Perceived Autonomy-supportive Teaching,

5/21/2018 Perceived Autonomy-supportive Teaching,

1/26

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

Copyright 2013 ASCR Publishing House. All rights reserved.ISSN: 1224-8398Volume XVII, No. 4 (December), 289-313

PERCEIVED AUTONOMY-SUPPORTIVE TEACHING,

ACADEMIC SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND

ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING: TOWARD A PROCESS

MODEL OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Viorel MIH1*, Codrua MIH

2

1

Department of Psychology, Babe-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania2Department of Educational Sciences, Babe-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

ABSTRACT

Self-determination theory was used to determine the impact of perceived

autonomy supportive teaching and academic self-perception on engagement in

learning and school performance of 174 10th graders. Multilevel structural

equation modeling tested the model in which teacher-provided autonomy support

perception first nurtures students academic self perception; the extent of self

perception then predicts the extent of classroom engagement. Findings reveal that

provision of autonomy support within classrooms predicted students self-efficacy

and academic self concept. The conceptualization of engagement includes

behavioral (effort, task persistence) and emotional components. These components

were assessed and their antecedents and consequences examined. Results indicated

that behavioral engagement was grounded in expectancy for success and academic

self efficacy and emotional engagement in academic self-concept, expectancy for

success and academic self-efficacy. Both behavioral and emotional engagement

facilitated academic performance. Implications for the achievement and

adjustment of adolescents in school are discussed. The conceptual model andsubsequent findings established in this study provide clues for further theoretical

development and practical applications concerning the mediating mechanism

between perceived autonomy-supportive teaching and academic performance.

KEYWORDS: autonomy support perception, academic self-perception, academic

self-concept, school engagement

Understanding how particular aspects of the high-school environment perceptionsrelate to both adaptive patterns of academic self-perception and school adjustment

of students has become an increasingly important topic in the field of educationalpsychology (Eccles, Wigfield, Midgley, Maehr, & Anderman, 1993; Midgley,

*Corresponding author:

E-mail: [email protected]


2/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

290

1993; Reuman, Maclver, Feldlaufer, & 1993; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996;Urdan, Midgley, & Wood, 1995). For instance, there is evidence that perception of

academic autonomy support and self perception increase during the early adolescentperiod (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). In this study, we focus on how perceived

autonomy-supportive teaching, adolescents' self-perceptions which are emphasizedin their school (self-efficacy, expectancy for success and academic self-concept)and their school engagement affect academic performance during tenth grade.Research on the autonomy support suggests that students sense of autonomy

increases when teachers minimize coercion and interference, show understandingfor students perspective and feelings, provide a relevant rationale for the task, and

offer choice by allowing students to participate in task and goal selection (Katz &Assor, 2007). Instead, close surveillance and frequent intrusions undermine feelings

of autonomy (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Assor, Kaplan, Roth, & Kanat-Maymon, 2005). Support for autonomy can be manifested in the classroom in atleast three ways: procedurally (encouraging student ownership of form, e.g., lettingstudents select the media in which to present ideas), organizationally (encouraging

student ownership of the environment - e.g., letting students select due dates forassignments), and cognitively (encouraging student ownership of learning, e.g.,

asking students to generate their own paths to a solution) (Stefanou, Perencevich,DiCinto, & Turner, 2004, as cited in, Katz & Assor, 2007).

A large corpus of empirical evidence based on self-determination theory

(SDT) suggests that perceived autonomy-supportive teaching is conducive toengagement and optimal learning in educational contexts (Deci & Ryan, 2000;Reeve, 2012; Su & Reeve, 2011). Autonomy support is the interpersonal behaviorone person provides to involve another persons intentions to act, such as when a

teacher supports a students psychological needs (e.g., autonomy, competence),self-efficacy, expectancy for success, school valuating and academic self-concept

(Reeve & Jang, 2006). Providing student a rationale to explain why a rule exists orwhy an apparently uninteresting activity is truly worth students attention is an

autonomy-supportive behavior because it allows students sense of valuing to guidetheir classroom activity and consequently academic self-efficacy. Likewise, asking

students what they want (e.g., asking for their input for the lesson plan) is anautonomy-supportive behavior because the teacher seeks to identify students

psychological needs to integrate them into the days lesson and this compatibilitydevelops student perception of autonomy-supportive teaching and academic

self-efficacy (Reeve & Jang, 2006). Overall, autonomy support revolves aroundfinding ways to support and increase students inner endorsement of their classroomactivity (Reeve, 2009; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004). When students perceive their

teachers to be autonomy supportive (Rigby, Deci, Patrick, & Ryan, 1992) studentsreport high levels of self-determination (Vallerand, 1997). These motivationalresources, when supported and nurtured in the classroom, provide students with the

motivational foundation they need to become highly engaged in school and


3/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

291

committed to graduating (Hardre & Reeve 2003; Vallerand, 1997). Compared tostudents who perceived controlled motivations, students with greater perceived

autonomy experience a wide range of educationally and developmentally importantbenefits. These benefits include not only greater psychological need satisfaction

during learning activities but also greater classroom engagement, a preference foroptimal challenge over easy success, greater persistence in school tasks and higheracademic achievement (Black & Deci, 2000; Reeve, 2009; Reeve, Jang, Carrell,Barch, & Jeon, 2004). Other studies have shown that the benefits of perceived

autonomy motivations are manifold, including deep-level learning, achievementand behavioral persistence (e.g., Buff, Reusser, Rakoczy, & Pauli, 2011; Reeve,

2009). Recognizing this, we consider useful to investigate the extent to whichperceived autonomy-supportive teaching predict the subsequent engagement in

school, and they do so in a way that is over and above the influence of schoolperformance. At the same time we are interested if some of cognitive self resources,as represented by perceived expectancy for success, academic self-efficacy, andacademic self-concept mediate the relationship between perceived autonomy-

supportive teaching and students engagement in school and student performance.

