Perceived Autonomy-Supportive Teaching

Cognition, Brain, Behavior.
An Interdisciplinary Journal
Copyright 2013 ASCR Publishing House. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 1224-8398
Volume 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 MIH
1*
, Codrua MIH
2

1
Department of Psychology, Babe-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Department 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 10
th
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 and
subsequent 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 perceptions
relate to both adaptive patterns of academic self-perception and school adjustment
of students has become an increasingly important topic in the field of educational
psychology (Eccles, Wigfield, Midgley, Maehr, & Anderman, 1993; Midgley,

*
Corresponding author:
E-mail: viomihb@yahoo.com
V. Mih, C. Mih

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal
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 adolescent
period (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). In this study, we focus on how perceived
autonomy-supportive teaching, adolescents' self-perceptions which are emphasized
in 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 understanding
for 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 at
least three ways: procedurally (encouraging student ownership of form, e.g., letting
students select the media in which to present ideas), organizationally (encouraging
student ownership of the environment - e.g., letting students select due dates for
assignments), 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 to
engagement and optimal learning in educational contexts (Deci & Ryan, 2000;
Reeve, 2012; Su & Reeve, 2011). Autonomy support is the interpersonal behavior
one 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 or
why an apparently uninteresting activity is truly worth students attention is an
autonomy-supportive behavior because it allows students sense of valuing to guide
their classroom activity and consequently academic self-efficacy. Likewise, asking
students what they want (e.g., asking for their input for the lesson plan) is an
autonomy-supportive behavior because the teacher seeks to identify students
psychological needs to integrate them into the days lesson and this compatibility
develops student perception of autonomy-supportive teaching and academic
self-efficacy (Reeve & Jang, 2006). Overall, autonomy support revolves around
finding ways to support and increase students inner endorsement of their classroom
activity (Reeve, 2009; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004). When students perceive their
teachers to be autonomy supportive (Rigby, Deci, Patrick, & Ryan, 1992) students
report high levels of self-determination (Vallerand, 1997). These motivational
resources, when supported and nurtured in the classroom, provide students with the
motivational foundation they need to become highly engaged in school and
V. Mih, C. Mih

17 (2013) 289-313

291
committed to graduating (Hardre & Reeve 2003; Vallerand, 1997). Compared to
students who perceived controlled motivations, students with greater perceived
autonomy experience a wide range of educationally and developmentally important
benefits. These benefits include not only greater psychological need satisfaction
during learning activities but also greater classroom engagement, a preference for
optimal challenge over easy success, greater persistence in school tasks and higher
academic 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, achievement
and behavioral persistence (e.g., Buff, Reusser, Rakoczy, & Pauli, 2011; Reeve,
2009). Recognizing this, we consider useful to investigate the extent to which
perceived autonomy-supportive teaching predict the subsequent engagement in
school, and they do so in a way that is over and above the influence of school
performance. At the same time we are interested if some of cognitive self resources,
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 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 themselves
and 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 are
heavily rooted in ones past achievement and reinforcement history. Yet it is these
subjective convictions about oneself, once established which play a determining
role in individuals further growth and development (Bandura, 1997; Markus &
Nurius, 1986). During the past couple of decades, numerous studies in educational
research have resorted to either self-concept or self-efficacy to explain the function
of self in school contexts (Bong & Skaalvik, 2000). Studies have demonstrated that
positive perception of self generates many desirable outcomes (Reeve & Jang,
2006; Vallerand, 1997). Thus, strong self-efficacy and positive self-concept lead
students to persist longer on difficult tasks, feel less anxious in achievement
settings, enjoy their academic work more, and feel better about themselves as a
student. 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.

