Teaching to foster student motivation

The aim of autonomy-supportive teaching is to help students feel autonomous in their learning. It probably is one of the most researched instructional strategies in studies of motivation within classrooms (for reviews, see e.g., Assor, 2012; Patall & Hooper, 2017).

Autonomy-supportive teacher behaviors such as giving students opportunities to make choices (e.g., regarding tasks to be completed during class or as homework) and minimizing control were found to predict intrinsic motivation and emotional and behavioral engagement and to avoid disaffection (e.g., Lazarides, Rohowski, Ohlemann, & Ittel, 2016; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon,

& Barch, 2004; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008). In particular, the strategy of offering choices was found to improve students’ intrinsic motivation, competence beliefs, and positive emotions in class (e.g., Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Patall, Cooper, & Wynn, 2010);

other autonomy-supportive strategies such as taking students’ perspective, using informative

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

24

language, and tailoring activities to students’ interests predicted students’ attitude toward and perception of the usefulness of educational tasks, positive feelings, and behavioral and cognitive engagement in class (e.g., Assor et al., 2002; Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010; Patall et al., 2010). In contrast, autonomy-suppressing behaviors such as suppressing criticism, controlling, and intruding were found to be associated with less behavioral and cognitive engagement, poorer self-evaluations of competence, and higher emotional costs such as anxiety (e.g., Assor et al., 2002; Noels, Clement, & Pelletier, 1999).

Strategies aimed at establishing positive relationships within the classroom such as providing social support and opportunities for students to cooperate have not been researched only within the literature on motivation but also as one essential element of instructional quality (for reviews, see e.g., Juvonen, Espinoza, & Knifsend, 2012; Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2012;

Wentzel, 2009). Results of numerous studies support the assumption that positive teacher-student and teacher-student-teacher-student relationships promote both motivation and learning gains, including outcomes such as valuing schoolwork, behavioral engagement, positive emotions in class, and grades (e.g., Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Goodenow & Grady, 1993; Skinner et al., 2008;

Skinner & Belmont, 1993). In secondary school mathematics class, support from the teacher was found to be a major predictor of students’ mathematics-related self-concept, enjoyment, and intrinsic value, and the importance they attributed to learning mathematics (e.g., Dietrich, Dicke, Kracke, & Noack, 2015; Goodenow, 1993; Kunter et al., 2013; Lazarides & Ittel, 2012). In a longitudinal study of transition to secondary school (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), moving to mathematics classes with greater teacher support than at elementary school enhanced the intrinsic value of mathematics for students whereas moving to classes with less teacher support undermined intrinsic value and attainment and utility value beliefs related to mathematics. Furthermore, Wang (2012) found that teacher support and promotion of cooperation in mathematics in Grade 7 correlated positively with students’ mathematics-related value beliefs (interest, importance, and utility) in Grade 10, mediated through students’ value beliefs in Grade 7. In contrast, behaviors associated with a negative teacher-student relationship such as punishing and putting great pressure on students to perform well were found to increase emotional costs such as test anxiety in mathematics (Pekrun, 1992).

Providing structure and guidance can be done by giving students clear directions, stating expectations, responding consistently, and steering students’ learning process. These instructional strategies have been described as competence-supportive teaching practices (e.g., Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Michou, & Lens, 2013; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Providing structure and guidance has been found to enhance important outcomes including students’ behavioral engagement (e.g., effort and persistence), positive emotions, and use of effective learning strategies (e.g., Jang et al., 2010; Mouratidis et al., 2013; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Teachers can foster students’ interest and enjoyment in mathematics and other subjects by using clear rules and monitoring strategies during mathematics lessons (Kunter, Baumert, & Köller, 2007). High quality instruction involves providing clarity and structure and employing non-authoritarian

FOSTERING STUDENTS’ COMPETENCE BELIEFS AND VALUE BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS

25 teaching styles and has been shown to reduce mathematics anxiety, which shares features with emotional cost (Frenzel, Pekrun, & Goetz, 2007; Middleton & Spanias, 1999). A high level of structuredness and extensive support have been found to have a positive association with students’ self-concept in mathematics class at secondary school (Lazarides & Ittel, 2012).

Interestingly, at secondary school, structure is most effective in combination with the establishment of positive relationships (e.g., social support) or autonomy support (Jang et al., 2010; Lazarides & Ittel, 2012). Teaching approaches relying on minimal guidance have, in turn, been found to lead to higher emotional costs (e.g., frustration) and fewer learning gains, especially in STEM subjects (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006).

Sometimes studied as a part of teaching that is autonomy-supportive (Urdan & Schoen-felder, 2006) or that focuses on giving structure (Jang et al., 2010), using appropriate feedback strategies also has been considered an essential element of motivational instruction (e.g., Wentzel & Brophy, 2014). Indeed, giving students informative, constructive feedback and helping them find the most appropriate and effective learning strategies have been found to improve students’ intrinsic motivation, academic competence beliefs (e.g., efficacy, self-esteem, self-concept), and behavioral engagement in the classroom, to reduce students’

emotional costs, and to increase long-term engagement in learning (for reviews, see e.g., Hattie &

Timperley, 2007; Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Wentzel & Brophy, 2014). Feedback that includes intraindividual comparison referring to prior success (i.e., verbal persuasion) or positive social comparison referring to the success of equally able peers (i.e., modeling) is considered a powerful tool to reinforce students’ self-efficacy beliefs after failure on a given task (e.g., Schunk

& Zimmerman, 2007; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). Especially in mathematics and science, feedback has been found to be particularly effective when it refers more to effort than to ability (e.g., Dweck, 2008; Wentzel & Brophy, 2014).

In summary, empirical research in education has revealed a number of instructional methods with beneficial effects on students’ motivation and engagement. However, numerous studies based on SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the assumption that fulfilling students’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, social relatedness, and competence in the classroom has the power to turn extrinsic into intrinsic motivation (Ryan & La Guardia, 2000) have focused on the effects of teaching on students’ interest or intrinsic motivation, whereas other value beliefs (attainment, utility, cost) have been ignored. In addition, research on the motivating effect of relevance-enhancing teaching strategies has been comparatively scarce (though sometimes assessed as part of overall autonomy-supportive teaching; e.g., Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

Interestingly, researchers and practitioners in education recently have called for mathematics and science instruction in which relevance is emphasized (e.g., Davis & McPartland, 2012;

Osborne & Dillon, 2008), primarily as a result of the continued need for qualified workers in STEM fields. Thus, the assumed motivational potential of relevance-oriented teaching strategies is explored in the following paragraph.

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

26