Academic self-perception

Researchers in educational psychology have long been interested in the role of self-related perceptions in academic contexts (Bong& Skaalvik, 2000; Lent, Brown, &

Gore, 1997). Students who are otherwise similar feel differently about themselvesand choose different courses of action, depending on how they construe themselves- what expectancy for success they have, what attributes they think they possess,what they believe they are capable of, how they view they fare in comparison with

others. Without doubt, these are beliefs and perceptions about the self that areheavily rooted in ones past achievement and reinforcement history. Yet it is these

subjective convictions about oneself, once established which play a determiningrole in individuals further growth and development (Bandura, 1997; Markus &

Nurius, 1986). During the past couple of decades, numerous studies in educationalresearch have resorted to either self-concept or self-efficacy to explain the function

of self in school contexts (Bong & Skaalvik, 2000). Studies have demonstrated thatpositive perception of self generates many desirable outcomes (Reeve & Jang,

2006; Vallerand, 1997). Thus, strong self-efficacy and positive self-concept leadstudents to persist longer on difficult tasks, feel less anxious in achievement

settings, enjoy their academic work more, and feel better about themselves as astudent. Consequently, we analyzed the process of how academic self-efficacy

beliefs, self-concept, and expectancy for success affect subsequent academic

engagement (behavioral and emotional) and performance.


4/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

292

Academic self-efficacy concept

According to Bandura (1986, 1997) self-efficacy contributes to engagement in one

action in two ways, namely by (a) determining the amount of effort andperseverance one will expend in a given endeavor; and (b) shaping the outcomes

expected from one's efforts. People who perceive themselves as highly efficaciouswill expect favorable outcomes, whereas those with less confidence in their

performance capabilities will envision negative outcomes. Therefore, self-efficacy(a) can enhance ones functioning through elevated levels of effort and persistence

and (b) can also enhance ones ability to deal with a problem situation byinfluencing cognitive and emotional processes related to the situation. Students with

low self-efficacy tend to well on their deficiencies and view situations as moredifficult than they really are (Bandura, 2005). Following these points, it can be

hypothesized that students high in self-efficacy are more likely to engage in aschool task that is characterized by positive, proactive, and solution-focusedorientations. Self-efficacy has been proven to be remarkably useful as a theoreticalmethod to comprehend a number of behaviors because of its influence on a

students choice, effort, and persistence in an activity (Bandura, 1997). Thereby, theinfluence of efficacy beliefs within academic contexts is pervasive as a significant

predictor of academic performance (Bandura, 1997; Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001)

and as a mediating variable influencing students levels of effort, persistence, andperseverance (Schunk, 1991; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000).

Expectancy for success

Research guided by the self-determination theory (SDT, Reeve, 2002; Ryan &Deci, 2000, 2002) has shown that the autonomous motivation support has important

consequences for the quality of school adjustment. Because it is postulated thathigher levels of self-determination are associated with better psychological

functioning, SDT proposes that the extent to which an individual is self-determinedis strongly reflected in the quality of his or her experience. For example, it has been

shown that higher levels of self-determined motivation are related to severalpositive outcomes, such as expectancy for success (Reeve, 2002; Ryan & Deci,

2000). Students need to believe they can be successful if they are going to try. Theirexpectancy for success influences their desire to engage in learning and school

adaptation.Various factors can contribute to students expectancy for success. Research

suggests that students who have a high level of academic self-efficacy or who valuelearning a particular skill or topic are more likely to engage in learning and hardworking (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). At the same time,

numerous studies have shown that students with confidence in their abilities tosucceed on a task work harder, persist longer, and perform better than their lessefficacious peers (Bandura, 2005; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Eccles, Wigfield, &

Schiefele, 1998; Schunk, 1991). Expectancy-value theory (Feather, 1988; Wigfield


5/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

293

& Eccles, 2002) links performance, persistence, and effort directly to individualsexpectancy for success. According to expectancy-value theory (Feather, 1988;

Wigfield & Eccles, 2002), expectancies and values directly influence persistenceand effort. Expectancy for successis conceptualized as a task-specific belief about

success in a future academic task. According to theorists of expectancy-valuemodels, effort, persistence, and performance in a given task depend on value-relatedvariables and the individuals expectancy for success (Bandura, 1997; Wigfield &Eccles, 2000). For example, a student may show more persistence in mastering a

difficult task when his or her success expectancies are high. This increasedpersistence may ultimately result in a superior outcome. Expectancy of success is

closely related to other conceptions of self-beliefs (e.g., academic self-concept;Marsh, 2007; self-efficacy; Bandura, 1997; 2005) and these constructs form the

self-perception concept.

Academic self- concept

From a social-cognition perspective, academic self-conceptcan be defined as how a

student feels about himself or herself within a school or academic setting, or inrelation to his or her academic progress (Bracken, 2009). If academic self efficacyrefers to students convictions that they can successfully perform given academic

tasks at designated levels (confidence perception) (Schunk, 1991), academic self-concept refers to students knowledge and perceptions about themselves in

achievement situations (competence perception) (Shavelson & Bolus, 1982;Wigfield & Karpathian, 1991). Thus, academic self-concept is typically morestable, past orientated and refers to specific school subjects, whereas self-efficacy ismore malleable, future orientated and most often refers to specific tasks (Bong &

Skaalvik, 2003; Marsh & Hau, 2003).Researchers have emphasized the multidimensionality of self-concept and

the specific components of self-concept most appropriate to a particular setting.Because the same person can have a positive self-concept in one domain (e.g.,

academic) and a negative self-concept in another domain (e.g., social), globalmeasures cannot adequately describe self-concepts in different domains (Marsh &

Hau, 2003). Thus, academic self-concept is particularly important in educationalsettings that are the focus of the present investigation. Academic self-concept is

hierarchically organized, and is multifacete: math self-concept, verbal self-concept,and school self-concept (Marsh & Yeung, 1997), and these together constitute

academic self-concept in the current study. Students academic self-concept hasreceived a lot of attention in educational research during the last two decades

because this concept has a predictive power for many academic outcomes such as

interest, persistence, coursework selection, and academic achievement (Craven &Marsh, 2008; Marsh & Craven, 2006; Marsh & OMara, 2008). A high level ofacademic self-concept is thus seen as a desirable outcome in itself and as a mediator

leading to other favorable educational outcomes. Thus, academic achievement,


6/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

294

persistence, coursework selection, and long-term educational aspirations aresystematically related to academic self-concept, they are nearly uncorrelated (or

even negatively related) to nonacademic (social and physical) self-conceptresponses (Marsh & Craven, 1997; Marsh & Yeung, 1997, 1998). This research

demonstrated that self-concept has an important influence on educational decisionslike students persistence, effort, and emotional engagement. This research isimportant in that it has established that increases in academic self-concept lead toincreases in subsequent school engagement (Arens, Yeung, Craven, & Hasselhorn,

2011).

