University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Culturally-relevant, autonomy supportive instruction: toward an integration for enhancing the motivation of racially and ethnically diverse learners

(USC Thesis Other)

Culturally-relevant, autonomy supportive instruction: toward an integration for enhancing the motivation of racially and ethnically diverse learners

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright 2023 Jeanette Zambrano

CULTURALLY-RELEVANT, AUTONOMY SUPPORTIVE INSTRUCTION:
TOWARD AN INTEGRATION FOR ENHANCING THE MOTIVATION OF
RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY DIVERSE LEARNERS

by

Jeanette Zambrano

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(URBAN EDUCATION POLICY)

August 2023

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................v
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
Chapter 2: Literature Review .........................................................................................................11
Chapter 3: Research Methods ........................................................................................................50
Chapter 4: Results ..........................................................................................................................67
Chapter 5: Discussion ....................................................................................................................81
References ......................................................................................................................................90
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................103
Appendix A: Protocol for Preliminary Cognitive Interviews ..............................103
Appendix B: Initial CRRE Items Discussed During Cognitive Interviews .........105
Appendix C: Quantitative Survey ........................................................................107
Appendix D: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix ................................116
Appendix E: Factor Loadings for Predictors and Outcomes ...............................118
Appendix F: Results Tables for Question 2 .........................................................124

iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Integrating SDT and CRRE Instructional Practices ........................................................46
Table 2: Measurement of Integrated CRRE Practices ...................................................................57
Table 3: CFAs and Multigroup Invariance Tests Across BIPOC, Asian, & White Students ........59
Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Predictor and Outcome Variables. 117
Table 5: CFAs Testing One Factor, Correlated Factors, and Bifactor Solutions (Question 1). ....68
Table 6: Measurement Invariance Tests of SDT and CRRE practices Across Racial/Ethnic
Groupings (BIPOC, ASIAN, White) .............................................................................................69
Table 7.1: Factor Loadings for CRRE Scales. .............................................................................119
Table 7.2: Factor loadings for SDT scales ...................................................................................121
Table 7.3: Factor Loadings for Psychological Need Satisfaction and Engagement Scales .........123
Table 8.1: Providing Choices Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample) .............................................125
Table 8.2: Providing Choices Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC students ...................................126
Table 8.3: Providing Choices Predicting Outcomes for Asian students ......................................127
Table 8.4: Providing Choices Predicting Outcomes for White students .....................................128
Table 9.1: Incorporating Student Interests Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample) .........................129
Table 9.2: Incorporating Student Interests Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC students ................130
Table 9.3: Incorporating Student Interests Predicting Outcomes for Asian students ..................131
Table 9.4: Incorporating Student Interests Predicting Outcomes for White students ..................132
Table 10.1: Providing Rationales Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample) .......................................133
Table 10.2: Providing Rationales Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC students .............................134
Table 10.3: Providing Rationales Predicting Outcomes for Asian students ................................135
Table 10.4: Providing Rationales Predicting Outcomes for White students ...............................136
iv

Table 11.1: Providing Question Opportunities Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample) ..................137
Table 11.2: Providing Question Opportunities Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC students .........138
Table 11.3: Providing Question Opportunities Predicting Outcomes for Asian students ...........139
Table 11.4: Providing Question Opportunities Predicting Outcomes for White students ...........140
Table 12.1: Understanding Negative Affect Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample) ......................141
Table 12.2: Understanding Negative Affect Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC students .............142
Table 12.3: Understanding Negative Affect Predicting Outcomes for Asian students ...............143
Table 12.4: Understanding Negative Affect Predicting Outcomes for White students ...............144
Table 13.1: Suppressing Opinions Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample) .....................................145
Table 13.2: Suppressing Opinions Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC students ............................146
Table 13.3: Suppressing Opinions Predicting Outcomes for Asian students ..............................147
Table 13.4: Suppressing Opinions Predicting Outcomes for White students ..............................148
Table 14.1: Forcing Meaningless Activities Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample) ......................149
Table 14.2: Forcing Meaningless Activities Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC students .............150
Table 14.3: Forcing Meaningless Activities Predicting Outcomes for Asian students ...............151
Table 14.4: Forcing Meaningless Activities Predicting Outcomes for White students ...............152
Table 15.1: Controlling Messages Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample) ......................................153
Table 15.2: Controlling Messages Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC students ............................154
Table 15.3: Controlling Messages Predicting Outcomes for Asian students ...............................155
Table 15.4: Controlling Messages Predicting Outcomes for White students ..............................156
Table 15: Summary of Autonomy Support Practices from SDT and CRRE Predicting
Outcomes Overall and By Racial/Ethnic Group ............................................................................80

v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Figure Adapted from Ryan and Deci’s Self-Determination Theory ..............................14
Figure 2: Figure Reproduced from Reeve’s (2013) Engagement Model ......................................16
Figure 3: One Factor, Correlated Factors, and Bifactor solutions (Question 1) ............................63
Figure 4. Reduced (Model A) and full (Model B) SEM models ...................................................65

vi

ABSTRACT
Despite considerable overlap between self-determination theory’s (SDT) approach to
autonomy supportive instruction and culturally relevant and responsive education (CRRE), there
has been little consideration in the literature about the potential benefits of integrating these
frameworks in theory, research, and practice. This study examined whether these two
frameworks can be integrated to promote student success. After considering the overlap and
divergences, I race-reimaged autonomy support to be in line with the goals and tenets of CRRE.
Preliminary data collection involved interviews to improve the newly developed integrated
CRRE scales. For the main analyses, I collected cross-sectional quantitative data from 595
undergraduate students. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that two-factor models between
CRRE and SDT fit the data best, and strong correlations between the CRRE and SDT factors
suggested that CRRE and SDT are different, but also highly interrelated. Structural equation
modeling was used to test the incremental validity of the integrated CRRE practices. Results
showed that CRRE autonomy supportive practices (e.g., providing choices) predicted many of
the outcomes, including students’ psychological need satisfaction, engagement, sense of
empowerment, and feelings of instructor trust, over and above SDT practices. However, CRRE
autonomy thwarting practices (e.g., use of controlling messages) did not predict many of the
outcomes. Some of the effects were variable across racial and ethnic groups. This study provides
evidence that SDT should consider students’ cultural perspectives, that CRRE is motivationally
supportive, and that an integrated instructional approach may improve motivation and learning
for racially and ethnically diverse students.

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Motivation can be defined as any process that energizes and directs behavior (Reeve,
2009). Energy is what gives behavior its strength, intensity, and persistence over a period of
time; and direction gives behavior its purpose, meaning, and goal-directedness (Reeve, 2012).
From a self-deterministic perspective, autonomy—that is, feeling that behaviors emanate from
the self—plays a crucial role in motivational processes and subsequent learning (Ryan & Deci,
2000a). A significant goal of the research on the relationships between autonomy, motivation,
and learning is to create vibrant learning communities in which all students can flourish. Indeed,
interventions that train teachers to be autonomy supportive have shown impressive results,
demonstrating positive impacts on diverse indicators of student success, including autonomous
motivation, classroom engagement, perceived skill development, prosocial behavior, and
academic achievement (e.g., Cheon et al., 2016; 2018a; 2018b; Reeve & Cheon, 2021).
Despite these contributions, the motivational literature, including that of self-
determination theory, has come under some scrutiny. Scholars have reported that motivation
theory and research fall short of acknowledging the racialized experiences of students of color
(e.g., Henrich et al., 2010; Usher, 2018). At the same time, there exists a body of research in
education that does explicitly focus on the racialized schooling experiences of students of color.
Namely, the culturally relevant and responsive education (CRRE) framework places issues
related to race and ethnicity front and center to the understanding of learning (Gay, 2018;
Ladson-Billings, 1995a). However, the CRRE literature could be equally scrutinized for its
singular focus on race and ethnicity, and for ignoring the extensive literature on motivation
despite many shared assumptions (Kumar et al., 2018).

2

Accordingly, the current research explored the extent to which these frameworks can be
integrated in theory, research, and practice. More specifically, I examined whether and how
CRRE can be weaved into the current understanding of the relationships between autonomy,
motivation, and learning to promote student success among diverse learners. For the purposes of
this study, student success was defined as any process that is likely to lead to positive student
outcomes, such as autonomy need satisfaction and engagement. Since no body of research has
examined the integration of CRRE and autonomy supportive instruction, this study contributes to
the literature by exploring how these two approaches to instruction might be integrated. In this
introductory chapter, I summarized my theoretical framework which draws from research on
autonomy supportive instruction and CRRE. I follow with a brief description of the study
methods and findings.
Summary of Theoretical Framework
Self-Determination Theory & Autonomy Supportive Instruction
Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macrotheory of human motivation that emphasizes
the role of autonomy for motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). This theory assumes that all
individuals have an innate psychological need for autonomy (along with competence and
relatedness), and when satisfied, provides the foundation for supporting high quality,
autonomous motivation (i.e., intrinsic, originating internally) rather than low quality motivation
(i.e., extrinsic, controlled externally) or amotivation. The theory posits that students will
experience autonomy to the extent that they personally endorse the value and significance of
their actions. Given this, SDT puts a strong focus on the instructional style of the teacher to
create an environment where students feel volitional. According to Reeve’s (2013) engagement
model, when teachers adopt an autonomy supportive instructional style, they vitalize students’

3

underlying motivation (e.g., autonomy need satisfaction); Engagement then emerges as a cluster
of observable behaviors (e.g., putting forth more effort, showing interest, applying mental
strategies, expressing themselves). When students become actively involved in these ways, they
ultimately learn better and more deeply (e.g., Jang et al., 2012; Kaplan, 2018; Zhou et al., 2019).
Autonomy support describes an interpersonal style that takes the perspective of the
student, considering their thoughts, values, and perspectives to guide behavior and encourage the
students’ subjective experience of having volition (Patall & Zambrano, 2019). Several autonomy
supportive instructional practices have emerged in the literature that, when skillfully enacted (or
avoided) support high quality motivation. Practices that support autonomy include providing
opportunities for making choices (e.g., Patall et al., 2010), providing rationales for why a task or
topic might be useful, important, or interesting (e.g., Jang, 2008), understanding and
incorporating student perspectives and interests into classroom activities (Jang et al., 2016),
providing opportunities for students to ask questions (e.g., Patall et al., 2018b), and
acknowledging negative feeling and allowing criticism (e.g., Assor et al., 2002); practices that
thwart autonomy include suppressing student criticism and expression, forcing meaningless and
uninteresting activities, and communicating controlling messages (Reeve, 2009). Support for
these practices comes from extensive correlational, longitudinal, and experimental research and
randomized controlled field trials, as well as some meta-analysis and qualitative research. The
benefits of supporting autonomy seem to be applicable across students from all ages, from
preschool to graduate school (e.g., Koestner et al., 1984; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004) as well as
across ability levels, cultures, and contexts (e.g., Deci et al., 1992; Ferguson et al., 2010;
Grolnick et al., 2007; Nalipay et al., 2020). However, research assessing whether and how the

4

above teaching practices promote autonomy and motivation among U.S. students of color is
limited.
Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education
Culturally relevant and responsive education (CRRE) refers to a combination of ideas
that converge on a commitment to collective empowerment and social justice in education.
CRRE scholars, such as Gloria Ladson-Billings and Geneva Gay, view the classroom as a site
for social change for the collective liberation of students of color. Broadly, CRRE involves using
the cultural realities, perspectives, experiences, and characteristics of ethnically, racially,
culturally, and linguistically diverse students as vehicles for learning. Key CRRE instructional
practices include: bridging cultural referents to academic skills and concepts in order to make
learning more meaningful, promoting cultural competence of students’ own and others’ cultures,
engaging students (as well as educators) in critical refection on their assumptions, and critiquing
discourses of power in order to “unmask and unmake” oppressive social systems (Aronson &
Laughter, 2016, p. 167).
Research on the merit of these instructional practices on learning largely comes from
qualitative case studies, many of which include extensive classroom observations and interviews
with teachers and/or their students. These portraits of instructors who have successfully enacted
CRRE are useful tools for teachers interested in integrating these approaches into their practice.
However, a significant limitation of the research on CRRE is that far too little of it systematically
documents the impact of these instructional practices on student learning and other metrics of
student success (Sleeter, 2012). Other limitations of the current state of the CRRE literature
include: a dearth of research conducted with college or adult samples, and an overemphasis on
the perspectives of teachers and researchers, rather than the students’ perspectives (Byrd, 2016).

5

CRRE and Autonomy Support: The Potential for Integration
CRRE theoretical perspectives and research share many underlying features with those
on supporting autonomy from SDT. Both frameworks share an asset-based perspective by
acknowledging that all students come to the classroom with natural resources for motivation and
growth, both promote meaning and relevance, and both advocate for student autonomy and
empowerment, among other similarities. However, they also differ in important ways. For one,
both research literatures discuss the importance of autonomy for student motivation and learning.
However, SDT conceptualizes autonomy as a basic psychological need that, when satisfied,
supports the motivation, growth, and well-being of the individual (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In
contrast, CRRE describes autonomy as the extent to which a person can shape and determine the
course of their own lives (Jones, 2006). This conception of autonomy is aligned with the idea of
empowerment, and is often understood and situated within the context of societal hegemony
(Heroux et al., 2014; Kumar et al., 2018). As such, from a CRRE perspective, the extent to which
one can be autonomous is intertwined with power dynamics related to culture and race.
Theoretically, autonomy supportive teaching could be improved with this explicit focus on
culture, race, and awareness of sociopolitical consciousness (i.e., the ability to critically analyze
the political, economic, social, and cultural forces shaping one’s community, personal life, and
status or position in society; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Upadhyay et al., 2020). By supporting
autonomy in a culturally-conscious way, students of color may benefit from developing a more
integrated, autonomous motivation for class concepts and activities.
Because the suggested instructional practices from SDT currently have a stronger case for
improving student success and other related outcomes (e.g., Reeve & Cheon, 2021), one strategy
to integrate the two frameworks may be to weave CRRE ideas and goals into existing autonomy

6

supportive instructional practices. To do this, each instructional practice can be considered in
light of the goals and suggestions from CRRE scholars. For example, an autonomy supportive
teaching recommendation involves being open to student questions of tasks, activities, and
concepts, but a culturally conscious autonomy supportive teaching approach could extend this
instructional practice to being open to student questioning and criticism of broader sociopolitical
discourses and conceptions of scholarly truth. With the addition of CRRE, this integrated
culturally conscious approach may be more comprehensive in supporting the autonomy and
success of all students, especially those from groups who have been traditionally marginalized.
Purpose and Overview of the Study
Despite considerable overlap between autonomy supportive instruction and culturally
relevant and responsive education, there has been little consideration in the literature about the
potential benefits of integrating these frameworks in theory, research, and practice. Due to the
scant body of research on this topic, this study examined the extent to which these two
frameworks can be integrated to promote student success. In particular, this study examined the
extent to which autonomy supportive teaching practices can be fused with CRRE instructional
practices to bolster college students’ motivation, particularly among students of color. For the
purposes of this study, students of color were defined as students who identify as Black/African
American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaska Native, Latino/Hispanic, Asian/Asian American,
or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. BIPOC students were defined as students who identify as
Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaska Native, and Latino/Hispanic.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This study investigated whether there was an incremental benefit of integrated CRRE
practices on motivation (i.e., psychological need satisfaction), engagement, sense of

7

empowerment, and instructor trust, particularly among students of color, over and above
traditional approaches to supporting autonomy. Specifically, this study was guided by the
following research questions:
1. To what extent are traditional SDT autonomy supportive instruction and integrated
CRRE autonomy support distinct and/or correlated?
2. To what extent does integrated CRRE autonomy support explain variability in motivation
outcomes, after accounting for traditional SDT autonomy supportive practices?
I developed a new scale that measured the extent to which students perceived their
instructors to be using a culturally-conscious autonomy supportive approach to their instruction
(i.e., integrated CRRE). I conducted 21 cognitive interviews with racially and ethnically diverse
undergraduate students in order to revise and improve the questionnaire items. To address the
main research questions, I collected and analyzed quantitative data from a questionnaire. For
research question one, I hypothesized that CRRE instructional practices would be different from
SDT practices, yet highly interrelated and compatible. More specifically, I expected to find that
CRRE and SDT would be psychometrically different (i.e., two factors) but also highly
interrelated (i.e., strongly correlated). As a secondary hypothesis, a bifactor solution may also fit
the data well, given that the two factors are interpreted as different (i.e., from different
frameworks) yet they share some communality (i.e., providing choices). For research question
two, I hypothesized that integrated CRRE instructional practices would predict desirable
motivation outcomes (e.g., need satisfaction, engagement, empowerment), over and above
traditional SDT practices. Moreover, I hypothesized that the effects of integrated CRRE practices
on motivation outcomes would be strongest among students of color. Overall, the underlying

8

anticipation of this study was that students experience greater levels of motivation when
instructors implement teaching practices that combine autonomy support and CRRE.
Methods
Preliminary data collection and analysis consisted of cognitive interviews to elicit
students’ thoughts about the newly developed integrated CRRE questionnaire items in the
population of interest (i.e., undergraduate students in social science classes) and identify
problems and support the content validity of the questionnaire. To answer the main research
questions, I used a cross-sectional design and collected questionnaire data from participants in
the Fall 2022 semester. Five-hundred and ninety-five undergraduate students were recruited
through a psychology subject pool and through direct email outreach to four-year institutions that
served a high percentage of students of color. Participants completed an online questionnaire that
measured their perceptions of their instructors’ use of autonomy supportive instructional
practices from SDT, perceptions of integrated CRRE practices, psychological need satisfaction,
engagement, instructor trust, sense of empowerment, and current course grades. Because
teaching practices can vary considerably by the domain (e.g., history vs. physics) and medium
(in-person vs online), only students who were currently enrolled in a social science class that met
in-person were eligible.
Results
For the first research question, I tested a series of psychometric models within a
confirmatory factor analysis framework using the SDT and CRRE items. In line with my
hypothesis, I found that a correlated factors solution fit the data best. I also found large
correlations between the two factors. This solution suggested that autonomy supportive
instructional practices conceptualized from CRRE and SDT are different, but they are highly

9

related. For the second research question, I used structural equation modeling to examine the
effect of each integrated CRRE practice on motivation outcomes, over and above traditional SDT
practices. By and large, I found that the autonomy supportive practices (e.g., providing choices)
when conceptualized from CRRE were significantly associated with students’ motivation, such
as their psychological need satisfaction, engagement, and sense of empowerment. Many effect
sizes ranged from small to medium. Some effects were stronger or weaker for BIPOC, Asian,
and White students—there was no clear pattern of the instructional practices as a whole being
consistently more or less beneficial for any group. The autonomy thwarting practices (e.g., use of
controlling messages) predicted only some of the outcomes, including students’ autonomy need
satisfaction and feelings of trust toward their instructor, but these effects may have been
primarily present among BIPOC students.
Discussion
In the discussion section, I review the results and how the results relate back to the
purpose of the study and the literature at large. Furthermore, I reflect on the strengths and
limitations of the study and how these factors shape the interpretation of the study results, as well
as how future research can build on this study. Finally, I discuss the contributions and
significance of this study for motivation research and practical efforts focused on instructor
motivation support of students in diverse educational settings.
Organization
In this chapter (Chapter 1), I provided an overview of the dissertation study. In Chapter 2,
I reviewed the literature on autonomy supportive instruction and culturally relevant and
responsive education. In addition, I described how these two frameworks may be integrated in
theory, research, and practice to promote academic success for racially and ethnically diverse

10

students, particularly for students of color. In Chapter 3, I presented the methodology for this
dissertation study which explored the relationships between teaching practices that integrate
autonomy support and CRRE with motivation processes. In Chapter 4, I report the results of the
study. Finally, I discuss the findings and implications of this study, as well as the limitations and
potential future directions in Chapter 5.

