Beneficial for some or for everyone? Exploring the effects of an autonomy-supportive intervention in the real-life classroom.

Abstract

The present study investigated whether an autonomy-supportive intervention influenced students’ need satisfaction, achievement emotions, and strategies of self-regulated learning differently depending on several student characteristics. The study was conducted with a sample of 345 9th-grade students in 17 physics classrooms who were randomly assigned to an experimental or a control condition. In both conditions, their physics teachers taught a standardized teaching unit on heat transfer that either entailed autonomy support (via provision of choices, provision of rationales, and informational language) or was taught using the regular teaching style. A range of student characteristics (gender, prior physics grades, physics-related effort, interest, extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and perceived autonomy in physics class) were considered as potential moderators. The differential effectiveness of the autonomy-supportive intervention was investigated using the EffecLiteR approach. Both the average effects of the intervention and conditional effects (i.e., distinct interactions of the intervention with each of the student characteristics) were investigated. Analyzing average treatment effects revealed that the autonomy-supportive intervention had a positive impact on all outcomes. The intervention fostered need satisfaction, positive achievement emotions, and learning behaviors and reduced negative emotions. Moreover, the results showed that students’ prior grades moderated the effects of the intervention with regard to 3 outcomes: Students with higher grades reported greater optional choices, joy and effort. These findings point to the benefits of providing autonomy support in physics and demonstrate the relevance of conducting a detailed analysis of the differential effects of motivational interventions.

Effects of developmental relationships with teachers on middle‐school students’ motivation and performance

“…Marsh et al (2019), for example, note that competency self‐beliefs are “central in theoretical models of motivation” (p. 332). Similarly, Flunger, Mayer, and Umbach (2019) found that an autonomy‐supportive teaching style (e.g., offering students choices and providing rationales for tasks) was linked to better need satisfaction, self‐regulated learning, and positive emotions about achievement among ninth grade German physics students. Tessier, Sarrazin, and Ntoumanis (2010) showed that a teacher training explicitly based on self‐determination theory could improve teachers’ autonomy support, structure, and interpersonal involvement with students, with resulting improvement in students’ psychological need satisfaction and self‐reported class engagement.…”

Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions

“…To illustrate, Wörtler et al (2020) found in samples of both Dutch and American employees that experiences of volition, mastery, and connection at work are conducive to employees' engagement and organizational citizenship behavior, with need strength moderating these effects only to a very limited degree. Similarly, experimental studies indicate that learners benefit from an autonomy-supportive teaching style, with participants' motivational differences affecting these effects only to a limited extent (e.g., Delrue et al 2019b;De Meyer et al 2016;Flünger et al 2019).…”

Reflections on self‐determination theory as an organizing framework for personality psychology: Interfaces, integrations, issues, and unfinished business

“…Presumably, the functional significance of the reward was different for autonomy‐, relative to control‐oriented individuals (see also Hagger, Koch, & Chatsizarantis, ). Other studies have focused on individual differences in students’ motivational orientations, showing that even controlled individuals suffer from exposure to controlling teaching (De Meyer et al, ), whereas autonomy‐oriented learners can derive greater benefits from a need‐supportive class (Flünger, Mayer, & Umbach, ; Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Sideridis, & Lens, ).…”