Elsevier

Learning and Instruction

Volume 22, Issue 6, December 2012, Pages 431-439
Learning and Instruction

Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.04.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Grounded in self-determination theory, the aim of this study was (a) to examine naturally occurring configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and clear expectations (i.e., a central aspect of teacher structure), and (b) to investigate associations with academic motivation, self-regulated learning, and problem behavior. Based on person-centered analyses in a sample of high school students (N = 1036), four different perceived teaching configurations emerged: high autonomy support – clear expectations, low autonomy support – vague expectations, high autonomy support, and clear expectations. The teaching configuration characterized by perceived autonomy support and clear expectations was related to the most positive pattern of outcomes, whereas the opposing teaching configuration related to the most negative pattern of outcomes. The two remaining groups fell in between. The discussion focuses on the compatibility of teacher autonomy support and teacher structure.

Highlights

► Identifying teaching configurations varying in autonomy support and expectations. ► High autonomy support – clear expectations yields the best learning pattern. ► High autonomy support – clear expectations yields the least problem behavior. ► Teacher autonomy support and structure are complementary teaching dimensions.

Introduction

Within self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000), learners’ motivation and self-regulated learning are said to be facilitated by nurturing their basic psychological needs for autonomy (i.e., experiencing a sense of volition), competence (i.e., feeling effective and masterful), and relatedness (i.e., feeling close and connected). Although dozens of studies in the SDT literature have provided convincing evidence for the manifold learning benefits associated with teacher autonomy support versus control (Reeve, 2009, Vansteenkiste et al., 2010), far less attention has been paid to the role of teacher structure (e.g., Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010) and teacher involvement (e.g., Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Structure and involvement are said to generally feed into the needs for competence and relatedness, respectively.

A first aim was to add to this small body of work by investigating how autonomy support and clear expectations, one of the most central aspects of structure, relate to one another. We did so (a) by examining whether both teaching dimensions are positively related rather than being antagonistic and (b) by examining how both teaching dimensions naturally co-occur, thereby relying on a person-centered analytic approach. The second aim was to relate the retained perceived teaching constellations to students’ motivation, learning strategies, and problem behavior.

“Do I really need to explain this homework in detail? When will you finally learn to take responsibility for your own learning process?” Teachers using statements such as these may think of themselves as being autonomy supportive because they expect their students to learn to manage their study work independently, that is, without the teacher being available to provide help or to monitor the learning process. Within this view, teacher autonomy support gets equated with the promotion of independent functioning, which involves granting students unlimited freedom and requiring that they resolve issues by themselves, that is, without help of the teacher. Although a definition of autonomy support as encouragement of independence is used only implicitly in the literature on self-regulated learning, this viewpoint is explicitly endorsed by some scholars in the teaching literature (e.g., Karagozoglu, 2009) and is quite common in the broader socialization literature (e.g., Silk, Morris, Kanaya, & Steinberg, 2003).

From the SDT-perspective, teacher autonomy support has a different meaning. Autonomy-supportive teachers allow students to act upon their personal interests and values, such that their learning is accompanied with a sense of volition and psychological freedom (e.g., Reeve, 2009). To differentiate SDT’s view on autonomy support from promotion of independence, Soenens et al. (2007) coined the term promotion of volitional functioning. Teachers can foster volitional functioning by providing students with the desired amount of choice, by giving a meaningful rationale when choice is constrained, by accepting rather than countering irritation and anger that arises during the learning process, and by using inviting language (e.g., “you can”) rather than controlling language (e.g., “you should”). Numerous studies have shown that the benefits of fostering volitional functioning are manifold, including deep-level learning, positive affect, achievement and behavioral persistence (e.g., Buff, Reusser, Rakoczy, & Pauli, 2011; for an overview, see Reeve, 2009).

Note that the notion of volition as defined in SDT has a different meaning from how it is used in the social psychological literature (e.g., Dewitte & Lens, 1999) where volition refers to self-control, that is, “one’s use of cognitive and attentional resources to override, inhibit or alter impulses in the service of attaining personal goals or satisfying motives” (Vohs & Heatherton, 2000, p. 214). When applied to the educational domain, students high in self-control would, for instance, be able to resist the temptation to get involved in leisure activities and instead give priority to their homework. Yet, from the SDT-perspective, this act of self-control is not necessarily engaged in willingly as students could give priority to their homework for pressuring reasons (e.g., to show they are model students). Previous SDT-based research (e.g., Moller, Deci, & Ryan, 2006) has shown that such a pressured engagement in self-control activities yields a more energy-draining effect relative to a volitional or willing engagement.

