Teacher autonomy support intervention as a

Journal for Multicultural Education Teacher autonomy support intervention as a classroom practice in a Thai school: A self-determination theory perspective Amrita Kaur Rosna Awang Hashim Mohammad Noman

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:15 06 April 2015 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Amrita Kaur Rosna Awang Hashim Mohammad Noman , (2015),"Teacher autonomy support intervention as a classroom practice in a Thai school", Journal for Multicultural Education, Vol. 9 Iss 1 pp. 10 - 27 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JME-07-2014-0033 Downloaded on: 06 April 2015, At: 23:15 (PT) References: this document contains references to 36 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 24 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Linda Fenimore, (2015),"Exploring family reading practices in non-Kuwaiti nannies", Journal for Multicultural Education, Vol. 9 Iss 1 pp. 28-41 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JME-06-2014-0029

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 581774 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/2053-535X.htm

JME 9,1

Teacher autonomy support intervention as a classroom practice in a Thai school

10

A self-determination theory perspective Amrita Kaur, Rosna Awang Hashim and Mohammad Noman


School of Education and Modern Languages, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia Abstract Purpose – The benefits of teacher autonomy support for optimal school functioning is evident in literature. However, studies are meager about teachers applying the concept of autonomy support in real settings (regular classroom). Design/methodology/approach – Based on empirical data within self-determination theory, a longitudinal intervention program was designed to facilitate autonomy support instruction in a natural classroom setting and to assess its effectiveness on Thai students’ learning motivation. In a quasi-experimental, nonequivalent control group design, with an appended withdrawal design, 103 students from Grade 6 of a Thai public school underwent the intervention for seven weeks in natural classroom settings. The students in both the groups self-reported their class-related experience before intervention (pretest), after intervention (posttest1) and after the withdrawal of intervention (posttest2). Findings – MANOVA results revealed a significant mean difference for all dependent measures on posttest1 between the experimental group and control group. Also, after the withdrawal of treatment, the experimental group showed a significant omnibus effect on combination of dependent measures, while scores of control group were stable. Originality/value – The findings have implications for elementary school teachers in Thailand to adapt and adopt autonomy supportive instruction as a classroom practice. Keywords Multicultural, Intervention, Intercultural, Learning, Education, Self-determination theory, Ethnicity, Pedagogy, Teacher autonomy support, Classroom practice, Thai education Paper type Research paper

Journal for Multicultural Education Vol. 9 No. 1, 2015 pp. 10-27 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2053-535X DOI 10.1108/JME-07-2014-0033

Introduction: self-determination theory Self-determination theory (SDT), a theory of human motivation, proposes fulfillment of basic and universal psychological needs – autonomy, competence and relatedness – that are essential for healthy functioning across the realms of human life (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000). SDT has made a momentous contribution to the literature of motivational theories in education. The theory explains how intrinsic motivation can be nurtured in learning contexts by creating conducive classroom environments. It proposes that humans are naturally motivated to engage in activities that are self-chosen, not imposed. Such experiences of autonomy are associated with self-determined actions that are functional and adaptive. Autonomy within the SDT is defined as actions that are self-endorsed, originating from within and give a sense of ownership for actions (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The theory categorically specifies the


social contextual factors or events that facilitate or undermine student motivation in the classroom settings. It is always challenging for teachers to find ways to motivate students to learn the contents that are not intrinsically interesting to them. However, if teachers embed autonomy support in their teaching styles, students are likely to develop intrinsic motivation for better academic performance (Reeve and Jang, 2006).

Teacher autonomy support intervention

Classroom practice of SDT – the teacher autonomy support In a classroom setting, there are several factors that come together synergistically and influence students’ motivation. Students experiencing autonomy, as expounded by the SDT, display positive academic outcomes, enhanced creativity, greater enjoyment and effort, positive emotions and motivation (Reeve, 2006; Reeve and Jang, 2006). In the context of educational setting, the volitional (autonomy) experience of motivation extended by a teacher to their students through classroom dynamics is identified as teacher autonomy support (TAS) (Jang et al., 2010). A review of the features of TAS originally stems from the concept of autonomy in the SDT. Deci and Ryan (1985) presented events and context that could function either to support autonomy or control behavior. Under controlling events (such as setting deadline, not asking choices and relying on tangible awards), tangible rewards were seen to have negative effects on self-determination and also undermine intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, in autonomy supportive events, giving choices to students to accomplish a task in a manner they would like to and providing positive feedback on competence was reported to increase intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1987). Later, in a series of studies conducted by Reeve and colleagues, TAS has emerged as a robust framework on dimensions of classroom autonomy (Reeve and Halusic, 2009; Reeve and Jang, 2006; Reeve et al., 1999; Reeve, 2006). These studies have contributed a variety of instructional behaviors that guide on how to support students’ autonomy in classroom settings. In addition, several other intervention studies have validated these elements of TAS in school settings (for a review, see Su and Reeve, 2011). Autonomy-supportive behaviors include listening carefully to students, providing opportunities for students to contribute verbally (active participation) and work in their own way, allow students to manipulate teaching objects, listen to them and acknowledge their perspective, communicate a rationale for learning, give encouragements and provide praise as rewards. Environments that promote TAS contribute significantly to students’ learning and academic achievement across cultures. In a classroom setting, teachers can nurture conditions of autonomy support through their interpersonal and motivating styles (Reeve, 2006). At the same time, SDT suggests that TAS has the added benefit of facilitating autonomous regulation in students whereby students learn to function in a productive way even for an uninteresting activity (Vansteenkiste et al., 2005).