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 and
perseverance one will expend in a given endeavor; and (b) shaping the outcomes
expected from one's efforts. People who perceive themselves as highly efficacious
will 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 by
influencing cognitive and emotional processes related to the situation. Students with
low self-efficacy tend to well on their deficiencies and view situations as more
difficult 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 a
school task that is characterized by positive, proactive, and solution-focused
orientations. Self-efficacy has been proven to be remarkably useful as a theoretical
method to comprehend a number of behaviors because of its influence on a
students choice, effort, and persistence in an activity (Bandura, 1997). Thereby, the
influence 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, and
perseverance (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 that
higher levels of self-determination are associated with better psychological
functioning, SDT proposes that the extent to which an individual is self-determined
is 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 several
positive 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. Their
expectancy 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 value
learning a particular skill or topic are more likely to engage in learning and hard
working (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). At the same time,
numerous studies have shown that students with confidence in their abilities to
succeed on a task work harder, persist longer, and perform better than their less
efficacious peers (Bandura, 2005; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Eccles, Wigfield, &
Schiefele, 1998; Schunk, 1991). Expectancy-value theory (Feather, 1988; Wigfield
V. Mih, C. Mih

17 (2013) 289-313

293
& Eccles, 2002) links performance, persistence, and effort directly to individuals
expectancy for success. According to expectancy-value theory (Feather, 1988;
Wigfield & Eccles, 2002), expectancies and values directly influence persistence
and effort. Expectancy for success is conceptualized as a task-specific belief about
success in a future academic task. According to theorists of expectancy-value
models, effort, persistence, and performance in a given task depend on value-related
variables 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 increased
persistence 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-concept can be defined as how a
student feels about himself or herself within a school or academic setting, or in
relation to his or her academic progress (Bracken, 2009). If academic self efficacy
refers 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 more
stable, past orientated and refers to specific school subjects, whereas self-efficacy is
more 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), global
measures cannot adequately describe self-concepts in different domains (Marsh &
Hau, 2003). Thus, academic self-concept is particularly important in educational
settings 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 has
received 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 of
academic self-concept is thus seen as a desirable outcome in itself and as a mediator
leading to other favorable educational outcomes. Thus, academic achievement,
V. Mih, C. Mih

17 (2013) 289-313

294
persistence, coursework selection, and long-term educational aspirations are
systematically related to academic self-concept, they are nearly uncorrelated (or
even negatively related) to nonacademic (social and physical) self-concept
responses (Marsh & Craven, 1997; Marsh & Yeung, 1997, 1998). This research
demonstrated that self-concept has an important influence on educational decisions
like students persistence, effort, and emotional engagement. This research is
important in that it has established that increases in academic self-concept lead to
increases 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 academic
motivation and achievement, increasing student alienation, and elevated school
drop-out rates (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). School engagement has been
seen as a potential answer to these problems because it encompasses processes that,
theoretically, serve to promote learning and achievement and, practically, can be
fostered 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 or
be present in classrooms. Rather, they must engage the classroom environment in
ways that promote learning.
Because researchers studying the effects of school engagement on
achievement have differed in their definitions and measures of engagement, it is
difficult to integrate findings across studies. Often, researchers incorporated a wide
variety of constructs in their measurement of engagement, an inclusiveness that
makes it difficult to determine the unique precursors and consequences of different
types 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 the
effort and persistence aspects of involvement in instructional activities. Such
involvement includes trying hard, not giving up in the face of difficulty, and
directing 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 emotional
experiences. These emotional reactions, such as boredom, happiness, sadness, and
anxiety 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). Some
researchers assess emotional engagement by measuring emotional reactions to the
school and the teacher (Lee & Smith, 1995; Stipek, 2002). Some conceptualize it as
V. Mih, C. Mih

17 (2013) 289-313

295
identification with school (Finn, 1993; Voelkl, 1997). Finn defines identification as
belonging (a feeling of being important to the school) and value (an appreciation of
success in school-related outcomes). The emotions included in these definitions
duplicate 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 limitations
of past research, our objective was to investigate the extent to which cognitive self
resources, 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 student
performance. 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 this
study takes the research a step further by investigating direct and indirect predictors
of these cognitive self resources together using path analysis. We expected that
these cognitive resources are predicted by perceived autonomy-supportive teaching
and predict the subsequent engagement in school, and they do so in a way that is
over 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 autonomy
support associated with school relate to variables such as academic self-efficacy,
expectancy for success and school self-concept. Students' self-efficacy and school
self-concept in turn are examined in relation to psychological outcomes associated
with school such as effort, persistence, and emotional engagement. In the last step
of the model, the association of students' engagement with their final semester
academic achievement is examined. In looking at each set of these relations, we use
a path model. Although the causal direction of the relations among these constructs
is not yet well established, the hypothesized direction from the perceived school
context 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 in
Figure 1 based upon theoretical considerations and prior research, all of which are
discussed below. On the basis of the arguments presented, the following specific
V. Mih, C. Mih

17 (2013) 289-313

296
predictions were advanced: (a) autonomy support perception will predict school
self-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. The
sample consisted of 174 students. Approximately equal numbers of girls (n=89,
51.1%) and boys (n=85, 48.9%) participated in the study. Surveys were
administered 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.