School engagement

The construct of school engagement has received increasing research attention as

educators need to find solutions for problems such as declining academicmotivation and achievement, increasing student alienation, and elevated schooldrop-out rates (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). School engagement has beenseen as a potential answer to these problems because it encompasses processes that,

theoretically, serve to promote learning and achievement and, practically, can befostered in students. A key hypothesis in research on school engagement is that, for

students to profit from schooling, they must do more than simply attend school orbe present in classrooms. Rather, they must engage the classroom environment inways that promote learning.

Because researchers studying the effects of school engagement onachievement have differed in their definitions and measures of engagement, it isdifficult to integrate findings across studies. Often, researchers incorporated a widevariety of constructs in their measurement of engagement, an inclusiveness that

makes it difficult to determine the unique precursors and consequences of differenttypes of engagement. In the current study, we assess both behavioral and emotional

engagement to involvement in learning (Hughes, Luo, Kwok, & Loyd, 2008).Behavioral engagement refers to participation in the learning environment, and

although defined in different ways, has often been operationalized in terms of theeffort and persistence aspects of involvement in instructional activities. Such

involvement includes trying hard, not giving up in the face of difficulty, anddirecting ones attention to instructional activities (Buhs & Ladd, 2001; Rothbart &

Bates, 1998).Emotional engagement refers to students affective reactions in the

classroom, which engage them in learning requires positive or negative emotionalexperiences. These emotional reactions, such as boredom, happiness, sadness, andanxiety contribute to a classroom climate that forms the foundation for teacher-

student relationships and interactions necessary for motivation to learn (Connell &Wellborn, 1991; Meyer & Turner, 2006; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Someresearchers assess emotional engagement by measuring emotional reactions to the

school and the teacher (Lee & Smith, 1995; Stipek, 2002). Some conceptualize it as


7/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

295

identification with school (Finn, 1993; Voelkl, 1997). Finn defines identification asbelonging (a feeling of being important to the school) and value (an appreciation of

success in school-related outcomes). The emotions included in these definitionsduplicate an earlier body of work on attitudes, which examined feelings toward

school and included survey questions about liking or disliking school, the teacher,or the work; feeling happy or sad in school; or being bored or interested in the work(Epstein & McPartland, 1976).

These aspects of engagement have been investigated as a potential precursor

of students academic achievement.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

In line with past theorizing, and in an attempt to overcome some of the limitationsof past research, our objective was to investigate the extent to which cognitive selfresources, as represented by perceived expectancy for success, academic self-efficacy and academic self-concept mediate the relationship between perceived

autonomy-supportive teaching and students engagement in school and studentperformance. Our question was, does the perceived expectancy for success,academic self-efficacy and academic self-concept serve as mediators of engagement

in learning? Previous research has examined these variables separately, and thisstudy takes the research a step further by investigating direct and indirect predictors

of these cognitive self resources together using path analysis. We expected thatthese cognitive resources are predicted by perceived autonomy-supportive teachingand predict the subsequent engagement in school, and they do so in a way that isover and above the influence of school performance. As a consequence, this study

expands research on teaching autonomy perception, academic self beliefs,engagement in learning and performance. Figure 1 presents the model and

constructs examined. First, we theorize that student' perceptions of the autonomysupport associated with school relate to variables such as academic self-efficacy,

expectancy for success and school self-concept. Students' self-efficacy and schoolself-concept in turn are examined in relation to psychological outcomes associated

with school such as effort, persistence, and emotional engagement. In the last stepof the model, the association of students' engagement with their final semester

academic achievement is examined. In looking at each set of these relations, we usea path model. Although the causal direction of the relations among these constructs

is not yet well established, the hypothesized direction from the perceived schoolcontext measures to self perception, engagement, and school achievement follows

previous empirical research in classrooms and schools (Arens, et al., 2011; Hughes,

et al., 2008; Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2012; Marsh & Hau, 2003; Reeve & Jang, 2006).In this study, we examine the relationships flow among the constructs depicted inFigure 1 based upon theoretical considerations and prior research, all of which are

discussed below. On the basis of the arguments presented, the following specific


8/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

296

predictions were advanced: (a) autonomy support perception will predict schoolself-efficacy, expectancy for success and academic self-concept, (b) self perception

will directly predict behavioral and emotional engagement, (c) effort, persistence,and emotional engagement will direct predict school performance.

Context Self perception School engagement School achivement

(Autonomy support

perception)

Figure 1.

Integrated theoretical model of core teacher autonomy support for learning, academic self-

perception elements, engagement, and learning outcomes

METHODS

Participants

The students who participated in this study were attending three high schools. Thesample consisted of 174 students. Approximately equal numbers of girls (n=89,

51.1%) and boys (n=85, 48.9%) participated in the study. Surveys wereadministered to students during one class period (of approximately 35 min).Students were given instructions in the use of Likert-type scales and were

encouraged to ask questions during survey administration if anything was unclear.

Academicself-efficacy

Academic

self-

concept

Behavioral

engagement

Emotional

engagement

Autonomy

support

perception

School

achievement

Expectancy for

success


9/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

297

Participants were assured that the information they provided would be confidential.All participants were in the 10th grade. Participation was voluntary, and scores

were confidential and anonymous. We collected the questionnaire data during thesemester and the achievement data (semester grade) after the semester ended

Instruments

Participants completed a questionnaire packet which included a demographic

information form, the Students perception of autonomy-supportive teachingscale(Assor et al., 2002),Academic Self-Concept Scale (Reynolds, 1988),Academic Self-

efficacy(PALS; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Roeser et al., 1996), Expectancy forsuccess (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002), Effort (Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999 &

Pintrich & Groot, 1990), Persistence (Elliot et al.s, 1999), The EmotionalEngagement Scale(Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008), Participantswere required to respond on a five-point Likert-type rating scale; for example: 1(strongly disagree) to 5 or 7 (strongly agree); and 1 (not at all true of me) to 5 or 7

(very true of me).Students Perception of Autonomy-Supportive Teaching Scale. The scale

assessing this variable was a shortened version of a scale developed and validated

by Assor et al. (2002). The18-item scale assessed students perceptions of theirmain teachers behavior and students indicated the extent to which they agreed with

each response using a 4-point scale. The scale evaluate three aspect: (a) the extentto which the teacher was seen as allowing choice as part of the learning process andas conversing with students about choices, (b) the extent to which the teacher wasseen as enabling free and open expression of critical thoughts and independent

opinions and (c) the extent to which the teacher is seen as talking to students aboutwhy it is important to learn the subject matter and do the assignments, as well the

relevance and value of the subject matter and the assignments to their personalgoals and interests.