11

The problem statement Motivational problems in learning English as a foreign language is prevalent in Thai society. The major reasons cited for lack of motivation among Thai students were a passive teaching methodology and a lack of interest for the language (Nguyen, 2005; Punthumasen, 2008). It is reported that students are given fewer or no opportunities to manipulate and explore teaching resources, and learning is dominated by a rote memorization method which limits independent thinking skills and learner autonomy in classroom settings (Atagi, 2002; Nguyen, 2005; Sangnapaboworn, 2003). This raised the

JME 9,1


12

possibility of exploring a non-coercive external support to increase motivation among the students for studying the English language. This study was an attempt to engage Thai students in learning the foreign language autonomously, without external coercion and by instilling genuine value and interest for the language. Drawing from the SDT literature, it was decided to study an intervention approach by using TAS framework whereby classroom instructions were developed to be delivered by a trained teacher in a regular classroom setting. To study effectiveness of TAS, co-relational and cross-sectional studies were assumed to be possibly affected by directional influence (Reeve et al., 2004). Therefore, experimental and educational intervention studies are considered to be most appropriate to investigate the effects of autonomy support on students learning. A few studies in the past have been conducted on intervention in educational settings. For example, Reeve et al. (2004), in an experimental study investigated the effects of autonomy supportive behaviors on students’ engagement and found that students displayed more engagement when teachers used autonomy support during instruction. Another study was conducted by Reeve and Jang (2006) in a laboratory setting with pre-service teachers of the same sex playing the role of teachers and students. In a session of 10 minutes duration, the individuals in the role of teachers delivered hypothesized autonomy supportive and autonomy controlling instructions in one-on-one tutoring session to teachers in the role of students. Perception of those instructions and their effects over learning activity and academic outcomes of students were examined to study the functional significance of the autonomy construct. Correlational analyses established that students perceived eight instructional behaviors as autonomy supportive and six instructional behaviors as controlling. In a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of TAS intervention programs, Su and Reeve (2011) cited the work of Chatzisarantis and Hagger (2009) and Tessier et al. (2008) who designed and implemented autonomy-supportive training intervention for middle school students and found that autonomy support had a positive effect on student’s physical education. However, their prime focus was on physical education instructions. Similarly, Cheon et al. (2012) have also published the effects of longitudinal intervention program on physical education teachers. Therefore, the methodology of these studies has limited applications for classroom practice in real context because these experimental studies were conducted in artificially induced classroom conditions or in laboratory settings rather than in an authentic classroom setting. Also, the participants in some of the studies were not school students but adults. Sometimes the instructional session lasted only for a few minutes unlike the traditional classrooms. Moreover, most of the intervention programs informed more on “what was done with the teachers” rather than “what teachers actually did” to support autonomy in natural and regular classroom settings. Also, the majority of intervention programs assessed were focused on physical education training (Su and Reeve, 2011). Despite the fact that TAS has emerged as a comprehensive instructional framework, the vast majority of researches have not been conducted in real classroom settings. The present study design attempts to fill the gap by addressing the limitations of experimental studies conducted in the past by using real classroom settings.


The present study The present research attempted to study a wide range of autonomy supportive behaviors and its effect on students’ learning motivation in quasi-experimental, nonequivalent control group design (Ary et al., 2005) where two classrooms out of six sections of Grade 6 were randomly selected to participate in the study. The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of TAS intervention on all dependent variables (interest, effort, pressure and relatedness, external and integrated regulation) in a real classroom. A withdrawal design was appended to pretest-posttest design to make valid inferences for the intervention that contextual events in classroom settings can affect students learning motivation. All necessary measures were taken to control internal and external validity to this design without jeopardizing the natural settings. If controls are taken carefully, such designs permit the researchers to reach reasonable conclusions (Ary et al., 2005; Campbell and Stanley, 1966). A comprehensive unit plan for teaching four basic English language skills – reading writing, listening and speaking – was adapted following the empirically driven elements of TAS (Reeve, 2006; Reeve et al., 1999; Reeve and Halusic, 2009; Reeve and Jang, 2006). The teachers and the researchers came up with the unit plan. The details on intervention are discussed below in intervention module section. It was assumed that autonomy support intervention will have significant effect on students’ intrinsic motivation during learning which is represented by variables interest, effort and pressure. Variable relatedness was measured because teacher–student relatedness is vital for student’s learning motivation. Teacher student relatedness has confirmed positive relationship with intrinsic motivation of students (Bieg et al., 2011). A crucial question that concerns teachers is how to motivate students without external pressure for classroom activities that are not intrinsically interesting. SDT advocates fostering self-regulation which is presented in the form of a continuum (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The present study focuses on two forms of regulation – external and integrated – to examine the effect of intervention on students’ regulation for learning English. External indicates unwillingness to do a certain task and integrated indicates personal commitment. The purpose was to investigate the effects of intervention from external regulation moving toward integrated regulation on the continuum. Measurement of students’ perceived autonomy support revealed degrees of TAS experienced in classroom before, during and after the intervention. We employed a pretest-posttest method with an appended withdrawal design to make valid inferences for the intervention that perceived autonomy support was likely to increase during intervention and decrease during withdrawal. The section “intervention module” describes in detail about what happened in the class and what teacher did in the experimental groups. Another section “Intervention observation” informs the criteria that raters used to evaluate TSA in experimental class and regular teaching style of control group to establish a desired teaching methodology in both the groups. • There will be a significant difference between pretest and posttest1 scores of experimental group and control group. • There will be a significant difference between students’ perceived autonomy support scores on pretest, posttest1 and posttest2 in experimental group.