11

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Students show varying levels of initiative, interest, participation, and learning in some
classes more than others. Although many factors can explain the strength and direction of
students’ motivation across different classroom contexts, one of the most important is the extent
to which teachers create a classroom environment that supports students’ sense of autonomy.
From a self-deterministic perspective, autonomy is defined as feeling that behaviors emanate
from the self. Interventions that have trained teachers to adopt an autonomy supportive teaching
style have shown impressive results, demonstrating positive and sustaining effects on diverse
indicators of student success, including classroom engagement, perceived competence, and
academic achievement (Reeve & Cheon, 2021).
A significant goal of the research that has examined the relationships between autonomy,
motivation, and learning is to help teachers create vibrant learning communities in which all
students can flourish. The approach to this research has generally been that if an understanding
of basic (i.e., intrinsic to all or most humans) motivational processes can be cultivated,
researchers could generate “best practices” to tap into those processes for the greatest impact on
student motivation and learning. Though laudable, the theoretical and practical contributions
stemming from self-determination theory have come under some scrutiny. In particular, scholars
critical of this approach have discussed that motivation theory and research do not adequately
acknowledge the racialized experienced of students of color. Without a holistic understanding of
students’ home and family cultures and racialized experiences within as well as outside of the
schooling context, those critical of motivation theory and research argue these practices may, at
best, lead to less gains in motivation for students of color compared to those from historically

12

privileged groups (i.e., European Americans), and at worst, these practices may even backfire
and serve to continue to marginalize students of color.
Alternatively, a collection of research in education, known as culturally relevant and
responsive education (CRRE), explicitly focuses on the racialized schooling experiences of
students of color. Conducted primarily through in-depth case studies, the CRRE framework
places issues related to race and ethnicity front and center to the understanding of learning (Gay,
2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995a). However, the CRRE literature has an almost singular focus on
race and ethnicity, while ignoring the extensive literature on motivation and learning despite
many shared assumptions between the two frameworks. For example, CRRE discusses the
importance of agency and empowerment for learning and the transformation of learning
environments with virtually no connection to self-determination theory and research.
Taken together, the ways in which autonomy supportive instruction and CRRE could be
merged remains largely unexplored. Accordingly, the current research explored the extent to
which two frameworks could be integrated in theory, research, and practice. More specifically, I
examined whether and how CRRE can be weaved into the current understanding of the
relationships between autonomy and motivation from a self-deterministic perspective to promote
student success. For the purposes of this study, student success was defined as any process that is
likely to lead to positive student outcomes, such as autonomy need satisfaction, motivation,
engagement, instructor trust, and sense of empowerment. In this chapter, I began by first
reviewing the literature on autonomy supportive instruction, including an overview of self-
determination theory and the research on the relationships between supporting autonomy,
motivation, and learning, a description of other related theories and research on the importance
of autonomy, and a review of autonomy supportive instructional practices. Throughout this

13

section, I paid particular attention to the implications of the research for diverse student
populations, especially students of color. Then, I provided an overview of CRRE, including a
description of CRRE instructional practices and an evaluation of the state of the existing
literature on CRRE. Following that, I described areas of potential integration and divergence
between autonomy supportive instruction from SDT and CRRE.
An Overview of Self-Determination Theory and Autonomy Supportive Instruction
Theoretical Overview
Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macrotheory of human motivation that places a
strong emphasis on the role of autonomy in motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Autonomy is
defined as feeling that actions emanate from the self and are congruent with one’s values, goals,
and interests (Patall & Zambrano, 2019). Experiencing autonomy can also be described as
feeling self-governance over the initiation and direction of behaviors (Assor & Kaplan, 2001).
SDT assumes that all individuals have an innate psychological need for autonomy, which
provides the foundation for promoting high quality, autonomous motivation (i.e., intrinsic,
originating internally) rather than low quality motivation (i.e., extrinsic, controlled externally;
Deci & Ryan, 2008). The need for autonomy works alongside and in combination with two other
basic psychological needs—competence (i.e., feeling successful and efficacious) and relatedness
(i.e., feeling connected to and mutual caring with others)—to promote optimal psychological
functioning in the classroom. When these psychological needs get frustrated, disaffection,
maladjustment, and even psychopathology are thought to result (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013).
SDT takes an integrative organismic and dialectical approach to the understanding of
motivation and learning (Deci & Ryan, 2008). The theory makes the assumption that humans are
active organisms with a tendency toward mastering challenges and a natural inclination to

14

internalize some values and ways of behaving from their social surroundings (i.e., making them
their own) as acquired motivations (e.g., Grolnick et al., 1997). This process of internalization
involves a continuum of assimilating extrinsic behaviors and values from the social environment
into the person’s own value and regulatory system (Ryan & Deci, 2009; Willems & Lewalter,
2012).
Figure 1
Figure Adapted from Ryan and Deci’s Self-Determination Theory.

To describe why people resist, partially adopt, or deeply internalize values and goals, the
founders of SDT outlined six categories of motivation that become progressively less externally
controlled and more autonomous (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). As shown in Figure 1, at the far right is
amotivation, which is the state of lacking the intention to act, and is likely to arise when the
student does not value the activity. To the right of amotivation are four categories that describe
external motivations for behaviors: external regulation (i.e., acting to satisfy a demand or avoid
punishment), introjected regulation (i.e., acting due to pressure, guilt, anxiety, or pride),
identified regulation (i.e., acting because the behavior is personally relevant and important), and

15

integrated regulation (i.e., acting when the regulation is fully assimilated to the self). And finally,
intrinsic motivation on the far right describes behaviors that are done because of their inherent
enjoyment and satisfaction.
What this figure shows is that to be autonomous does not entirely mean to be free from
external forces; rather, students experience autonomy to the extent that they personally endorse
the value and significance of their actions (Reeve, 2012). As such, SDT puts emphasis on the
instructional environment. When students feel volitional, competent, and socially connected in
the learning environment, they are more likely to internalize values and behaviors (e.g., math is
important, I will do my math homework) which leads to academic success. In contrast, when
students feel controlled, forced, or pressured (or unskilled and socially-disconnected), they are
less likely to internalize behaviors and experience maladaptive outcomes, including greater
psychological need frustration, controlled motivation, amotivation, contingent feelings of self-
worth, and challenge avoidance (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2018), which undermine student
success in the classroom. The evidence-based practices that support students’ more autonomous
forms of motivation are discussed later in this section.
Relationships between Supporting Autonomy, Motivation, and Learning
From the perspective of self-determination theory, students will experience motivation
and learning to the extent that the task or activity satisfies the psychological need for autonomy
(as well as competence and relatedness). An important construct to consider for understanding
these relationships is engagement, defined as the extent to which a student is actively involved in
a learning activity (Skinner et al., 2009). Engagement is conceptualized as a multidimensional
construct consisting of four distinct, yet interrelated pathways (Christenson et al., 2011;
Fredricks et al., 2004; Reeve, 2013). Behavioral engagement describes students’ involvement in

16

terms of their effort, attention, and persistence. Emotional engagement describes students’
involvement in terms of the presence of interest, enjoyment, and other positive emotions.
Cognitive engagement describes students’ involvement in terms of their attempts to regulate their
own thinking and learning processes (Sinatra et al., 2015). And agentic engagement refers to
students’ proactive and constructive contribution to the flow of the instruction and activities that
they receive (Reeve & Tseng, 2011).
Figure 2
Figure Reproduced from Reeve’s (2013) Engagement Model.

To specify the links between supporting autonomy, motivation, and learning, I draw on
Reeve’s (2013) transactional engagement model. As shown in Figure 2, the learning environment
(i.e., the teacher) sets the stage for students’ experiences in a learning context. When teachers
adopt a motivationally-supportive instructional style and bring forth interesting and important
learning activities, this vitalizes students’ underlying motivation (e.g., need satisfaction).
Engagement then emerges as a cluster of observable behaviors—a more public manifestation of
motivation. When students feel autonomous, competent, and connected with others, they put
forth more effort, they show interest, they apply mental strategies that help them learn, and they
express themselves in order to tweak or adjust the learning environment so that it better supports

17

their learning. When students become actively involved in activities like this, they ultimately
learn better and more deeply, and they develop their skills and talents.
Importantly, students’ involvement in learning activities also helps transform the
environment in a way that is more conducive to their learning. In particular, when students
agentically engage by making suggestions and expressing their interests, needs, and preferences,
they impact their instructors’ motivating style towards being more autonomy supportive—
ultimately creating a positive and recursive cycle of motivation between the student, the teacher,
and the class as a whole (Matos et al., 2018). Overall, support for this model comes from
extensive correlational-longitudinal research (e.g., Jang et al., 2012; Kaplan, 2018; Zhou et al.,
2019) and experimental and randomized controlled trials (see Reeve & Cheon, 2021, for a
review).
Other Theories on the Importance of Autonomy
Although most often associated with SDT, the importance of autonomy has been noted in
other motivation and developmental theories. Social cognitive theory posits that students are
agents capable of exploring, manipulating, and creating environments that promote their own
growth and development (Bandura, 2006). This theory describes the enactment of one’s
autonomy through personal and collective efforts (Bandura, 2001) and asserts that students will
function most adaptively when they are actively working to shape the learning environment in
way that supports their needs and goals, rather than merely passively experiencing it. Eccles’
stage-environment fit perspective also stresses the importance of promoting autonomy in the
classroom in order to align with students’ increased developmental need for independence and
individualization that occurs from childhood into adolescence and adulthood (Eccles et al.,
1993). Moreover, interest researchers have linked the development of personal interest to

18

autonomy (Renninger & Hidi, 2011) and goal theorists have linked autonomy to the development
of a mastery-orientated approach to learning (e.g., Cho et al., 2011).
Universality of Autonomy
From a social-constructivist perspective, it can be argued that the psychological need for
autonomy varies depending on sociocultural values. For example, autonomy may be linked to
motivation in societies that place a higher value on individualism and independence (e.g., USA),
and this link may be less apparent in societies that highly value interdependence and collectivism
(e.g., Peru). In contrast to this relativist perspective, however, substantial research supports the
notion of SDT that the satisfaction of autonomy is necessary for human thriving and achievement
(e.g., Church et al., 2013; Nalipay et al., 2020; Steckermeier, 2021). For example, using data
from four culturally diverse nations (i.e., Belgium, China, USA, and Peru), Chen and colleagues
(2015) found measurement equivalence of autonomy need satisfaction (i.e., autonomy, as
measured, meant the same thing) across countries, and they found that satisfaction of autonomy
equally predicted well-being across the countries. They also found that these effects were not
moderated by individual differences in valuation (i.e., the stated importance of autonomy to the
person) nor the desire (i.e., the stated desire to get the need for autonomy met), providing further
evidence for the universal importance of autonomy.
The benefits of supporting autonomy also seem to be applicable across students from all
ages, from preschool to graduate school (e.g., Koestner et al., 1984; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004) as
well as across ability levels, cultures, and contexts (e.g., Deci et al., 1992; Ferguson et al., 2010;
Grolnick et al., 2007; Nalipay et al., 2020). Cross-national studies have found that supporting
autonomy is equally important for student achievement across Western (e.g., USA, Canada, UK)
and Eastern (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong) societies (Nalipay et al., 2020), as well as for

19

school and life satisfaction (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2010). Despite this evidence, understanding the
universality of autonomy and autonomy support for student success would benefit from
comprehensive meta-analysis, using information from the many studies that have been conducted
all over the world that have not explicitly examined this claim.
Autonomy Supportive Instructional Practices
Autonomy support describes an instructor’s interpersonal style, or basic attitude, that is
student-focused and takes an open, curious, and understanding tone (Reeve & Cheon, 2021).
This approach involves taking the perspective of the student, considering their thoughts, values,
and perspectives to guide behavior and encourage the students’ subjective experience of having
volition (Patall & Zambrano, 2019). As such, any practice that attempts to structure tasks or
communicate in a way that allows students to feel that they are engaging because the task reflects
their own values, preferences, interests, and goals would be considered autonomy supportive
(Patall et al., in press; Reeve, 2009). In direct contrast, a controlling instructional style is one that
pressures students to think, feel, or behave in a specific way (Assor et al., 2005) and is associated
with low-quality (externally-regulated) motivation (Reeve, 2009). As opposites, autonomy
support and controlling styles put into practice the basic tenets of SDT and serve to
conceptualize the quality of a teacher’s motivating style (Patall & Zambrano, 2019). Several
autonomy supportive (and controlling) instructional practices have emerged in the literature that,
when skillfully enacted (or avoided), increase students’ internalization and support more intrinsic
forms of motivation. I discuss these practices next, with consideration of the merits of their
application in an academic context with culturally, racially, and ethnically diverse students.
Providing Choice Opportunities

20

On the whole, substantial correlational, experimental, and meta-analytic evidence has
shown the benefits of providing choices and opportunities for decision making in the classroom.
The types of choices can vary, such as choices about assignments, topics, format, pacing, tasks,
responsibilities, methods, project management, and more (Flowerday & Schraw, 2000). When
students are provided choices, they tend to experience increased interest, enjoyment, effort,
persistence, and performance on academic tasks (e.g., Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Mouratidis et
al., 2011; Patall et al., 2008; Waterschoot et al., 2019). For example, Patall et al. (2010) found
that U.S. high school students (56% White, 28% Black) reported greater intrinsic motivation and
perceived competence for homework and higher homework grades and unit test scores during a
unit in which their teacher provided a choice of homework, compared to a unit in which choices
were not provided. Having a choice also enhanced homework completion rates.
Instructor use of choices, however, do not always imply that students will experience
motivational benefits. Choices that are given in a controlling way (i.e., leading or pressuring
students to select a particular option) decrease students’ feelings of autonomy and subsequently
their persistence and performance on tasks (e.g., Moller et al., 2007). Other factors that can limit,
or even undermine, the effectiveness of choices include: focusing on achieving an outcome
rather than having an interesting experience (Choi & Fishbach, 2011), tying the choice to
tangible rewards (Patall et al., 2008); having too many options to choose from (Iyengar &
Lepper, 2000), and experiencing difficulty or indecisiveness when making a choice (e.g., De
Muynck et al., 2019; Wang & Eccles, 2013). Therefore, in providing a choice, it is important for
instructors to consider whether it will tap into an experience of autonomy (without undermining
competence) for the student in a particular situation (Katz & Assor, 2007). Teachers can enhance
students subjective experience of autonomy with choices by providing clear expectations and

21

scaffolding in a way that helps students make a good choice for them (e.g., Vansteenkiste et al.,
2012).
The literature suggests that the broader sociocultural context may affect the link between
choice and motivation, such that the link may be moderated by cultural orientation. This
hypothesis suggests that, for people from individualist cultural backgrounds that endorse an
independent view of the self, making a choice would enhance more autonomous forms of
motivation (as is consistent with the above studies). In contrast, for people from collectivist
cultural backgrounds who endorse an interdependent self-view, having someone else who they
feel close and connected to make the choice would lead to intrinsic motivation, rather than the
individual making the choice themselves (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Bao & Lam, 2008). From the
perspective of SDT, making a personal choice might threaten the sense of relatedness and
belongingness to one’s group for people with a stronger interdependent sense of self (Katz et al.,
2006).
Experimental evidence has shown support for this hypothesis among children and college
samples (Bao & Lam, 2008; Hagger et al., 2014). For example, Iyengar and Lepper (1999) found
that children from individualist (White American) backgrounds who were provided with a choice
over an activity persisted longer and performed better on the task, compared to children from the
same cultural background who had choices made for them by an out-group member (i.e., the
experimenter) or an in-group member (i.e., mother or peer). But, consistent with the hypothesis,
children from collectivist (Asian American) backgrounds persisted longer and performed better
when the choice was made for them by a familiar, in-group member. Moreover, other research
has suggested that students from (collectivist) Indian contexts reflect a conjoint model of agency,

22

in which agency is responsive to the desires and expectations of important social others, and may
require restraining one’s preferences (Savani et al., 2008).
One limitation of the research is that these studies were conducted with only Asian
samples; to the best of my knowledge, there were no studies directly testing this hypothesis with
individuals from other collectivist cultures. Future research should test whether this hypothesis
holds for other American people of color, specifically, as well as people living and learning in
other collectivist cultures (e.g., Peru). Moreover, there was a modest lack of reporting on the race
and ethnicity of samples of studies that examined the effect of choice on outcomes where
ethnicity/race was not the focus, particularly in older studies.
Providing Rationales
Providing a rationale or explanation for why putting forth effort in an activity might be
useful, important, or interesting is a key instructional practice for supporting student autonomy,
because it gives the student an opportunity to appreciate, personally endorse, and internalize the
value of the task (Brophy, 2008; Reeve et al., 2002). Essentially, when students see that doing
something is useful or important, they are more likely to want to do the task and experience
greater volition while doing it. Support for this tenet comes from substantial correlational,
longitudinal, experimental, intervention, and meta-analytic evidence (e.g., Assor et al., 2002;
Steingut et al, 2017). For example, Jang (2008) found that U.S. undergraduate students
(race/ethnicity not reported) who received a rationale prior to engaging in a statistics lesson
about how the content would help in their personal and professional growth were more engaged
during the lesson and experienced greater conceptual learning compared to those who did not
receive a rationale. Moreover, this effect was mediated by both autonomy need satisfaction and
perceiving that the task was important and worth doing.

23

However, not all rationales are effective. Rationales support motivation when they build
on existing knowledge, take the students’ perspective, and specifically and concretely (rather
than vaguely or abstractly) highlight how activities relate to students’ personal values, goals,
commitments, and life experiences (Reeve et al., 2002; Steingut et al., 2017; Vansteenkiste et al.,
2018). Rationales that appeal to prosocial goals like community and helpfulness towards others,
as well as those that appeal to intrinsic goals (e.g., physical wellness; deeper friendships, greater
skill), are also particularly effective at supporting motivation (Steingut et al., 2017;
Vansteenkiste et al., 2004; 2005). On the contrary, controlling rationales that appeal to extrinsic
goals (e.g., money, grades), social norms (e.g., … “because every adult should learn this”), and
pressure, or take only the teachers’ perspectives to justify the value of the task (e.g., “because
reading papers on the same topic are easier to grade”), can undermine autonomous forms of
motivation (Steingut et al., 2017; Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). Because conveying the importance
or usefulness of a topic or activity is highly subjective, scaffolded activities that allow students to
draw connections between the learning content and how it is personally important to them have
been shown to increase interest, performance, and persistence (e.g., Canning et al., 2018;
Hulleman et al., 2010; 2017; Rosenzweig et al., 2018), especially for students who have low
initial levels of competence for the topic (Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009).
There is some evidence to suggest that Black, Latino, and Indigenous students of color
may benefit the most from prosocial or communal rationales that emphasize the importance of
the topic or activity for others, because these values are more consistent with their home and
family cultures (Thoman et al., 2015). For example, Zambrano and colleagues (2020) found that
undergraduate students who were randomly assigned to read a science chapter with prosocial
value information (e.g., this is useful for food allocation to low-income communities) reported

24

greater interest in the reading topic, compared to those who read a chapter with general
information about value or neutral information. These effects were moderated by race/ethnicity,
such that Black, Latino, and Indigenous-American students experienced the most benefits,
compared to Asian and White students. Another study found that writing assignments about the
usefulness of biology course material led to an increase in course grades, particularly for first-
generation Black, Latino, and Indigenous American undergraduate students, compared to their
counterparts (i.e., Asian and White students; Harackiewicz et al., 2016). This effect was partially
mediated by increased engagement on the task, as first-generation Black, Latino, and Indigenous
students wrote the most words in their essays. Moreover, upon inspection of the content of the
essays, Harackiewicz and colleagues found that the first-generation Black, Latino, and
Indigenous students used more words related to family and social processes, which suggested
that connecting the content to their family and community may have tapped into students’
interdependent and familial cultural values. The evidence is mixed, however, as other research
has found no racial/ethnic differences between communal or prosocial rationales and motivation
(e.g., Brown et al., 2015).
Understanding & Incorporating Student Perspectives & Interests
Taking the perspective of the student is at the heart of what defines autonomy supportive
teaching, and underlies all other practices that are thought to support autonomy (Patall &
Zambrano, 2019). Perspective taking begins with the instructor de-prioritizing their own
perspective and concerns and seeing and experiencing classroom events as if they were the
students, rather than the instructor (Reeve & Cheon, 2021). Instructors can invite students to
express their opinions, ideas, and interests through a variety of ways, such as through formal
assessments (e.g., end-of-unit surveys) and informal conversation, by asking students what they

25

think and feel about a particular learning topic, soliciting their input in the design of assignments
and projects, and creating opportunities for students to share their thoughts and concerns.
Extensive correlational and experimental evidence has found that when teachers
demonstrate that they are genuinely interested in students’ perspectives and are collaborating
with students to transform activities based on students’ input, they are more likely to internalize
the value of those activities and engage (Patall et al., 2018b). For example, Jang et al. (2016)
found that college students who were randomly assigned to receive instruction in a way that
matched their preferred way of receiving instruction (e.g., whole class discussion) experienced
greater autonomy need satisfaction, and in turn, greater engagement and conceptual learning,
compared to students who received the same lesson in a non-preferred way of receiving
instruction (e.g., worksheets). Recent qualitative research from Zambrano and colleagues (in
press) also underscores the importance of incorporating student perspectives for student
engagement. During interviews and focus groups with a racially diverse sample of urban high
school students, students discussed the importance of teachers to encourage them to express
themselves in class (i.e., agentic engagement). Students reported that when their teachers created
an open space for sharing, they felt comfortable with offering input and expressing their needs,
opinions, and preferences—and in doing so, their personal narratives conveyed benefits such as
perceiving teacher support for their learning, feeling more interested and motivated to work on
tasks, and feeling that the class as a whole was more fun and energetic.
Providing Question Opportunities. Creating opportunities for students to ask questions
is another way for instructors to understand student perspectives and support students’ autonomy
in the classroom. As part of a longitudinal diary study, Patall et al. (2018b) found that urban high
school students experienced an increase in their engagement and autonomous motivation on days

26

when they perceived that their science teachers created space for students to ask questions and
carefully listened and responded to questions in class.
Acknowledging Negative Feelings and Allowing Criticism. In the classroom, students
are often asked to do things that they find uninteresting, difficult, boring, and unimportant, and
they may complain and resist when instructors ask them to put forth effort. Therefore,
understanding students’ perspectives also includes understanding students’ experiences of
anxiety, stress, frustration, anger, and boredom (Reeve, 2009). To support students’ autonomy in
these situations, research has shown that instructors should acknowledge and accept these
negative feelings, rather than ignore or try to suppress them. Much of the research that supports
this comes from correlational or longitudinal studies (e.g., Assor et al., 2002), although
autonomy supportive interventions (that include this instructional practice) provide further
support (Reeve & Cheon, 2021). In responding, listening, and working through negative
emotional states with students, instructors can convey respect and validate students by using
informational, nonevaluative, and noncontrolling language that coveys care and appreciation of
students’ perspectives and autonomy in the classroom (e.g., Noels et al., 1999). Using words like
“consider” or “might” and offering suggestions (“why don’t you try doing question 2 first, and
then come back to question 1?”) help preserve student feelings of having volition (Patall &
Zambrano; Reeve, 2009).
To the best of my knowledge, the motivation literature has not specified cultural
differences in the relationship between students’ perceptions of feeling understood by their
instructors and students’ autonomy. This link is likely to be positive and significant regardless of
race, ethnicity, or culture. However, one limitation of the research on autonomy is that it
generally does not acknowledge the roles that bias, stereotypes, racism, and sexism play in an

27

instructor’s autonomy supportive practice. More specifically, instructors are conceptualized as
either autonomy supportive or controlling or indifferent—with little or no consideration for how
an instructors’ motivating style may vary in response to some students versus others. Indeed,
student expressions of disagreement, criticism, or negative affect may be more likely to be
misinterpreted by instructors as “disrespect” or “defiance” when voiced by Black and Latino
students, compared to White students (Gregory et al., 2010; Okonofua et al., 2016). In their
qualitative study of agentic engagement, Zambrano et al. (in press) found that Black urban high
school girls were especially vocal about their frustrations with feeling discouraged by their
teachers when they had attempted to make a suggestion or offer their input on class assignments
and activities. Moreover, Patall et al. (2018a) found that, compared to male students, female high
school students experienced less daily autonomy support from teachers in physics, chemistry,
and engineering courses; in turn, these differences explained girls’ lower daily engagement
compared to boys. The observation that instructors may be more autonomy supportive toward
some students, and more autonomy thwarting (i.e., controlling, indifferent) towards others,
should be explored in future research.
Autonomy-Thwarting Instructional Practices
Next, I discuss three instructional practices that have been shown to suppress students’
feelings of autonomy and subsequently decrease students’ motivation, engagement, and learning
in class. These practices, suppression of student expression, forcing uninteresting activities, and
controlling messages, will be reviewed briefly, as these moderately overlap with taking the
students’ perspective and acknowledging and accepting negative emotions and criticism, which
are discussed above.