Examples of items were: The teacher encourages me to work in my ownway (providing choice), The teacher allows us to talk about things that we find

unacceptable inn school (allowing criticism and encouranging independentthinking) and The teacher explains why it is important to study certain subjects in

school (fostering understanding and relevance). Factor analysis with varimaxrotation was conducted on all 18 items, and one factor was extracted, accounting for

61% of the variance. Thus, the factor analysis indicates that the three sets of items(for providing choice, for allowing criticism and encouranging independentthinking and fostering understanding and relevance) do not constitute distinctive

sub-scales. Cronbachs alpha for the whole scale was .71.Academic Self-Concept Scale. In the current study, self-concept was

measured using the ASCS (Reynolds, 1988), which is a 40-item self-report

measure. The questionnaire used a 4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from


10/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

298

strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4), to measure aspect of academic self-concept. Thus, within the ASCS, the seven constructs of academic self-concept

include: grade and effort dimension, study habits/organization self-perceptions, peerevaluation of academic ability, self-confidence in academics, satisfaction with

school, self-doubt about ability, and self-evaluation with external standards.Reynolds, Ramirez, Magrina, and Allen (1980) formulated the seven constructs ofacademic self-concept and the ASCS has been utilized in repeated studies onvarious student populations (Lent, Brown, & Gore, 1997). Lent et al. (1997)

performed studies on undergraduate students using the ASCS along with other self-concept measurements that established a correlation between academic self-concept

and academic achievement. The results of the study concluded that academic self-concept related to the overall academic achievement of their participants and the

measurement of academic self-concept may be useful in forecasting aggregateacademic performance (Lent et al., 1997). Reynolds et al. (1988) utilized the ASCSto determine the self-concept of college students; however, this scale was adapted toevaluate high school students in this study. A revision of specific terms was

necessary to explore the unique experiences of junior high students. Therefore theterm exams was replaced with tests in item 5, college was replaced withschool in items 8, 14, 15, and 37, the terms courses or major was replaced with

classes in items 10, 24, 33 and 39, and instructors was replaced with teachersin item 13. Item 35 was reworded to reflect the end of the semester or grading

period instead of finals week, which was previously used to refer to the end of acourse for college students. Factor analysis of the ASCS yielded a seven-factorsolution that accounted for 48.6% of total variance (Reynolds, 1988). The ASCSyields one global score and seven subscale scores. The items are keyed in a positive

direction for academic self-concept. These data lend support to the reliability andvalidity of the use of the ASCS as a measurement of academic self-concept. Sample

items include: (a) .If I try hard enough, I will be able to get good grades|; (b) Ienjoy doing my schoolwork. The overall ASCS alpha coefficient was .86.

Academic Self-efficacy Scale consisted of five items regarding perceivedcompetence and confidence in performance of class work. Subject-level academic

self-efficacy items were adapted from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey(PALS; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Roeser et al., 1996) and the Self-Efficacy

subscale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich &De Groot, 1990). Students report answers on a 5-point scale ranging from not at all

true of me (1) to very true of me (5). The five self-efficacy items were "I can mastereven the hardest material in this class if I try," "I can do almost all the work in classif I don't give up," "I'm certain that I can do an excellent job on the problems and

tasks assigned for a class," "I know that I will be able to learn the material for theclass," and "I'm confident that I will receive a good grade this semester." Principalcomponents analysis of the items verified that the items formed a single factor. The

self-efficacy score was computed as the mean score of the scale items. Item and


11/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

299

reliability analysis indicated acceptable scale properties, with item -totalcorrelations ranging from .46 to .78 and =.84.

Expectancy for success. Expectancy for success consisted one item (Wigfield& Eccles, 2002) and was assessed by asking participants to rate on a scale of 0 ( no

chance) to 100 (complete certainty) their confidence in achieving a grade of ten inthe course. This type of measure is similar to measures of self-efficacy for grades(Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994).

Behavioral engagement (Effort + Persistence). Effort was measured using

two items from Elliot, McGregor, and Gable (1999) and two items from the MSLQ(Pintrich & Groot, 1990). Four items from Elliot et al.s (1999) scales were used for

the persistence variable. Reliability estimates (Cronbachs alpha) were .76 for theeffort scale and .89 for the persistence scale. Two items from effort scale were I

put a lot of effort into preparing for the exam and I always work as hard as I canto finish my school assignments.Persistence, which included four items, reflectedstudents beliefs that they completed work for their math class even when facedwith distractions, boredom, or difficulty (=.72) Two items from this scale were I

get distracted very easily when Im studying (reverse coded) and I get started ondoing my work for school but often dont stick with it for very long (reversecoded). Some preliminary evidence of the validity of these measures was provided

by Wolters (1999). Participants indicated their responses on a 1 (not at all true ofme) to 7 (very true of me) scale for the persistence items and a 1 (strongly disagree)

to 7 (strongly agree) scale for the effort items. A principal-components factoranalysis with varimax rotation was performed and this analysis yielded the twohypothesized factors with each item loading on its designated factor. The twofactors (persistence and effort) accounted for 65 % of the total variance (Elliot et

al.s, 1999).The Emotional Engagement Scale was designed to measure students

emotional involvement during learning activities. Each student reported on his orher own (a) emotional engagement, using six items tapping their emotions

indicating motivated involvement during learning activities (such affectivereactions in the classroom, attitudes towards school and teachers, appreciation of

success in school) (Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008). Examples ofitems include When we start something new in school, I feel interested. and

I enjoy learning new things in class.) (=.74).Academic performance. To assess academic achievement, we used the actual

school record of each students overall semester grade, scored at the end of thesemester on a 10-point scale.


