijk bedanken. Een aantal mensen wil ik in het bijzonder noemen.

Mijn collegae van Leer- en onderwijsproblemen wil ik bedanken voor het delen van hun

onderzoeks- en onderwijservaring. Els van den Bosch, bedankt voor de goede samenwerking

bij de stagebegeleiding. Het was erg prettig dat ik met vragen altijd bij jou terecht kon. Bé

Poolman en Barry de Groot, ik vond het erg leuk om ideeën uit te wisselen in onze ‘promovendi-

onderzoeksoverleggen’. Wondimu Ahmed, thank you for our interesting conversations. I admire

your courage and passion. Anke de Boer, jouw enthousiasme en je betrokkenheid bij je collegae,

maar ook bij de afdeling, maakten het heel prettig om met jou samen te werken. Bedankt daarvoor.

Ik vond het leuk om, met name in het laatste deel van mijn promotieonderzoek, meer te delen, ook

225

op persoonlijk vlak. Ik hoop je in de toekomst nog vaak tegen komen! Marlous Tiekstra, vanaf het

allereerste begin heb je veel interesse en betrokkenheid getoond bij mijn project. Het was heel fijn

dat ik altijd bij jou terecht kon als ik ergens niet uit kwam of over van gedachten wilde wisselen.

Ik wil je bedanken voor alle goede (inhoudelijke) gesprekken, waarin je altijd kritisch was, en

voor je enthousiasme! Agnes Bugel, bedankt voor alle hulp en steun bij het afronden van mijn

proefschrift! Het werd in de (aller)laatste fase ook een beetje jouw project en dat was heel prettig.

Ernst Thoutenhoofd, het was altijd heel leuk om met jou te discussiëren—en vaak leerzaam. Ik

bewonder jouw collegialiteit en het feit dat je trouw blijft aan je principes. Bedankt voor je steun,

vertrouwen en betrokkenheid. Daarnaast wil ik je bedanken voor het vormgeven van de folder

voor de scholen. Wendy Post, je weet hoeveel ik heb gehad aan jouw vertrouwen en steun. Het

was heel prettig dat ik altijd bij jou terecht kon, bijvoorbeeld als ik motivatieproblemen had. En

aan iedereen die niet weet wat te doen, ik kan de oplossing ‘vraag het aan Wendy en ga ervan uit

dat zij altijd gelijk heeft’ van harte aanbevelen.

Nynke Boltje, het was direct heel leuk om een collega van jou te worden. Bedankt voor je

betrokkenheid! Linda Visser, bedankt voor je voortdurende interesse en voor de gezellige

momenten. Erika Boers, wat was het ontzettend leuk om ‘buren’ te zijn. Ik zal de tijd dat het

Nieuwenhuisgebouw ‘van ons (vieren)’ was nooit vergeten! Tim Tausendfreund, ik heb je

collegialiteit en het feit dat je altijd open stond voor discussies gewaardeerd. Jelle Drost, het was

heel prettig om te weten dat ik in jouw ogen in ieder geval niks meer verkeerd kon doen. Bedankt

daarvoor. Farida Kurniawati, thank you for your involving me in your PhD. Linda Greveling, ik

vond het fijn mijn ervaringen met jou te kunnen delen. Bedankt! Laura Batstra, bedankt voor de

leuke gesprekken en voor het altijd op het goede moment boos worden. Meenakshi Srivastava,

thank you so much for your warmth and for always showing interest.

Zonder de bereidheid van docenten en leerlingen om deel te nemen aan de dataverzameling

had dit proefschrift er niet gelegen. Ik vond het bijzonder dat we als onderzoekers welkom waren

om—met camera—lessen bij te wonen en zo te volgen wat er in de klassen gebeurde (en het

bekijken van het materiaal was lang niet zo saai als sommige leerlingen vreesden!). Dank daarvoor.

Daarnaast wil ik de contactpersonen, mentoren en docenten wiskunde en Nederlands bedanken

voor hun inzet en flexibiliteit. De leerlingen wil ik hartelijk bedanken voor het meerdere malen

invullen van de vragenlijsten, zeker omdat ik me kan voorstellen dat het niet altijd gemakkelijk

was hier gemotiveerd voor te blijven.

Hans Klompmaker, Anneke Kobs en Sanne Feenstra, als student-assistenten hebben jullie een

belangrijke bijdrage geleverd aan de dataverzameling en, daarmee, aan de totstandkoming van

226

dit proefschrift. Ik vond het heel prettig dat ik het verzamelen van het videomateriaal niet alleen

hoefde te doen, maar dat we met z’n vieren waren. Jullie verdienen alleen al een prijs omdat het

jullie altijd lukte om op tijd klaar te staan om een les te filmen. Dat moest namelijk meestal in een

ander deel van het land, vaak voor 10.00 uur en soms met een vertraagde trein. Maar jullie hebben

veel meer gedaan. Ik heb het zeer gewaardeerd dat jullie je medeverantwoordelijk voelden voor

het project en altijd bereid waren kritisch mee te denken, inhoudelijk, maar bijvoorbeeld ook

over hoe we de camera’s het beste konden opstellen. Mijn dank voor jullie inzet, flexibiliteit en

enthousiasme is groot.