28

Suppression of student criticism and expression is a type of interaction style that does
not allow students to inform the instructor about aspects of a task or learning context that may be
interfering with student’s interests, goals, preferences, and perspectives (Assor et al., 2002).
Students may experience suppression when their instructor seems to limit complaints, interrupt
when students are expressing themselves, and favor certain viewpoints over others (especially
those that align with the instructor’s viewpoint). Forcing meaningless and uninteresting
activities are particularly aversive because they involve an active attempt to compel students to
do things that they do not want to do (Assor et al., 2002). Similarly, use controlling messages
involves using rigid language to push students to think, feel, or act in particular ways (e.g., “you
should,” “you must”) and using an excessive number of inflexible directives and commands. In
getting students to complete boring tasks and keep the class “on track,” controlling teachers often
use strategies, such as deadlines, threats, shaming, guilt-inducing criticisms, short commands
(e.g., “hurry up”), or yelling (Patall & Zambrano, 2019). These controlling instructional practices
lead students to feel pressured and judged, which ultimately thwart students’ sense of autonomy,
because they intrude on students’ natural rhythm to produce the correct answer on the teacher’s
timetable (Reeve, 2009). As part of their high school diary study, Patall and colleagues (2018b)
found that on days when students perceived their teachers to suppress student perspectives and
use uninteresting activities and controlling messages, students reported less autonomy
satisfaction and more low-quality (controlled) motivation and disaffection in the class.
Putting It All Together: Autonomy Support Interventions
Beyond the experimental, correlational, and longitudinal research highlighted above, the
tenets of an autonomy supportive instructional style have been tested as part of theory-driven
interventions (Patall & Zambrano, 2019). These interventions typically take the form of

29

workshops (1-6 hours) over the course of 1 or 2 days to expose teachers to the concept of
autonomy supportive (versus controlling) teaching and the components (e.g., provide choices)
using PowerPoint presentations, instructional videos, and activities. Some interventions also
include a booster workshop later in the semester to revisit and review the information and
discuss successes, recommendations, and trouble-shooting (Reeve & Cheon, 2021).
On the whole, these interventions tend to show that (1) teachers’ instructional style is
malleable and they can learn to become more autonomy supportive (and less controlling) during
instruction and (2) increased autonomy supportive teaching produces a wide range of student
benefits, including but not limited to: increased need satisfaction, autonomous motivation,
perceived skill development, and decreased antisocial behavior, bullying, cheating, and need
frustration (see Reeve & Cheon 2021 for review). For example, Reeve et al. (2004) trained high
school teachers across several subject areas to be more autonomy supportive in a brief 1-hour
session. Their results showed that the training led to greater observed autonomy supportive
practices by teachers (relative to a control group), and in turn, this lead to higher observed ratings
of student engagement. In addition to these student benefits, correlational and experimental
research and randomized controlled trials have shown that, when teachers adopt an autonomy
supportive approach to their instruction, teachers experience greater autonomy, competence, and
relatedness need satisfaction, as well as increased self-efficacy for teaching and job satisfaction
and decreased emotional-physical exhaustion (e.g., Aelteman et al., 2013; Cheon et al., 2014;
Roth et al., 2007).
One strength of the literature on autonomy support interventions is that they have been
implemented and tested across many cultures and nations, including Korea, Israel, Greece,
United Kingdom, Belgium, China, Singapore, France, Brazil, Germany, Colombia, Estonia,

30

Australia, and Spain (see Reeve & Cheon for a review of 51 intervention empirical studies).
However, despite this international interest in autonomy support interventions, there are only one
or two clear examples of teacher training interventions designed to support student autonomy in
the U.S.—deCharms (1976) and Reeve et al. (2004), which did not report the race and ethnicity
characteristics of the sample. Another autonomy support intervention was administered online to
preservice teachers in the U.S. (Perlman et al., 2011), though no changes in the motivation of
their students were found. Again, demographic characteristics of the students were not reported.
As such, we know little about the effectiveness of autonomy support interventions for American
students of color.
An Overview of Culturally Relevant & Responsive Education
Theoretical Frameworks
Ideas about why it is important to make classrooms more consistent with the cultural
orientations of racially and ethnically diverse students were born out of the school desegregation
efforts in the 1960’s and ’70’s in the U.S (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). Although called by many
names, including culturally relevant, responsive, appropriate, sensitive, centered, and congruent,
these ideas and how they can be applied in teaching are highly consistent with one another (Gay,
2018). As such, culturally relevant and responsive education (CRRE) is a combination of ideas
from a wide range of scholars (e.g., Au, 1980; Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995a; Milner, 2011;
Paris, 2012; Tatum, 1997), rather than a uniform theory (e.g., self-determination theory). As two
of the most prominent scholars and thought leaders in this area of study, I highlight perspectives
of Geneva Gay and Gloria Ladson-Billings in conceptualizing CRRE. Then, I describe the
teaching practices that promote student success from a CRRE perspective, the state of the CRRE

31

research, and how the CRRE literature overlaps and diverges from the autonomy support
research reviewed above.
At the heart of CRRE is a commitment to collective empowerment and social justice.
CRRE scholars view the classroom as a site for social change, such that when students of color
experience academic success, they can challenge the status quo of the current order for personal
and collective liberation from oppressive social structures (Ladson-Billings, 1995b). To advance
these goals, CRRE involves using the cultural realities, perspectives, experiences, and
characteristics of ethnically, racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse students as vehicles for
learning (Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995). This strategy is based on the assumption that
“when academic knowledge and skills are situated within the lived experiences and frames of
reference of students, they are more personally meaningful, have higher interest appeal, and are
learned more easily and thoroughly” (Gay, 2002, p. 106). Therefore, when students are taught
through their own “cultural and experiential filters,” they experience greater value, interest, and
motivation, and in turn, experience more and deeper learning (Gay, 2002, p. 106).
The CRRE literature places emphasis on the distinguishing traits or qualities of a CRRE
teacher. For example, Ladson-Billings (1995) focuses on three aspects for CRRE: setting high
expectations, promoting cultural competence (i.e., understanding students’ communities and
home lives and encouraging students to better understand their cultures), and promoting critical
consciousness (i.e., encouraging students to notice and address oppression). Similarly, Gay
(2018) articulated that culturally responsive teaching is: validating, comprehensive and inclusive,
multidimensional, empowering, transformative, emancipatory, humanistic, and normative. To
consolidate the two strands of research, Aronson and Laughter (2016) aligned both strands along
four markers of CRRE that represent these visions for how to take a social justice approach to

32

student empowerment, learning, and motivation. These are outlined with supporting evidence
next.
CRRE Instructional Principles
Bridging Cultural Referents to Academic Skills and Concepts
One key marker of CRRE is building on the knowledge and cultural assets that students
bring with them into the classroom. In beginning to bridge cultural referents to academic skills
and concepts, it is important for the CRRE instructor to adopt an asset-based perspective. Many
educators and policy makers attribute academic failure to what students of color do not have or
cannot do, which leads them to having little confidence in their ability to succeed (Gay, 2018).
CRRE argues that to teach students of color effectively, instructors must teach through students’
personal and cultural strengths, capabilities, and prior accomplishments. Similarly, CRRE
instructors recognize, validate, affirm, and build on students’ funds of knowledge, or the
knowledge from students’ experiential lives (González et al., 2005), in order to create cultural
continuity between students’ school, home, family, and community. For example, teachers can
allow students to bring in examples of lyrics from non-offensive rap songs to discuss the
figurative and technical aspects of poetry (Ladson-Billings, 1995b). According to CRRE,
practices that build on the experiences and existing knowledge of students of color promote
empowerment, feelings of connection and self-worth, and engagement (e.g., Cholewa et al.,
2014).
Evidence for this tenet mostly comes from qualitative case studies (Aronson & Laughter,
2016), though some quantitative work exists (e.g., Bell & Clark, 1998; Bui & Fagan, 2013;
Rodriguez et al., 2004). For example, Ensign (2003) observed second, third, and fifth grade math
classrooms across two urban schools. She observed that teachers and students co-created math

33

problems that connected to students’ lives, and students wrote journal entries to connect math
situations, such as buying candy, to their own experiences. Although pre- and post-test
comparisons revealed a non-significant increase in students’ grades, individual interviews with
students and classroom observations suggested that students’ interest in the math lessons had
noticeably increased. In one of the few quantitative research studies, Byrd (2016) examined the
relationships between two culturally relevant teaching practices and academic outcomes in a
racially diverse sample of 6
th
-12
th
grade students. Results of the cross-sectional survey showed
that constructivist teaching practices (e.g., My instructors try to find what interests me; My
instructor explains what we are learning in different ways to help students learn) and cultural
engagement practices (e.g., My instructors use examples of my culture when they are teaching)
were significantly correlated with school interest and perceptions of academic competence.
Constructivist practices also correlated with school grades.
In bridging cultural referents into instructional lessons, CRRE teachers might also engage
students in social justice work (Morrison et al., 2008). This can be done through issue driven
(rather than content driven) activities that ask students to pose problems they feel are negatively
impacting their community, research and develop strategies to solve the problem, and encourage
students to resolve the problem according to their plan. For example, as part of an ethnographic
case study, Tate (1995) observed how one teacher, Ms. Mason, incorporated the problems facing
many African American communities to make mathematical learning more relevant to her
students. Middle school students selected topics to focus on, such as the AIDS epidemic, drugs,
and sickle cell anemia. One student also worked outside of the classroom to relocate liquor stores
that were within 1,000 feet of their school. Although no direct links were made to any student

34

outcomes in this study, Ms. Mason was recommended as an outstanding teacher and her
students’ success suggested the effectiveness of her implementation of CRRE.
Promoting Cultural Competence
CRRE instructors are those who view the classroom as a space where students both learn
about their own cultures and others’ cultures and develop pride in their own and others’ cultures
(Aronson & Laughter, 2016). CRRE stresses that teachers must first develop their own cultural
competence by learning about students’ homes and communities. Then, teachers should
encourage their students to understand their own and others’ cultures by promoting respect and
appreciation (Ladson-Billings, 2008). For example, as part of a 2-year qualitative study, Milner
(2011) aimed to understand the kinds of practices that typify promoting cultural competence by
working with Mr. Hall, a White science teacher in an urban middle school who taught
predominantly Black students. Mr. Hall was able to build cultural competence with his students
by creating a community of learners, being an active listener, and recognizing all the identities in
his classroom. Milner (2011) acknowledged how this teacher’s development and promotion of
cultural competence motivated his students to be actively engaged in the classroom. The benefits
of cultural competence have also been shown in Byrd’s (2016) cross-sectional survey of racially
diverse middle school students. Promoting cultural competence at the school level (e.g., At your
school, they encourage you to learn about different cultures) was significantly correlated with
school grades, interest, perceptions of competence, as well as other social outcomes, such as
racial identity exploration and awareness of racism.
Engaging in Critical Reflection
CRRE instructors are those that engage their students in critical reflection, or identifying,
questioning, and assessing personal, collective, and societal assumptions about knowledge,

35

events, and issues (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). First, teachers should reflect on their own racial and
cultural identities and recognize how these identities coexist with the cultural compositions of
their students. Then, teachers can move toward incorporating lessons, projects, experiences, and
discussions that prompt students to think about their own lives and the lives of others within a
socio-historical and political context (Howard, 2003). Support for this tenet comes from
qualitative case studies (e.g., Arce, 2004; Aronson & Laughter, 2016). For example, Dimnick
(2012) worked with Dr. Carson, a White male science instructor teaching predominantly Black
11
th
and 12
th
grade students in an urban high school. Dr. Carson took his students to a local
polluted river located in their impoverished and racially segregated city, and created space for
holistically examining the causes and effects of pollution, including reflection of students’ role in
the community. Data collected from observation and interviews revealed that students were more
engaged in the science classroom and students’ projects included elements of social, political,
and academic empowerment.
Critiquing Discourses of Power
CRRE proposes that teachers have an obligation to find ways for “students to recognize,
understand, and critique current and social inequities” (Ladson-Billings, 1995a, p. 476). As such,
CRRE teachers are emancipatory because they help their students lift “the veil of presumed
absolute authority from conceptions of scholarly truth typically taught in schools” (Gay, 2010, p.
38). First, teachers must recognize sociopolitical issues of race, class, and gender for themselves
and understand the nature and causes of these issues before incorporating them into their
teaching. Once they have done this, CRRE teachers work alongside their students to explicitly
“unmask and unmake” oppressive systems (Aronson & Laughter, 2016, p. 167) by
acknowledging societal oppression, encouraging students to notice how they relate to their

36

everyday lives, and empower students to participate in decision making (Morrison et al., 2008).
For example, as both the teacher and researcher of his 7
th
and 8
th
grade math classes, Gutstein
(2003) created math lessons centered around social issues, such as using traffic-stop data to
understand the realities of racial profiling. Using participant observation, surveys, and textual
analysis, Gutstein reported evidence of connecting math analysis to deeper critiques of previous
assumptions, which led to successful scores on tests, quizzes, projects, and classwork for 27 of
28 students. Through the development of this sociopolitical (Gay, 2018), or critical
consciousness (Ladson-Billings,1995a), students were more engaged in math and experienced
greater learning. Evidence for the importance of critiquing discourses of power was also found in
Byrd’s (2016) cross-sectional survey study, in which promotion of critical consciousness (e.g., In
your classes you have learned about how race/ethnicity plays a role in who is successful) was
significantly correlated with students’ school grades, interest, perceptions of competence, racial
identity exploration, and awareness of racism.
The State of Existing Research on CRRE
Strengths of CRRE Research
CRRE research and theory takes a constructivist approach to teaching practice and
research. As such, there is an abundance of qualitative case studies that show what CRRE
teaching looks like, many of which include classroom observations and interviews with teachers
and/or their students (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Morrison et al., 2008; Ware, 2006). These
portraits of instructors that have successfully enacted CRRE are useful tools that can help
instructors understand this approach to teaching and how they might integrate it into their own
practice. Moreover, in-depth case studies have also been useful for illuminating barriers that
teachers experience as they try to enact CRRE, and how those issues can be addressed (e.g.,

37

Thomas & Williams, 2008). For example, in a case study of math teachers, Leonard and
colleagues (2009) found that teachers make inaccurate assumptions about what might be relevant
to their students. This finding led the researchers to prompt the teachers to question and think
beyond their assumptions in order to help them better adopt a CRRE approach to their
instruction.
Weaknesses & Gaps in CRRE Research
A significant limitation of the research on CRRE is that far too little of it systematically
documents its impact on student learning and other metrics of student success (Sleeter, 2012).
Aronson and Laughter (2016) conducted a systematic review of over 40 published studies and
dissertations that connect CRRE to positive student outcomes, such as achievement,
empowerment, agency, and motivation. Of those, almost all were qualitative case studies, many
of which contained relatively weak connections to student outcomes. For example, as previously
reviewed, the only connection to positive student outcomes in Tate (1995) was that the teacher
enacting CRRE in the math classroom had an excellent reputation and her students were
described as successful. Only four of the studies reviewed in Aronson and Laughter’s review
used pre- and-post tests to measure changes in student outcomes (Bui & Fagan, 2013; Hubert,
2013; Nykiel-Herbert, 2010; Rodriguez et al., 2004), and only one compared the teaching in the
CRRE program with a matched program. In Bui and Fagan (2013), researchers compared a
reading intervention that used multicultural literature with one that used traditional literature, and
results revealed no significant differences in students’ reading comprehension, word recognition,
or story retell. Through the use of qualitative case studies, it is not possible to determine whether
the observations in positive student experiences and learning were due to the teacher’s use of
CRRE practices or any other factor, such as other aspects of the teachers’ practice, the school

38

culture, classroom dynamics, or time (Byrd, 2016). Ultimately, there is a need for CRRE
research to grow in assessment and evaluation so that appropriate intervention techniques and
strategies can be designed to promote student success (Howard & Rodriguez-Minkoff, 2017).
One recent study has shown promising results. As part of a dissertation, Thomas (2019)
investigated the effectiveness of an intervention designed to introduce CRRE instructional
practices to 3 first-year teachers across two, two-hour training sessions. Using classroom
observation, findings showed that teachers had modified their practice and more frequently
demonstrated CRRE behaviors with their students than they did before the intervention. Data
collected from student questionnaires showed that students across classrooms reported increased
classroom engagement and stronger relationships with their teachers, in addition to feeling more
valued and included in the classroom, from before to after their teachers participated in the
intervention. The major drawback of the study, however, was that only the data from 21 Latino
male students were analyzed and reported, despite having collected data from all students of
teachers who had participated in the study. Moreover, it would have been ideal to compare the
intervention effects against a control group.
A second limitation of the research is that there is a need to clarify what CRRE is within
a given study. Morrison, Robbins, and Rose (2008) synthesized 45 classroom-based studies and
classified 12 kinds of actions that CRRE teachers do into three broad categories, based on
Ladson-Billings’ (1995a) theoretical framework: high expectations, cultural competence, and
critical consciousness. They found that none of the 45 studies depicted all 12 instructional
practices, although each study depicted several of them. This is significant, as researchers,
practitioners, and policy makers try to understand and develop best practices for enacting CRRE
and assess the benefits based on these reports. Along the same lines, there is a need to test the

39

basic theoretical tenets (and mechanisms) of CRRE. That is, the effectiveness of CRRE is often
evaluated in conjunction with several instructional practices but it is unclear which practices, or
combination of practices, promote student success, and under what conditions (e.g., are there
factors that can undermine or bolster the benefits of some of the CRRE practices?).
Other limitations of the current state of the CRRE literature include: a dearth of research
conducted with college or adult samples, and an overemphasis on the perspectives of teachers
and researchers, rather than the students’ perspectives. Given that most the research was based
on case studies, researchers generally selected teachers that had a reputation for being good
teachers and enacted CRRE practices into their instruction. Data collected often includes
classroom observation and interviews with the teachers, with less emphasis on interviews or
other data collected with students (Byrd, 2016).
CRRE and Autonomy Support: The Potential for Integration
Overlap
The CRRE theoretical perspectives and research share many underlying features with
those on supporting autonomy from SDT. First, both research literatures acknowledge that
students come into the classroom with natural resources for learning. SDT describes these
resources in terms of psychological needs, curiosity, and intrinsic motivation, whereas CRRE
conceptualizes these as students’ personal and cultural strengths and funds of knowledge.
Second, both frameworks put the onus on the teacher to tap into those natural resources in their
instructional practice to effectively teach their students. Third, across both frameworks, an
effective strategy for tapping into students’ natural resources is to promote meaning and
relevance. From a SDT perspective, instructors can do this by providing rationales for why
something may be useful or important, or creating activities that allow students to connect what

40

they are learning to their own lives. CRRE emphasizes integrating aspects of students’ home and
community values in order to validate students’ cultural background and align to students’
cultural modes of learning. Fourth, both frameworks highlight the importance of instructors co-
constructing learning activities with their students. Autonomy supportive instructors ask students
about their preferences, offer them choices, and carefully listen to their thoughts and concerns as
they work together to design interesting and personally-relevant activities. CRRE instructors may
assign justice-oriented projects and allow student projects to take a variety of forms (e.g., songs,
videos, spoken-word, petitions).
Fifth, both perspectives include the importance of instructor self-awareness. Instructors
that aspire to be autonomy supportive are those who reflect on their interactions with their
students in order to improve their practice and interpersonal approach (e.g., did I get defensive
when students expressed that they didn’t like today’s lab activity? Were students trying to insult
me as a teacher? Or were they giving me valuable feedback to help me improve the way I’m
teaching this topic so that they could engage and learn better?), whereas instructors who aspire to
take a CRRE approach to their practice reflect on their racial, ethnic, gender, and class identities
and their potential biases (i.e., Given that I grew up in a white, middle class home and
community, how did my background inform my assumptions about science? What does my
background mean in terms of how I should engage with my low-income racially diverse
students?). Overall, both autonomy support and CRRE take a student-centered approach to
learning.
Divergences
SDT and CRRE differ in their conceptualizations of autonomy. SDT considers
autonomy—the extent to which actions emanate from the self—as an internal experience and a