Academic
self-efficacy

Academic
self-
concept
Behavioral
engagement
Emotional
engagement
Autonomy
support
perception
School
achievement
Expectancy for
success
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 the
semester 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 teaching scale
(Assor et al., 2002), Academic Self-Concept Scale (Reynolds, 1988), Academic Self-
efficacy (PALS; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Roeser et al., 1996), Expectancy for
success (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002), Effort (Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999 &
Pintrich & Groot, 1990), Persistence (Elliot et al.s, 1999), The Emotional
Engagement Scale (Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008), Participants
were 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 their
main 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 extent
to which the teacher was seen as allowing choice as part of the learning process and
as conversing with students about choices, (b) the extent to which the teacher was
seen 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 about
why 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 personal
goals and interests.
Examples of items were: The teacher encourages me to work in my own
way (providing choice), The teacher allows us to talk about things that we find
unacceptable inn school (allowing criticism and encouranging independent
thinking) and The teacher explains why it is important to study certain subjects in
school (fostering understanding and relevance). Factor analysis with varimax
rotation 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 independent
thinking 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
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, peer
evaluation 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 of
academic self-concept and the ASCS has been utilized in repeated studies on
various 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 aggregate
academic performance (Lent et al., 1997). Reynolds et al. (1988) utilized the ASCS
to determine the self-concept of college students; however, this scale was adapted to
evaluate high school students in this study. A revision of specific terms was
necessary to explore the unique experiences of junior high students. Therefore the
term exams was replaced with tests in item 5, college was replaced with
school 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 teachers
in 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 a
course for college students. Factor analysis of the ASCS yielded a seven-factor
solution that accounted for 48.6% of total variance (Reynolds, 1988). The ASCS
yields 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 and
validity 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) I
enjoy doing my schoolwork. The overall ASCS alpha coefficient was .86.
Academic Self-efficacy Scale consisted of five items regarding perceived
competence 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 master
even the hardest material in this class if I try," "I can do almost all the work in class
if 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 the
class," and "I'm confident that I will receive a good grade this semester." Principal
components 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
V. Mih, C. Mih

17 (2013) 289-313

299
reliability analysis indicated acceptable scale properties, with item -total
correlations 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 in
the 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 the
effort 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 can
to finish my school assignments. Persistence, which included four items, reflected
students beliefs that they completed work for their math class even when faced
with 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 on
doing my work for school but often dont stick with it for very long (reverse
coded). 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 of
me) 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 factor
analysis with varimax rotation was performed and this analysis yielded the two
hypothesized factors with each item loading on its designated factor. The two
factors (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 or
her own (a) emotional engagement, using six items tapping their emotions
indicating motivated involvement during learning activities (such affective
reactions in the classroom, attitudes towards school and teachers, appreciation of
success in school) (Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008). Examples of
items 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 the
semester on a 10-point scale.