Teacher autonomy support intervention 13

JME 9,1


14

• The mean difference between pretest and posttest1 on dependent variables will increase in experimental group as a result of intervention. • The mean difference between posttest1 and posttest2 on dependent variables will decrease in experimental group as a result of withdrawal of intervention. This hypothesis is crucial to this study, as it questions the consistency of motivation change in relation to social-contextual factors as proposed within the SDT. It was to examine whether the intrinsic motivation developed during the intervention diminishes on withdrawal of autonomy support or not. • There will be no difference between scores of pretest, posttest1 and posttest2 of control group. Three instruments – intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI), self-regulation questionnaire (SRQ) and learning climate questionnaire (LCQ) – were used to measure the variables for the study. Operational definitions of instructional behaviors incorporated in the intervention are given below: • Seating arrangements: Creating flexible seating arrangements is one of the important elements of teacher autonomy supportive behaviors. Teachers do not adhere to static seating arrangements in rows; rather they give opportunity to students to sit in groups or close to the teacher to be able to manipulate learning aids and have interactive discussions (Reeve, 2006; Reeve and Jang, 2006). • Rationale: Teachers communicate the worth of learning, explain the rationale and personal benefits behind doing a particular task rather than imposing the task on students (Assor et al., 2002; Reeve et al., 2002). This keeps the students motivated for uninteresting activities and increases self-determination for school-related values. • Choices, opportunities and time: These include inviting students’ opinion such as “what would you like to do” or “how would you like to do”, offering them alternative options for a task to be chosen according to their goals and interests (Assor et al., 2002), valuing their desire for freedom to choose, giving them a sense of ownership for their action by allowing them to take responsibility for their actions (Reeve and Jang, 2006), creating opportunities for students to work in their way and encouraging them to think for an answer and providing enough time for them to work on their own pace (Reeve, 2006). • Listen and acknowledge their opinion: This means establishing a reliable communication rapport with students by encouraging them to contribute their thoughts, listening patiently, being responsive to their suggestions and acknowledging their outlook. This also includes acknowledging negative feelings from students to discourage conflicting feelings (Reeve and Jang, 2006; Reeve, 2006). • Hints and Efforts: According to Grolnick (2001), hints such as information and guidance serve as assistance for students when they are stuck. Hints are also a form of scaffolding the teacher creates to provide optimal opportunities for students to think in their own way. It also includes keeping students motivated and encouraging them for longer persistence on a task.


• Praise as informational feedback: Not relying on external or tangible rewards such as gold stars, monetary payments, food, etc., students are encouraged by giving verbal praise for performance improvement such as “well done” or “good job”. • Non-controlling language: Refraining from using phrases or directives that convey control, such as “you must”, “you should” or setting limits such as “work faster” (Assor et al., 2005). • Non-threatening assessment: As an extension to the use of non-controlling language, making the evaluation or tests non-threatening, relying instead on a variety of methods that are informal and less anxiety provoking. Method Participants Six classes (Section 1-6) of Grade 6 of a Thai public school situated on the outskirts of Bangkok were considered appropriate for the study. Of the six chosen classes, three classes matched in demographic data, their English language skills, number of years learning English language, after-school support for English language classes and recent score on national English exam. As even numbers were required for the study, two classes out of the three matching classes were randomly chosen to be a part of the study and were randomly assigned to experimental group and control group. Students in experimental group comprised 51 students (23 boys and 28 girls) and control group comprised 52 students (24 boys and 28 girls). Average age of the students who participated in the study ranged between 12 to 13 years. Students in both the groups were kept uninformed about the study. The learning contents for both the groups were the same. Data from teachers’ daily attendance roll suggested that students’ attendance during the study did not differ significantly. A between group multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed on all dependent variables for experimental and control group on pretest to establish the two groups as homogenous. The omnibus multivariate results presented no significant difference between the two groups (Wilks’ ␭ ⫽ 0.984, F (7, 95) ⫽ 0.220, p ⫽ 0.980). Procedure In Phase 1, both the classrooms were observed using TAS rating scale during regular sessions to ensure absence of teacher’s autonomy support. The raters were trained but were kept uninformed about the contents of training. Since the raters had been observing classes routinely, their presence was nonintrusive for students and teachers in both the groups. Students in both the groups were then made to respond on the pretest using instruments selected for the study. The questionnaire was given in their English lesson class. Student took almost 40-60 minutes to finish the questionnaires. To have students response honestly, the test was administered by school’s administrative staff instead of subject teacher. A female Thai teacher was always there to assist them. Students were assured confidentiality of their responses. In Phase 2, the teacher for classroom intervention was trained and tested for internalizing the treatment (training intervention is discussed in detail in the next section). The trained teacher assured confidentially and did not share intervention details with other teachers. In Phase 3, the teacher began the intervention during the regular English language classes that lasted for seven sessions of 60 minutes each. The teacher was trained to