41

basic psychological need that, when satisfied, supports the motivation, growth, and well-being of
the individual (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In contrast, CRRE scholars describe autonomy more in
terms of environmental opportunity, as the extent to which a person can shape and determine the
course of their own lives (Jones, 2006). This conception of autonomy is aligned with the idea of
empowerment, and is often understood and situated within the context of societal hegemony
(Heroux et al., 2014; Kumar et al., 2018). Essentially, societal structures are designed to
reproduce social inequalities by disproportionately tracking racial minority students into low-
quality schools and low-paying jobs, and White students into high-quality schools and fulfilling
careers (e.g., executives, business owners). This primarily occurs through socialization, such that
low-quality schools emphasize obedience, staying on task, and following directions (e.g., work is
evaluated based on whether it follows the right steps, rather than whether it is right or wrong);
whereas high-quality schools emphasize critical thinking (e.g., encouraging creative ways to
solve problems), deep conceptual understanding, and negotiation (Anyon, 2011). Cultural
hegemony also emerges as dominant (Eurocentric) values and perspectives are upheld while
those of racial minorities are silenced (Kumar et al., 2018). As such, developing autonomy from
a CRRE perspective involves creating transformative classroom spaces that allow students to
succeed academically, question and critique assumptions, find their voice, and build their self-
confidence so that they can construct their own realities (Gay, 2018; Heroux et al., 2014; Kumar
et al., 2018). The goal of acquiring a sense of autonomy is to have the power and responsibility
to take actions that lead to individual and societal changes (Ladson-Billings, 1995b).
There are many definitions of culture (Condon & LaBrack, 2015), and these definitions
typically include characteristics and knowledge of particular groups of people, including values,
languages, beliefs, norms, and social habits. Essentially, culture is the way groups of people live

42

and think (King, 1997). Although these definitions are shared by both CRRE and motivation
researchers, the way culture is operationalized varies across the two literatures. SDT and other
motivation theories tend to take a person-in-context approach, such that behavior is shaped or
influenced by aspects of the broader environment. Under study, this typically involves the
investigation of microlevel factors such as the nature of instruction, tasks, interpersonal
environments, and the school climate (Gray, 2018; Kumar et al., 2018; Linnenbrink-Garcia &
Patall, 2016). Motivation researchers do consider macrolevel factors as well, as evidenced by
growing literatures on examining cross-cultural differences in motivational processes. In these
studies, cultural differences are tested by comparing specific countries or ethnic groups (e.g.,
Church et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2015; Nalipay et al., 2020) to understand the extent to which
motivation patterns can be generalized. One critique of this approach to culture, however, is that
it often fails to take into account how different systems (e.g., activities, relationships, racism)
interact in the everyday experiences of students in the classroom (Kumar et al., 2018).
Alternatively, a fundamental assumption of CRRE is that all learning is culturally
grounded (Gay, 2018). Scholars emphasize the importance of building on students’ cultural
strengths, developing cultural competence, and questioning discourses of power as imperative
for learning and development (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Whereas SDT and other motivation
theories study culture in terms of shared norms, values, and ethnicity, CRRE focuses on race,
and by extension, issues of oppression, racism, inequity, and power. Using constructivist
methodologies, they document how culture interacts with the daily schooling experiences of
students of color, especially considering their sociopolitical realities within an ecosystem of
cultural hegemony and racism (Kumar et al., 2018). However, the scope and vision of this
approach makes these interactions difficult to test. Therefore, CRRE’s explicit focus on race in

43

the operationalization of culture (as well as its constructivist epistemological stance) sets it apart
from SDT and other motivation theories.
From a SDT perspective, instructors can support students’ sense of autonomy in the
classroom by offering choices, rationales, and considering students’ interests, preferences,
values, and goals, among other practices. In general, extensive research has demonstrated the
benefits of these practices for students’ psychological need satisfaction, motivation, and
achievement (Reeve & Cheon, 2021). However, the literature on supporting autonomy rarely
acknowledges the cultural basis of personal interests, preferences, and goals. Without an explicit
connection, these practices may not be tapping into the culturally valued aspects of the self for
students of color. On the other hand, CRRE scholars advocate for making cultural referents
during class activities and instruction, such as connecting chemistry topics to cooking traditional
Mexican cuisine, in order to cultivate meaning and subsequent learning (Gay, 2018). Moreover,
an additional criticism of autonomy supportive practices may be that they are restricted to the
classroom context and therefore too separated from students’ family, community, and societal
realities (Kumar et al., 2018). For example, the question of whether choices are actually choices
arises for CRRE scholars. That is, if students of color exist in a schooling system that sets them
up to fail, and they subsequently disidentify with academics, is the choice to not pursue
education truly self-determined (Crocker & Major, 1989; Osborne, 1997; Steele, 1992)? CRRE
scholars promote the importance of developing students’ critical consciousness (Ladson-Billings,
1995) so that they can make informed decisions within the broader sociopolitical context.
Integrating Autonomy Support and CRRE
The literatures on supporting autonomy and CRRE share some commonalities, and while
they also differ in important ways, there is a potential for integrating aspects of these frameworks

44

to promote student success, particularly for racially and ethnically diverse students. In their
review of the achievement motivation literature and CRRE, Kumar, Zusho, and Blondie (2018)
stated:
We believe it would be beneficial if CRRE and motivation scholars were to
jointly study creating culturally relevant, autonomy-supportive learning
environments for all students, examining the long-term impact of such
environments on students’ critical-thinking skills, with a focus on sociopolitical
consciousness (p. 88).

Moreover, there have been growing calls for motivation research to “race re-image” traditional
constructs using a sociocultural lens. Race re-imaging involves “understanding how sociocultural
perspectives can be applied to traditional constructs” (DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2016, p. 248). I
aim to race re-image autonomy support using CRRE, which involves sociocultural and asset-
based perspectives. As such, the present study is a response to these calls to race re-image
motivation constructs and represents an initial step to explore areas of integration between
research on supporting autonomy and CRRE.
Theoretically, autonomy supportive teaching could benefit from an explicit focus on
culture. SDT proposes that students have a natural tendency to internalize some values and ways
of behaving from their social environment into the self, as acquired motivations (Ryan & Deci,
2009). However, part of the self includes cultural values that may be at odds with the broader
social environment, and therefore, internalization of societally valued behaviors may create
tension for students of color from diverse backgrounds, particularly when those behaviors
require negating or minimizing culturally valued aspects of the self (Kumar et al., 2018).
Therefore, internalization for students of color may be bolstered by appealing to their culturally-
specific valued behaviors, norms, and practices. By supporting autonomy in a culturally-

45

conscious way, students of color may benefit from developing a more integrated, autonomous
motivation for class concepts and activities.
By comparison, the suggested instructional practices from SDT currently have a stronger
case for improving student success and other related outcomes (e.g., student-teacher relationship
quality) compared to CRRE, given the use of carefully-designed experiments, randomized
controlled field trials, and longitudinal studies involving isolation and testing of specific
variables (e.g., Jang et al., 2012; Patall et al., 2018b, Reeve & Cheon, 2021). One strategy may
be to weave CRRE ideas and goals into the evidence-based autonomy supportive instructional
practices. To study this, each instructional practice was considered and applied in light of the
goals and suggestions from CRRE scholars. For example, an autonomy supportive teaching
recommendation involves being open to student questions of tasks, activities, and concepts, but a
culturally conscious autonomy supportive teaching approach could extend this instructional
practice to being open to student questioning and criticism of broader sociopolitical discourses
and conceptions of scholarly truth. Likewise, the autonomy support recommendation to provide
rationales for why something is important to learn may be enhanced by highlighting why
concepts are important to learn for helping students’ family or community, or for advancing
broader social justice goals. Practically, the integration of these ideas could be introduced to
instructors using a similar format to traditional autonomy support interventions (e.g., workshops;
presenting each instructional practice with examples of how to implement it). Table 1 lists each
autonomy support practice, a definition of that practice from SDT, how the practice might be
extended to integrate CRRE principles, and the specific CRRE principle that it connects to (i.e.,
bridging cultural referents, cultivating cultural competence, engaging in critical reflection, and
critiquing discourses of power).

46

Table 1
Integrating SDT and CRRE Instructional Practices.
Instructional
Practice
SDT Practice Integrated CRRE Practice
Connections to
CRRE Principles
Autonomy Supporting
Choices Allowing students to participate
in decision making related to
how, on what, and at what pace
they work.
Allowing students to participate in
decision making related to which
topics are most relevant to
students’ culture, community, or
social justice issues.
Bridging cultural
referents; building
cultural competence
Rationales Providing (or creating
opportunities for students to
identify) an explanation for why
putting forth effort or learning
about a course topic may be
useful, important, or interesting.
Providing (or creating
opportunities for students to
identify) an explanation for how
course topics are useful for
helping others, including one’s
family and community.
Bridging cultural
referents; building
cultural
competence; critical
reflection
Student interests
& perspectives
Considering students’ opinions,
preferences, and interests for
classroom tasks and activities.
Considering and learning about
students’ home life, culture, and
unique life experiences.
Bridging cultural
referents; building
cultural competence
Question
opportunities
Providing opportunities for
students to ask questions and
being responsive to those
questions.
Being open to student questioning
of events, conceptions of scholarly
truth, and the status quo.
Critiquing
discourses of power;
critical reflection
Consideration of
negative affect
Acknowledging and accepting
students’ negative feelings about
course content and tasks.
Acknowledging and being
sensitive to students’ broader
family, community, and current
events that may be negatively
impacting students from diverse
backgrounds.
Building cultural
competence; critical
reflection
Autonomy Thwarting
Suppression of
expression
Suppression of student opinions,
preferences, questions, or
criticisms about course tasks and
activities; does not acknowledge
their mistakes.
Suppression of different cultural
perspectives; non-reflective about
their own biases.
Building cultural
competence; critical
reflection; critiquing
discourses of power
Forcing
meaningless
activities
Compelling students to complete
boring, mundane, or meaningless
activities.
Compelling students to complete
tasks that are not perceived to be
culturally relevant; lack of
multiple cultural perspectives.
Bridging cultural
referents; Building
cultural competence
Controlling
messages
Using controlling language to
get students to think and act the
“right” way; using an excessive
number of inflexible directives
and commands.
Conveying implicit messages
about speaking, acting, and
learning in Eurocentric ways, or
ways that diverge from one’s
authentic self.
Building cultural
competence; critical
reflection

Integrating SDT autonomy supportive teaching and CRRE in this way may have potential
benefits. The underlying autonomy support practices already have strong evidence for promoting
student success, but research with racially and ethnically diverse students has been limited. With

47

the addition of CRRE, this integrated race re-imaged approach to supporting autonomy may
enable instruction to capitalize on the full self of racially and ethnically diverse students. As
such, this approach may take a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to supporting the
autonomy and success of all students, especially those from groups who have been traditionally
marginalized. On the other hand, the costs of integration should also be considered. Instructors
learning about autonomy support and CRRE may experience confusion as they learn about both
at the same time. Additionally, CRRE scholars state that instructors must first reflect and learn
about themselves and their students’ cultures and communities, as well as broader sociopolitical
issues (Ladson-Billings, 1995a). As such, instructors learning to take a culturally conscious
approach to supporting autonomy will likely have to put forth more time and effort on preparing
lessons and activities (Barron et al., 2021), compared to instructors who tend to adopt a more
traditional autonomy supportive instructional style.
Integrating Autonomy Support and CRRE at the College Level
Extensive research suggests that the benefits of supporting autonomy seem to be
applicable across students from all ages, from preschool to graduate school (e.g., Koestner et al.,
1984; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004). However, the research on CRRE has largely been conducted in
K-12 settings. This limitation on the state of the CRRE literature prompts questions about
whether CRRE can be implemented in college settings and produce benefits among adult
learners. Although research is limited, two recent studies suggest that CRRE instructional
principles may be applied to undergraduate college students.
First, Barron and colleagues (2021) conducted a qualitative study on how teaching
assistants (TAs) in undergraduate biology laboratories enacted CRRE after participating in
CRRE training sessions. Using data from TA reflection exercises, classroom observations,

48

interviews, and focus groups, Barron et al. found that TAs enacted CRRE through connecting to
students’ funds of knowledge, differentiating instruction, intentionally scaffolding, and reducing
student anxiety. As an example of funds of knowledge (Part of the CRRE principle: Bridging
cultural referents to academic skills and concepts in this study), the researchers observed that one
TA encouraged students to bring in their past experiences and household knowledges by asking
them to think about their lab work in relation to their own lives. The TA asked students, “does
your family—or your household or friends—do anything specific to keep food from spoiling?”
which generated a lot of discussion among students. Importantly, although TAs engaged in
training and discussions about making connections to sociopolitical consciousness, Barron and
colleagues noted few enactments of this instructional practice, if any. Overall, this study suggests
that college instructors may be trained to enact CRRE instructional practices in their classes.
Second, as part of a recent mixed-methods dissertation study, Mgonja (2021) investigated
how mathematics learning modules that incorporated CRRE instructional principles supported
undergraduate students’ mathematics learning. Using pre- and post-test measures, findings
revealed that most participants demonstrated performance gains, with students of color
demonstrating greater performance gains than White participants. Qualitative interviews with
participants revealed that students identified the presence of culture, critical consciousness, and
other aspects of CRRE as the most effective aspects of the modules. In addition, Mgonja
reported that students of color were more likely than White participants to discuss increased
feelings of motivation and engagement, feelings of being listened to and included in the learning
process, a connection to the instructor through similar perspectives, and reduced fears of being
judged; whereas White participants had a higher curiosity (compared to students of color) toward
better understanding the social issues presented in the CRRE modules. Although this research

49

suggests that CRRE may be effective for promoting learning and motivation among
undergraduate students, particularly students of color, there were two major limitations of the
study that should be weighed: the total sample size of the study included only 19 students, and
the inference of CRRE producing positive outcomes would be strengthened with the inclusion of
a control group and random assignment to conditions.
Put together, although research is limited, the literature suggests that CRRE may be
compatible with college teaching and the instructional practices that support the motivation of
college students (Sealey-Ruiz, 2007).

50

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS
Despite considerable overlap between autonomy supportive instruction and culturally
relevant and responsive education, there has been little consideration in the literature about the
potential benefits of integrating these frameworks in theory, research, and practice. Due to the
scant body of research on this topic, this study examined the extent to which these two
frameworks could be integrated to promote student success, particularly among students of color.
For the purposes of this study, students of color were defined as students who identified as
Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaska Native, Latino/Hispanic,
Asian/Asian American, or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. BIPOC students were those who identified
as Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaska Native, or Latino/Hispanic.
Using a cross-sectional survey design in university social science courses, this study investigated
the following research questions:
1. To what extent are traditional SDT autonomy supportive instruction and integrated
CRRE autonomy support distinct and/or correlated?
2. To what extent does integrated CRRE autonomy support explain variability in motivation
outcomes, after accounting for traditional SDT autonomy supportive practices?
Hypotheses
For research question one, I hypothesized that integrated CRRE instructional practices
would be different from the ASI practices, yet the two will also be interrelated. In line with this
prediction, I anticipated that across all 8 practices a correlated factors solution would fit the data
best. I would also expect there to be a strong correlation (r = .5-.6) between the two factors. This
would indicate that the two approaches are unique, but they are highly related. As a secondary
hypothesis, a bifactor solution may also fit the data well, given that the two factors are different

51

(i.e., from different frameworks) yet they share some communality (i.e., providing choices).
However, I do not expect for a single factor solution to fit the data best, given that this would
mean that the integrated CRRE practices and the SDT practices are the same and there may not
be any utility for taking a race-reimaged approach to supporting autonomy. For research question
two, I hypothesized that the integrated CRRE instructional practices would predict motivation
outcomes, over and above traditional SDT practices. Moreover, I expected that the effects of
integrated CRRE practices on motivation outcomes may be strongest among students of color.
This hypothesis is informed from the literature and observation that teaching and instruction in
the U.S. is already culturally-relevant for White students, yet students of color stand to benefit
from a shift to teaching and instruction that incorporates their values, interests, and goals (Gay,
2018). Overall, the underlying anticipation of this study was that students experience greater
levels of motivation when instructors implement teaching practices that integrate principles of
both autonomy support and CRRE.
Methods
I developed a new scale that measures the extent to which students perceive their
instructors to be using a CRRE approach to supporting their students’ autonomy. Preliminary
data collection and analysis consisted of cognitive interviews to elicit thoughts about the
questionnaire items in the population of interest (i.e., undergraduate students in social science
classes) to identify problems and support the content validity of the questionnaire. To address the
main research questions, I collected and analyzed quantitative data. I collected cross-sectional
data from participants via a questionnaire that was administered towards the latter half of the Fall
2022 semester. The questionnaire included Likert items about college students’ perceptions of
their instructors’ use of autonomy support practices from SDT, use of integrated CRRE

52

practices, psychological need satisfaction, engagement, instructor trust, and sense of
empowerment.
Preliminary Qualitative Component
Sample
Twenty-one undergraduate students (15 women, 5 men, 1 non-binary; 10 identified as
Asian, 4 as Black/African American, 4 as Latino/Hispanic, 3 as White; age range: 19-21) were
recruited to participate in a semi-structured cognitive interview. Students were recruited from a
private four-year university through the psychology subject pool in exchange for 1 hour of credit
for participation. Because instructional practices can vary depending on the domain (e.g., physics
vs. sociology) and medium (in-person vs. online), I constrained the scope of the study so that
only those students who were currently enrolled in a social science class that meets in-person
were eligible. Students were selected based on race and ethnicity in order to make sure that
students from diverse backgrounds were interpreting the questionnaire items in the same way.
Procedure
In Fall 2021 and early Spring 2022, undergraduate students participated in an audio-
recorded 60-minute interview via Zoom. First, students were asked to select an in-person social
science class that they were currently enrolled in to discuss. Students were asked to read items
from the CRRE questionnaire; see Appendix A for the interview protocol and Appendix B for
the initial CRRE questionnaire items). For each item, they were be asked what the item is asking,
what option they would select, and why. Audio files from the interviews were transcribed for
analysis. The purpose of the qualitative interview data was to ensure that the CRRE
questionnaire fully reflects students’ perspectives of their instructors’ motivating practice and
that items were acceptable, comprehensive, and aligned with CRRE. Observations from the

53

interviews were used to inform the revision of the questionnaire items. I conducted 3 iterations of
interviewing followed by reviewing the transcripts and revising the items depending on how
participants were interpreting the items.
Quantitative Survey Component
Sample
Five hundred and ninety-five undergraduate students were recruited to participate in the
study (Gender: 67.1% women, 30.8% men, 1.7 non-binary, 0.5% missing; Race/ethnicity: 32.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander, 23.7% White/European American, 20.5% Latino/Hispanic, 9.3%
Multiracial, 7.2% Black/African American, 4.5% Middle Eastern, 1% Other, 0.8% Missing,
0.2% Native American; Age: 89.9% 18-22 years old, 8.6% > 22 years old, 1.5% missing). In
order to be eligible for the study, students were required to be currently enrolled in a social
science class that met in-person (i.e., fully in-person or hybrid). Four hundred fifty-nine students
were recruited from a private four-year university through the psychology subject pool in
exchange for 0.5 course credits. Forty-three students were recruited from the same university by
email outreach to instructors and teaching assistants, requesting them to forward a recruitment
email to their students. An additional 98 students were recruited from public four-year
universities that served higher proportions of students of color. These were also recruited via
email outreach to instructors, requesting them to forward a recruitment email to their students.
As an incentive, non-subject pool participants received $10.
The decision to sample undergraduate students from public universities, in addition to
subject pool participants from a private university, was made for two reasons. First, student
responses about diverse classrooms (and instructors) may be beneficial for explaining which
types of instructional practices and interaction styles explain the most variance in student

54

motivation and engagement. Second, the private university had a large proportion of Asian and
White students, and the selected public universities had a large proportion of other students of
color students. By using this sampling approach, I ensured that students from diverse racial and
ethnic groups were represented, and results may be compared across groups.
Procedure
In Fall 2022, students completed an online questionnaire (see Appendix C). Participants
were asked to enter the name of an in-person social science class that they were currently
enrolled in and wanted to report their experiences on. They were informed to think about that
course when responding to questions. Participants responded to items measuring their
perceptions of instructor autonomy support, perceptions of instructor use of CRRE practices,
psychological need satisfaction, engagement, sense of empowerment, instructor trust, and current
course grade. Demographic information and covariates (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, GPA) were
collected.
Measures
The online questionnaire consisted of measures that captured students’ perceptions of
instructor autonomy support practices, students’ perceptions of instructor use of integrated
CRRE practices, and educational outcomes, including psychological need satisfaction,
engagement, sense of empowerment, and instructor trust. Though by no means mutually
exclusive, psychological need satisfaction and engagement are motivational outcomes that of are
of import from a self-deterministic perspective, whereas teacher trust and a sense of
empowerment are emphasized in the CRRE literature. The measures described below were
selected based on their prior use in empirical studies and their theoretical alignment with self-
determination theory and CRRE. Refer to Appendix C for the questionnaire.

