Society and schools often look for ways to improve the performance of students. Engaging students is frequently sought after by teachers and school officials to help student achievement in multiple domains. Creating autonomy-supportive environments has been linked with positive gains in the classroom. However, autonomy is a multifaceted approach that goes beyond simply providing choice for students.

​

Engagement and Autonomy

Students with high levels of motivation bring many different skills to the education classroom. More interest and enthusiasm are typically connected to motivation, but motivation goes beyond students being involved in learning activities (Marshik, Ashton, & Algina, 2015). Highly motivated students are more likely to persist when faced with a difficult task and cope with challenges more efficiently. Furthermore, they typically stay in school longer and achieve higher rates of success (Marshik et al., 2015). Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, and Kindermann (2008) conducted a study regarding engagement in students over a four year period. In their findings, students who were engaged in school not only had a higher likelihood of academic success, but were also more likely to avoid the pitfalls of adolescence. When students are engaged in schooling and have the skills to keep up that engagement, it develops itself over time However, typically student engagement in school declines over time, with the biggest loss as students transition from middle school to high school (Skinner et al., 2008). How students are engaged comes in many forms, including behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and voice. All of these facets have equal weight in terms of student performance in the classroom (Reeve, 2009).

​

Oga-Baldwin and Nakata (2015) found that this engagement can only be met once all of the students’ needs are met and a key part of those needs is autonomy. Autonomy-supportive teaching is one that welcomes how students think, feel, and their behaviors; adopts the perspective of students; and assists students in their path of motivational development and self-regulation (Reeve, 2009). Therefore, when students feel that their needs are being met and teachers have an autonomy-supportive room, they are more likely to show engagement on both a behavioral and cognitive scale (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002). Furthermore, when teachers support student engagement by becoming autonomy-supportive, student engagement is likely to generate academic motivation in students in the future and in their lives outside of the classroom (Reeve, 2009).

​

Reeve’s 2009 multi-age study found that students perform better in autonomy-supportive classrooms. In other studies as well, when teachers provided students a sense of control and autonomy there was a positive impact on their motivation (Barber & Buehl, 2012). Higher levels of autonomy are related to high levels of students having intrinsic motivation and their own perceived competence (Barber & Buehl, 2012).  In Barber and Buehl’s study, the more autonomy the students had, the less struggling readers and writers reported negative feelings towards the task. In contrast, when teachers adopt a controlling style, the antithesis of autonomy-supportive, students feel of sense of pressure and obligation. These feelings create a lack of motivation, positive feelings, and, most importantly, a desire to continue (Reeve, 2009).

​

Multifaceted

Just as there is more than one way to cook an egg, there are numerous ways for a teacher to be autonomy-supportive. Autonomy, as a whole, is a concept fluid in nature and can take on many forms for students depending on age, level, and the teacher (Gholami, 2016).  While the primary way many think to include autonomy is giving students choices, that is not always the best way. Both Barber and Buehl (2012) and Gorissen, Kester, Brand-Gruwel, and Martens (2015) stress that choices have to be meaningful. A random selection of an option does not have the same academic or engagement effect as consciously choosing something. In fact, too many choices may overload students and distract them from the task at hand. Novice learners who lack prior knowledge or self-regulatory skills may pick inferior options and use the wrong information (Gorissen et al., 2015). Therefore, choice is merely part of autonomy, it is not, and cannot, be the whole of a teacher’s autonomy-supportive style to be completely autonomy-supportive (Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2015).

​

Marshik et al., (2015) found that there are three types of autonomy and, in those, are different ways to support student autonomy in the classroom. Cognitive autonomy is the ability for students to think for themselves, explore their own ideas, and become learners who are self-sufficient. (Marshik et al., 2015). Procedural autonomy allows for student to take ownership in the presentation and format of their work (Marshik et al., 2015). Finally, organizational autonomy is where students take ownership of the learning environment. All of these are important and, in Marshik’s work, proved to be related to positive reading achievement. However, cognitive is the most beneficial in both achievement and keeping students engaged, specifically because it has long term effects (Barber & Buehl, 2012).

​

One of the important ways teachers can be autonomy-supportive is not to provide more choice, but to instead provide a rationale to students for what they are doing (Assor et al., 2002). Giving students a rationale supports related school work to personal goals, interests, and values that they have. This then allows students to feel more autonomous while doing the work, even if it is something they did not originally want to do (Assor et al., 2002). Providing students relevance allows for them to see the learning process as supportive of their own interests, goals, and values; this process also gives students a sense of agency and purpose in their own learning (Barber & Buehl, 2012).  Assor et al., (2002)  goes on to argue that providing autonomy-support is not complete without tying in a rationale for the activities, because students will not see the connection between their goals and school otherwise. These rationales should also be specific as possible, as each student in the classroom has a different goal (Assor et al., 2002). Barber and Buehl (2012), likewise, found that when students were both given a task that was originally uninteresting, students who were given a rationale were more engaged.