More important for the present study, these two views on teacher autonomy support (i.e., promotion of volitional functioning versus promotion of independence) imply a different relation with teacher structure. When teachers promote independence and grant unlimited freedom to their students, it is unlikely that they will offer directions, set goals, and communicate expectations (i.e., structure). Thus, the likely consequence of promoting independence is that teachers create a laissez-faire climate where students lack sufficient guidance. In contrast, when defined as the promotion of volitional functioning, autonomy support does not imply a lack of structure. On the contrary, if teachers want to provide guidance that is experienced as truly competence-supportive by the students, teachers may best adopt the students’ frame of reference. Taking the students’ perspective (i.e., a key element of the promotion of volitional functioning) then allows teachers to provide truly competence-supportive structure, that is, guidance that meets students’ problems and wishes. Within SDT, the opposite of teacher autonomy support is not structure but the use of a controlling style, where teachers frustrate students’ need for autonomy by directing their activities in an intrusive and pressuring fashion. Such pressure may involve internally controlling strategies, such as guilt-trips or conditional regard (e.g., Soenens, Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, & Dochy, 2012), or rather externally controlling strategies, such as threatening with tests or harsh sanctions (e.g., Grolnick & Ryan, 1987).

Given that high autonomy support is not equated with low structure in SDT, the question arises how exactly structure is defined. Reeve (2006; see also Grolnick, 2003) argued that structure has three components, that is, (a) presenting clear goals, rules, and expectations before a learning activity, (b) offering help, guidance, and supervision during a learning activity, and (c) giving positive, constructive feedback after a learning activity. Conceptualized in this way, structure primarily nurtures students’ need for competence as students who are given sufficient structure likely feel able to effectively deal with the study tasks at hand (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Similar to the positive description of structure, a lack of structure can be described along three subcomponents. These subcomponents are: (a) vagueness and confusion as opposed to providing clear expectations, (b) lack of help as opposed to offering assistance, and (c) critical and competence-thwarting feedback as opposed to positive and constructive feedback.

Previous research within the SDT tradition has primarily examined the correlates of feedback. For instance, the provision of positive feedback has been found to promote intrinsic enjoyment (e.g., Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Sideridis, 2008) and engagement (e.g., Koka & Hein, 2003). Considerably less attention has been devoted to teachers’ communication of expectations (but see Kunter, Baumert, & Koller, 2007). This is surprising because the communication of expectations, as it represents the starting point of the process of structuring students’ learning process, is an essential feature of structure.

When defined as the promotion of volitional functioning, autonomy support and structure do not constitute opposing teaching dimensions that would be situated on a single continuum. Instead, “they can, and should, exist side-by-side in a mutually supportive way” (Reeve, 2002, p. 193; our italicizing). In line with this view, Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens, and Dochy (2009) found through confirmatory factor analysis that autonomy support (i.e., promoting volitional functioning) and structure are separate, yet positively related, teaching dimensions. Similarly, Jang et al. (2010), relying on observer ratings, found that autonomy support and structure co-varied positively. Similar findings have been obtained in the domain of parenting (e.g., Farkas & Grolnick, 2010).

Due to the recent call to consider autonomy support and structure as separate and compatible dimensions (e.g., Jang et al., 2010, Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2010), researchers have paid more attention to the effects of combining teacher autonomy support and structure on learning, adjustment, and grades. These studies have generally shown that both teacher autonomy support and structure play a role in the initiation and regulation of learning behavior. For instance, Trouilloud, Sarrazin, Bressoux, and Bois (2006) showed that teachers’ communication of expectations yielded a more positive effect on perceived competence when provided in an autonomy-supportive way. Using observational assessments, Jang et al. (2010) showed that both observed autonomy support and structure predicted engagement. Next, Sierens et al. (2009) demonstrated that perceived teacher structure only had a positive relation to self-regulated learning when it was combined with at least a moderate amount of perceived teacher autonomy support. Farkas and Grolnick (2010) found that these findings can be generalized to the parenting domain.