55

Student Perceptions of Instructor Autonomy Support Practices. Students reported on
their perceptions of instructor use of autonomy supporting and thwarting practices that have been
demonstrated to (positively or negatively) impact student success (Patall & Zambrano, 2020),
including (1) providing choice opportunities, (2) providing rationales, (3) incorporating student
interests and perspectives, (4) providing question opportunities, (5) consideration for negative
affect, (6) suppression of student expression, (7) forcing uninteresting activities, and (8) use of
controlling messages. These subscales of autonomy supportive and thwarting instructional
practices from SDT were adapted from Patall et al. (2017) and Assor et al. (2002). The number
of items per subscale were reduced by selecting those that loaded highly onto the factor and
those that coincided with practices that we might expect in the typical college classroom (versus
in middle and high school, from which these measures were developed). See Table 2 for sample
items.
Given that Research Question 1 involves use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for
these scales, the psychometrics for the finalized autonomy support scales from SDT are reported
in the Results Section. Changes were made to these scales after examining model fit (see
Appendix E for finalized scales).
Student perceptions of Instructor Use of Integrated CRRE Practices. As shown in
Table 2, each of these subscales were re-imaged to integrate CRRE practices that resemble and
extend the autonomy supportive practice. In creating these CRRE items to integrate with each
autonomy supportive practice from SDT, I reflected on the CRRE literature and what it might
mean for each autonomy supportive practice to be done in a ‘culturally-relevant’ way. In other
words, I considered how the practice could be enhanced in a way that takes an asset-based
perspective and honors students’ ways of knowing, being, and existing in a learning

56

environment. In addition, I drew inspiration or adapted from culturally responsive teaching
measurement scales (Dickson et al., 2016; Larson et al, 2018; Rhodes, 2017; Whitaker &
Valtierra, 2018). Table 2 includes information about sample items for each instructional practice.
In order to improve the validity of the integrated CRRE scale items, I reviewed the
transcripts from the cognitive interviews. After reviewing how participants were interpreting the
questions, I engaged in 3 rounds of revising the items in order to ensure that the items were in
line with student experiences in the classroom and that they were making sense of the items in
ways that were consistent with how I conceptualized them in the present study.
One of the most common issues observed through the interviews was with the “forcing
meaningless activities” items. An example item was “My instructor forces me participate in
discussions that do not incorporate multiple cultural perspectives.” Students were consistently
rating these items as “1 – never” because, while they believed that they could have felt forced to
participate in grade school, they said that they were now in college and believed that the
instructor did not have the power to force them to do anything. Given this, the word “force” was
removed or replaced from both the CRRE and SDT items for this practice. Other edits included
adding a word or rephrasing in order to converge on interpretations. For example, for
encouraging storytelling I added the word “personal”—that is, encouraging personal
storytelling— in order to convey the type of storytelling in which students incorporate
experiences from their daily lives, values, and goals into the classroom discussions. Finally, I
also added new items based on how the students interpreted other items within the same scale.
For example, for providing rationales, one student had mentioned that they believed their teacher
connected learning topics to their community when they encouraged their students to share what
they were learning in the classroom with their friends and family. Given this, I added the item

57

“My instructor encourages students to share useful information that may benefit our friends,
family, and community.”
The measurement scales that went into the questionnaire are presented in Appendix C.
Because Research Question 1 involved use of confirmatory factor analysis for these scales, the
psychometrics for the finalized integrated CRRE scales are reported in the Results Section.
Additionally, because these were new scales that were being developed, changes were made to
these scales after examining model fit. See Tables 6.1 and 6.2 in Appendix E for the finalized
scales.
Table 2
Measurement of Integrated CRRE Practices.
SDT practices CRRE practices
Practice Sample Item Sample Item
Supporting
Choices
1
My instructor provides options for
course assignments or activities.

My instructor provides me with
choices and options to engage with
issues that concern my family,
community, and/or culture.
Student interests &
perspectives
1

My instructor takes my preferences
into consideration for assignments.

My instructor listens to my lived
experience and perspective.
Rationales
1

My instructor explains how what we
are learning is important.

My instructor connects what we are
learning to issues in the community.
Question
opportunities
1

My instructor provides opportunities
for me to ask questions.

My instructor provides students with
space to cast their doubts,
skepticism, or critiques about what
is being taught.
Consideration of
negative affect
1

My instructor is open to hearing
criticism or complaints about
activities.

My instructor is empathetic to the
issues or challenges that students
from diverse backgrounds are
facing.
Thwarting
Suppression of
expression
2
My instructor stops me from
expressing my opinions in class.

My instructor does not acknowledge
their own biases.
Forcing meaningless
activities
2

My instructor forces me to do
uninteresting assignments.

My instructor facilitates lectures and
discussions that do not incorporate
multiple cultural perspectives.
Controlling messages
1

The language my instructor uses
includes how I “should” or “ought”
to do things.

My instructor makes me feel like I
have to speak in a certain way in
class.
Notes.
1
Scale adapted from Patall et al. (2017).
2
Scale adapted from Assor et al., 2002. Students responded using a
Likert scale: never (1); rarely (2); sometimes (3); very often (4), always (5).

58

Rationale. As described above, in creating the integrated CRRE measures, I began with
practices from the SDT literature first, and then developed additional items that enhanced the
practices using a CRRE lens. The reasons for beginning with SDT practices as a starting point
are two-fold. First, in contrast to CRRE, there is extensive research that has demonstrated the
link between these instructional practices and student autonomy through diverse and robust
methods of inquiry, including laboratory and field tested experiments. Second, autonomy support
is conceptualized as a personal interaction style while CRRE is broader, encompassing personal
interaction styles, curriculum decisions, and more (Gay, 2018). To examine integration, it would
be best to focus on those aspects of CRRE that are related to autonomy support versus the
reverse, because autonomy support does not focus on curriculum.
Psychological Need Satisfaction. Students’ autonomy (3 items; e.g., In class, I feel free),
competence (3 items; e.g., In class, I feel successful on tasks and projects), and relatedness (3
items; e.g., I feel connected with people in class) need satisfaction were assessed using the
Activity-Feeling States scale (Reeve & Sickenius, 1994). Students rated the extent to which they
agreed or disagreed with each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree
to (5) agree. As shown in Table 3, a three-factor CFA with the three psychological needs
subscales showed good model fit. Moreover, multigroup invariance tests indicated that the
subscales were invariant across racial/ethnic groupings (i.e., BIPOC, Asian, White). See Table
6.3 in Appendix E for the factor loadings.
Engagement. Students’ engagement was assessed using four subscales from three
measures. Behavioral engagement (5 items; e.g., I pay attention in my class) and emotional
engagement (5 items; e.g., My class is fun) were measured with subscales from the Engagement

59

versus Disaffection with Learning Student Report (Skinner et al., 2009). Cognitive engagement
was measured with items focused on the use of learning strategies adapted from the
Table 3
CFAs and Multigroup Invariance Tests Across BIPOC, Asian, & White Students
Model CFI RMSEA SRMR χ
2
df Δ χ
2
Δ df p
Psychological Need Satisfaction (3 factors: autonomy, competence, relatedness)
Configural 0.95 0.09 0.07 171.07 72
Metric 0.95 0.08 0.08 190.34 84 18.27 12 0.11
Scalar 0.95 0.08 0.08 204.63 96 12.80 12 0.38
Agentic Engagement
Configural 1.00 0.01 0.02 6.13 6
Metric 0.99 0.04 0.06 16.20 12 10.42 6 0.11
Scalar 0.98 0.05 0.08 26.35 18 10.42 6 0.11
Behavioral Engagement
Configural 0.82 0.21 0.08 134.06 15
Metric 0.81 0.17 0.12 147.03 23 17.88 8 0.02
Scalar 0.79 0.16 0.13 170.65 31 16.46 8 0.04
Emotional Engagement
Configural 0.99 0.06 0.03 26.05 15
Metric 0.99 0.05 0.06 33.63 23 7.15 8 0.52
Scalar 0.98 0.05 0.07 42.94 31 8.76 8 0.36
Cognitive Engagement
Configural 0.99 0.07 0.02 10.91 6
Metric 1.00 0.03 0.05 13.82 12 2.30 6 0.89
Scalar 1.00 0.00 0.06 17.59 18 2.62 6 0.86
Engagement (3 factors: Agentic, Emotional, Cognitive)
Configural 0.93 0.07 0.06 341.29 186
Metric 0.93 0.06 0.08 360.27 206 19.34 20 0.50
Scalar 0.93 0.06 0.08 384.31 226 21.94 20 0.34
Sense of Empowerment (6 items)
Configural 0.86 0.14 0.06 120.43 27
Metric 0.84 0.12 0.09 140.36 37 20.15 10 0.03
Scalar 0.82 0.12 0.09 162.65 47 19.81 10 0.03
Instructor Trust (5 items)
Configural 0.97 0.09 0.04 35.52 15
Metric 0.95 0.09 0.15 53.81 23 18.33 8 0.02
Scalar 0.94 0.08 0.17 70.76 31 16.27 8 0.04
Sense of Empowerment (3 items) + Instructor Trust (3 items)
Configural 0.99 0.05 0.03 33.50 24
Metric 0.98 0.05 0.10 44.40 32 10.95 8 0.20
Scalar 0.97 0.05 0.12 60.36 40 16.80 8 0.03

60

Metacognitive Strategies Questionnaire (4 items; Wolters, 2004; e.g., When I study for my class,
I try to connect what I am learning with my own experiences). Agentic engagement was
measured with the Agentic Engagement Scale (5 items; Reeve, 2013; e.g., During my class, I
express my preferences and opinions). For all engagement items, students rated the extent to
which they agreed or disagreed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5)
agree. As shown in Table 3, confirmatory factor analyses showed good model fit for agentic
engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement. Multigroup invariance tests
indicated that the emotional and cognitive scales were invariant across racial/ethnic groupings,
but agentic engagement was not. After dropping 1 item (AEG4) the agentic engagement scale
was invariant. However, acceptable model fit could not be established for behavioral
engagement, so behavioral engagement was dropped in subsequent analyses. A three-factor
(agentic, emotional, cognitive) CFA indicated good model fit and invariance across racial/ethnic
groupings. See Table 6.3 in Appendix E for the final scale items and factor loadings.
Empowerment. Students’ sense of empowerment in the class was measured with the
impact subscale of the Learner Empowerment Scale (Weber et al., 2005). A sample item
includes “I have the power to make a difference in how things are done in this class.” Three
additional self-created items (e.g., “I have the power to create a supportive learning environment
for myself and others in this class”) were considered for inclusion in the scale. Students rated the
extent to which they agree or disagree with each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1)
strongly disagree to (5) agree. As shown in Table 3, a confirmatory factor analysis indicated poor
model fit. After running exploratory analysis, I retained 3 items to form the empowerment scale.
Multigroup invariance tests indicated that the scale was variant across racial/ethnic groupings
(i.e., BIPOC, Asian, White). Because the 3-item scale was just identified, model fit indices could

61

not be examined. However, once combined in an two factor CFA with instructor trust, model fit
was acceptable. See Table 6.3 in Appendix E for the final scale items and factor loadings.
Instructor Trust. Students’ sense of trust toward their instructor was measured with 5
items adapted from Yeager et al. (2011). A sample item is “I am treated fairly by my instructor.”
Students rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed on a 6-point Likert scale ranging
from (1) very much disagree to (6) very much agree. After running exploratory analysis, I
retained 3 items to form the instructor trust scale. Multigroup invariance tests indicated that the
scale was variant across racial/ethnic groupings (i.e., BIPOC, Asian, White). Because the 3-item
scale was just identified, model fit indices could not be examined. However, once combined in
an two factor CFA with sense of empowerment, model fit was acceptable (see Table 3). See
Table 6.3 in Appendix E for the final scale items and factor loadings.
Current Grade. Students’ course grade was assessed with one, self-reported question:
What grade do you currently have in the class that you’ve reported on for this study? Students
responded using multiple choice options: (1) A, (2) A-, (3) B+… (12) F. An “other – please
specify” option was provided for other forms of grades, such as the credit/no credit option. This
outcome was included for exploratory purposes.
Demographics. Demographic information, including students’ gender, race and
ethnicity, and grade point average (GPA) were collected. These data were used as covariates in
analyses.
Overview Description of Analysis
Research Question 1: To address the first research question, I tested three theory-driven
psychometric models within a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) framework: a one factor
solution, a correlated two-factor solution, and a bifactor solution. Both SDT and integrated

62

CRRE items for each instructional practice were included in a separate set of (3) models for each
practice. Analyses were conducted using Mplus. To treat missing data, I used a full information
maximum likelihood procedure with robust estimates of standard errors (ESTIMATOR = MLR).
As shown in Figure 3, the first model tested a 1-factor solution: items from SDT and
items from CRRE were specified to load on to a single factor. The interpretation of this factor
solution is that the instructional practice (e.g., providing choices) is the same from an SDT and
CRRE perspective. The second model tested a correlated factors solution: items from SDT were
specified to load onto a latent factor (SDT), items from CRRE were specified to load onto a
second latent factor (CRRE), and the factors were correlated. The interpretation of this factor
solution is that the instructional practice is different when considered from an SDT perspective
and from a CRRE perspective, but they are related. The magnitude of the correlation is
meaningful in this model. The third model tested a bifactor solution: items from SDT and items
from CRRE all loaded onto a major factor; in addition, the items from SDT loaded onto a minor
factor (SDT), and the items from CRRE loaded onto a second minor factor (CRRE). The
interpretation of this solution is that SDT and CRRE are similar and can be integrated (i.e., the
major factor), but they also have aspects (i.e., the minor factors) that are unique to each
framework [i.e., the minor factors are orthogonal (or uncorrelated) with the major factor].
To select the best fitting model, I examined the factor loadings (λ > 0.40) and compared
model fit indices: CFI (Good fit > 0.95; Acceptable fit > 0.90; Bentler, 1990; Fan et al., 1999),
RMSEA (Good fit < 0.05; Acceptable fit < 0.08; Marginal fit < 0.10; Fabrigar et al., 1999);
SRMR (Good fit < 0.08; Hu & Bentler, 1999). In addition, I also considered face validity—that
is, qualitatively examining whether the item is similar to other items or whether there could be
other interpretations to the item that merit it’s exclusion. Given the exploratory nature of these

63

new measurement scales that were developed, items were dropped from the scale if they did not
meet the above criteria and a revised model was examined.
Figure 3
One Factor, Correlated Factors, and Bifactor Solutions (Question 1).
1-Factor Solution

Correlated Factors Solution

Bifactor Solution

64

Research Question 2: In order to address whether instructional efforts that support the
autonomy of students would be enhanced by the inclusion of CRRE, I examined the unique
effects that student perceptions of integrated CRRE practices had on student motivation, over
and above traditional approaches to supporting autonomy. This question involved making an
incremental validity claim, suggesting that integrated CRRE practices significantly predict
motivation outcomes when controlling for SDT practices.
Across 8 instructional practices, I compared two models within a structural equation
modeling (SEM) framework. In Model A, I regressed the outcomes on the instructional practice
when conceptualized from an SDT perspective. In Model B, I regressed the outcomes on the
instructional practice when conceptualized from an SDT perspective and the instructional
practice when conceptualized from an integrated CRRE perspective. Both Model A and Model B
included gender, race/ethnicity, and GPA as covariates. For each practice, I examined whether
the CRRE practice had incremental validity—that is, whether the predictor was statistically
significant and provided unique prediction of the outcome. In addition, as Kirk (1996) and other
statisticians continue to advise, even if the effect of a predictor on an outcome remains
statistically significant when controlling for other covariates, the variable may be of limited
utility if its effect is too small to be considered practically significant. As such, it is important to
also compute and report effect sizes when making the claim that a given variable is practically
meaningful—in this case, that the inclusion of an integrated CRRE approach improves autonomy
supportive instruction, over and above traditional approaches.
In order to calculate an effect size (the change in R
2
) for each model, I followed Hayes’
(2021) “saturated correlate” approach in Mplus. This approach is comparable to hierarchical
linear modeling in OLS regression, which involves calculating the change in R-squared (ΔR
2
)

65

Figure 4
Reduced (Model A) and Full (Model B) SEM Models.
Model A

Model B

between the full model (i.e., both SDT and CRRE; Model B) and the reduced model that omits
all but the target predictor of interest (i.e., only SDT; Model A). Given the use of latent variables
and missing data in SEM, Hayes’ (2021) approach involves correlating the predictor with all
exogenous variables and endogenous disturbances in order to appropriately calculate an effect

66

size. An example of the SEM models is shown in Figure 5. I used Cohen’s (1988) criteria for
describing the effect sizes: .05 = small, .09 = small-medium, .13 medium, .20 medium-large, and
.26 large. For each practice, I ran 4 models with the following outcomes: (1) autonomy,
competence, and relatedness need satisfaction; (2) agentic, emotional, and cognitive engagement,
(3) empowerment and instructor trust; (4) current grade. Models were run with the full sample,
and then they were run separately by BIPOC, Asian, and White student groups.

67

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix for all predictor and outcome variables are
presented in Table 4. The teaching practices were moderately to largely correlated with each
other, and the practices with the outcomes were moderately correlated. The smallest associations
were observed with variables that were correlated with current grade and relatedness need
satisfaction.
1. To what extent are traditional SDT autonomy supportive instruction and integrated
CRRE autonomy support distinct and/or correlated?
Results of the factor solutions are shown in Table 5. Across all 8 instructional practices, I
found that the correlated factors solution fit the data the best—consistent with my hypothesis. As
anticipated, small adjustments were made to the scales to improve their psychometric properties
and improve the face validity of the scales. A correlated factors solution suggests that the
autonomy supportive practices and the integrated CRRE practices are different instructional
approaches. Moreover, standardized correlations between the factors ranged from 0.50 to 0.71.
In line my hypothesis, these large correlations suggest that while the factors are different, they
are still highly related and compatible.
The bifactor solution also appeared to demonstrate good psychometric properties, at
times better than the correlated factors solution. However, there were two problems with these
models. First, I experienced convergence issues with two of the models—namely, providing
question opportunities and use of controlling messages. Second, when the model did converge,
the factor loadings were difficult or problematic to interpret. For example, in the case of the
providing rationales model, the all items strongly loaded onto the major factor (i.e., providing
rationales). However, although the CRRE items strongly loaded onto the minor factor for CRRE,

68

Table 5
CFAs Testing One Factor, Correlated Factors, and Bifactor Solutions (Question 1).
Model
SDT
Items
CRRE
Items
X2 df CFI RMSEA SRMR Loadings
Providing Choices
One factor 4 5 846.891 27 0.579 0.226 0.140 Ac
One factor 4 4 580.728 20 0.640 0.217 0.144 Ac
Two factor 4 5 168.209 26 0.928 0.096 0.037 Ac
Two factor 4 4 74.849 19 0.966 0.070 0.028 Ac
Bifactor 4 5 49.000 18 0.990 0.054 0.016 NAc
Bifactor 4 4 42.783 12 0.988 0.066 0.016 NAc
Understanding & Incorporating Student Interests/Perspectives
One factor 4 5 686.721 27 0.714 0.203 0.123 Ac
Two factor 4 5 78.444 26 0.977 0.058 0.038 Ac
Bifactor 4 5 30.976 18 0.994 0.035 0.015 NAc
Providing Rationales
One factor 4 5 511.746 27 0.778 0.174 0.098 Ac
Two factor 4 5 66.459 26 0.982 0.051 0.030 Ac
Bifactor 4 5 138.692 21 0.946 0.097 0.241 NAc
Providing Question Opportunities
One factor 4 5 810.576 27 0.686 0.221 0.129 Ac
Two factor 4 5 109.586 26 0.967 0.074 0.024 Ac
Bifactor 4 5 -- -- -- -- -- --
Understanding Students’ Negative Affect
One factor 4 5 900.257 27 0.654 0.233 0.149 Ac
Two factor 4 5 131.537 26 0.958 0.083 0.032 Ac
Two factor 4 4 54.538 19 0.983 0.056 0.024 Ac
Bifactor 4 4 33.662 12 0.990 0.055 0.011 NAc
Suppressing Student Opinions & Perspectives
One factor 4 6 1215.606 35 0.553 0.238 0.153 Ac
One factor 4 3 676.484 14 0.616 0.282 0.145 Ac
Two factor 4 6 335.402 34 0.886 0.122 0.043 Ac
Two factor 4 3 74.931 13 0.964 0.089 0.028 Ac
Bifactor 4 3 9.480 7 0.999 0.024 0.004 NAc
Forcing Meaningless Activities
One factor 4 5 898.685 27 0.629 0.233 0.147 Ac
Two factor 4 5 151.941 26 0.946 0.090 0.049 Ac
Two factor 4 4 55.233 19 0.982 0.057 0.046 Ac
Bifactor 4 4 17.912 12 0.997 0.029 0.012 Ac
Use of Controlling Messages
One factor 5 5 579.466 35 0.774 0.162 0.080 Ac
Two factor 5 5 141.456 34 0.955 0.073 0.036 OK
Two factor 5 4 107.862 26 0.961 0.073 0.031 OK
Bifactor 5 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
Note: Ac = Acceptable, NAc = Not Acceptable; Criteria for acceptable included factors with all loadings greater
than .40, loadings in the expected direction, and loading on the expected factor.