​

Another key part of autonomy-supportive teacher is allowing for criticism and negative feelings in the classroom (Reeve, 2009). Criticism gives students the chance to think for themselves and voice their own opinion in a respectful way (Barber & Buehl, 2012). This gives the students a sense of agency in their learning and gives them the opportunity to explain and discuss their thinking process, which in turn aides their metacognitive thinking skills (Barber & Buehl, 2012). Criticism also allows for the teacher to improve. When students express their dissatisfaction, it gives the teacher an opportunity to either modify the task or give a better rationale as to why the activity is important (Barber & Buehl, 2012). Assor et al., (2002) found that expressing criticism is important to autonomy. However, it was one of the least important facets of autonomy because it did not change much in the actual lives of students. In their reverse study looking at what autonomy-suppressing factors hurt the most, though, suppressing criticism had the biggest impact on student performance.

​

Presenting the material in a non-controlling way is another key factor in autonomy-supportive classrooms (Assor et al., 2002). There are multiple ways a teacher can or cannot control their students including their thoughts, feelings, actions, and behaviors. (Reeve, 2009). This control over students can be either internal with guilt, shame, anxiety, love withdrawal, or self-esteem loss; they can also be external as a teacher explicitly telling a student what to do. (Reeve, 2009). Conversely, teachers can demonstrate their non-control internally or externally and through their language, sentiment, and behavior (Reeve, 2009). This does not mean that students cannot take on the teacher’s perspective. Teachers sharing their opinion with their students becomes controlling only when it overrides the perspective of the students (Reeve, 2009). Equally as important is whether or not the students perceive the actions of the teacher as being controlling or autonomy-supportive, as found by studies from Barber and Buehl (2012), Reeve (2009), Assor et al. (2002), Skinner et al. (2008), Gorissen et al., (2015),  and Gholami (2016) all discuss how student perspective in the teacher’s level of control and student level of autonomy is what matters most.

​

Barriers

While there are benefits to autonomy, there are some barriers teachers need to overcome to achieve a truly autonomy-supportive classroom. In Reeve’s (2009) research, controlling classrooms are the most common, especially in new teachers. Some teachers, too, believe that they are autonomous-supportive by providing rewards and choices, yet are actually perceived as controlling (Reeve, 2009). Most teachers do not mean to be more controlling than autonomous, yet pressure from above (such as responsibilities from administration), pressure from below (responding to students’ lack of motivation), and pressure from within (beliefs about student motivation) all impact a teacher’s controlling style of teaching (Reeve, 2009). Furthermore, the prior beliefs held by teachers affects how they perceive new information, including how to be more autonomous (Reeve, 2009). It is Reeve’s (2009) suggestion, then, that autonomy be presented to teachers in a way where they are no longer satisfied with how their controlling classroom is run. Why a teacher teaches has an impact on their teaching style. Teachers who entered the career due to interest, enjoyment, a sense of purpose, and an understanding of the importance teachers play in the lives of students are more likely to opt for an autonomously-supportive teaching style (Katz & Shahar, 2015). Part of the struggle teachers face is a balancing act. While a high structure and high autonomy setting works best (Reeve, 2009; Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2015), some teachers feel that becoming an autonomous classroom is too unrealistic (Reeve, 2009). Teachers, themselves, need to be given their own autonomy, for teachers who feel valued and supported in their own careers are more intrinsically motivated to teach using best practices (Marshik et al., 2015).  

​

Culture, itself, plays a role in autonomy. While Western cultures perceive autonomy-supportive classrooms to fit certain criteria, Oga-Baldwin and Nakata (2015) found that a more structured, but not controlling, environment not only fulfilled the autonomy needs for students in Japanese cultures, but provided student with success. In the students’ culture, choices were not a major factor in the classroom (Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2015). Even in Western school, the peer culture of students can have an effect on responses to autonomy; a student who is surrounded by friends with strong academic values is more likely to be intrinsically motivated than those who do not (Marshik et al., 2015). Gillet, Vallerand, and Lafrenière (2012) found that the social context of teacher autonomy support can change a student’s level of motivation. Even things such as age can have an effect on autonomy, with students showing a decrease in intrinsic motivation in between nine and fifteen years old (Gillet et al., 2012). Marshik et al’s study found that cognitive autonomy was more positively related to positive reading achievement in third grade as opposed to any other autonomy support; meanwhile, procedural autonomy was the biggest factor in positive reading achievement for fifth grade students.