Finally, although not grounded in the SDT-perspective, a study by Patrick, Turner, Meyer, and Midgley (2003) is relevant. On the basis of observed teacher classroom practices, a group of supportive teachers was identified. Specifically, these teachers gave intrinsic reasons for learning, expressed confidence in the pupils’ ability to master the material, provided clear expectations for desirable classroom behavior, and consistently followed up on these consensually agreed upon expectations. Interestingly, pupils in this supportive group, which combined autonomy supportive and well-structured teaching practices, reported using less self-handicapping, less avoidance of help-seeking, and less disruptive behavior compared to groups of pupils belonging to an ambiguous (characterized primarily by inconsistent structure) and non-supportive (characterized by a controlling approach) classroom environment.

The first aim of this study was to advance our understanding of the association between teacher autonomy support and structure. In line with previous studies (e.g., Jang et al., 2010), we first adopted a variable-oriented approach to examine their association. Based on SDT, we expected that both perceived teaching dimensions would emerge as distinct, yet positively correlated, dimensions in factor analyses. Such a finding would be indicative of the compatibility of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure (Hypothesis 1a).

Further, we reasoned that if perceived teacher autonomy support and structure truly form different dimensions, they should co-occur in different ways in students’ perceptions of teachers. Such distinct subgroups of perceived teaching configurations can best be modeled by a person-oriented approach, such as cluster analysis (von Eye & Bogat, 2006). In this study, we focused on clear expectations to operationalize structure. We hypothesized that clear expectations can be communicated in an autonomy-supportive way, for instance, by providing a rationale for the offered expectations, or in a rather controlling way, for instance, by threatening with punishments if students fail to comply with the expectations (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984). Accordingly, we expected to find two teaching constellations characterized by the provision of clear expectations: teachers who are perceived as offering clear expectations and scoring either high or low on autonomy support. Similarly, we reasoned that an absence of clear expectations may also go hand in hand with either low or high autonomy support. Conversely, if autonomy support and structure would rather be situated on a single continuum, only two clusters would emerge: a high autonomy support with vague expectations cluster and a low autonomy support with clear expectations cluster (Hypothesis 1b).

The second aim was to examine the external validity of the retained teaching configurations by investigating whether students belonging to different clusters would display a different pattern of learning outcomes (i.e., time management, concentration, information processing, persistence, test anxiety) and motivation. Within SDT, a qualitative distinction is made between autonomous and controlled motivation. When autonomously motivated, pupils learn out of curiosity and interest or because they find the learning task personally meaningful. With controlled motivation, pupils learn to meet externally or internally imposed demands. Moreover, we broadened the range of outcomes by including measures of school-specific problem behavior (i.e., skipping classes) and more general externalizing problem behavior (e.g., stealing or drug use; see also Patrick et al., 2003). We did this because teachers do not only have the task of transmitting knowledge and learning material, but also face the challenge of disciplining their class such that students do not engage in problem behavior. The inclusion of these additional outcomes allowed us to examine whether the beneficial correlates of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure would radiate to the prevention of problem behavior.

Based on SDT, we expected that the cluster consisting of students scoring high on autonomy support and expectations would show the most adaptive pattern of outcomes because students’ psychological needs for autonomy and competence are best met in this case. Conversely, the cluster of students scoring low on both teaching dimensions is hypothesized to relate to the most detrimental set of outcomes because both the needs for autonomy and competence are most likely to be frustrated (Hypothesis 2).

The two remaining clusters were hypothesized to score in between. We reasoned that the perceived presence of one teaching dimension (i.e., either autonomy support or clear expectations) would compensate to a certain degree for the damaging effect of the absence of the other teaching dimension. We examined in a rather exploratory way whether these compensatory effects might be somehow outcome specific. First, we speculate that clear expectations might be associated with any kind of motivation (i.e., controlled and autonomous motivation) as students need to know what is expected from them to be motivated to engage in the requested activity. Therefore, it is possible that controlled motivation will be higher in students involved in the cluster consisting of clear expectations and low autonomy support compared to students involved in the high autonomy support and vague expectations cluster. As for autonomous motivation to fully develop, we assume that both autonomy support and clear expectations need to be present (Research Question 1). Second, abundant research in the parenting domain has shown that especially clear rules and expectations could prevent adolescents’ problem behavior (e.g., Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994). Extrapolating from this work, one might expect less problem behavior in students within the cluster of clear expectations and low autonomy support than in students within the cluster of vague expectations and high autonomy support. This is because students who do not perceive clear teacher expectations experience a laissez-faire climate where any kind of behavior is permitted, including school-related problem behavior, like skipping classes (Research Question 2).

