Search

Although teachers are recommended to create a stimulating learning environment in which children can use, perfect, and extend their skills, this is far from easy. In many cases, identifying the optimal difficulty level of learning tasks involves a trial-and-error process during which teachers offer children too difficult tasks, with negative outcomes as a result. This experimental study investigated if autonomy-supportive instructions could dampen or even cancel out these presumed negative outcomes associated with math difficulty in elementary schoolchildren (N = 479; M[subscript age] = 9.41). After varying an autonomy-supportive versus a controlling instructional style through a comic book, children solved a series of either easy-medium or difficult math exercises, followed by the completion of questionnaires and the opportunity to choose the difficulty level of a final set of exercises to work on independently. Children who solved difficult, relative to easier, exercises reported less interest, more irritation, and more cognitive disengagement, while also seeking less challenge when asked to work independently. Need-based experiences of competence and autonomy accounted for these effects. Yet, the impairing impact of task difficulty could, at least partially, be dampened through the use of an autonomy-supportive relative to a controlling instructional style, which led to enhanced autonomy satisfaction. These findings largely occurred independent of children's motives for mathematics. The results have high practical value, especially for poor performers and children with mathematical learning disabilities, who find math to be harder overall. Limitations and implications for practice are discussed.

Background: Research stemming from Self-Determination Theory (SDT) shows that physical education (PE) teachers who endorse an autonomy-supportive and structuring motivating style positively affect students' motivation, engagement and learning. Choice provision and positive feedback are two concrete strategies that are part of an autonomy-supportive and structuring style, respectively. While the benefits of choice provision and positive feedback have been shown in contexts other than PE, evidence in the specific context of PE is much scarcer. Grounded in SDT and relying on experimental design, the present study sought to examine the effects of choice provision and positive feedback on students' motivational experiences in PE, and whether these effects were moderated by students' actual motor competence (AMC). Method: A sample of 277 students (41% boys, Mage = 12.78 years) was randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions (2 × 2 design). Prior to the experimental manipulation, participants' AMC was measured with the Test of Gross Motor Development second edition. Participants then watched a videotaped PE lesson, in which the provision of choice (choice -- no choice) and type of feedback (corrective feedback -- positive and corrective feedback) were manipulated. Participants were asked to imagine how they would feel being a student in the displayed lessons. After watching the video, they completed validated questionnaires on their (1) anticipated need satisfaction and frustration and (2) autonomous and controlled motivation. MANOVAs were conducted to investigate the differences between the experimental groups in terms of anticipated need satisfaction, need frustration and motivation. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to examine the potential moderating role of AMC. Findings and conclusions: The benefits of choice provision were clearly shown with students in the choice condition anticipating significantly more autonomy, competence and relatedness satisfaction and autonomous motivation, while they anticipated significantly less autonomy and relatedness frustration when compared to students in the no choice condition. Similarly, the addition of positive feedback to corrective feedback yielded clear benefits, with lower averages in anticipated need frustration found among students who watched the videos in which positive feedback was added to corrective feedback. No support was provided for a synergetic motivational effect between choice and positive feedback. Overall, the present findings show the importance of offering choice and providing positive feedback to motivate students in PE, with positive effects being present for all students independent of their initial AMC levels. Although few interaction effects were found, lowly motor competent students benefited even more from receiving positive feedback than highly motor competent students. The findings of this study are important to take into account in PE teacher education programs and professional training programs for PE teachers about how to teach in a (more) motivating way.

Central to self-determination theory (SDT) is the notion that autonomously motivated learning relates to greater learning benefits. While learners' intrinsic motivation has received substantial attention, learners also display volitional learning when they come to endorse the personal meaning or self-relevance of the learning task. In Part I of this review, we discuss how the process of internalization, in addition to intrinsic motivation, constitutes an important growth process. In Part II, we indicate how autonomy-supportive teaching and the provision of a rationale are critical to fostering internalization, and we review past empirical studies. Further, we propose an emerging model to explain when provided rationales foster perceived self-relevance and promote the process of internalization, thereby, considering both critical features of the rationale itself and the broader context in which the rationale becomes embedded. In Part III, the process of internalization is discussed in relation to the concepts of utility value and instrumentality.

Grounded in self-determination theory, this experimental study examined whether the valence (i.e., positive vs. negative) and style (i.e., autonomy-supportive vs. controlling) of normative feedback impact the self-talk, motivational experiences (i.e., psychological need satisfaction and enjoyment), and behavioral functioning (i.e., perseverance and performance) of tennis players (N = 120; Mage = 24.50 ± 9.86 years). Positive feedback and an autonomy-supportive style positively influenced players' enjoyment and perseverance, with psychological need satisfaction and self-talk playing an intervening role. While positive feedback yielded its beneficial effect via greater competence satisfaction and decreased negative self-talk, the beneficial impact of an autonomy-supportive communication style was explained via greater autonomy satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although much is known about the motivating effects of coaching and parenting, the unique contribution of coaches and parents to youth athletes' motivational functioning received far less attention. While a few studies did look into the simultaneous role of constructive (i.e., need-supportive) coaching and parenting, no study to date simultaneously addressed the undermining role of dysfunctional (i.e., need-thwarting) coaching and parenting practices in athletes' motivation. Therefore, the present study examined associations between both need-supportive and need-thwarting coaching and parenting behaviours and athletes' motivation and engagement, using a cross-sectional design among 255 male youth soccer players (Mage = 13.72) from Belgium. Examined separately, coaching and parenting showed a similar pattern of associations, with need-supportive styles being positively associated with autonomous motivation and engagement and with need-thwarting styles relating positively to amotivation and disengagement. When considered in combination, need-supportive coaching, but not parenting, related positively to soccer players' autonomous motivation and engagement, whereas need-thwarting coaching and parenting related uniquely and positively to amotivation. These findings testify to the importance of distinguishing between need-supportive and need-thwarting styles when examining the unique roles of coaches and parents in athletes' motivation and engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]