69

Table 6
Measurement Invariance Tests of SDT and CRRE practices Across Racial/Ethnic Groupings
(BIPOC, ASIAN, White)
# Items Model Fit Difference Test
Model SDT CRRE CFI RMSEA SRMR χ
2
df Δχ
2
Δdf p
Providing Choices
Configural
4 4
0.96 0.08 0.04 130.85 57
Metric 0.95 0.08 0.06 149.79 69 18.28 12 0.11
Scalar 0.95 0.07 0.06 159.50 81 7.54 12 0.82
Understanding & Incorporating Student Interests/Perspectives
Configural
4 5
0.98 0.06 0.04 127.35 78
Metric 0.98 0.05 0.05 136.98 92 4.51 14 0.99
Scalar 0.98 0.05 0.05 152.43 106 13.74 14 0.47
Providing Rationales
Configural
4 5
0.97 0.07 0.04 138.69 78
Metric 0.97 0.06 0.06 153.41 92 12.17 14 0.59
Scalar 0.97 0.06 0.06 166.02 106 9.24 14 0.82
Providing Question Opportunities
Configural
3 4
1.00 0.04 0.02 47.83 39
Metric 1.00 0.03 0.04 54.64 49 5.36 10 0.87
Scalar 0.99 0.03 0.04 68.28 59 15.01 10 0.13
Understanding Students’ Negative Affect
Configural
4 4
0.97 0.09 0.03 133.88 57
Metric 0.97 0.08 0.05 147.24 69 10.96 12 0.53
Scalar 0.96 0.07 0.05 160.74 81 9.31 12 0.68
Suppressing Student Opinions & Perspectives
Configural
4 3
0.96 0.09 0.04 102.90 39
Metric 0.96 0.09 0.05 114.04 49 10.43 10 0.40
Scalar 0.96 0.08 0.05 127.45 59 6.83 10 0.74
Forcing Meaningless Activities
Configural
4 3
0.97 0.08 0.05 85.62 39
Metric 0.98 0.07 0.05 91.22 49 5.84 10 0.83
Scalar 0.97 0.07 0.06 108.35 59 16.83 10 0.08
Use of Controlling Messages
Configural
5 4
0.97 0.07 0.04 146.60 78
Metric 0.97 0.06 0.05 159.70 92 9.74 14 0.78
Scalar 0.96 0.06 0.05 182.37 106 21.81 14 0.08

most of the SDT items weakly and negatively loaded onto the minor factor for SDT. Issues with
the minor factors (for both SDT and CRRE) were consistent across the bifactor models. The one
factor solution, across all instructional practices, produced the weakest psychometric properties,

70

which suggested that taking an autonomy supportive approach to instruction and taking a
culturally conscious approach to instruction are not one in the same.
Next, to finalize the scales and use them to answer the next research question, I followed
these analyses by conducting multigroup invariance tests across racial and ethnic groupings
(BIPOC, Asian, White). This involved the comparison of increasingly restrictive models to
determine whether the constructs had the same meaning across groups (weak invariance) and
whether intercepts (or starting values) were equal across groups (strong invariance). To compare
models, I conducted chi-squared (χ
2
) difference tests. A significant p-value indicated that
differences existed in measurement of the perception of the teaching practice. Establishing
measurement invariance is important, as this would allow for model comparisons across
racial/ethnic groups.
Overall, across all 8 instructional practices, I found that that the SDT and integrated
CRRE scales were invariant across racial and ethnic groupings. For two scales (i.e., providing
question opportunities and forcing meaningless activities) I made revisions to the scale by
dropping items that were invariant. Results of the invariance tests are shown in Table 6 and the
finalized scales are in Appendix E, along with factor loadings (overall and by racial/ethnic
groupings). Finally, I ran two CFA’s with all 8 of the instructional practices from within each
framework. The model with the 8 integrated CRRE scales (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR =
0.04) and the model with the 8 SDT scales (CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.06) both
demonstrated good model fit, which suggests that within each framework, each practice is
unique from the other instructional practices.
2. To what extent does integrated CRRE autonomy support explain variability in
motivation outcomes, after accounting for traditional SDT autonomy supportive practices?

71

The findings are presented by each teaching practice followed by descriptively
addressing model differences by race/ethnic group. See Tables 7.1-14.4 in Appendix F for the
full results.
Providing Choices. As shown in Table 7.1, results of Model A showed that providing
students with choices, when conceptualized from SDT, significantly predicted all of the
outcomes, including autonomy, competence, and relatedness need satisfaction, agentic,
emotional, and cognitive engagement, sense of empowerment, instructor trust, and current course
grade (ß’s range = 0.10-0.43, p’s < .05). In Model B, when CRRE was included in the model,
providing choices when conceptualized from SDT still predicted most of the outcomes, except
cognitive engagement and current course grade. Providing students with choices, when
conceptualized from a culturally-relevant and responsive approach (CRRE), significantly
predicted all of the outcomes, over and above when it was conceptualized from a self-
determination theory perspective (ß’s range = 0.24-0.42, p’s < .01), except for current course
grade. Choices, from an CRRE perspective, explained 13% more variance in emotional
engagement, and this met Cohen's (1988) criteria for a medium effect size. A small-medium
effect size was observed with competence need satisfaction (ΔR
2
= .10). Autonomy need
satisfaction, agentic engagement, cognitive engagement, and sense of empowerment resulted in
small effect sizes. Effects for relatedness need satisfaction and instructor trust were deemed to be
statistically significant but not practically significant, with effect sizes below .05.
Effects were mostly consistent across racial/ethnic groups, but larger effect sizes were
observed for students of color with some outcomes. There was a medium effect (ß = 0.46, p <
.001, ΔR
2
= .15) of providing choices from a CRRE approach on cognitive engagement for Asian
students and a small effect (ß = 0.30, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .07) for BIPOC students, yet this was not

72

statistically nor practically significant for White students (ß = 0.17, p > .05, ΔR
2
= .02).
Similarly, there were small effects for providing choices from a CRRE approach on instructor
trust for Asian (ß = 0.28, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .06) and BIPOC (ß = 0.24, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .05)
students, and the effect was deemed not statistically nor practically significant for White students
(ß = 0.14, p > .05, ΔR
2
= .02). See Tables 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 for full results.
Incorporating interests and perspectives. As shown in Table 8.1, results of Model A
showed that incorporating students’ interests and perspectives, when conceptualized from SDT,
significantly predicted all of the outcomes, including autonomy, competence, and relatedness
need satisfaction, agentic, emotional, and cognitive engagement, sense of empowerment, and
instructor trust (ß’s range = 0.25-0.51, p’s < .001), except for current course grade. In Model B,
when CRRE was included in the model, incorporating interests when conceptualized from SDT
still predicted most of the outcomes, except for cognitive engagement and current course grade.
Incorporating students’ interests and perspectives into learning activities, when conceptualized
from CRRE, significantly predicted all of the outcomes, over and above when it was
conceptualized from a self-determination theory perspective (ß’s range = 0.12-0.41, p’s < .05),
except for current course grade. Student perceptions of this instructional practice, from an CRRE
approach, explained 11% more variance in emotional engagement, and this translated to a small-
medium effect size. Small effect sizes were observed with autonomy and competence need
satisfaction, cognitive engagement, and sense of empowerment. Effects for relatedness need
satisfaction, agentic engagement, and instructor trust were deemed to be not practically
significant, with effect sizes below 0.05.
Effects for incorporating student interests from a CRRE perspective were somewhat
consistent across racial/ethnic groups, but larger effect sizes were observed for Asian students

73

with some outcomes. There were small-medium effects of this practice from a CRRE approach
on autonomy need satisfaction (ß = 0.39, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .09), cognitive engagement (ß = 0.42, p
< .001, ΔR
2
= .11), and instructor trust (ß = 0.42, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .10) for Asian students. These
outcomes resulted in small effect sizes for White students [autonomy (ß = 0.29, p < .01, ΔR
2
=
.05), cognitive engagement (ß = 0.27, p < .01, ΔR
2
= .05), instructor trust (ß = 0.33, p < .01, ΔR
2

= .07)]. Effects were deemed statistically significant, but not practically significant, for BIPOC
students [autonomy (ß = 0.19, p < .05, ΔR
2
= .03), cognitive engagement (ß = 0.24, p < .01, ΔR
2

= .04), instructor trust (ß = 0.22, p < .01, ΔR
2
= .04)]. See Tables 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 for full results.
Providing Rationales. As shown in Table 9.1, results of Model A showed that providing
rationales, when conceptualized from SDT, significantly predicted all of the outcomes, including
autonomy, competence, and relatedness need satisfaction, agentic, emotional, and cognitive
engagement, sense of empowerment, and instructor trust (ß’s range = 0.12-0.52, p’s < .01),
except for current course grade. In Model B, when CRRE was included in the model, providing
rationales when conceptualized from SDT still predicted most of the outcomes, except for
relatedness need satisfaction, empowerment, and current course grade. Providing students with
rationales, when conceptualized from CRRE, significantly predicted all of the outcomes, over
and above when it was conceptualized from SDT (ß’s range = 0.22-0.32, p’s < .001), except for
course grade. Student perceptions of this instructional practice, from an CRRE approach,
explained about 5-6% more variance in students’ autonomy, competence, and agentic, emotional,
and cognitive engagement, and this translated to a small-medium effect size. Effects for
relatedness need satisfaction, sense of empowerment, and instructor trust were deemed to be not
practically significant, with effect sizes below 0.05.

74

Effects for providing rationales from a CRRE perspective were mostly variable across
racial/ethnic groups, with larger effect sizes observed for White students. There was a medium
effect (ß = 0.56, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .18) of providing rationales from a CRRE approach on sense of
empowerment for White students, whereas this effect was deemed statistically significant but not
practically significant for BIPOC students (ß = 0.19, p < .05, ΔR
2
= .03) and not statistically nor
practically significant for Asian students (ß = 0.12, p > .05, ΔR
2
= .01). Likewise, for White
students, small to medium effects were observed for autonomy and agentic engagement, and
small effects for competence and emotional engagement. However, these effects were deemed
not practically significant for BIPOC students and Asian students, with the exception of
autonomy for Asian students (ß = 0.34, p < .01, ΔR
2
= .06). See Tables 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4 for full
results.
Providing Question Opportunities. As shown in Table 10.1, results of Model A showed
that providing question opportunities, when conceptualized from SDT, significantly predicted all
of the outcomes, including autonomy, competence, and relatedness need satisfaction, agentic,
emotional, and cognitive engagement, sense of empowerment, and instructor trust (ß’s range =
0.14-0.59, p’s < .01), except for current course grade. In Model B, when CRRE was included in
the model, providing question opportunities when conceptualized from SDT still predicted
autonomy need satisfaction, agentic, emotional, and cognitive engagement, and instructor trust.
Providing students with opportunities to question, when conceptualized from CRRE,
significantly predicted all of the outcomes, over and above when it was conceptualized from
SDT (ß’s range = 0.18-0.40, p’s < .01), except for course grade. Student perceptions of this
instructional practice, from an CRRE approach, explained about 9% more variance in students’
sense of empowerment, and about 5-7% more variance in students’ autonomy, competence, and

75

agentic and emotional engagement. Effects for relatedness need satisfaction, cognitive
engagement, and instructor trust were deemed to be not practically significant, with effect sizes
below 0.05.
Effects for providing question opportunities from a CRRE perspective were mostly
variable across racial/ethnic groups, with larger effect sizes observed for Asian and White
students. There were medium effects sizes for providing question opportunities from a CRRE
approach on sense of empowerment for Asian students (ß = 0.51, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .22) and White
students (ß = 0.48, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .14), whereas this effect was deemed statistically significant
but not practically significant for BIPOC students (ß = 0.19, p < .05, ΔR
2
= .04). Effects sizes for
Asian students’ autonomy, competence, relatedness, and agentic, emotional, and cognitive
engagement ranged from small to small-medium, whereas only some these (i.e., competence,
agentic, and emotional engagement) were practically significant for White students. None of
these outcomes were deemed practically significant for BIPOC students, with the exception of
emotional engagement (ß = 0.26, p < .01, ΔR
2
= .05). Instructor trust, among all racial/ethnic
groupings, was not deemed to be practically significant. See Tables 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 for full
results.
Understanding negative affect. As shown in Table 11.1, results of Model A showed that
understanding students’ negative affect, when conceptualized from SDT, significantly predicted
all of the outcomes, including autonomy, competence, and relatedness need satisfaction, agentic,
emotional, and cognitive engagement, sense of empowerment, and instructor trust (ß’s range =
0.23-0.58, p’s < .001), except for current course grade. In Model B, when CRRE was included in
the model, understanding negative affect when conceptualized from SDT still predicted most of
the outcomes, except for cognitive engagement and current course grade. Understanding

76

students’ negative affect when conceptualized from CRRE, significantly predicted all of the
outcomes, over and above when it was conceptualized from SDT (ß’s range = 0.16-0.39, p’s <
.01), except for relatedness need satisfaction and course grade. Student perceptions of this
instructional practice, from an CRRE approach, explained about 9% more variance in students’
emotional engagement (small-medium effect), and about 5-8% more variance in students’
autonomy, competence, cognitive engagement, and instructor trust. The effects of understanding
students’ negative affect on agentic engagement and sense of empowerment were deemed
statistically significant, but not practically significant, with effect sizes below .05.
Effects for understanding students’ negative affect from a CRRE perspective were mostly
consistent across racial/ethnic groups, but there were some differences with larger effect sizes
observed for White and BIPOC students. Understanding negative affect had a small-medium
effect (ß = 0.36, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .09) for BIPOC students’ cognitive engagement, but effects
were not practically significant for Asian students (ß = 0.30, p < .05, ΔR
2
= .04), and not
practically nor statistically significant for White students (ß = 0.18, p > .05, ΔR
2
= .03).
Alternatively, this practice had a medium effect size on White students emotional engagement (ß
= 0.45, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .13), whereas small effect sizes were found for BIPOC (ß = 0.31, p <
.001, ΔR
2
= .07) and Asian students (ß = 0.40, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .08). Similarly, understanding
negative affect when informed by CRRE was associated with small or small-medium effect sizes
for White students’ agentic engagement and sense of empowerment, but these effects were found
to be statistically but no practically significant for BIPOC students and statistically nor
practically significant for Asian students. See Tables 11.2, 11.3, and 11.4 for full results.
Suppressing Opinions and Perspectives. As shown in Table 12.1, results of Model A
showed that suppressing opinions and perspectives, when conceptualized from SDT,

77

significantly predicted autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction, emotional and cognitive
engagement, and instructor trust (ß’s range = -0.38-0.12, p’s < .01). In Model B, when CRRE
was included in the model, suppressing perspectives when conceptualized from SDT still
predicted relatedness need satisfaction and cognitive engagement, but not autonomy need
satisfaction and emotional engagement. Suppressing students’ opinions and perspectives when
conceptualized from CRRE negatively predicted students’ autonomy need satisfaction, agentic
and emotional engagement, sense of empowerment, and instructor trust, over and above when it
was conceptualized from SDT (ß’s range = -(0.16-0.31), p’s < .01). Student perceptions of this
instructional practice, from an CRRE approach, explained about 5-6% more variance in students’
autonomy need satisfaction and instructor trust (small effects), while effects for sense of
empowerment and agentic and emotional engagement were statistically but not practically
significant, with effect sizes below .05. Effects for competence, relatedness, and emotional and
cognitive engagement were not statistically nor practically significant.
Effects for suppressing opinions from a CRRE perspective were mostly consistent across
racial/ethnic groups, but there were some differences with larger effect sizes observed for BIPOC
students with some outcomes. For example, suppressing opinions had a medium effect (ß = -
0.47, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .09) for BIPOC students’ feelings of trust toward their instructor, but this
effect was small for Asian students (ß = -0.27, p < .05, ΔR
2
= .05) and not practically nor
statistically significant for White students (ß = -0.14, p > .05, ΔR
2
= .03). Moreover, small or
small-medium effects were observed for BIPOC students’ autonomy, agentic engagement, and
empowerment, and White students’ agentic engagement and empowerment, but these effects
were found to be not practically nor statistically significant for Asian students. See Tables 12.2,
12.3, and 12.4 for full results.

78

Forcing meaningless activities. As shown in Table 13.1, results of Model A showed that
forcing meaningless activities, when conceptualized from SDT, negatively predicted most of the
outcomes (ß’s range = -(0.10-0.51), p’s < .05), except for competence need satisfaction,
empowerment, and current course grade. In Model B, when CRRE was included in the model,
the effects that were statistically significant remained significant, except for relatedness need
satisfaction. Forcing meaningless activities when conceptualized from CRRE negatively
predicted students’ autonomy need satisfaction (ß = -0.14, p < .05, ΔR
2
= .01) and instructor trust
(ß = -0.30, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .07), over and above when it was conceptualized from SDT. Effects
of this practice on competence and relatedness need satisfaction, agentic, emotional, and
cognitive engagement, and sense of empowerment were not statistically nor practically
significant. Effects of forcing meaningless activities from CRRE on outcomes were consistent
across racial/ethnic groups, with two exceptions: this practice had small and statistically
significant effects on agentic engagement (ß = -0.27, p < .05, ΔR
2
= .06) and empowerment (ß = -
0.29, p < .05, ΔR
2
= .07) for White students, but these effects were not statistically nor practically
significant for BIPOC and Asian students. See Tables 13.2, 13.3, and 13.4 for full results.
Controlling Messages. As shown in Table 14.1, results of Model A showed that use of
controlling messages, when conceptualized from SDT, negatively predicted most of the
outcomes (ß’s range = -(0.10-0.51), p’s < .05), except for relatedness need satisfaction and
current course grade. In Model B, when CRRE was included in the model, the SDT practice
remained statistically significant for autonomy need satisfaction, emotional and cognitive
engagement, and instructor trust. Use of controlling messages when conceptualized from CRRE
negatively predicted students’ autonomy need satisfaction (ß = -0.28, p < .001, ΔR
2
= .04) and
instructor trust (ß = -0.22, p < .01, ΔR
2
= .02), over and above when it was conceptualized from

79

SDT. However, these effects were not practically significant. Effects of this CRRE practice on
competence and relatedness need satisfaction, agentic, emotional and cognitive engagement, and
sense of empowerment were not statistically nor practically significant.
The two significant CRRE effects described were primarily driven by BIPOC students.
The effect of controlling messages on autonomy need satisfaction was statistically and
practically significant for BIPOC students (ß = -0.30, p < .01, ΔR
2
= .05), but not statistically or
practically significant for Asian students (ß = -0.11, p > .05, ΔR
2
= .01) and White students (ß = -
0.28, p > .05, ΔR
2
= .03). Likewise, the effect of controlling messages on instructor trust was
statistically and practically significant for BIPOC students (ß = -0.30, p < .05, ΔR
2
= .05), but not
statistically or practically significant for Asian students (ß = -0.08, p > .05, ΔR
2
= .01) and White
students (ß = -0.14, p > .05, ΔR
2
= .02). See Tables 14.2, 14.3, and 14.4 for full results.
Due to the complexity of examining the 8 practices from both SDT and CRRE with 9
outcomes, for the whole sample and separately by 3 racial groupings, the results are summarized
in Table 15. The table summarizes whether each SDT practice significantly predicted each
outcome in Model 1 (i.e., SDT without CRRE) and Model 2 (i.e., SDT controlling for CRRE), as
well as the statistical and practical significance of each CRRE practice in Model 2.

80

81

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Despite the overlap between autonomy supportive instruction and CRRE, prior research
has not examined the extent to which these two frameworks can be integrated in theory, research,
and practice. This study aimed to begin to explore areas for integration and examine whether a
race-reimaged approach to supporting autonomy from a CRRE perspective could potentially
enhance student motivation for diverse student groups. This investigation first addressed the
relationship or compatibility between instructional practices informed by the integrated CRRE
approach and instructional practices that were conceptualized from self-determination theory.
Then, the study examined the incremental validity of taking an integrated CRRE approach to
autonomy support, over and above taking a traditional approach. In other words, the study
examined whether the integrated CRRE practices were different from SDT, and whether they
might be useful for instructors to use to support students’ motivation.
For the first research question, I found that a correlated factors solution between the
CRRE and SDT practices fit the data the best. This meant that the practices were different and
should not be thought of as interchangeable. I also found that the correlations between the
practices from each respective framework were moderate to large, which suggests that the two
practices are still similar and potentially compatible. These findings are promising, considering
that future practical efforts or interventions aimed to train teachers to be autonomy supportive
can integrate CRRE within existing frameworks that have been developed with SDT. At the
same time, integrating CRRE may be a significant change to the nature of these efforts or
interventions, and may lead to meaningful improvements, over and above interventions that
conceptualized instructional strategies from SDT alone. The second question addressed this latter
point.