12/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

300

RESULTS

Prior to conducting the analyses, we examined the data for univariate andmultivariate outlying cases by using the procedure devised by Tabachnik and Fidell

(2007). Before conducting the main analyses, all of the major variables werechecked for missing data. Since the pattern of missing values was random for the

present data, cases with missing values more than 5% were deleted (Tabachnick &Fidel, 2001). Among 174 participants, 9 data were detected with missing values

more than 5% of the total endorsement. Hence, 165 data were left for the mainanalyses after this deletion. In order to prevent additional subject loss, cases with

missing data less than 5% were replaced with mean of the given variable. Secondfor the preliminary analyses, outlier analyses over the data were conducted. In this

respect, in order to check the univariate outlier, the data was converted into z-scoreand 3problematic outlier values higher or smaller than

3.29 (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001) was detected. As a result 3 cases weretreated as outlier and excluded from the data set. Hence, the analyses were

performed with data obtained from 162 cases.Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the autonomy

support perception, various academic self perception and engagement factors and

the matrix of correlations between them and school achievement. Bivariatecorrelations were computed to depict the interrelationships among all of the study

variables. The correlation matrix on the Table 1 showed the relationships among thepredictors, mediator and criterion variables. The relationships also assess thepresence of multicollinearity. The results showed that none of the partialcoefficients exceeded .50 that the multicollinearity among the study variables was

not severe (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001).The path analyses that were employed in the present investigation rely on

assumptions including linearity, causal closure and unitary variable. Overall theassumption checks were conducted in the frame of preliminary analysis. In this

respect, linearity assumption was controlled by conducting the correlation analysis.As suggested by Wright (1968) all relationships between variables should be linear.

In order to perform a path analysis he also suggested causal closure in that all directinfluences of one variable on another must be included in the path diagram. Final

specific assumption for conducting path analysis includes unitary variables forwhich variables should not be composed of components that behave in different

ways with different variables.


13/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

301

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among all the measures

M(SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 71. Autonomy support

perception124.47(17.3) -

2. Academic

self-efficacy3.67(.91) .39** -

3. Expectancy

for success73.21(22.56) .14** 0.4 -

4. Academic

self-concept2.78(.57) .26** .11* .07 -

5. Behavioral

engagement9.37(2.22) .07 .34** .29** .19** -

6. Emotionalengagement 2.82(.42) .11* .27** .22** .25** .12* -

7. School achievement 7.68(1.12) .08 .07 .12* .11* .31** .24** -

* = p


14/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

302

As seen on the Table 2, the hypothesized model that did not meet the criteria. In

other words, the goodness of fit indexes were evaluated and found to be 2

/df ratiowas higher than 5.0; GFI, and NFI values were smaller than .90; and RMSEA value

was found to be higher than .08. However, our review of the modification indicesindicated that the fit of the model can be substantially improved if some of the

pathways were added and some were eliminated. In this respect, some of thesuggested pathways were added to the hypothesized model besides removing non-

significant paths from the model. The suggested path model is depicted in Figure 2,with non-significant paths in italic arrows type and suggested paths in dotted arrows

type. After making the modification to the path model, the analysis was performed.The fit statistics obtained from the final path analysis showed that the value of

2(5,

N = 162) was 5.82, p > .05 which indicated a good fit. Besides the 2value, its ratioto degrees of freedom was also calculated. The value of this ratio was

2/df = 5.82 /

5 = 1.14 which implied a good fit given that generally values less than 2 areaccepted to be good fit (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The other important goodness

of fit statistics that were calculated for the present study was RMSEA, GFI, AGFI,and NFI. The results of the present analysis showed that RMSEA value was .052(90% CI: .047-.064), GFI values was .98, AGFI was .98 and NFI was found to

be .99. These multiple indices also confirmed the adequacy of the model fit.

Figure 2.

Final model depicting the relationships among autonomy support perception, academic self

perception, engagement in learning, and school achievement. Solid path coefficients are

standardized regression coefficients, and all paths represent significant effects (p < .05 at

minimum, except that autonomy support perception was unrelated to expectancy for success.

This nonsignificant path coefficient is in italic type. Dotted paths represent significant path

which not-figure in first model.


15/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

303

The final model we obtained using the tests of the nested models, includingthe standardized path loadings, is shown in Figure 2. This model suggests that the

effect of teacher autonomy support on performance is mediated by school self-efficacy, academic self-concept, behavioral and emotional engagement, but not by

expectancy for success.In accord with the posited structural model, perceived teachers autonomy

support predicted school efficacy and academic self-concept. The effect ofautonomy support perception on behavioral engagement was totally mediated by

self-efficacy and academic self-concept. Thus, students who perceive teacherautonomy support has a high level of self-efficacy and a more consistent self-

concept, and this will lead to a deep engagement in learning. Also, school efficacywas distally linked to behavioral engagement both directly and through the

mediation of emotional engagement. Similarly, a high sense of academic selfconcept predicted school achievement by supporting emotional and behavioralengagement. As we further hypothesized, the impact of perceived academic self onschool performance was mediated through different type of engagement. Overall,

behavioral engagement in learning (effort + persistence) and academic emotionalengagement accounted for 28% of the variance in performance.

DISCUSSION

The goals of this investigation were to determine whether perceived teacherpractices predicted students academic self-efficacy, academic self-concept, andexpectancy for success and to determine whether these self-related cognitions

predicted their engagement in learning and implicit academic performance. Priorresearch has shown that perceptions of autonomy are related to academic success

(Perry, Hladkyj, Reinhard, Clifton, & Chipperfield, 2005; Skinner, 1990) and thatperceived teacher practices are related to academic engagement and academic

success (Durkin, 1995; Fulton & Turner, 2008). The current study extends theliterature by examining the pathway from perceived teacher practices (such as

warmth, listening, creating time for independent work, giving the studentopportunities to talk, praising signs of improvement and mastery, encouraging thestudents effort, offering progress-enabling hints when the student seemed stuck,

being responsive to the students questions and comments, and acknowledging the

students perspective and experiences and supervision) which function asantecedents of students school achievement.