JME 9,1


16

extend autonomy support instruction which was embedded in her regular lesson plan for the class. The teacher’s intervention was duly observed through trained raters in experimental group. Teacher in control group was unaware of the intervention; however, control group was also observed to rule out John Henry effect. At the end of the intervention, students in the experimental and control group responded on posttest1. During this phase, the teacher in control group continued teaching in traditional way which is mainly characterized by lecture and passive listening where students sat in rows and learned under structured conditions. In Phase 4, the teacher in experimental group was asked to withdraw the intervention and continue teaching the English lessons in traditional way. After four sessions of 60 minutes each, students in both the groups responded on posttest2. Teacher training Experimenter effect is identified as one of the threats to quasi-experimental design. Teachers of both the groups were found relatively similar on demographic data, years of teaching experience, nationality and native language (Table I). The teacher chosen for the experiment received training for intervention on the basis of past literature on teachers training in TAS (Reeve et al., 2004). The overall training took three sessions out of which two sessions were on weekends at convenient places and the third was held during school time. Each session lasted for approximately 60-80 minutes. The first two training sessions followed a similar format with that of Reeve’s et al. (2004). The training began with an introduction on the SDT including the different types of motivation. The second session gave a comprehensive account of various motivating styles consistent with TAS in the SDT and also explained the styles for classroom instruction as controlling and autonomy supportive and the benefits thereof. The session ended with a discussion on queries, obstacles and support for intervention program at school. In the third session, the teacher was duly observed to verify implementation of autonomy support in her teaching practice. The teacher was then given a post training general causality orientation scale (GCOS) instrument (details of instruments are provided in measures used in the study section), and the difference in pretest and posttest score was computed to observe transformation in motivating style. The teacher showed higher score on GCOS (M pretest ⫽ 0.6; M posttest ⫽ 2.7). Intervention module In the present study, an intensive teaching module on classroom practice of TAS was prepared. The intervention was a manipulation of independent variables and was held Characteristic

Age Gender Nationality Native tongue English accent Table I. Summary of Qualification teacher’s information Total number of years teaching

Teacher A

Teacher B

34 years Female Filipino Tagalog American Biology, English Major 11 years

37 years Female Filipino Tagalog American Journalism, English Major 12.5 years


in a natural classroom setting, within a regular school schedule and without giving any formal indication of it to the students. The treatment procedure was adjusted into the regular English language ‘lesson plan’ format of each day. These lessons focused on all four skills of language learning – listening, reading, speaking and writing. The steps designed in the intervention are described below: • Prior to beginning the class, the teacher changed the seating arrangement for the students from a regular arrangement into a way where students had the opportunity to sit nearer to the teacher (e.g. horse shoes, modular and runway models). This way, students could access the teacher and the teaching aids that she brought to the class in an easier way. Also, the arrangement gave an opportunity to the students to be able to interact easily with their peers and get involved in discussions. • To begin with the lesson, teacher warmly greets the students and exchanges pleasantries. Teacher provides the students with an opportunity to suggest a starter or have them choose the way they would like to begin the activity. • In case of an activity that is uninteresting, high in degree of difficulty or new to the student, teacher conveys the rationale behind doing that activity or learning a particular thing. Teacher also highlights the importance of doing a particular activity to let them realize their personal goals and interests. • Teacher brings a variety of teaching aids into the classroom. She provides each student with an opportunity to choose, manipulate and work on their own with teaching resources. • During class discussion, teacher encourages students to participate and provides them with an opportunity to think and contribute to the discussion. Teacher allows students to voice their opinion on discussion matter by listening to them attentively and responding verbally or non-verbally, actively acknowledging their contributions. Teacher also encourages student by responding in a positive way and agreeing with their perspective regarding the activity. • To assess their learning at the end of the lesson, teacher offers open-ended questions or informal quiz or test. While students do their assessments, teacher provides hints as encouragement to make the classroom environment friendlier. The teacher encourages the students and provides opportunity for them to try and accomplish the tasks. • While students accomplish the task, teacher provides constant feedback with encouraging words. On completion of tasks, teacher praises them and gives inputs for improvement and mastery. Intervention observation Class observations were made on several occasions for both the experimental and the control group for the present study. Trained raters were briefed about the SDT and autonomy support instructions. The observation rating sheet, as in Figure 1, was adapted for the present study from Reeve et al., 2004. Inter-rater reliability of observation for TAS instruction on one to seven scale on each instruction were: P1:allowing material manipulation (r.85); P-2 allowing conversation with peers (r 0.86); P-3 asks student preference, desire and interest


JME 9,1

18

Instruction/ behavior/ class environment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Seating arrangement P-1 Students sit close to teacher to be able to see, manipulate material. P-2 Students involve in conversation with peers and teacher rather than sitting alone passively. Starter


P-3 Teacher asks student preference, desire and interest. Such as: would you like to work in pair, group or individual, or which pattern do you want to start with? P-4 Providing rationale for learning or activity e.g. Explanatory statement such as “why is it important to do this….” Teaching aids/activity P-5 Providing opportunity to students to choose and manipulate P-6 Allowing students to work in their own way Assessment & assignments P-7 Giving formal or non-threatening test P-8 Offering hints Such as: “it might be easier to hold like this”, P-9 Offering encouragements Such as: “almost”, “You’re close”, and “You can do it”. Feedback Figure 1. Observation list for TAS

P-10 Providing praise as informational feedback for improvement, performance and mastery Such as: “Good job”, and “That’s great”. P-Practice

(r 0.86); P-4 providing rational for learning (r 0.84); P-5 providing opportunity to students to choose and manipulate (r.79); P-6 allowing students to work in their own way (r.89); P-7 giving formal or non-threatening test (r.89); P-8 offering hints and encouragements; P-9 offer encouragements (r.78); P-10 providing praise as informational feedback for improvement, performance and mastery (0.83). Measures used in the study A pilot study was conducted with a similar sample to check the reliability and validity of the instruments in Thai context. Exploratory factor analysis of all the instruments was conducted. The factor extraction analysis of IMI inventory provided a four-factor solution with factor loading from 0.40 to 0.87. The factor loadings of all variables were consistent with the psychometric properties of the original scale, which suggest general criteria for excluding the item on cross loading of 0.40 and above (McAuley et al., 1989).