Mijn aandachtsgebiedscollegae/adviseur van de Universiteit van Amsterdam en de University

of Michigan wil ik bedanken voor de gezamenlijke overleggen. Thea Peetsma, Ineke van der Veen,

Jaap Schuitema en Lisette Hornstra, ik vond het heel waardevol om jullie zo nu en dan te spreken en

heb jullie input en betrokkenheid erg gewaardeerd. Ik bewaar ook goede herinneringen aan onze

gezamenlijke congresbezoeken. Stuart Karabenick, thank you for your input and encouragement.

I want to thank my NORIM-colleagues for the nice meetings and occasional exchange of ideas.

Karin Smit, Barbara Flunger, and Edgar Schoreit, I want to thank you especially.

Maarten Vansteenkiste, Theo Wubbels en Paul van Geert, mijn hartelijke dank voor uw

bereidheid deel uit te maken van mijn leescommissie.

Martine Wilcke, bedankt voor het maken van de illustratie op de cover. Jij was de aangewezen

persoon om deze illustratie te maken omdat je behalve kunstenares ook lerares bent. Myra Nijman,

bedankt voor het vormgeven van het proefschrift.

Arnout Prince, bedankt voor de samenwerking de afgelopen jaren. Als kamergenoot en

aandachtsgebiedscollegae heb ik veel met jou gedeeld. Het was—vooral in de eerste fase—heel

prettig dat jij altijd open stond voor overleg. Ik bewaar hele goede herinneringen aan onze vele

inhoudelijke gesprekken en aan onze gezamenlijke—eerste—congresbezoeken. Ik vond het leuk

dat jij vaak, net als ik, overal tot het einde aan toe wilde blijven en ik heb het enthousiasme en de

betrokkenheid die jij kunt hebben ontzettend gewaardeerd. Ik ben blij dat je mijn paranimf wil

zijn.

Ineke Haakma, bedankt voor je voortdurende betrokkenheid, je steun en je enthousiasme

de afgelopen jaren. Met jouw bereidheid om altijd tijd vrij te maken voor overleg—meestal

over SDT (de theorie die in dit proefschrift gebruikt wordt)—heb je een belangrijke bijdrage

aan dit proefschrift geleverd. Het was heel leuk en erg waardevol om met jou videomateriaal te

kunnen bekijken—van mijn, maar ook van jouw project. Bedankt daarvoor, maar ook voor je

227

betrokkenheid op persoonlijk vlak, voor alle leuke gesprekken en gezellige momenten. Ik ben blij

dat je mij paranimf wilt zijn.

Lieve Henri, bedankt voor je voortdurende interesse en het direct ophangen van de

telefoon als ik ‘Ja’ antwoordde op de vraag of ik aan het werk was. Lieve Joyce, bedankt dat je er

altijd bent om mij te steunen, voor je betrokkenheid en voor je hulp. Lieve Reginald, bedankt voor

je vertrouwen, voor je hulp en voor het aan iedereen vertellen hoe belangrijk het onderwerp van

mijn proefschrift is. Ik ben blij dat je er altijd voor mij bent. Lieve Feline, zonder jou had alles er

anders uitgezien, ook dit proefschrift. Ik ben blij dat je er bent.

228

Curriculum Vitae

Kim Stroet (1979) was born in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, where she attended a Montessori

primary school and both a Dalton and a ‘traditional' school for secondary education. She obtained

master’s degrees in Psychology (2006) and in Sociology (2009) from the University of Groningen,

the Netherlands. As part of her studies, in 2008 she spent a three-month period at the Research

Institute for Sociology of the University of Cologne, Germany. In 2009, she was appointed to be

PhD candidate at the Department of Educational Sciences, Centre for Special Needs Education and

Youth Care, of the University of Groningen. In this position, she worked on the research resulting

in this dissertation that was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research

(NWO). Currently, Kim Stroet is assistant professor at the department of Education and Child

Studies of Leiden University, the Netherlands

Publications

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2014, in press). Need supportive teaching in practice: A narrative analysis in schools with contrasting educational approaches. Social

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2014, in press). Fostering early adolescents’ motivation: a longitudinal study into the effectiveness of social constructivist, traditional and combined schools for prevocational education. doi: 0.1080/01443410.2014.893561

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 9, 65-87.

Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M.-C., Stroet, K., & Bosker, R. (2013). Changes in teachers’ involvement versus rejection and links with academic motivation during the first year of secondary education: A multilevel growth curve analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

, 1348-1371.

Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M.-C., Stroet, K., & Bosker, R. (2012). Observed lesson structure during the first year of secondary education: Exploration of change and link with academic engagement. , 835-850.