The present study specifically examined students perceptions of teachers

autonomy-supportive activities as an important factor that may predict studentsdeeper understanding of academic self perception and students engagement inlearning. The findings indicated that students perceptions of teachers provision of

rationale and relevance, together with perceptions of the teachers attempts to take


16/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

304

the students perspective, appeared to predict self-efficacy and academic self-concept by supporting students development of identification with the school

values and requirements.Our findings indicate that perceived teacher practices are a significant

predictor of high school students perceptions of self, and that self-relatedcognitions are related to school engagement. These findings are important becausethey indicate that an autonomy supportive climate contributes to students beliefsystems (perceptions), which then impact their academic efforts, persistence, and

outcomes in school. This can be explained by the fact that, when teachers andschools respect students need for autonomy via the dialogue they engage in, and by

allowing students opportunities for self expression, students may experiencepositive feelings in the classroom also in ages when oppositional attitudes toward

social institutions and adult authorities are common. This view is also consistentwith Eccles and Midgleys (1989) stage fit theory, according to which adolescentsoften show low levels of motivation and positive affect toward their junior highschools because they experience these schools as frustrating and inconsistent with

their increased need for autonomy.Also, according to SDT, people (in our case students) feel autonomous when

they understand the value or relevance of the task (learning) in which they are

engaged, and therefore can identify with it. Feelings of autonomy are particularlystrong when the learning is perceived as being closely connected to the values,

interests, and goals that constitute the core of ones self-concept (Assor, Cohen-Melayev, Kaplan, & Friedman, 2005; Reeve, Nix, & Hamm, 2003). The study ofAssor, Kaplan, and Roth (2002) suggests that what students perceive as beinghighly valuable is probably not the mere act of choosing, but mostly the value of the

options to the participants self. As for the context in which choice is offered(learning autonomy context), the teaching autonomous mode should support the

development of a firm sense of self-efficacy and solid expectancy for success(Flowerday & Schraw, 2003). For example, the teacher may do well to consider the

type of feedback provided to students (see Butler, 1987). Feedback that isresponsive to the students questions and comments provides information for

judging progress, and encouraging the students efforts is more beneficial fordevelopment a sense of autonomy than feedback comparing the students ability

with that of other students (Brophy, 1981). In such autonomy-supporting contexts,students can devote themselves to the task learning they have chosen, without

worrying about their performance level and the possibility of negative evaluations(Katz & Assor, 2006).

Also, according to SDT, perceived teacher autonomy support facilitates

engagement in learning because a rationale, when communicated in an autonomy-supportive way, reveals an activitys value and personal benefit (Ryan & Deci,2000, 2002). Such personal relevance information helps students identify with and

internalize the value of the task and this internalization allows students to engage


17/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

305

volitionally in the learning activity, through effort and persistence. Additionally,results of this study supported previous research findings indicating that self-

efficacy correlated positively with students performance. Researchers havesuggested that students with high self-efficacy tend to learn and achieve more than

students with low self-efficacy even when actual ability levels are the same(Bandura, 1986). This is partly because efficacious students tend to engage incognitive processes that promote learning, such as effort to paying attention,

persisting longer at difficult tasks, and organizing and elaborating new information

(Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Tellefson, 2000).Another goal of this study was to demonstrate the important relationship

between academic self perception and emotional engagement. This researchdemonstrated that self perception has an important influence on students - how they

feel about themselves in approaching learning, their effort, persistence, andemotional engagement. This study is important in that it has established thatincreases in academic self-perception lead to increases in subsequent academicengagement and other desirable educational outcomes. Hence, not only is self

perception an important outcome variable in itself, but it also plays a central role inmediating the effects of other desirable educational outcomes (task persistence,emotional engagement). These findings have significant implications for

educational policy and practice. Also, it appears that students who experience anincreased academic self-concept were more likely to report behavioral and

emotional engagement in learning. Student engagement is a motivationally enrichedclassroom quality that has clear implications for student achievement (Skinner,Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009). By engaging themselves actively andenthusiastically in academic activities, students learn, develop skills, and generally

make academic progress. Consequently, both the extent and quality of studentsclassroom engagement have been shown to predict various aspects of achievement,

including course grades and improved standardized test scores (Jansen & Bruinsma,2005; Ladd & Dinella, 2009; Marsh, Trautwein, Ldtke, Kller, & Baumert, 2005;

Mih, 2013; Wouters, Germeijs, Colpin, & Verschueren, 2011).Surprisingly, perceived teacher autonomy support was not a significant

predictor of expectancy for success. Numerous studies have shown autonomysupport to be related to positive outcomes among adolescent students (e.g., Ratelle

et al., 2005; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyckx, & Goossens, 2006). In the pathmodel, autonomy support was a positive predictor of expectancy for success, but it

did not reach significance. Sample size may be an issue in this lack of statisticalsignificance. This is a clear limitation of this study. Also, information about teacherwas gathered only from the students and was retrospective. Clearly, multiple

measures (e.g., from teachers reports) or observational measures would addstrength to this research (Fulton & Turner, 2008).

However, we found that student expectancy for success predicted their

behavioral engagement in learning. An explication for this prediction is that


18/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

306

students who are more confident about their academic success are more interestedin their schoolwork and more convinced of the usefulness of their education.

Students who attach little value to academic success may exert little effort on theirschoolwork and then lower their expectancy for success. Conversely, students with

low expectancies for success may devalue academic activities (Dweck & Leggett,1988). These hypotheses could be evaluated directly with a longitudinal design inwhich measures of expectancies, and achievement were obtained at multiple times.

Implications for Practice

The study has some implications for educational practices. First, taken together with

previous research, this study underscores the idea that, how engaged students areduring instruction and how much they develop themselves as autonomous learners

depends, in part, on the autonomy supportive quality of the teacher. From this pointof view, students' engagement is an interpersonally coordinated process betweenteachers and students. When teachers support students' autonomy rather thancontrol their behavior - teachers function both as a guide to structure students'

learning opportunities and to help them develop constructive sources ofautonomous motivation, such as internalized values. The implication for teachers is

that of supporting students' autonomy and creating the conditions during learningactivities in which students can experience an engagement-fostering congruence

between what they want to do and what they actually do during class.

The second implication suggests that a priority for schools should bebuilding the quality of childrens perception of academic self and learning.Research from the areas of teaching suggests that qualities such as warmth, caring,sensitivity, dedication of attention and time, and emotional availability may be

important to the development of accurate perception of academic self (seeGoldstein, 1999).

The third implication suggests that, one aspect that seems particularlysensitive is adolescents emotional experience when involved in learning activities.

Students enthusiasm, happiness, and comfort during engagement in academic tasksseem to be shaped by their perception of academic self and implicit by their

perception of autonomous support.