V. Mih, C. Mih

17 (2013) 289-313

300
RESULTS

Prior to conducting the analyses, we examined the data for univariate and
multivariate outlying cases by using the procedure devised by Tabachnik and Fidell
(2007). Before conducting the main analyses, all of the major variables were
checked 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 main
analyses 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. Second
for 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-score
and 3 problematic outlier values higher or smaller than
3.29 (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001) was detected. As a result 3 cases were
treated 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. Bivariate
correlations were computed to depict the interrelationships among all of the study
variables. The correlation matrix on the Table 1 showed the relationships among the
predictors, mediator and criterion variables. The relationships also assess the
presence of multicollinearity. The results showed that none of the partial
coefficients 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 the
assumption 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 direct
influences of one variable on another must be included in the path diagram. Final
specific assumption for conducting path analysis includes unitary variables for
which variables should not be composed of components that behave in different
ways with different variables.
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 7
1. Autonomy support
perception
124.47(17.3) -
2. Academic
self-efficacy
3.67(.91) .39** -
3. Expectancy
for success
73.21(22.56) .14** 0.4 -
4. Academic
self-concept
2.78(.57) .26** .11* .07 -
5. Behavioral
engagement
9.37(2.22) .07 .34** .29** .19** -
6. Emotional
engagement
2.82(.42) .11* .27** .22** .25** .12* -
7. School achievement 7.68(1.12) .08 .07 .12* .11* .31** .24** -
* = p<.05, ** = p<.01
In order to examine theoretical relationships among dependent, independent,
and mediating variables proposed in hypothesis were investigated by using AMOS
Version 16.0. The hypothesized model depicted in the Figure 1 was initially tested
for the data. In order to test the proposed path model, two separate path analysis
were employed. Path analysis examines the whole model simultaneously by
assessing both direct and indirect effects among the variables. The selected
dimensions for inclusion in the path model have been identified in the literature as
the most relevant factors to explain the exogenous variable. This model is partially
mediated since it includes direct path from exogenous variables to the dependent
variables, and mediated paths through mediators. The hypothesized model was
tested, first, to see how well the data fitted the model that represented the rational
emotive behavior approach. Then in order to simplify the hypothesized model, a
modified model was created after the non-significant path eliminated and
modifications added. Consequently the modified model was tested by the second
path analysis.
This analysis was conducted to determine the goodness of the model fit to
the data. As recommended by Hoyle and Panter (1995), we used several different
indexes to evaluate the fit of the models to the data, including chi-square degree of
freedom ratio (
2
/ df), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA).

Table 2.
Summary of Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Hypothesized Model (n = 162)

2
df
2
/df RMSEA GFI AGFI NFI
Hypothhesized
model
132.13 5 26.42 1.13 .83 .92 .87
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 ratio
was 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 indices
indicated 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 the
suggested 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
2
value, its ratio
to 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 are
accepted 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.
V. Mih, C. Mih

17 (2013) 289-313

303
The final model we obtained using the tests of the nested models, including
the 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 of
autonomy support perception on behavioral engagement was totally mediated by
self-efficacy and academic self-concept. Thus, students who perceive teacher
autonomy 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 efficacy
was distally linked to behavioral engagement both directly and through the
mediation of emotional engagement. Similarly, a high sense of academic self
concept predicted school achievement by supporting emotional and behavioral
engagement. As we further hypothesized, the impact of perceived academic self on
school performance was mediated through different type of engagement. Overall,
behavioral engagement in learning (effort + persistence) and academic emotional
engagement accounted for 28% of the variance in performance.

DISCUSSION

The goals of this investigation were to determine whether perceived teacher
practices predicted students academic self-efficacy, academic self-concept, and
expectancy for success and to determine whether these self-related cognitions
predicted their engagement in learning and implicit academic performance. Prior
research has shown that perceptions of autonomy are related to academic success
(Perry, Hladkyj, Reinhard, Clifton, & Chipperfield, 2005; Skinner, 1990) and that
perceived teacher practices are related to academic engagement and academic
success (Durkin, 1995; Fulton & Turner, 2008). The current study extends the
literature by examining the pathway from perceived teacher practices (such as
warmth, listening, creating time for independent work, giving the student
opportunities to talk, praising signs of improvement and mastery, encouraging the
students 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 as
antecedents of students school achievement.
The present study specifically examined students perceptions of teachers
autonomy-supportive activities as an important factor that may predict students
deeper understanding of academic self perception and students engagement in
learning. The findings indicated that students perceptions of teachers provision of
rationale and relevance, together with perceptions of the teachers attempts to take
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-related
cognitions are related to school engagement. These findings are important because
they indicate that an autonomy supportive climate contributes to students belief
systems (perceptions), which then impact their academic efforts, persistence, and
outcomes in school. This can be explained by the fact that, when teachers and
schools respect students need for autonomy via the dialogue they engage in, and by
allowing students opportunities for self expression, students may experience
positive feelings in the classroom also in ages when oppositional attitudes toward
social institutions and adult authorities are common. This view is also consistent
with Eccles and Midgleys (1989) stage t theory, according to which adolescents
often show low levels of motivation and positive affect toward their junior high
schools 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 particularly
strong 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 of
Assor, Kaplan, and Roth (2002) suggests that what students perceive as being
highly 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 is
responsive to the students questions and comments provides information for
judging progress, and encouraging the students efforts is more beneficial for
development 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
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 have
suggested 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 in
cognitive 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 research
demonstrated that self perception has an important influence on students - how they
feel about themselves in approaching learning, their effort, persistence, and
emotional engagement. This study is important in that it has established that
increases in academic self-perception lead to increases in subsequent academic
engagement and other desirable educational outcomes. Hence, not only is self
perception an important outcome variable in itself, but it also plays a central role in
mediating 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 an
increased academic self-concept were more likely to report behavioral and
emotional engagement in learning. Student engagement is a motivationally enriched
classroom quality that has clear implications for student achievement (Skinner,
Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009). By engaging themselves actively and
enthusiastically in academic activities, students learn, develop skills, and generally
make academic progress. Consequently, both the extent and quality of students
classroom 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 autonomy
support to be related to positive outcomes among adolescent students (e.g., Ratelle
et al., 2005; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyckx, & Goossens, 2006). In the path
model, 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 statistical
significance. This is a clear limitation of this study. Also, information about teacher
was gathered only from the students and was retrospective. Clearly, multiple
measures (e.g., from teachers reports) or observational measures would add
strength 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
V. Mih, C. Mih