A two-factor solution was asked for SRQ academics (A) scale for external regulation and integrated regulation. Inclusion criterion of no cross loading over 0.40 was followed based on the original scale’s psychometric properties. The factor loadings ranged from 0.55 to 0.93. However, item of integrated regulation cross loaded with 0.56 on external regulation was excluded from the scale. For LCQ scale, one-factor solution minimum of 0.4 to maximum of 0.75 factor loading was found. • General causality orientation scale: The GCOS (Deci and Ryan, 1985) assessed three different motivational orientations: autonomy, control and impersonal in an individual. Teachers responded on total of 36 items on a one to seven Likert scale. This questionnaire was used as a pretest for and posttest after the intervention training for the teacher who conducted the intervention. • General information questionnaire for students: This questionnaire was used to gather general information about participants to match them with variables that can interfere with independent variable. Items to answer were name, age, gender, race, family income, parent’s education, number of years learning English language, attending weekend or evening classes and recent national test score. • Learning climate questionnaire: A short five-item version was used to assess students’ perception of their teachers’ autonomy support. The scale (LCQ) has been used successfully in learning settings (Black and Deci, 2000). In the present study, the scale was used prior to intervention as a pretest and after intervention as a posttest1 and as a posttest2 after the intervention was withdrawn. For the posttest1, the verbs in item phrases were changed into past tense (e.g. “My teacher provided me with choices and options”). For the present study, the alpha value for internal consistency were reported high (pretest ␣ ⫽ 92 posttest1 ␣ ⫽ 90 posttest2 ␣ ⫽ 92). • Intrinsic motivation inventory: It is a multidimensional measurement device to assess participants’ experience related to target activity. It consists of several sub scales that are used separately in many studies (Deci et al., 1994). In the present study, however, some negative worded items were rephrased. Interest. To measure a psychological state of mind characterized by positive emotion for an activity the scale includes items like “I enjoyed doing this activity very much”. Students responded on seven items on a one to seven Likert scale. Alpha value for internal consistency were high (pretest ␣ ⫽ 92 posttest1 ␣ ⫽ 91 posttest2 ␣ ⫽ 91). Effort. To measure cognitive effort for learning activity the scale included items such as “I put a lot of effort to do this”. Students responded on four items on a one to seven Likert scale. Alpha value for internal consistency were high (pretest ␣ ⫽ 90 posttest1 ␣ ⫽ 90 posttest2 ␣ ⫽ 90). Pressure. To measure an emotional state of anxiousness and stress the scale includes items such as “I felt very tensed while doing this activity”. Students responded on five items on a one to seven Likert scale. Alpha value for internal consistency was high (pretest ␣ ⫽ 89 posttest1 ␣ ⫽ 90 posttest2 ␣ ⫽ 89). Relatedness. To access belongingness between teacher and student, students responded on six items on a one to seven Likert scale. Items included such as “I felt really


JME 9,1


20

distanced from this person”. Alpha value for internal consistency for this study was (pretest1 ␣ ⫽ 93 posttest1 ␣ ⫽ 92 posttest2 ␣ ⫽ 92). Self-regulation questionnaire – academics. SRQ for academic domain assesses individual difference for the types of motivation or regulation (Ryan and Connell, 1989). For the present study, to examine if students accomplished the task under the influence of external contingencies (such as to receive rewards, or to avoid punishment or to fulfill deadlines), students responded on external regulation sub scale of SRQ (A), consisting of seven response items for four statements to be responded on a one to seven Likert scale. A sample item statement is “why I do my homework?” response to this statement is: because “I’ll get in trouble”. Alpha value for internal consistency for this study was (pretest1 ␣ ⫽ 90 posttest1 ␣ ⫽ 80 posttest2 ␣ ⫽ 90. Another variable examined was integrated regulation to examine if students reflected conscious valuing or personal importance for learning. There are total seven response items for four statements to be responded on a one to seven Likert scale. The item statement and response read like this “why I do my homework?” because “I want to understand the subject”. Alpha value for internal consistency for this study was (pretest ␣ ⫽ 0.90 posttest1 ␣ ⫽ 0.90 posttest2 ␣ ⫽ 0.90). Results MANOVA was used to determine if independent variables on their own or in combination with one another have an effect on the dependent variable. Statistical procedure for performing MANOVA such as unequal sample size, multivariate normality, univariate outliers, multivariate outliers, multi-collinearity and singularity, linearity and homogeneity of covariance and Box’s M statistic (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007) was found to be satisfactory of all the tests conducted. To examine significant F statistics a Bonferroni type of adjustment was made for inflated Type 1 error (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Assuming that all dependent variables have equal weight of importance, a new alpha value was calculated simply by dividing the alpha that was set earlier (in this case, ␣ ⫽ 0.05) by the total number of test, resulting in an adjusted alpha value of ␣ ⫽ 0.007. Therefore, only results with p less than 0.007 were considered as indicating significant group differences. H1. There will be a significant difference between pretest and posttest1 scores of experimental group and control group (Difference between experimental group and control group in posttest1). As hypothesized, students in the intervention group scored significantly higher on the posttest1 than those in the control group .Wilks’ omnibus statistics for variable interest, effort, pressure, relatedness, perceived autonomy support, external and integrated regulation revealed a significant difference (Wilks’ ␭ ⫽ 0.130, F (7, 95) ⫽ 90.58, p ⫽ 0.000, ␩2 ⫽0.87) between experimental and control group on posttest1. Given the significance of the overall test, the univariate F results were examined for main effect. Univariate F statistics for dimensions of IMI indicated a significant mean difference between experimental and control group on posttest1 with F value for interest [F(1,101) ⫽ 162.86; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.61], effort [F(1,101) ⫽ 181.72; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.64], pressure [F(1,101) ⫽ 24.14; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.55] and relatedness [F(1,101) ⫽ 254.09; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.71]. Students in experimental group (with TAS) reported higher interest (M ⫽ 5.5; SD ⫽ 1.1), more effort (M ⫽ 5.5; SD ⫽ 1.0), higher relatedness