When examining these hypotheses we controlled for gender and grade level. This is necessary as girls typically score higher on autonomous motivation and various self-regulated learning strategies except test anxiety (e.g., De Blide, Vansteenkiste, & Lens, 2011), while boys score higher on problem behavior (e.g., LaCourse, Nagin, Tremblay, Vitaro, & Claes, 2003). As for grade level, students’ intrinsic motivation (e.g., Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005) and self-regulated learning (e.g., Vansteenkiste, Sierens, Soenens, Luyckx, & Lens, 2009) have been found to decline with increasing grade level, while externalizing problem behavior typically increase till the 9th and 10th grade (e.g., Warr, 1993).

Section snippets

Participants and procedure

Participants were 1036 students in 7th through 12th grade and an additional (optional) year for specialization (13th grade). They were evenly divided by gender (50% male). Their age ranged from 12 to 21 years with a mean age of 15.52 years (SD = 1.98). In terms of education, 110 students (11%) followed a vocational track, while 926 students (89%) followed an academic track. All students filled out the questionnaire during a class period of 50 min. In terms of distribution across the different

Descriptives and background characteristics

To examine the associations between gender and grade level and the outcomes, a MANOVA was performed (using PASW 18.0). The multivariate effects of gender [Pilai’s Trace, F(10, 1015) = 10.24, p < .001; η2 = .09] and grade level [Pilai’s Trace, F(50, 5095) = 7.16, p < .001; η2 = .07] were significant, while the gender by grade level interaction was not. At the univariate level, gender was significantly associated with autonomous motivation [F(1, 1024) = 19.34, p < .001; η2 = .02], time and study

Discussion

The current state of the literature on the relationship between autonomy support and structure is one of confusion (Reeve, 2006). In an attempt to remove some of this confusion, we used both a variable-oriented (i.e., factor analysis) and a person-oriented approach (i.e., cluster analysis) to advance our knowledge about (a) the relation between autonomy support and a central aspect of structure, that is, clear expectations and (b) their relation with motivation, learning, and problem behavior

References (52)

  • M. Belmont et al.

    Teacher as social context: A measure of student perceptions of teacher provision of involvement, structure, and autonomy support

    (1988)
  • M. Bong

    Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2001)
  • J.N. Breckenridge

    Validating cluster analysis: consistent replication and symmetry

    Multivariate Behavioral Research

    (2000)
  • J. De Blide et al.

    Understanding the association between future time perspective and self-regulated learning through the lens of self-determination theory

    Learning and Instruction

    (2011)
  • E.L. Deci et al.

    Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior

    (1985)
  • E.L. Deci et al.

    The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior

    Psychological Inquiry

    (2000)
  • B.S. Everitt et al.

    Cluster analysis

    (2001)
  • M.S. Farkas et al.

    Examining the components and concomitants of parental structure in the academic domain

    Motivation and Emotion

    (2010)
  • Garson, D. G. (1998). Cluster analysis. In Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved 15.06.09, from...
  • T. Goetz et al.

    Between- and within-domain relations of students’ academic emotions

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2007)
  • W.S. Grolnick

    The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backfires

    (2003)
  • W. Grolnick et al.

    Autonomy in children’s learning: an experimental and individual difference investigation

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1987)
  • R.K. Hambleton

    Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: a progress report

    European Journal of Psychological Assessment

    (1994)
  • H. Jang et al.

    Engaging students in learning activities: it’s not autonomy support or structure, but autonomy support and structure

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2010)
  • K.G. Jöreskog et al.

    LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language

    (1996)
  • R. Koestner et al.

    Setting limits on children’s behavior: the differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity

    Journal of Personality

    (1984)
  • Cited by (284)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text