17 (2013) 289-313

306
students who are more confident about their academic success are more interested
in their schoolwork and more convinced of the usefulness of their education.
Students who attach little value to academic success may exert little effort on their
schoolwork 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 in
which 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 are
during instruction and how much they develop themselves as autonomous learners
depends, in part, on the autonomy supportive quality of the teacher. From this point
of view, students' engagement is an interpersonally coordinated process between
teachers and students. When teachers support students' autonomy rather than
control their behavior - teachers function both as a guide to structure students'
learning opportunities and to help them develop constructive sources of
autonomous motivation, such as internalized values. The implication for teachers is
that of supporting students' autonomy and creating the conditions during learning
activities 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 be
building 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 (see
Goldstein, 1999).
The third implication suggests that, one aspect that seems particularly
sensitive is adolescents emotional experience when involved in learning activities.
Students enthusiasm, happiness, and comfort during engagement in academic tasks
seem 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, with
autonomous support perception impacting self perception and these self beliefs
impacting academic engagement and engagement impacting academic success. The
model suggests that the relationships are unidirectional. Although these paths are
theoretically 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
V. Mih, C. Mih

17 (2013) 289-313

307
effects and also lead one to better foresee the future implications of ones current
studying. The second limitation was the application of a self-report instrument to
measure students perception of behavioral engagement in learning and use of
learning 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 large
samples used in this study precluded the use of such methods, future research
should 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 our
results might be generalizable beyond the specific subjects and measures we used.

CONCLUSION

In general, the relations among variables involved in this study support our
hypotheses derived from SDT and expectancy-value theory. Specifically, we found
that the academic self beliefs held by students largely mediate the relations between
autonomy support perception, on the one hand, and behavioral, and emotional
engagements, 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 and
emotional engagement in turn played a mediating role in the relations between self
perception and achievement outcome. Finally, teachers closeness in their
relationships with individual students has been found to be good distal antecedent
of tenth graders' school performance. From this perspective, teachers autonomy
support 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 academic
engagement.

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 &
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-child
relationship. 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 affective
experiences 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 of Educational 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 and Child 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.
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. American Educational 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
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 Research Journal, 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.
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 rst 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 gains
in 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 Elementary School 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 performance
from a multidimensional perspective. Beyond seductive pleasure and
unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 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 Educational Research 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 of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-
718.
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 Higher Education, 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 Student
engagement (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.
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 (5
th
Ed.) (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 and
Research, 26(3-4), 207-231.
Shavelson, R. J., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods.
Journal Educational 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 of
Educational 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. Wigeld & 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 (2
nd
Ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
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.
Wigeld, 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 Research Journal, 31, 845862.

Perceived Autonomy-Supportive Teaching

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perceived Autonomy-Supportive Teaching

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cognition, Brain, Behavior.

You might also like