This prospective study applied self-determination theory to investigate the effects of students' course-specific self-regulation and their perceptions of their instructors' autonomy support on adjustment and academic performance in a college-level organic chemistry course. The study revealed that: (1) students' reports of entering the course for relatively autonomous (vs. controlled) reasons predicted higher perceived competence and interest/enjoyment and lower anxiety and grade-focused performance goals during the course, and were related to whether or not the students dropped the course; and (2) students' perceptions of their instructors' autonomy support predicted increases in autonomous self-regulation, perceived competence, and interest/enjoyment, and decreases in anxiety over the semester. The change in autonomous self-regulation in turn predicted students' performance in the course. Further, instructor autonomy support also predicted course performance directly, although differences in the initial level of students' autonomous self-regulation moderated that effect, with autonomy support relating strongly to academic performance for students initially low in autonomous self-regulation but not for students initially high in autonomous self-regulation. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 84:740–756, 2000.
No abstract is provided for this article.
It is an honor to receive comments from such an esteemed group of scholars, and their recognition of the progress in motivational sciences catalyzed by a global community of self-determination theory (SDT) researchers.Given limited space, we respond to only a few of their reactions.In our legacy article (Ryan et al., 2021), we focused on autonomy, in part because, as Koestner and Holding (2021) highlighted, SDT is unique in its emphasis on this concept.Koestner and Holding further suggested that SDT's emphasis on autonomy has a particular salience in this age of COVID-19 in which voluntary compliance matters to public health.We agree, and have seen SDT's ability to differentiate between autonomy and "freedom," and to identify strategies that facilitate maintained behavior change to be highly relevant in this pandemic (e.g., Martela et al., 2021; Vermote et al., 2021).Concerning this emphasis on autonomy, Sheldon and Geoffredi (2021) worried that SDT faces a "major threat" from determinists who object to "free will."Yet we suggest that sophisticated determinism is not at all a threat to SDT's organismic approach.SDT conceptualizes autonomy, not as some disembodied free will, but rather as a form of human functioning, with its own developmental foundations, biological mechanisms, phenomenology, and consequences.Thus, as Ryan et al. ( 2012) state, "popular attacks on free will and self-regulation from social psychologists should not disturb anyone who is listening carefully, because the concepts they knock down are not consistent with practical living" (p.218).In contrast, the concept of autonomy described within SDT is philosophically informed, researchable at multiple levels of analysis, and is clearly no illusion given its robust consequences for human performance and wellness (Ryan & Deci, 2006).Sheldon and Geoffredi also suggest that SDT has more often focused on social conditions affecting autonomous functioning than on the self-as-agent.We would agree, while also highlighting
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
While some theories of human motivation focus exclusively on levels of motivation, self-determination theory argues that different types of motivators, even when the resulting motivation is high, will lead to very different outcomes. This theory differentiates between two primary kinds of motivation, controlled and autonomous. Controlled motivation depends either on explicit or implicit rewards or punishment or on people's internalized beliefs about what is expected of them. Learning in controlled situations, in which students act under pressure and anxiety, is likely to be rote, short-lived, and poorly integrated into students' long-term values and skills. In contrast, autonomous motivation, as its name implies, is personally endorsed and reflects what people find interesting and important. While controlled motivation involves compliance with pressures, autonomous motivation involves behaving with a sense of volition, agency, and choice. Autonomously motivated learning leads to better educational outcomes. There is evidence that medical students who learn in autonomy-supportive environments act in more autonomy-supportive ways in their interactions with patients. Because the reliable implementation of practice guidelines and physicians' use of an autonomy-supportive style have been associated with more positive health outcomes (particularly in the behavior-related areas of smoking cessation, weight loss, etc.), more autonomy-supportive medical education may result in more effective health care delivery.
Presented in this proposed paper will be derails of a project implemented in Sydney, Australia aimed at addressing this need for information regarding the implementation and effectiveness of non-structural management of stormwater at source. This project, funded under the Stormwater Trust Grant Scheme, has the aim of assessing the effectiveness of a directed community education program through detailed monitoring of both the community knowledge and the stormwater volume and contamination. The proposed paper, therefore, will outline how the community education program was developed to focus on issues of concern to the local community and those issues that the local community could influence by changing their practices. Also outlined in the paper will be the monitoring program developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and the availability of stormwater contaminants
While systems engineering process is a program formal management technique and contractually binding, the design process is the informal practice of achieving the design project requirements throughout all design phases of the systems engineering process. The design process and organization are systems and component dependent. Informal reviews include technical information meetings and concurrent engineering sessions, and formal technical discipline reviews are conducted through the systems engineering process. This paper discusses and references major philosophical principles in the design process, identifies its role in interacting systems and disciplines analyses and integrations, and illustrates the process application in experienced aerostructural designs.
No abstract is provided for this article.