82

The second research question addressed whether the integrated CRRE instructional
practices predicted students’ motivation processes, over and above instructional practices that
were conceptualized from SDT. By and large, results suggested that the integrated CRRE
supportive practices—that is, the things that teachers should do in the classroom—were
positively associated with students’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness need satisfaction,
agentic, emotional, and cognitive engagement, sense of empowerment, and instructor trust. Most
integrated CRRE practices were statistically significant and many were practically significant,
with effect sizes ranging from small to medium. With regard to the autonomy thwarts—that is,
the things that teachers should avoid doing in the classroom—results suggested that an integrated
CRRE approach did not predict many of the outcomes. However, controlling practices did
appear to have small, negative effects on students’ autonomy need satisfaction and feelings of
trust toward their instructor.
I also examined whether the effects of integrated practices on motivation outcomes varied
by students’ racial/ethnic backgrounds. Although it would be ideal for the practices to be
beneficial for students from diverse backgrounds, I was especially interested in the effects of
these practices for students of color. While I found that many the autonomy supportive practices
were associated with many of the outcomes for all students, certain practices led to stronger
effects for some groups of students for some outcomes. For example, providing choices when
conceptualized from CRRE seemed to be especially beneficial for students of color for some
motivation outcomes—namely, cognitive engagement and instructor trust. One explanation for
this finding could be that, while trust and respect are often in question for BIPOC students in
U.S. schooling (Yeager et al., 2014), allowing students to choose to focus on topics that are

83

culturally relevant for them and their families and communities is a concrete and tangible
demonstration of respect for BIPOC students.
Alternatively, providing rationales when conceptualized from CRRE seemed to have the
largest effects on some outcomes for White students, such as their competence need satisfaction
and sense of empowerment. Although it is unclear why CRRE rationales were especially
beneficial for White students, I speculate that this may be due to the practice meeting the needs
of White students. That is, instructors’ use of rationales that connect the learning content to
prosocial or communal issues involves a shift in perceptions, beliefs, and ideas rather than doing
something different (such as choosing to do a project on a social justice issue). Shifting
perceptions and beliefs may be enough for White students’ motivation given their levels of
sociopolitical and cultural consciousness, but for students of color who may have deeper
understandings and experiences of sociopolitical and cultural issues, shifting perceptions may not
be enough—BIPOC may need to feel like they are taking a more active role in engaging with
issues that are culturally relevant. Overall, the findings suggest that while certain practices may
be more or less impactful for different students, the practices as a whole may be useful in
educational settings that serve racially and ethnically diverse students.
Implications for Theory, Research, & Practice
This study provided clear support for the notion that self-determination theory needs to
consider the cultural and racialized perspectives of individuals to fully support their
psychological needs and motivation. Up to this point, approaches to supporting student
autonomy in the classroom have been race- or culture-neutral, in the sense that teachers should
broadly be open to students’ unique perspectives, opinions, preferences, and goals. This
conceptualization may include students’ unique cultural perspectives, but as this study showed,

84

taking a race- or culture-neutral approach to teaching and instruction that does not explicitly
invite students cultural perspectives may be missing opportunities to maximize students’
experience of autonomy, motivation, and feelings of mutual trust and respect in the classroom. In
other words, taking a race- or culture-neutral approach is not enough—teachers must be explicit
and clear if they want to invite students’ cultural and racialized perspectives into the learning
experience.
Likewise, this study found that CRRE may be effective because it is need- and
motivationally-supportive. As such, future work should continue to consider CRRE in light of
the underlying motivational processes that may lead to student success. Moreover, as previously
discussed, one limitation of the CRRE literature is a lack of empirical research demonstrating the
effectiveness of instructional practices on concrete motivational and learning outcomes (Howard
& Rodriguez-Minkoff, 2017). This study has implications for providing evidence on the merits
of some of these practices. For example, one of the major tenets of CRRE is developing students’
critical or sociopolitical consciousness, which in part involves providing opportunities for
students to critically analyze societal norms and question what is being taught. This study is one
of few to provide evidence for the effectiveness of this teaching practice for student engagement
and their sense of empowerment.
This study has implications for what interventionists might test, as well as the direction of
professional development for teachers. First, because findings from this study showed that the
practices between the two frameworks are strongly related, but also different, teacher trainings
could present practices together—beginning broadly using an SDT framework and then showing
teachers how to extend that practice to be culturally inclusive. Second, to further test the merits
of taking an integrated approach to supporting autonomy, interventionists could test whether

85

training programs that emphasize both SDT and CRRE lead to motivation and learning gains,
compared to trainings that include only one or the other. However, given that this is the first
study to examine the benefits of taking an integrated SDT and CRRE approach to supporting
student autonomy and motivation, and it was not without limitations, more research is needed.
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions
There are many strengths as well as limitations of the study design and execution that
may affect interpretation of the study’s findings and contribution to the field. First, strengths of
the study include the use of cognitive interviews prior to data collection in order to aid in
measurement development of the new integrated CRRE scales, and collecting information about
teaching practices and motivation experiences from the student experiences. This latter point is
especially needed in CRRE work, as most studies from the CRRE literature involve observation
and interviews that consider only the teachers’ perspectives. Alternatively, this strength is also a
limitation in that I did not collect data on teachers’ actual instructional practices. As such, future
work could build on this study by examining whether and how teachers enact the integrated
practices in regular classroom instruction, through observational studies or interviews with
teachers. Moreover, a study with teachers would allow interventionists to learn about what
institutional supports teachers need to enact the strategies and practices with their students.
Another strength of the study is that I examined the effects of the integrated CRRE
practices on a range of motivation outcomes, including autonomy, competence, and relatedness
need satisfaction, agentic, emotional, and cognitive engagement, and sense of empowerment.
Instructor trust was also assessed, which can also be thought of as a measure of racial climate (an
example item of this scale was: Students in my racial group are treated fairly by the instructor).
Despite this wide range of outcomes, there were other outcomes that would have improved the

86

quality of the study. Namely, it would have been ideal to measure students’ levels of critical
consciousness and cultural competence, which are motivational processes that are proposed from
the CRRE literature. Although I am not aware of measures for students’ critical consciousness,
future research should develop scales for these constructs (if they do not currently exist) and
explore how the integrated CRRE practices relate to these outcomes.
Feelings of autonomy and empowerment were central to the study, given that they
underlie motivation. As such, a strength of the study was that I measured this in two ways (i.e.,
autonomy need satisfaction and sense of empowerment). However, the sense of empowerment
scale that I used (Weber et al., 2005) demonstrated poor psychometric properties, and although I
was able to proceed the analyses with a 3-item sense of empowerment scale, future work should
include an improved empowerment scale.
In terms of the sample, the CRRE literature lacks studies with adults that are conducted in
higher education settings. This study therefore contributes to the literature in that integrated
CRRE practices are important and have motivation benefits beyond K-12 education.
Nonetheless, future work should be conducted in middle and high school classrooms in order to
understand adolescents’ perceptions of these integrated CRRE practices and the effects that these
practices have on their motivation, given that needs for autonomy are markedly more important
during adolescent development (Eccles, 1983).
Another strength of the study was that I examined model effects for students from
different racial/ethnic groups, including BIPOC, Asian, and White students. Although it was
advantageous that I had a sufficient sample size to analyze BIPOC and Asian students separately
(rather than a larger “students of color” group), use of these groups may still mask important
differences between students. For example, the study would have been improved with model

87

comparisons across more racial/ethnic categories, such as: Black/African American,
Latino/Hispanic, East Asian, Southeast Asian, European American/White. However, even with
more narrow categories, use of racial/ethnic categories may still be problematic, considering that
individuals may not be connected to the cultural values and ways of being and existing that align
with their racial/ethnic category. As such, researchers are increasing promoting the use of racial
and ethnic identity measures instead of using demographic data. Future work should examine
whether and how these effects of the integrated CRRE practices on motivation and education
outcomes vary depending on students’ racial and ethnic identity.
Another limitation of the study was that I did not conduct an exploratory factor analysis
with the integrated CRRE items prior to conducting confirmatory factor analyses. One reason for
this analytic decision was that there was a strong theoretical basis for the creation of the new
integrated CRRE items and a strong theoretical rationale for testing the new items in their
respective factors. However, conducting an exploratory factor analysis would add confidence to
the scales if items still load onto the expected factors when they are allowed to load onto any
combination of other factors.
Selection bias was present due to the sampling procedures. Most of the study participants
were recruited from the psychology subject pool at a highly competitive, private university in the
U.S., and therefore the sample was not representative of undergraduate students as a population.
BIPOC students within this sub-sample also made up a smaller percentage of participants,
compared to Asian/Asian American and White or European American students. To limit the
impact of selection bias in the study, I also recruited students from local, public universities,
which served a higher percentage of students of color. Another limitation was that this study was
correlational; therefore causation should not be implied when interpreting the results of this

88

study. Finally, as with most questionnaires, self-reporting may be unreliable due to lack of
awareness, diminished memory of events and experiences, or because participants want to report
in ways that are socially desirable. To help curtail bias, the directions at the beginning of the
survey clearly stated to students that responses were completely confidential and that they should
be as honest as possible.
Contributions and Significance
Despite the limitations, the study makes several contributions to motivation research.
First, this study addressed growing calls for motivation research to “race re-image”
psychological constructs using sociocultural and asset-based theories and perspectives. In this
study, I aimed to re-image what autonomy supportive instruction (which stems from self-
determination theory) would look like from a culturally relevant and responsive theoretical lens.
Second, this study developed ways to measure instructional practices that combine self-
determination and CRRE. Third, this study examined the relationship between instructional
practices and strategies when conceptualized by self-determination theory and culturally relevant
and responsive education. To the best of my knowledge, I know of no other studies that have
empirically tested the tenets of these frameworks in this way. Fourth, this study examined the
incremental validity or merit of culturally relevant and responsive strategies, over and above
traditional strategies focused on motivation support. Along the same lines, this study serves as a
response to growing calls for evaluating the effectiveness of CRRE instructional principles for
student outcomes (Howard & Rodriguez-Minkoff, 2017). Fifth, this study demonstrated that,
depending on the specific practice, an approach to supporting autonomy that combines culturally
relevant and responsive education with self-determination theory may yield motivational benefits
for students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Finally, in terms of practice, this

89

investigation serves as a first step as researchers and practitioners build or enhance existing
interventions to help instructors better support the motivation and learning of students from
diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. Future research may improve upon this initial
study toward this larger goal.

90

References
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., De Meyer, J., Van den Berghe, L., & Haerens,
L. (2013). Development and evaluation of a training on need-supportive teaching in
physical education: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 29, 64–75.
Anyon, J. (2011). Marx and education. Taylor & Francis.
Arce, J. (2004). Latino bilingual teachers: The struggle to sustain an emancipatory pedagogy in
public schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(2), 227-246.
Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A
synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163-
206.
Assor, A., & Kaplan, H. (2001). Mapping the domain of autonomy support. In Trends and
Prospects in Motivation Research (pp. 101-120). Springer, Dordrecht.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher
behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of
anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 397-413.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy‐
enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students' engagement in
schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261-278.
Au, K. H. P. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children:
Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event 1. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 11(2), 91-115.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(2), 164-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Bao, X. H., & Lam, S. F. (2008). Who makes the choice? Rethinking the role of autonomy and
relatedness in Chinese children’s motivation. Child Development, 79(2), 269-283.
Barron, H. A., Brown, J. C., & Cotner, S. (2021). The culturally responsive science teaching
practices of undergraduate biology teaching assistants. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching.

91

Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Mouratidis, A., Katartzi, E., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., &
Vlachopoulos, S. (2018). Beware of your teaching style: A school-year long investigation
of controlling teaching and student motivational experiences. Learning and Instruction,
53, 50-63.
Bell, Y. R., & Clark, T. R. (1998). Culturally relevant reading material as related to
comprehension and recall in African American children. Journal of Black Psychology,
24(4), 455-475.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol.
6, pp. 1-62). Academic Press.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107(2), 238.
Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students' appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational
Psychologist, 43(3), 132-141.
Brown, E. R., Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., Allen, J. M., & Muragishi, G. (2015). From bench to
bedside: A communal utility value intervention to enhance students’ biomedical science
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1116.
Bui, Y. N., & Fagan, Y. M. (2013). The effects of an integrated reading comprehension strategy:
A culturally responsive teaching approach for fifth-grade students’ reading
comprehension. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and
Youth, 57(2), 59-69.
Byrd, C. M. (2016). Does culturally relevant teaching work? An examination from student
perspectives. Sage Open, 6(3), 2158244016660744.
Byrd, C. M. (2017). The complexity of school racial climate: Reliability and validity of a new
measure for secondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 700-
721.
Canning EA, Harackiewicz JM, Priniski SJ, Hecht CA, Tibbetts Y, & Hyde JS (2018).
Improving performance and retention in introductory biology with a utility-value
intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 834–849. 10.1037/edu0000244
Ceci, S. J., Kahan, D. M., & Braman, D. (2010). The WEIRD are even weirder than you think:
Diversifying contexts is as important as diversifying samples. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 33(2-3), 87.
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., ... &
Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need
strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216-236.
Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease
students’ amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 99-111.

92

Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2018a). A needs-supportive intervention to help PE
teachers enhance students' prosocial behavior and diminish antisocial behavior.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 35, 74-88.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Lee, Y., & Lee, J. W. (2018b). Why autonomy-supportive interventions
work: Explaining the professional development of teachers’ motivating style. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 69, 43-51.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Song, Y. G. (2016). A teacher-focused intervention to decrease PE
students’ amotivation by increasing need satisfaction and decreasing need frustration.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(3), 217-235.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Yu, T. H., & Jang, H.-R. (2014). The teacher benefits from giving
autonomy support during physical education instruction. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 36(4), 331–346.
Cho, Y., Weinstein, C. E., & Wicker, F. (2011). Perceived competence and autonomy as
moderators of the effects of achievement goal orientations. Educational Psychology,
31(4), 393-411.
Choi, J., & Fishbach, A. (2011). Choice as an end versus a means. Journal of Marketing
Research, 48(3), 544-554.
Cholewa, B., Goodman, R. D., West-Olatunji, C., & Amatea, E. (2014). A qualitative
examination of the impact of culturally responsive educational practices on the
psychological well-being of students of color. The Urban Review, 46(4), 574-596.
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Locke, K. D., Zhang, H., Shen, J., de Jesús Vargas-Flores, J., ...
& Ching, C. M. (2013). Need satisfaction and well-being: Testing self-determination
theory in eight cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(4), 507-534.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). Interpretation and application of factor analytic results.
Comrey AL, Lee HB. A First Course in Factor Analysis, 2, 1992.
Condon, J., & LeBrack, B. (2015). Culture, definition of. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The Sage
Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence (pp. 192–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning:
Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715.
deCharms, R. (1972). Personal causation training in the schools 1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 2(2), 95-113.

93

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches. Sage publications.
Deci, E. L., Hodges, R., Pierson, L., & Tomassone, J. (1992). Autonomy and competence as
motivational factors in students with learning disabilities and emotional handicaps.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(7), 457-471.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182.
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., & Schutz, P. A. (2014). Researching race within educational psychology
contexts. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 244-260.
De Muynck, G. J., Soenens, B., Waterschoot, J., Degraeuwe, L., Broek, G. V., & Vansteenkiste,
M. (2019). Towards a more refined insight in the critical motivating features of choice:
An experimental study among recreational rope skippers. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 45, 101561.
Dickson, G. L., Chun, H., & Fernandez, I. T. (2016). The development and initial validation of
the student measure of culturally responsive teaching. Assessment for Effective
Intervention, 41(3), 141-154.
Dimick, A. S. (2012). Students’ empowerment in an environmental science classroom:
Toward a framework for social justice science education. Science Education, 96, 990–1012.
doi:10.1002/sce.21035
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac
Iver, D. M. (1993). Development during adolescence. The impact of stage-environment
fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist,
48, 90–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
Ensign, J. (2003). Including culturally relevant math in an urban school. Educational Studies, 34,
414–423.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use
of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3),
272.
Fan, X., B. Thompson, and L. Wang (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation method, and
model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 56-83.

94

Ferguson, Y. L., Kasser, T., & Jahng, S. (2011). Differences in life satisfaction and school
satisfaction among adolescents from three nations: The role of perceived autonomy
support. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(3), 649-661.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press.
Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A
phenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 634.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106-116.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in
preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181-187.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2
nd
ed.). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3
rd
ed.).
Teachers college press.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A
meta‐analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38,
69-119.
González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing
practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.
Gray, D. L., Hope, E. C., & Matthews, J. S. (2018). Black and belonging at school: A case for
interpersonal, instructional, and institutional opportunity structures. Educational
Psychologist, 53(2), 97-113.
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap:
Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59–68.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357621
Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-
determination theory perspective. Parenting and Children’s Internalization of values: A
Handbook of Contemporary Theory, 135-161.
Grolnick, W. S., Farkas, M. S., Sohmer, R., Michaels, S., & Valsiner, J. (2007). Facilitating
motivation in young adolescents: Effects of an after-school program. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 332-344.

95

Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino
school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 37-73.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Closing
achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: Disentangling race and social class.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 745.
Hagger, M. S., Rentzelas, P., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2014). Effects of individualist and
collectivist group norms and choice on intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion,
38(2), 215-223.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
Heroux, J. R., Peters, S. J., & Randall, M. A. (2014). Fostering self-determination through
culturally responsive teaching. Condition Critical: Key Principles for Equitable and
Inclusive Education, 187-203.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.
Howard, T., & Rodriguez-Scheel, A. (2017). Culturally relevant pedagogy 20 years later:
Progress or pontificating? What have we learned, and where do we go? Teachers College
Record, 119(1), 1-32.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Hubert, T. L. (2013). Learners of mathematics: High school students’ perspectives of culturally
relevant mathematics pedagogy. Journal of African American Studies, 18, 324–336.
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest
and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(4), 880.
Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high
school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410-1412.
Hulleman, C. S., Kosovich, J. J., Barron, K. E., & Daniel, D. B. (2017). Making connections:
Replicating and extending the utility value intervention in the classroom. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 109(3), 387.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 349.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much
of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995.

96

Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students' motivation, engagement, and learning during an
uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 798.
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory's
motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1175.
Jones, M. (2006). Teaching self-determination: Empowered teachers, empowered students.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(1), 12-17.
Kaplan, H. (2018). Teachers’ autonomy support, autonomy suppression and conditional negative
regard as predictors of optimal learning experience among high-achieving Bedouin
students. Social Psychology of Education, 21(1), 223-255.
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational
Psychology Review, 19(4), 429.
King, J. E. (1997). Culture-centered knowledge: Black studies, curriculum transformation, and
social action. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Bank (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Multicultural Education (pp. 265–290). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: a concept whose time has come. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 746–759.
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children's behavior:
The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and
creativity. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233-248.
Kumar, R., Zusho, A., & Bondie, R. (2018). Weaving cultural relevance and achievement
motivation into inclusive classroom cultures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 78-96.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995b). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2008). Yes, but how do we do it?”: Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy.
City Kids, City Schools: More Reports from the Front Row, 162-177.
Larson, K. E., Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., Rosenberg, M. S., & Day-Vines, N. L. (2018).
Examining how proactive management and culturally responsive teaching relate to
student behavior: Implications for measurement and practice. School Psychology Review,
47(2), 153-166.
Leonard, J., Napp, C., & Adeleke, S. (2009). The complexities of culturally relevant pedagogy:
A case study of two secondary mathematics teachers and their ESOL students. The High
School Journal, 93(1), 3-22.

97

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Adaptive motivation and emotion in
education: Research and principles for instructional design. Policy Insights from the
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 228-236.
Matos, L., Reeve, J., Herrera, D., & Claux, M. (2018). Students' agentic engagement predicts
longitudinal increases in perceived autonomy-supportive teaching: The squeaky wheel
gets the grease. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(4), 579-596.
McNeish, D., & Stapleton, L. M. (2016). Modeling clustered data with very few clusters.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(4), 495-518.
McNeish, D., Stapleton, L. M., & Silverman, R. D. (2017). On the unnecessary ubiquity of
hierarchical linear modeling. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 114.
Mgonja, T. A. (2021). Examining the Use of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in Undergraduate
Mathematics Learning Modules with Students of Color.
Milner, H. R. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom. The Urban
Review, 43(1), 66-89.
Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Choice and ego-depletion: The moderating
role of autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8), 1024-1036.
Morrison, K. A., Robbins, H. H., & Rose, D. G. (2008). Operationalizing culturally relevant
pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity & Excellence in Education,
41(4), 433-452.
Mouratidis, A. A., Vansteenkiste, M., Sideridis, G., & Lens, W. (2011). Vitality and interest–
enjoyment as a function of class-to-class variation in need-supportive teaching and pupils'
autonomous motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 353.
Nalipay, M. J. N., King, R. B., & Cai, Y. (2020). Autonomy is equally important across East and
West: Testing the cross-cultural universality of self-determination Theory. Journal of
Adolescence, 78, 67-72.
Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative
style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal,
83(1), 23-34.
Nykiel-Herbert, B. (2010). Iraqi refugee students: From a collection of aliens to a community of
learners. Multicultural Education, 17(30), 2–14.
Okonofua, J. A., Walton, G. M., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2016). A vicious cycle: A social–
psychological account of extreme racial disparities in school discipline. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 11(3), 381-398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635592
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.

98

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation
and related outcomes: a meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin,
134(2), 270.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of
choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896.
Patall, E. A., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Lui, P., Zambrano, J., & Yates, N. (in press). Instructional
practices that support adaptive motivation, engagement, and learning. In J. Reeve (Ed.),
Oxford Handbook of Educational Psychology, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Patall, E. A., Steingut, R. R., Freeman, J. L., Pituch, K. A., & Vasquez, A. C. (2018a). Gender
disparities in students’ motivational experiences in high school science classrooms.
Science Education, 102(5), 951-977.
Patall, E. A., Steingut, R. R., Vasquez, A. C., Trimble, S. S., Pituch, K. A., & Freeman, J. L.
(2018b). Daily autonomy supporting or thwarting and students’ motivation and
engagement in the high school science classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology,
110(2), 269.
Patall, E. A., Vasquez, A. C., Steingut, R. R., Trimble, S. S., & Pituch, K. A. (2017). Supporting
and thwarting autonomy in the high school science classroom. Cognition and Instruction,
35(4), 337-362.
Patall, E. A., & Zambrano, J. (2019). Facilitating student outcomes by supporting autonomy:
Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 6(2), 115-122.
Patall, E. A., Zambrano, J., Kennedy, A. A. U., Yates, N., & Vallin, J. (in press). Promoting an
Agentic Orientation: An Intervention in University Psychology and Physical Science
Courses. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Perlman, D. (2011). The influence of an autonomy-supportive intervention on preservice teacher
instruction: A self-determined perspective. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
36(11), 73-79.
Priniski, S. J., Rosenzweig, E. Q., Canning, E. A., Hecht, C. A., Tibbetts, Y., Hyde, J. S., &
Harackiewicz, J. M. (2019). The benefits of combining value for the self and others in
utility-value interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1478.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-
supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity.
Motivation and Emotion, 26(3), 183-207.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how
they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational psychologist, 44(3), 159-175.

99

Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In Handbook
of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 149-172). Springer, Boston, MA.
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for
themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105(3), 579.
Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and
potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54-77.
Reeve, J., Cheon, S. H., & Yu, T. H. (2020). An autonomy-supportive intervention to develop
students’ resilience by boosting agentic engagement. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 44(4), 325-338.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by
increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147-169.
Reeve, J., & Shin, S. H. (2020). How teachers can support students’ agentic engagement. Theory
into Practice, 59(2), 150-161.
Reeve, J., & Sickenius, B. (1994). Development and validation of a brief measure of the three
psychological needs underlying intrinsic motivation: The AFS scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 506-515.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-
supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity.
Motivation and Emotion, 26(3), 183-207.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during
learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257-267.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and
generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168-184.
Rhodes, C. M. (2017). A validation study of the Culturally Responsive Teaching Survey.
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 45-53.
Rodriguez, J. L., Jones, E. B., Pang, V. O., & Park, C. D. (2004). Promoting academic
achievement and identity development among diverse high school students. The High
School Journal, 87(3), 44-53.
Rosenzweig, E. Q., Harackiewicz, J. M., Priniski, S. J., Hecht, C. A., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts,
Y., & Hyde, J. S. (2019). Choose your own intervention: Using choice to enhance the
effectiveness of a utility-value intervention. Motivation Science, 5(3), 269.
Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for
teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761–774.