(M ⫽ 5.4; SD ⫽ 1.0), than students in control group (without TAS) interest (M ⫽ 2.3; SD ⫽ 1.3), effort (M ⫽ 2.4; SD ⫽ 1.2) and relatedness (M ⫽ 2.1; SD ⫽ 0.95). Also, students in experimental group reported less pressure (M ⫽ 2.5; SD ⫽ 0.86) than students in control group (M ⫽ 5.3; SD ⫽ 1.5). Means of experimental and control groups on dimensions of self-regulation were also found significantly different on posttest1 with external regulation [F(1,101) ⫽116.91; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.53] and integrated regulation [F(1,101) ⫽ 77.18; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.43]. Students in experimental group reported higher integrated regulation (M ⫽ 5.5; SD ⫽ 1.4) than students in control group (M ⫽ 2.8; SD ⫽ 1.5) and reported lower external regulation (M ⫽ 2.8; SD ⫽ 1.2) than students in control group (M ⫽ 5.3; SD ⫽ 1.0); thus, these findings confirmed our first hypothesis demonstrating that the effect of TAS intervention made an improvement in learning motivation of students in experimental group. H2. There will be a significant difference between students’ perceived autonomy support scores on pretest, posttest1 and posttest2 in experimental group (Students’ perception of TAS in experimental group). The statistic confirmed our second hypothesis, viz., there would be a significant difference between students’ perception of TAS during pretest, posttest1 and posttest2. Perceived autonomy support between pretest (M ⫽ 2.4; SD ⫽ 0.91) and posttest1 (M ⫽ 5.5; SD ⫽ 0.90) increased significantly [F(1,51) ⫽ 268.43; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.84] and later the mean difference between posttest1 (M ⫽ 2.4 SD ⫽ 0.91) and posttest2 (M ⫽ 4.4; SD ⫽ 0.97) decreased significantly on withdrawal [F(1,50) ⫽ 36.19; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.42]. H3: The mean difference between pretest and posttest1 on dependent variables will increase in experimental group as a result of intervention (pretest and posttest1 differences in experimental group). Multivariate analysis of differences between means of pretest and posttest1 after intervention revealed a significant omnibus effect [Wilks’ ␭ ⫽ 0.103, F(7,44.) ⫽ 54.709, p ⫽ 0.000]. Univariate analysis indicated a significant mean difference on variables of IMI between pretest and posttest1 on newly adjusted alpha value of 0.007 with F value for interest [F(1,51) ⫽ 212.52; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.81], effort [F(1,51) ⫽ 101.41; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.67], pressure [F(1,51) ⫽ 128.65; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.72], relatedness [F(1,51) ⫽ 78.27; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.62]. Similarly, mean differences between pretest and posttest1 on dimensions of self-regulation were also found significant at alpha 0.007 with external regulation [F(1,51) ⫽ 102.86; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.67], and integrated regulation [F(1,51) ⫽ 58.65; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.54]. This part of analysis provided evidence that effects of TAS were significant on all dependent variables after intervention of six weeks. This also confirmed our third hypothesis. H4: The mean difference between posttest1 and posttest2 will decrease in experimental group as a result of withdrawal of intervention (posttest1 and posttest2 differences on dependent variables in experimental group). This analysis revealed an overall significant F test for mean difference of combined variable between posttest1 and posttests2 [Wilks’ ␭ ⫽ 0.37, F(7,44) ⫽ 10.49, p ⫽ 0.000, ␩2 ⫽ 0.62]. Univariate significant main effects were observed at adjusted alpha of 0.007 which was calculated using Bonferroni procedure (pre-set alpha ⫽ 0.05 divided by


JME 9,1


22

number of tests). However, the univariate significant main effects were observed only for effort [F(1,50) ⫽ 9.47, p ⫽ 0.003, ␩2 ⫽ 0.15], relatedness [F(1,50) ⫽15.15, p ⫽ 000, ␩2 ⫽ 0.23]. The difference was not significant on students’ interest, pressure, external and integrated regulation. These findings partially supported the hypothesis four, viz., all dependent variables will show significant difference as a result of withdrawal of intervention. H5. There will be no difference between scores of pretest, posttest1 and posttest2 of control group (posttest1 and posttest2 differences in control group). Control group maintained its established trend path from pretest to posttest2 by revealing a non-significant omnibus difference between pretest and posttest1 scores [Wilks’ ␭ ⫽ 0.788, F(7,45) ⫽ 1.727; p ⫽ 0.127] and posttests1 and posttest2 scores [Wilks’ ␭ ⫽ 0.842; F ⫽ (7,45) ⫽ 0.318; p ⫽ 0.318]. These results confirmed our fifth hypothesis. Discussion The present research makes substantial methodological contribution to the SDT by studying TAS through quasi-experimental design in natural settings. Examination of autonomy supportive teaching in natural classroom settings has lent more credibility to theorized applications of TAS into practical situation. It clarifies the role of autonomy in classroom practice between structure and permissiveness (Reeve and Halusic, 2009). The treatment procedure of the present study provides a comprehensive framework of TAS as student-centered pedagogy and support for teachers to expand their motivating styles. The observation rating for TAS in classroom shows that the teacher became more autonomy supportive after receiving the training. Also, it was observed that on programmed withdrawal of treatment, teacher could not discontinue her newly adopted motivating style instantly. Thus, with continuous effort it is possible for teachers to internalize the autonomy supportive teaching methodology. Students’ perception of teachers’ autonomy support in experimental group was evident, as it showed significant increase in perceived autonomy support after the intervention. The score decreased significantly with the withdrawal of intervention. After the intervention, students showed significant increase on dependent measures interest, effort, relatedness and integrated regulation. A significant decrease was observed in pressure and external regulation. This indicates that students were benefitted by autonomy supportive teaching methods because teacher nurtured student’s inner motivational resources (Reeve, 2006). In autonomy supportive conditions students reported higher interest and made harder effort to learn the subject. They also reported feeling less pressured. TAS behaviors strengthened student-teacher relatedness, as students reported higher on this variable. Their higher score on SRQ revealed that with the TAS support, students were able to identify and internalize with importance of learning the English language, and consequently they relied less on external coercions. These findings are consistent with the findings of the past research (Reeve et al., 2002; Ryan and Deci, 2000).


