Effects of Autonomy Supportive vs. Controlling Teachers’ Behavior on Students’ Achievement

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 4, 177 - 184, 15.10.2014

Natalia Hofferber Alexander Eckes Matthias Wilde

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.3.4.177

Öz

Grolnick and Ryan assume that an autonomy supportive environment leads to higher learner engagement and thus to greater achievements and deeper understanding of content. In school, knowledge acquisition (rote learning as well as conceptual learning) are regarded as most important. In this study, we examined the effects of teachers’ autonomy supportive vs. controlling behavior on knowledge acquisition as measured by reproduction as well as at higher cognitive levels. The sample consisted of seventh graders (N=85; M=12.85 years; SD=1.6 years). One week in advance to the teaching unit, the students were tested for prior knowledge using two knowledge tests. Test 1 used multiple-choice items to address rote learning and Test 2 used an open response format to address conceptual learning. One week after the teaching unit, the same knowledge tests were used to assess the learning outcome. Analysis of the knowledge tests suggests that the students taught in an autonomy supportive environment develop greater conceptual knowledge than those taught in a controlling environment. Rote learning was not affected.

Anahtar Kelimeler

autonomy, control, teacher behavior, rote learning, conceptual learning, knowledge achievement

Kaynakça

• Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer.
• Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y. & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling teachers' behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15, 397-413.
• Benware, C. A . & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-765.
• Bätz, K., Beck, L., Kramer, L., Niestradt, J. & Wilde, M. (2009). Wie beeinflusst Schülermitbestimmung im Biologieunterricht intrinsische Motivation und Wissenserwerb? Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 15, 307–323.
• Boggiano, A. K., Flink, C., Shields, A., Seelbach, A. & Barrett, M. (1993). Use of techniques promoting students’ selfdetermination: Effects of students’ analytic problem-solving skills. Motivation and Emotion,17, 319–336.
• Bos, W., Wendt, H., Köller, O. & Selter, C. (Hrsg.) (2012). TIMSS 2011. Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Münster: Waxmann.
• Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.
• Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The „What“ and „Why“ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
• Gerstenmaier, J. & Mandl, H. (1995). Wissenserwerb unter konstruktivistischer Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 41(6), 867-888.
• Grolnick, W. S. & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in Children’s Learning: An Experimental and Individual Difference Investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890-898.
• Kroß, A. & Lind, G. (2001). Einfluss des Vorwissens auf Intensität und Qualität des Selbsterklärens beim Lernen mit biologischen Beispielaufgaben. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 29(1), 5-25.
• Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2005). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. Beschluss vom 16.12.2004. München, Neuwied: Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbH.
• Lienert, G. A. & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse. Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.
• McGraw, K. O. & McCullers, J. C. (1979). Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic incentives on breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 285-294.
• Metzger, C. & Nüesch, C. (2004). Fair prüfen. Ein Qualitätsleitfaden für Prüfende an Hochschulen. In D. Euler, & C. Metzger (Eds.), Hochschuldidaktische Schriften. Bd. 6. St. Gallen: Universität St. Gallen.
• Miserando, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203-214.
• Mouratidis, A., Lens, W. & Vansteenkiste (2010). How You Provide Corrective Feedback Makes a Difference: The Motivating Role of Communicating in an Autonomy-Supporting Way. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 619-637.
• Müller, F. H. & Palekčić, M. (2005). Bedingungen und Auswirkungen selbstbestimmt motivierten Lernens bei kroatischen Hochschulstudenten. Empirische Pädagogik, 19 (2), 134-165.
• OECD (2013). PISA 2012. Ergebnisse im Fokus. Was 15-Jährige wissen und wie sie dieses Wissen einsetzen können. Available at: http://bildungsklick.de/datei-archiv/md/279/pisa-2012-highlights-deutsch.pdf [downloaded at: 25.04.2014].
• Reeve, J. (1998). Autonomy Support as an Interpersonal Motivating Style: Is It Teachable? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 312-330.
• Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational setting. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
• Reeve, J., Bolt, E. & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-Supportive Teachers: How They Teach and Motivate Students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 537-548.
• Reeve, J. & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during learning activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209-218.
• Reinmann, G. & Mandl, H. (2006). Unterrichten und Lernumgebungen gestalten. In A. Krapp & B. Weidenmann (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie (pp. 613-658). Weinheim: Beltz.
• Renkl, A., Mandl, H. & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert Knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 115–121.
• Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.
• Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
• Scholl, D. (2009). Sind die traditionellen Lehrpläne überflüssig? Zur lehrplantheoretischen Problematik von Bildungsstandards und Kernlehrplänen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
• Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W. & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal-contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41, 19-31.
• Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M. & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals and autonommy-support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260.
• Weinert, F. E. (1996). Psychologie des Lernens und der Instruktion (Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Band 2). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
• Yarahmadi, Y. (2011). Student’s school performance on the basis of explanation of internal motivational factors with structured functional model. Contemporary Educational Researches Journal, 1, 1-10.