Effects of autonomy-supportive teaching on student learning and motivation

Journal of Experimental Education

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 284-316

  Furtak, Erin Marie ^a   Kunter, Mareike ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

achievement; autonomy support; experimental study; motivation; reform science teaching; secondary science; self determination theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861403181     PISSN: 00220973     EISSN: 19400683     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2011.573019     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Andre T., & Windschitl M. (2003). Interest, epistemological belief, and intentional conceptual change. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 173-197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. 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, 72, 261-278. doi:10.1348/000709902158883
3. Black A. E., & Deci E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6740::AID-SCE43.0.CO;2-3
4. Blumenfeld P. C., Soloway E., Marx R. W., Krajcik J., Guzdial M., & Palinscar A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4 8
5. Boggiano A. K., & Katz P. (1991). Maladaptive achievement patterns in students: The role of teachers' controlling strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 47(4), 35-51.
6. Bransford J. D., Brown A. L., & Cocking R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. Ciani K. D., Middleton M. J., Summers J. J., & Sheldon K. M. (2010). Buffering against performance classroom goal structures: The importance of autonomy support and classroom community. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 88-99. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.001
8. Cobb P. (1994). Constructivism in mathematics and science education. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 4. doi:10.3102/0013189023007004
9. Cohen D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311-329. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164355
10. Collins A. M., Greeno J. G., & Resnick L. B. (Eds.). (2001). International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Oxford, England: Elsevier.
11. 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, 88, 715-730. doi:10.1037/0022- 0663.88.4.715
12. Corno L., & Mandinach E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 88-108.
13. Crawford B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:93.0.CO;2-2
14. Deci E. L., & Ryan R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
15. Deci E. L., Schwatz A. J., Sheinman L., & Ryan R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults' orientation toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642-650. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642
16. Deci E. L., Vallerand R. J., Pelletier L. G., & Ryan R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-346. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4 6
17. Elliot A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403 3
18. Fredricks J. A., Blumenfeld P. C., & Paris A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
19. Furtak E. M., Seidel T., Iverson H., & Briggs D. C. (2009, August). Recent experimental studies of inquiry-based teaching: A meta-analysis and review. Paper presented at the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction Biennial Meeting, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
20. Furtak E. M., & Shavelson R. J. (2009). Guidance, conceptual understanding, and student learning: An investigation of inquiry-based teaching in the US. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 181-203). Munich, Germany: Waxmann.
21. Greeno J. G., Collins A. M., & Resnick L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York, NY: Macmillan Library.
22. Guskey T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12. doi:10.3102/0013189023007004
23. Hardy, I., Jonen A.,Möller K., & Stern E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students' understanding of "floating and sinking." Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 307-326. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.307
24. Hestenes D., Wells M., & Swackhamer G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-151. doi:10.1119/1.2343497
25. 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, 38, 611-652. doi:10.3102/00028312038003611
26. Hmelo-Silver C. E., Duncan R. G., & Chinn C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368
27. Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P., Rodriguez A. B., & Duschl R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011) 84:6 3.0.CO;2-F
28. 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, 41(2), 75-86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102 1
29. Kunter M., & Baumert J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9, 231-251. doi:10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7
30. Mayer R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
31. McDermott L. C., Shaffer P. S., Rosenquist,M. L., & Physics Education Group at the University ofWashington. (1996). Physics by inquiry (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Wiley.
32. Meece J. L., Blumenfeld P. C.,&Hoyle R. H. (1988). Students' goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 524-523. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.514
33. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. National Research Council. (2001). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
36. Pintrich P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
37. Pintrich P. R., Marx R. W., & Boyle R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199. doi:10.2307/1170472
38. Pope D. C. (2003). Doing school: How we are creating a generation of stressed-out, materialistic, and miseducated students. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39. Ramm G., Prenzel M., Baumert J., Blum W., Lehmann R., Leutner D., Schiefele U. (Eds.). (2006). PISA 2003: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [PISA 2003: Documentation of Instruments]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
40. Reeve J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44, 159-175. doi:10.1080/00461520903028990
41. Reeve J., Bolt E., & Cai Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537-548. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.537
42. Reeve J., & Jang H. (2006).What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209-218. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
43. Reeve J., Jang H., Carrell D., Jeon S., & Barch J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147-169. doi:10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f
44. Reeve J., Nix G., & Hamm D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 375-392. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2. 375
45. Roehrig G. H., & Luft U. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24. doi:10.1080/ 0950069022000070261
46. Ryan R. M. (1982). Control and information in the interpersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450
47. Ryan R. M., & Deci E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
48. Ryan R.M.,Koestner R.,&Deci E. L. (1991).Varied forms of persistence: When free-choice behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185-205. doi:10.1007/BF00995170
49. Ryan R. M., & Powelson C. L. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness as fundamental to motivation and education. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(1), 49-66.
50. Schneider R. M., Krajcik J., & Blumenfeld P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 283-312. doi:10.1002/tea. 20055
51. Schroeder C. M., Scott T. P., Tolson H., Huang T.-Y., & Lee Y.-H. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1436-1460. doi:10.1002/tea.20212
52. Scott P.,Mortimer E. F.,&Aguiar,O.G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse:Afundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605-631. doi:10.1002/sce.20131
53. Sfard A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the danger of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. doi:10.3102/0013189027002004
54. Shavelson R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
55. Smith J. P., DiSessa A. A., & Roschelle J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0302 1
56. 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, 39, 97-110. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902 2
57. Trowbridge D. E., & McDermott L. C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1020-1028. doi:10.1119/1.12298
58. Trowbridge D. E., & McDermott L. C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 49, 242-253. doi:10.1119/1.12525
59. Tsai Y.-M., Kunter M., Ludtke, 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, 100, 460-472. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.460
60. Turner J. C., Meyer D. K., Cox K. E., Logan C., DiCintio M., & Thomas C. T. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 730-745. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.730
61. Urdan T. (2004). Using multiple methods to assess students' perceptions of classroom goal structures. European Psychologist, 9, 222-231. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.9.4.222
62. Wallace C. S., & Kang N.-H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 936-960. doi:10.1002/tea.20032
63. White B.Y.,&Frederiksen J. R. (1998). Inquiry,modeling, andmetacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601 2
64. Williams G. C., & Deci E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychological values by medical students: A test of selfdetermination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767-779. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.70.4.767
65. Windschitl M. (2004). Folk theories of "inquiry:" How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481-512. doi:10.1002/tea.20010
66. Zimmerman B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1016