However, our univariate results on withdrawal of intervention failed to show significant difference on variables interest, pressure, external regulation and internal regulation. These findings partially contradict our hypothesis that lower perceived autonomy support in withdrawal condition would result in decrease of means of dependent variables. We could not find substantial published studies to compare our findings within the SDT that tests reliability of motivational process over the period of time. However, we found some explanation around the similar literature such as, in a study, Tsai et al. (2008), investigating the role of situational (classroom context) and individual factors on interest found that interest, developed within a period of time in an activity or subject is likely to continue as a function of the prior experience of the individual’s interest. This prior experience of the individual is said to be responsible for triggering a prolonged state of interest among learners. A similar explanation is considered for external and integrated regulation for not showing significant difference. Self-regulation continuum within the SDT suggests that when individuals regulate their behaviors as a reaction to their environment, they assimilate those values within their personality by identifying with them. Moreover, it suggests that this change develops through stages and comes into effect over a period of time (Ryan and Deci, 2000). There was an increase in the mean of variable pressure, but the difference was not significant. Therefore, even though students’ perception of TAS was low in withdrawal conditions, the effects were only significant on effort and feeling of relatedness. National Education act in 1999 brought in pedagogical reform to transform Thai traditional instructional methodology into a more interactive teaching approach. After almost a decade since the reforms were introduced, proof of the successful implementation of these reforms is still not evident. A few factors that were identified as hindering the successful implementation of these reforms were the lack of information on the relevance or effectiveness of learner-centered pedagogy in Thai classrooms. Teachers are reported to be confused with the practical implementation of this pedagogy that invites active participation of students in real classroom setting. Misconceptions about the “student-centered” approach are prevalent among Thai educators (Chongchareon, 2008; Fry, 2002). Considering the background of Thai education reforms in 1999 that strongly recommends learner centered pedagogy, this study will also help in advance understanding of motivation at Thai elementary school level by considering the motivational constructs, and teachers will be able to focus on their education practices in a more meaningful way based on the needs of their students. Implementing autonomy support in class may not be solely dependent on teacher factor; it is the school policy that influences the degree of support a teacher can extend in classroom. The findings and experimental settings of the present study may inform Thai school policymakers about the feasibility of implementing TAS in regular classroom setting. Limitations The study is not without limitations. First, the research design chosen for the present study is an extension to the knowledge and application of the theory in classroom setting. However, the design has its limitation with various kinds of internal and external validity threats. These threats, if not controlled can jeopardize


JME 9,1


24

the results (Gay and Airasian, 2003). Proper measures were taken to keep those threats controlled. However, controlling the threats in a rigorous way would have been similar to creating laboratory conditions and deteriorating the quasi-experimental design. The results for the present study are driven single classroom as experimental group. Future researches may include multiple experimental and control group to remove the threat of confounding variables. Second, the present study used a combination of validated instructions from past studies for autonomy support intervention. There is a possibility that students might react differently if those TAS behaviors were examined separately. For example, Katz et al. (2006) studied TAS behavior of giving feedback. The findings revealed that giving regular feedback was perceived as controlling by females with moderate level of interest in activity. Therefore, a replication with the same set of instructions but delivered individually can seek more interesting result on a variety of other tasks other than only English language classes. Third, participants in the present study were sampled from one grade of a Thai public school. Although such schools are most common in the country and represent common student population, replication of the present results in samples of different ages and different cultural backgrounds would extend more evidence in favor of the SDT that autonomy support is universally beneficial for all individuals. References Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. and Razavieh, A. (2005), Introduction to Research in Education, 7th ed., Thomson Learning, Wadsworth. Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y. and Roth, G. (2005), “Directly controlling teacher behaviours as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: the role of anger and anxiety”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 15, pp. 397-413. Assor, A., Kaplan, H. and Roth, G. (2002), “Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours in predicting student’s engagement in school work”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 261-278. Atagi, R. (2002), “Thailand education reform project, school reform policy”, Final Report, ADB TA 3585 THA, available at: www.worldedreform.com/pub/fulltext2.pdf Bieg, S., Backes, S. and Mittag, W. (2011), “The role of intrinsic motivation for teaching, teachers’ care and autonomy support in students”, Journal for Educational Research Online, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 122-140. Black, A.E. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: a self-determination theory perspective”, Science Education, Vol. 84, pp. 740-756. Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. (1979), Quasi –Experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field Settings, Rand Mc Nally, Chicago, IL. Chatzisarantis, N.L. and Hagger, M.S. (2009), “Effects of an intervention based on self-determination theory on self-reported leisure-time physical activity participation”, Psychology & Health, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 29-48. Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J. and Moon, I.S. (2012), “Experimentally based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more autonomy supportive toward their students”, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 365-396.