Study Limitations

The present study has some of limitations. A first limitation is related to the design

of the current study. Our theoretical model implies a temporal order, withautonomous support perception impacting self perception and these self beliefsimpacting academic engagement and engagement impacting academic success. The

model suggests that the relationships are unidirectional. Although these paths aretheoretically defensible, it is also possible that the relationships are bidirectional.For example, adolescents with high perceptions of self may elicit different teacher

behaviors. Future longitudinal studies may help to examine the direction of the


19/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

307

effects and also lead one to better foresee the future implications of ones currentstudying. The second limitation was the application of a self-report instrument to

measure students perception of behavioral engagement in learning and use oflearning strategies. In particular, social desirability bias is considered a significant

threat to the construct validity of any self-report instrument. Thus, the students self-report may not have been entirely accurate in their reporting. Although the largesamples used in this study precluded the use of such methods, future researchshould explore the comparability of information obtained from self-report and

observation (e. g., behavioral indicators of individuals effort and perseveration).However, the fact that the results of this study substantiated many of the

relationships previously reported in the literature gives us some confidence that ourresults might be generalizable beyond the specific subjects and measures we used.

CONCLUSION

In general, the relations among variables involved in this study support ourhypotheses derived from SDT and expectancy-value theory. Specifically, we foundthat the academic self beliefs held by students largely mediate the relations between

autonomy support perception, on the one hand, and behavioral, and emotionalengagements, on the other hand. Our empirical model also showed that behavioral

and emotional engagements were predictive of students achievement outcome.Specifically, the deep effort and persistence learning were found to be positive

predictors, respectively, of students outcome achievement. Behavioral andemotional engagement in turn played a mediating role in the relations between self

perception and achievement outcome. Finally, teachers closeness in theirrelationships with individual students has been found to be good distal antecedent

of tenth graders' school performance. From this perspective, teachers autonomysupport is not just a by-product of doing well in school; a sense of autonomy plays

an important role in academic self development and in adolescents academicengagement.

REFERENCES

Arens, A. K., Yeung, A. S., Craven, R. G., & Hasselhorn, M. (2011). The twofold

multidimensionality of academic self-concept: Domain specificity and separation

between competence and affect components. Journal of Educational Psychology,

103,970-981.

Assor, A., Cohen-Melayev, M., Kaplan, A., & Friedman, D. (2005). Choosing to stay

religious in a modern world: Socialization and exploration processes leading to an

integrated internalization of religion among Israeli Jewish youth. In M. L. Maehr &


20/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

308

S. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 14: Religion

and motivation(pp. 105150). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good but relevance is excellent:

Autonomy affecting teacher behaviors that predict students engagement in

learning.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261-278.

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Roth, G., & Kanat-Maymon, Y. (2005). Directly controlling teacher

behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The

role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15, 397-413.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy.Harvard Mental Health Letter,13(9), 4-7.

Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt

(Eds.),Great minds in management(pp. 9-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Childrens interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-childrelationship.Developmental Psychology,34,934-946.

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, 84,740756.

Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different

are they really?Educational Psychology Review, 15, 140.

Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in

academic motivation research.Educational Psychology, 34,139154.Brophy, J. E. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational

Research, 51, 5-32.

Buff, A., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., & Pauli, C. (2011) Activating positive affectiveexperiences in the classroom: Nice to have or something more? Learning and

Instruction, 21,452-466.

Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as an antecedent of young childrens

school adjustment: An examination of mediating process. Developmental

Psychology, 37, 550560.

Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of

different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and

performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 79,474482.

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year

college student performance and adjustment. Journal ofEducational Psychology,

93, 5564.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1994). Engagement Versus Disaffection: Motivated

Patterns of Action In the Academic Domain. Rochester, NY: University of

Rochester.

Craven, R. G., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). The centrality of self-concept construct for

psychological well-being and unlocking human potential: Implications for child

and educational psychologists.Educational andChild Psychology, 25, 104118.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior.New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs

and the self determination of behavior.Psychologic Inquiry, 11,319338.


21/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

309

Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology: From infancy to old age. Malden,

MA: Blackwell.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and

personality.Psychological Review, 95(2),256273.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage environment fit: Developmentally appropriate

classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on

motivation in education: Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions (pp. 1344). New York:

Academic Press.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents

achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 21,215225.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfeld, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). The development of achievement

motivation. In N. Eisenberg, (Ed.),Handbook of child psychology(pp. 1017-1095,

Vol. IV, 5th Ed.), New York: John Wiley.Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C, Reuman, D., Maclver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993).

Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students' motivation. The

Elementary School Journal,5,553-574.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. L. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies,

and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational


Epstein, J. L., & McPartland, J. M. (1976). The concept and measurement of the quality of

school life.AmericanEducational Research Journal, 13,1530.

Feather, N. T. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrolment: Testing the role of personal

values within an expectancy-valence framework. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 80, 381391.Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2003). Effect of choice on cognitive and affective

engagement.Journal of Educational Research, 96, 207215.

Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C. & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of

the concept, state of the evidence.Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

Fulton, E. B., & Turner, L. A. (2008). Students academic motivation: relations with parental

warmth, autonomy granting, and supervision.Educational Psychology, 28 (5), 521-

534.

Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-

construction of mind.American Educational ResearchJournal, 36, 647673.

Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students intentions to

persist in, versus drop out of, high school.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,

347356.

Hoyle, R. H., & Panther, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R.H.

Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications(pp.

158175). London: Sage

Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O.-M., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support,

effortful engagement, and achievement: a 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 100(1), 1-14.


22/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

310

Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theorys

motivation mediation model in a naturally-occurring classroom context.Journal of

Educational Psychology, 104, 1175-1188.

Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: its not

autonomy support or structure, but autonomy support and structure. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 102,588-600.

Jansen, P. W. A., & Bruinsma, M. (2005). Explaining achievement in higher education.

Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 235252.

Katz, I. & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational

Psychology Review, 19, 429-442.

Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement:

Predictive of childrens achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade?Journal

of Educational Psychology, 101,190206.

Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gainsin achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68, 241270.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validity of

academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specific self-

efficacy.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 307-315.

Maehr, M. L., & Andennan, E. M. (1993). Reinventing schools for early adolescents:

Emphasizing task goals.The ElementarySchool Journal, 93,593-610.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves.American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.

