Teacher Support of Student Autonomy in Comprehensive School Reform Classrooms

Abstract

Background/Context

Research in the self-determination theoretical (SDT) tradition indicates that teachers’ autonomy-supportive behaviors result in students’ greater perceived academic competence, better academic performance, and increased achievement. This study describes autonomy-supportive teacher behaviors in schools participating in Comprehensive School Reform (CSR).

Research Question

In a 2006 pilot study to determine if autonomous opportunities occurred in CSR classroom contexts, Bozack, McCaslin, and Good identified the presence or absence of autonomy-supporting teaching in their written narratives of classroom practices. The current study moves that pilot research forward by asking, Are autonomy-supportive teaching practices present? And if so, what is the nature of the teacher-student interactions in these classrooms?

Population

The sample consisted of 696 intervals of field notes from 106 classroom observations in five CSR schools in Grades 3, 4, and 5.

Research Design

Comprehensive School Reform Classroom Observation System (CSRCOS) observation field notes were analyzed using the Autonomy Supportive Behavior Instrument (ASBI). The scale was developed based on previous SDT research suggestions about how teachers can foster autonomy in the classroom.

Conclusions

Results indicated that all eight teaching practices suggested by SDT were present in our field notes; however, their frequency and form varied considerably from SDT expectations. Students had many opportunities to manipulate objects, but in half of the codes, we found that students were using the same objects for the same tasks in the same way, suggesting that there was little opportunity for students to choose how they wanted to work with objects. Students had many opportunities to talk. Teachers prompted and guided student learning most of the time, yet rarely helped students to relate ideas and concepts from one topic to another or from one lesson to another. Opportunities for student choice were infrequent, and when our field notes included verbal exchange, we found that teachers consistently responded to student questions and student-initiated dialogue. We rarely identified explicit instances of encouragement or teachers engaging the experiences, expertise, or perspective of students.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Assor

, Kaplan

, and Roth

(2002). Choice is good but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviors predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261—278.

Black

A. E.

, and 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.

Boggiano

A. K.

, Flink

, Shields

, Seelbach

, and Barrett

(1993). Use of techniques promoting students’ self-determination: Effects on students’ analytic problem solving skills. Motivation and Emotion, 17, 319—336.

Bozack

A. R.

, McCaslin

, and Good

T. L.

(2006, April). Student autonomy in the context of comprehensive school reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

deCharms

(1968). Personal causation: the internal affective determinants of behavior. New York: Academic Press.

deCharms

(1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the classroom. New York: Irvington.

Deci

E. L.

, and Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci

E. L.

, and Ryan

R. M.

(1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024—1037.

Deci

E. L.

, and Ryan

R. M.

(1991). A motivational approach to the self: Integration in personality. In and and Dienstbier

(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 38: Perspectives on Motivation (pp. 237—288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

10.

Deci

E. L

, Schwartz

, Sheinman

, and Ryan

R. M.

(1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642—650.

11.

Deci

E. L.

, Vallerand

R. J.

, Pelletier

L. G.

, and Ryan

R. M.

(1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325—346.

12.

Fraser

B. J.

, and Fisher

D. L.

(1982). Predicting students’ outcomes from their perceptions of classroom psychosocial environment. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 498—518.

13.

Hartmut

(1978). Supportive dimensions of teacher behavior in relationship to pupil emotional cognitive processes. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 25, 69—74.

14.

Hawkins

J. A.

, and Berndt

T. J.

(1985, April). Adjustment following the transition to junior high school. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

15.

McCaslin

, and Good

T. L.

(1996). The informal curriculum. In Berliner

, and Calfee

(Eds.), The handbook of educational psychology (pp. 622—670). New York: Macmillan.

16.

McCaslin

, Good

T. L.

, Nichols

, Zhang

, Wiley

C. R. H.

, and Bozack

A. R.

. (2006). Comprehensive school reform: An observational study of teaching in Grades 3 through 5. Elementary School Journal, 106, 313—332.

17.

McCombs

B. L.

(2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A phenomenological view. In Zimmerman

, and Schunk

(Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 67—124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

18.

Midgley

, Feldlaufer

, and Eccles

J. S.

(1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 981—992.

19.

Pogrow

(2005). HOTS Revisited: A thinking development approach to reducing the learning gap after age 3. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 64—75.

20.

Reeve

, Bolt

, and Cai

(1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537—548.

21.

Reeve

, Deci

E. L.

, and Ryan

R. M.

(2004). Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework for understanding sociocultural influences on student motivation. In McInerny

D.M.

, and Van Etten

(Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 31—60). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

22.

Reeve

, and Jang

(2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209—218.

23.

Rogoff

(1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209—229.

24.

Shapira

(1976). Expectancy determinants of intrinsically motivated behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1235—1244.

25.

Stefanou

C. R.

, Perencevich

K. C.

, DiCintio

, and Turner

J. C.

(2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39, 97—110.

26.

Turner

J. C.

, Meyer

D. K.

, Midgley

, and Patrick

(2003). Teacher discourse and sixth graders’ reported affect and achievement behaviors in two high-mastery/high-performance mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 103, 357—382.

27.

Wiley

C. R. H.

, Good

T. L.

, and McCaslin

(2008). Comprehensive school reform instructional practices throughout a school year: The role of subject matter, grade level, and time of year. Teachers College Record, 110,(11).