Chongchareon, K. (2008), “Building a capability development model for professional school leaders in Thai education”, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wollongong. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behaviour, Plenum, New York, NY. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1987), “The support of autonomy and the control of behaviour”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 1024-1037. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), “The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behaviour”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11, pp. 227-268. Deci, E.L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B.C. and Leone, D. (1994), “Facilitating internalization: the self-determination theory perspective”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 62, pp. 119-142. Fry, G.W. (2002), “Synthesis report: from crisis to opportunity: the challenges of educational reform in Thailand”, Report to ONEC and ADB as part of TA 3585-THA. Gay, L.R. and Airasian, P. (2003), Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Grolnick, W.S. (2001), “Discussant’s comments: symposium on influences on children’s motivation: new concepts and new findings”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN. Jang, H., Reeve, J. and Deci, E.L. (2010), “Engaging students in learning activities: it’s not autonomy support or structure, but autonomy support and structure”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 102 No. 3. Katz, I. Assor, A., Maymon, Y.K. and Meyer, B.Y. (2006), “Interest as a motivational resource: feedback and gender matter, but interest makes the difference”, Social Psychology of Education, Vol. 9, pp. 27-42. McAuley, E. Duncun, T. and Tammen, V.V. (1989), “Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis”, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 48-58. Nguyen, T.H. (2005), “Cultural background for ESL/EFL teachers Cuyahoga community college”, paper appeared in a Multicultural Project at Northeast ABLE Resource Center, Ohio. Punthumasen, P. (2008), “International program for teacher education: an approach to tackling problems of English education in Thailand”, The 11th UNESCO-APEID International Conference Reinventing Higher Education: Toward Participatory and Sustainable Development, 12-14 December, Bangkok, available at: www.onec.go.th/onec_ administrator/uploaded/Category/EngBook/ProblemEngEd13dec07-03-03-2011.pdf (11 November 2013). Reeve, J. (2006), “Teachers as facilitators: what autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit”, Elementary School Journal, Vol. 106 No. 3, pp. 225-236. Reeve, J., Bolt, E. and Cai, Y. (1999), “Autonomy-supportive teachers: how they teach and motivate students”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 537-548. Reeve, J. and Halusic, M. (2009), “How K–12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles into practice”, Theory and Research in Education, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 145-154. Reeve, J. and Jang, H. (2006), “What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 209-218. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S. and Barch, J. (2004), “Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 147-169.


JME 9,1


26

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P. and Omura, M. (2002), “Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 183-207. Ryan, R.M. and Connell, J.P. (1989), “Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 749-761. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 54-67. Sangnapaboworn, W. (2003), “Higher education reforms in Thailand: towards quality improvement and university autonomy”, paper presented at Shizuko Forum on Approaches of Higher Education, Intellectual Creativity, Cultivation of Human Resources seen Asian countries. Su, Y. and Reeve, J. (2011), “A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 159-188. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Tessier, D., Sarrazin, P. and Ntoumanis, N. (2008), “The effects of an experimental programme to support students’ autonomy on the overt behaviours of physical education teachers”, European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 239-253. Tsai, Y., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U. and Ryan, R.M. (2008), “What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 460-472. Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W. and Soenens, B. (2005), “Experiences of autonomy and control among Chinese learners: vitalizing or immobilizing?”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 755-764. About the authors Amrita Kaur is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Education and Modern Language at Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM). She teaches courses in Educational Psychology and Research Methodology at the School of Education and Modern Languages, College of Arts and Sciences, UUM. Her research interests include classroom pedagogies, education psychology and learning motivation and cross-cultural studies for learning. She has been in the field of education since 1997, mostly in the field of K-12 education, specializing primary years instructional pedagogies. Amrita is also a teacher trainer and educational module developer for A few K-12 schools in Thailand. Amrita Kaur is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Rosna Awang-Hashim was a former Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic and International) of Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) and is currently a Professor of Educational Psychology at the School of Education and Modern Languages, College of Arts and Sciences, UUM. She has been teaching and engaging in research since 1989 at UUM, with short overseas stints at the Institute for Social Research (ISR), University of Michigan and Buck Institute for Education (BIE), California, USA. Her research interests include socio-psychological processes in teaching and learning interactions, learning engagement and motivation, learner diversity and construction and validation of tests in cognitive–affective domains. She is the current Chief Editor of the SCOPUS indexed Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction (MJLI). At the national level, she is the Chair of the Critical Agenda Project (CAP PSPTN) in Learning and Teaching, MoE Malaysia, the Secretary of the National Council of Professors


(Education and Development of Human Capital Cluster), the Deputy Chair (II) of the Malaysian Psychometrics Association (MPA), and a Master Trainer at the Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT) Malaysia. Mohammad Noman is a Senior Visiting Lecturer at the School of Education and Modern Language at Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM). He teaches courses in educational leadership and critical issues in curriculum and instruction in School of Education and Modern Languages, College of Arts and Sciences, UUM. He has been in the field of K-12 Education since 1992, both as a teacher and later as curriculum coordinator and school administrator. His research interest include Curriculum and Instruction, Assessment, Educational leadership, learner’s diversity and multicultural education.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