Marsh, H. W. (2007). Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice: The role

of self concept in educational psychology. London, England: British Psychological

Society.

Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performancefrom a multidimensional perspective. Beyond seductive pleasure and

unidimensional perspectives.Perspectives on PsychologicalScience, 1, 133-163.

Marsh, H. W., & OMara, A. J. (2008). Self-concept is as multidisciplinary as it is

multidimensional. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), Self-

processes, learning, and enabling human potential.Dynamic new approaches (pp.

87115). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K-T. (2003) Big fish little pond effect on academic self-concept: A

crosscultural (26 country) test of the negative effects of academically selective

schools.American Psychologist,58, 364-376.

Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Ldtke, O., Baumert, J., & Kller, O. (2007). The big-fish

little-pond effect: Persistent negative effects of selective high schools on self-

concept after graduation.American EducationalResearch Journal, 44, 631669.

Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). The causal effects of academic self-concept on

academic achievement: Structural equation models of longitudinal data.Journal of

Educational Psychology, 89, 4154.

Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2006). Reconceptualizing emotion and motivation to learn in

classroom contexts.Educational Psychology Review, 18, 377-390.

Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An

under explored aspect of goal theory. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 89, 710-

718.


23/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

311

Midgley, C. (1993). Motivation and middle level schools. In P. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 8. Motivation in the

adolescent years(pp. 217-294). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Mih, (2013). Role of parental support for learning, autonomous/control motivation,

and forms of self-regulation on academic attainment in high school students: a path

analysis. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, An Interdisciplinary journal, 17(1), 35-60.

Perry, R.P., Hladkyj, S., Reinhard, H.P., Clifton, R.A., & Chipperfield, J.G. (2005).

Perceived academic control and failure in college students: A three-year study of

scholastic attainment.Research in HigherEducation, 46, 523569.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning

components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and

applications (2

nd

Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Ratelle, C. F., Larose, S., Guay, F., & Senecal, C. (2005). Perceptions of parental

involvement and support as predictors of college students persistence in a science

curriculum.Journal of Family Psychology,19, 268293.

Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci &

R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183203).

Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how

they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44, 159-

178.

Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L.

Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on Studentengagement (pp. 149-172). New York: Springer.

Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination theory: A dialectical

framework for understanding socio-cultural influences on student motivation. In S.

Van Etten & M. Pressley (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 3160). Greenwich,

CT: Information Age Press.

Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students autonomy

during learning activities.Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209-218.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing high school

students engagement by increasing their teachers autonomy support. Motivation

and Emotion,28, 147-169.

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


Reynolds, W. M. (1988). Measurement of academic self-concept in college students.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(2), 223-240.

Reynolds, W. M., Ramirez, M. P., Magrina, A., & Allen, J. E. (1980). Initial development

and validation of the academic self concept scale. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 40, 1013-1016.

Rigby, C. S., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-

extrinsic dichotomy: Self-determination in motivation and learning.Motivation and

Emotion, 16, 165185.


24/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

312

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological

environment and early adolescents psychological and behavioral functioning in

school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 88(3), 408-422.

Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Vol.

Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality

development (5thEd.) (pp 105176). New York: Wiley.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being.American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-

dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-

determination research(pp. 333). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist,

Special Issue: Current Issues and New Directions in Motivational Theory andResearch, 26(3-4), 207-231.

Shavelson, R. J., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods.

JournalEducational Psychology, 74,317.Skinner, E. A. (1990). Development and perceived control: A dynamic model of action in

context. In M. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota symposium on child

development (pp. 167215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Skinner, E., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of

teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of


Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and

disaffection in the classroom: part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal ofEducational Psychology, 100(4), 765-781.

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on

engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of childrens

behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493525.

Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyckx, K., & Goossens, L. (2006). Parenting and

adolescent problem behavior: An integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure

and perceived parental knowledge as intervening variables. Developmental


Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCinto, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting

autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and

ownership.Educational Psychology, 39,97110.

Stipek, D. (2002). Good instruction is motivating. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.),

Development of achievement motivation (pp. 309332). San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Su, Y., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs

designed to support autonomy.Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159-188.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate analysis. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (2nd

Ed.). Boston:

Pearson.


25/26

V.Mih, C.Mih


17 (2013) 289-313

313

Tellefson, N. (2000). Classroom applications of cognitive theories of motivation.

Educational Psychology Review, 12, 63-84.

Urdan, T. C, Midgley, C. M., & Wood, S. (1995). Special issues in reforming middle level

schools.Journal of Early Adolescence, 15,9-37.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In

M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 29, pp. 271-

360). San Diego: Academic Press.

Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-

theories of self-determination theory: an historical overview, emerging trends, and

future directions. In T. Urdan, & S. Karabenick (Eds.). The decade ahead.

Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 16 (pp. 105-166). London: Emerald

Group Publishing Limited.

Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of Education, 105, 204

319.Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.

Contemporary Educational Psychology. Special Issue: Motivation and the

Educational Process, 25(1), 68-81.

Wigfield, A., & Karpathian, M. (1991). Who am I and what can I do? Childrens self-

concepts and motivation in achievement situations. Educational Psychology, 26,233-261.

Wolters, C. (1999). The relation between high school students motivational regulation and

their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning and

Individual Differences, 11, 281299.

Wouters, S., Germeijs, V., Colpin, H., & Verschueren, K. (2011). Academic self-concept in

high school: Predictors and effects on adjustment in higher education.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 586594.

Wright, B. D. (1968). Sample-free test calibration and person measurement. Proceedings of

the 1967 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems (pp. 8510). Princeton, N.J.:

Educational Testing Service.

Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in

mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational

Research Journal, 37, 215246.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing

course attainment.American Educational ResearchJournal, 31, 845862.


26/26

C o p y r i g h t o f C o g n i t i e , C r e i e r , C o m p o r t a m e n t / C o g n i t i o n , B r a i n , B e h a v i o r i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f

E d i t u r a A S C R a n d i t s c o n t e n t m a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i l e d t o m u l t i p l e s i t e s o r p o s t e d t o a

l i s t s e r v w i t h o u t t h e c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r ' s e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , u s e r s m a y p r i n t ,

d o w n l o a d , o r e m a i l a r t i c l e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l u s e .

Perceived Autonomy-supportive Teaching,

Documents

Transcript of Perceived Autonomy-supportive Teaching,