100

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement. In K. R.
Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at School (pp. 171–195). New
York: Routledge.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.
Savani, K., Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. L. (2008). Let your preference be your guide?
Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 861.
Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2007). Wrapping the curriculum around their lives: Using a culturally relevant
curriculum with African American adult women. Adult Education Quarterly, 58(1), 44-
60.
Sheldon, K. M., & Krieger, L. S. (2004). Does legal education have undermining effects on law
students? Evaluating changes in motivation, values, and well‐being. Behavioral Sciences
& the Law, 22(2), 261-286.
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (this issue). The challenges of defining and
measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1-13.
Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban
Education, 47(3), 562-584.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on
engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral
and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493-525.
Steckermeier, L. C. (2021). The Value of Autonomy for the Good Life. An Empirical
Investigation of Autonomy and Life Satisfaction in Europe. Social Indicators Research,
154(2), 693-723.
Steingut, R. R., Patall, E. A., & Trimble, S. S. (2017). The effect of rationale provision on
motivation and performance outcomes: A meta-analysis. Motivation Science, 3(1), 19.
Tabachnick, B. G. & and Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4
th
Ed.) Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tate, W. F. (1995). Returning to the root: A culturally relevant approach to mathematics
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 166-173.

101

Tatum, B. D. (2017). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” And other
conversations about race. Ney York: NY:Basic Books.
Thoman, D. B., Brown, E. R., Mason, A. Z., Harmsen, A. G., & Smith, J. L. (2015). The role of
altruistic values in motivating underrepresented minority students for biomedicine.
BioScience, 65(2), 183–188.
Thomas, C. D., & Williams, D. L. (2008). An Analysis of Teacher Defined Mathematical Tasks:
Engaging Urban Learners in Performance-Based Instruction. Journal of Urban Learning,
Teaching, and Research, 4, 109-121.
Thomas, R. (2019). The Boys in the Back: Using Culturally Responsive Teaching to Connect
with Latino Male Students in Middle School (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State
University).
Upadhyay, B., Atwood, E., & Tharu, B. (2020). Actions for sociopolitical consciousness in a
high school science class: A case study of ninth grade class with predominantly
indigenous students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1119-1147.
Usher, E. L. (2018). Acknowledging the whiteness of motivation research: Seeking cultural
relevance. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 131-144.
Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., De Muynck, G. J., Haerens, L., Patall, E., & Reeve, J. (2018).
Fostering personal meaning and self-relevance: A self-determination theory perspective
on internalization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 30-49.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: basic
psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263.
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis, A., ... &
Beyers, W. (2012). Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and
structure: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior.
Learning and instruction, 22(6), 431-439.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating
learning, performance, and persistence: the synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents
and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2),
246.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the
motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy‐supportive
versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents' academic
achievement. Child Development, 76(2), 483-501.
Wallace, T. L & Sung, H.C. (2017). Student perceptions of autonomy-supportive instructional
interactions in the middle grades. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(3), 425-
449.

102

Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic
engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional
perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12-23.
Ware, F. (2006). Warm demander pedagogy: Culturally responsive teaching that supports a
culture of achievement for African American students. Urban Education, 41(4), 427-456.
Waterschoot, J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2019). The effects of experimentally induced
choice on elementary school children’s intrinsic motivation: The moderating role of
indecisiveness and teacher–student relatedness. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 188, 104692.
Weber, K., Martin, M. M., & Cayanus, J. L. (2005). Student interest: A two-study re-
examination of the concept. Communication Quarterly, 53(1), 71-86.
Whitaker, M. C., & Valtierra, K. M. (2018). The dispositions for culturally responsive pedagogy
scale. Journal for Multicultural Education.
Willems A.S., Lewalter D. (2012). Self-Determination and Learning. In: Seel N.M. (eds)
Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_250
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal
orientations to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236.
Yeager, D. S., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., Brzustoski, P., Master, A., ... & Cohen,
G. L. (2014). Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical
feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2),
804.
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re
not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267-301.
Zambrano, J., Kennedy, A. A. U., Aguilera, C., Yates, N., & Patall, E. A. (in press). Students’
beliefs about agentic engagement: A phenomenological study in urban high school
physical science and engineering classes. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Zambrano, J., Lee, G. A., Leal, C. C., & Thoman, D. B. (2020). Highlighting Prosocial
Affordances of Science in Textbooks to Promote Science Interest. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 19(3), ar24.
Zhou, L. H., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2019). Effects of perceived autonomy
support from social agents on motivation and engagement of Chinese primary school
students: Psychological need satisfaction as mediator. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 58, 323-330.

103

APPENDIX A
Protocol for Preliminary Cognitive Interviews
Hello. My name is Jeanette and I’m a PhD student from the University of Southern California.
Thank you for meeting with me today. The purpose of this study is to try to understand how
students experience autonomy and motivation from their teachers’ instructional practice. I am
interested in your honest opinions, so there are no right or wrong answers. I’ll be recording this
call so that I don’t miss any of your comments. Feel free to turn off your video camera if that
makes you more comfortable. We won’t use any names in our reports. You can be assured of
complete confidentiality. Let’s begin.
Begin audio recording.
1. Warm-up
 What year in school are you in?
 What is your major?
 Why are you pursing that major?

2. Please take a moment now to reflect on a time when you felt you had autonomy in the
classroom. Let me know when you’re ready to discuss this memory.
[If the student doesn’t know what autonomy means, provide them with a definition. Only
provide the definition if they ask for it. Autonomy can be defined as feeling that your
actions originate or come from yourself, and your actions are in line with your own
values, goals, and interests. It can also be described as feeling self-governance over the
start and direction of your behaviors.]
 Could you describe the classroom situation?
 What did the instructor do that led to a feeling of autonomy?

3. Next, please take a moment to think about an in-person social science course that you are
currently taking. Social science courses include areas of study such as psychology,
political science, anthropology, sociology, economics, among others. Which in-person
social science course would you like to discuss?

4. Great, I’ll be having you read some statements and ask you some questions about them.
As you read each item, please consider it with regard to your __name of course student
selected__ class.

Share screen. Present the first question.
 Can you read this question to yourself first, then aloud?
Wait for them to do it.
 Great, what do you think this item is asking you?
 Ok, what option would you select?
 Why?

104

Additional probing questions (if student responses are unclear or confusing):
o Is this item applicable or not applicable to your class experiences?
Why/why not?
o Was this item confusing to you? Why?

Repeat for each item of the new CRRE subscales.

5. Of everything we discussed today, what do you think is the most important thing that
teachers should keep in mind when trying to promote student autonomy in the classroom?

6. Finally, I’d like to ask some brief background questions.
 How old are you? What is your gender?
 How do you identify in terms of your race or ethnicity?
That concludes the interview. Thank you for your time and help with this study!

105

APPENDIX B:
Initial CRRE Items Discussed During Cognitive Interviews
(and Revised for Quantitative Survey)
In thinking about the class you selected, indicate how often (if at all) you perceive your
instructor to be engaging the following behaviors or practices.

Scale:
o Never (1)
o Rarely (2)
o Sometimes (3)
o Very often (4)
o Always (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CRRE – Providing choices)
1. My instructor allows me to choose to learn about the topics that are most relevant to my
family and community.
2. My instructor provides me with choices and options to learn about the information
relevant to or reflective of my community.
3. My instructor provides me with choices and options to learn about cultures other than my
own.
4. My instructor provides me with choices and options to learn about social justice issues.

(CRRE – Understanding and incorporating student interests and opinions)
1. My instructor asks about students’ home life.
2. My instructor is interested in students’ cultures.
3. My instructor likes to hear about students’ unique life experiences.
4. My instructor encourages storytelling and sharing during class.
5. My instructor knows about my cultural background.

(CRRE – Providing rationales)
1. My instructor connects what we are learning to issues in the community.
2. My instructor explains how we can use what we are learning in class to help others.
3. My instructor encourages us to reflect on how knowledge can be used to attend to the
needs of others.
4. My instructor encourages students to connect course topics to contemporary social issues.
5. My instructor supplements course content with lessons about international events.

(CRRE – Providing Question opportunities)
1. My instructor allows students to openly critique knowledge.
2. My instructor listens to my lived experience and perspective.
3. My instructor is open to student questioning of conceptions of scholarly truth.
4. My instructor provides opportunities for students to critique the status quo.

106

(CRRE - Consideration for negative affect)
1. My instructor is empathetic to the issues or challenges that students from diverse
backgrounds are facing.
2. My instructor is open to discussing stressful events that may be impacting students from
diverse backgrounds.
3. My instructor is sensitive to how current events may be impacting students from diverse
backgrounds.
4. My instructor would listen if students expressed that aspects of the class were racially or
culturally offensive.
5. My instructor uses positive humor to alleviate problems or tension in the classroom.

(CRRE - Suppressing criticism and cultural opinions)
1. My instructor does not acknowledge his/her/their own biases and misconceptions.
2. My instructor dislikes students’ work that has cultural perspectives different from
his/her/their own.
3. My instructor favors students who have cultural perspectives that fit his/her/their own.
4. My instructor pressures me to use his/her/their cultural perspective.

(CRRE - Forcing meaningless activities)
1. My instructor forces me to read content that does not relate to my cultural background or
community.
2. My instructor forces me participate in discussions that do not incorporate multiple
cultural perspectives.
3. My instructor forces me to complete work that is not relevant to my cultural background
or community.

(CRRE – Use of controlling messages)
1. The way that I speak with my family and community would be unacceptable when
speaking to my instructor.
2. The way that I act with my family and community would not be allowed in class.
3. The person who I am with my family and community is the same person I am with my
instructor. (R)
4. My instructor does not see that students from different backgrounds think and learn
differently.
5. My instructor makes me feel like I have to adopt Eurocentric ways of behaving in the
class.

107

APPENDIX C

Quantitative Survey
Welcome to the Exploring Teaching Practices Study.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to help researchers better understand teaching
practices. Participants will be compensated with a $10 Amazon gift card for completion of this
survey. Participants will only be compensated for a valid response. Limit 1 per person.
This study will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. We highly recommend that you
complete this questionnaire on a computer or laptop, and not on a mobile/phone device, because
there are features that may not be compatible with mobile devices.
Please complete this questionnaire alone in a quiet and private place with your full attention.
INSERT CONSENT FORM
Instructions: Please take a moment to think about an in-person social science course that you
are currently taking. The course you select should meet in-person, as opposed to virtually. Social
science courses include areas of study such as psychology, political science, anthropology,
sociology, economics, communications, environmental studies, among others. If you want to
check if your chosen class qualifies as an in-person social science course, please contact the
study coordinator at zambranj@usc.edu.
Are you currently taking a social science course that meets in-person?
(1) No [survey ends]
(2) Yes
Please enter the name of ONE in-person social science course you are currently taking (e.g.,
PSYC 320: Fundamentals of Psychological Measurement; HP 365mgw: Culture, Lifestyle, &
Health). ________________________________
When answering the following survey questions, please think about your attitudes and
feelings toward the course you selected above and the instructor teaching this course.
In thinking about the class you selected, indicate your level of agreement with the following
statements.

Outcome Scales (need satisfaction, engagement, empowerment)
o Strongly disagree (1)
o Somewhat disagree (2)
o Neither agree nor disagree (3)
o Somewhat agree (4)
o Strongly agree (5)
(Need Satisfaction, Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs; Reeve & Sickenius, 1994)

108

(Autonomy need satisfaction)
ANS1. In class, I feel free.
ANS2. I feel free to be my “true self” in class.
ANS3. I get to do interesting things in class.

(Competence need satisfaction)
CNS1. In class, I feel successful on tasks and projects.
CNS2. I like the hard challenges in class.
CNS3. I do well in class, even on hard things.

(Relatedness need satisfaction)
RNS1. I feel close with people in class.
RNS2. I feel connected with people in class.
RNS3. I feel a strong sense of connection with people in class.

(Engagement, Agentic Engagement Scale, Reeve, 2013, Engagement versus Disaffection with
Learning Student Report, Skinner, Kindermann & Furrer, 2009, Learning strategies items from
Metacognitive Strategies Questionnaire, Wolters, 1999)
(Agentic Engagement)
AEG1. I let my class instructor know what I need and want.
AEG2. During my class, I express my preferences and opinions.
AEG3. When I need something in my class, I'll ask the instructor for it.
AEG4. During my class, I ask questions to help me learn.
AEG5. I let my class instructor know what I am interested in.

(Behavioral Engagement)
BEG1. I try hard to do well in my class.
BEG2. I work as hard as I can in my class.
BEG3. When I’m in my class, I participate in class discussions.
BEG4. I pay attention in my class.
BEG5. When I’m in my class, I listen very carefully.

(Emotional Engagement)
EEG1. When I’m in my class, I feel good.
EEG2. When we work on something in my class, I feel interested.
EEG3. My class is fun.
EEG4. I enjoy learning new things in my class.
EEG5. When we work on something in my class, I get involved.

(Cognitive Engagement)
CEG1. When I study for my class, I try to connect what I am learning with my own experiences.
CEG2. I try to make all the different ideas fit together and make sense when I study for my class.
CEG3. When doing work for my class, I try to relate what I'm learning to what I already know.
CEG4. I make up my own examples to help me understand the important concepts I study for my
class.

109

(Sense of Empowerment scale, Impact Subscale, Weber, Martin, & Cayanus, 2005)
EMP1. I have the power to make a difference in how things are done in this class.
EMP2. My participation is important to the success of this class.
EMP3. I can help others learn in this class.
EMP4. I can’t influence what happens in this class. (R)
EMP5. My participation in this class makes no difference. (R)
EMP6. I can influence the instructor.

(Instructor trust, Yeager et al., 2014; 1 - very much disagree; 6 - very much agree).
TST1. I am treated fairly by my instructor.
TST2. My instructor treats me with respect.
TST3. Students in my racial group are treated fairly by the instructor.
TST4. My instructor gives me the grades I think I deserve.
TST5. My instructor has a fair and valid opinion of me.

Identity Congruence (ICC)

Consider the “class” circle to represent the image that you have of yourself when you are in the
social science class that you selected. Also consider the “home” circle to represent the image that
you have of yourself when you are at home or when in the presence of your friends, family, and
community. Then, select the picture that best describes the current overlap between your “class”
self and “home” self.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In thinking about the class you selected, indicate how often (if at all) you perceive your
instructor to be engaging in the following behaviors or practices.

Scale:
o Never (1)
o Rarely (2)
o Sometimes (3)

110

o Very often (4)
o Always (5)
(Culturally-Relevant and Response Education [CRRE] Practices – Self-created for this
study)

(CRRE – Providing choices)
c_chc1. My instructor provides me with choices and options to learn about topics that are
relevant to or reflective of my family and community.
c_chc2. My instructor provides me with choices and options to learn about information relevant
to or reflective of my community.
c_chc3. My instructor provides me with choices and options to engage with issues that concern
my family, community, and/or culture.
c_chc4. My instructor provides me with choices and options to learn about cultures other than
my own.
c_chc5. My instructor provides me with choices and options to learn about social justice issues.

(CRRE – Understanding and incorporating student interests and opinions)
c_int1. My instructor encourages students to share their different cultural perspectives.
c_in2. My instructor likes to hear about students’ unique life experiences.
c_int3. My instructor encourages personal storytelling and sharing during class.
c_int4. My instructor listens to my lived experience and perspective.
c_int5. My instructor is interested in hearing about students’ home life.

(CRRE – Providing rationales)
c_ruv1. My instructor connects what we are learning to issues in the community.
c_ruv2. My instructor explains how we can use what we are learning in class to help others.
c_ruv3. My instructor explains how what we are learning can be used to address problems that
people are facing.
c_ruv4. My instructor encourages us to reflect on how knowledge can be used to attend to the
needs of others.
c_ruv5. My instructor encourages students to share useful information that may benefit our
friends, family, and community.

(CRRE – Providing Question opportunities)
c_qst1. My instructor allows students to openly critique knowledge.
c_qst2. My instructor is open to student questioning of conceptions of scholarly truth.
c_qst3. My instructor provides opportunities for students to critique the status quo.
c_qst4. My instructor provides students with space to cast their doubts, skepticism, or critiques
about what is being taught.
c_qst5. My instructor allows students to question aspects of the content that are usually accepted
as truth.
c_qst6. My instructor presents concepts and ideas as if they were set in stone. (R)

(CRRE - Consideration for negative affect)
c_naf1. My instructor is empathetic to the issues or challenges that students from diverse
backgrounds are facing.

111

c_naf2. My instructor is sensitive to how current events may be impacting students from diverse
backgrounds.
c_naf3. My instructor is open to discussing stressful events that may be impacting students’
performance and well-being in the class.
c_naf4. My instructor is understanding of stressful events that may be negatively affecting
students.
c_naf5. My instructor would listen if students expressed that aspects of the class were racially or
culturally offensive.

(CRRE - Suppressing student opinions)
c_sso1. My instructor dislikes it when students share cultural perspectives that are different from
their own.
c_sso2. My instructor favors students who have certain cultural perspectives.
c_sso3. My instructor pressures me to use their cultural perspective.
c_sso4. My instructor does not acknowledge their own biases.
c_sso5. My instructor does not acknowledge how their background influences what and how
they teach.
c_sso6. My instructor is unaware of how their identities influence what and how they teach.

(CRRE - Forcing meaningless activities)
c_fma1. My instructor facilitates lectures and discussions that do not incorporate multiple
cultural perspectives.
c_fma2. My instructor does not ensure that are variety of views are represented in the course.
c_fma3. My instructor does not include multiple cultural perspectives in course readings and
materials.
c_fma4. My instructor does not provide learning content that relates to my cultural background
or community.
c_fma5. My instructor assigns work that is not relevant to my cultural background or
community.

(CRRE – Use of controlling messages)
c_cms1. My instructor makes me feel like I have to speak in a certain way in class.
c_cms2. My instructor makes me feel like I have to behave in a specific way in class.
c_cms3. My instructor makes me feel like I have to think a certain way.
c_cms4. I think my instructor wants students to act in a specific way in class.
c_cms5. My instructor thinks there is a right and wrong way that students should learn.
c_cms6. My instructor makes me feel like I have to conform to policies and behaviors more
typically accepted by White standards of professionalism.
c_cms7. My instructor makes me feel like I have to adopt White American ways of behaving in
the class.
c_cms8. My instructor is inflexible when it comes to making accommodations for cultural
holidays or obligations.

(Perceptions of Autonomy Supportive Practices – Patall et al., 2017; Assor et al. 2002)
(AS - Providing choices)
a_chc1. My instructor allows me to choose how to do my work for the class.

112

a_chc2. My instructor provides options for course assignments or activities.
a_chc3. My teacher allows me to choose which questions or parts of an assignment to work on.
a_chc4. My instructor allows me to make decisions about presentation, format, or aesthetics of
my work.

(AS - Understanding and incorporating student interests and opinions)
a_int1. My instructor structures class activities around students’ interests.
a_int2. My instructor takes students’ preferences into consideration for assignments.
a_int3. My instructor works students’ interests into their lessons.
a_int4. My instructor asks for students’ opinions about what we learn in class.

(AS - Providing Rationales)
a_ruv1. My instructor explains how what we are learning is important.
a_ruv2. My instructor demonstrates how what we are learning is useful.
a_ruv3. My instructor explains how the course assignments are important.
a_ruv4. My instructor talks about the connections between what we are studying in school and
real life.

(AS - Providing question opportunities)
a_qst1. My instructor provides opportunities for me to ask questions.
a_qst2. My instructor acknowledges and responds to my questions in class.
a_qst3. My instructor listens carefully to me.
a_qst4. My instructor encourages students to ask questions.

(AS - Consideration for negative affect)
a_naf1. My instructor is open to hearing criticism or complaints about activities.
a_naf2. My instructor is accepting of any negative feelings about course material.
a_naf3. My instructor is understanding when students express concerns about the course.
a_naf4. My instructor considers students’ negative feedback about course assignments or
activities.

(AS - Suppression of student opinions)
a_sso1. My instructor stops students from expressing their opinions in class.
a_sso2. My instructor stops students from asking questions in class.
a_sso3. My instructor prevents students from expressing complaints or talking about negative
feelings during class.
a_sso4. My instructor is willing to listen only to opinions that fit their own opinion.

(AS - Forcing meaningless activities)
a_fma1. My instructor has me doing uninteresting assignments.
a_fma2. My instructor has me studying boring topics.
a_fma3. My instructor has me reading boring content.
a_fma4. My instructor has me participating in aggravating discussions.

(AS - Use of controlling messages - Pressure, commands, inflexibility)
a_cms1. My instructor is strict about me doing everything his or her way.

113

a_cms2. The language my instructor uses includes how I “should” or “ought” to do things.
a_cms3. My instructor tells students to do things a certain way because she or he says so.
a_cms4. My instructor sets rigid and inflexible deadlines for course tasks and assignments.
a_cms5. My instructor pressures students to do a lot in a short amount of time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Class Grades
What grade do you currently have in the class that you’ve reported on for this study?
o A
o A-
o B+
o B
o B-
o C+
o C
o C-
o D+
o D
o D-
o F
o Other: __________

(Perceived Race/Ethnicity of Instructor)
What was the race/ethnicity of the instructor that you reported your experiences on? If you are
not sure, please select your best guess, or choose the “I don’t know” option if you cannot take a
good guess. Select all that apply:

(1) African American or Black
(2) Asian or Asian American -- If so: specify descent? (e.g., Chinese, Indian, etc.) __________
(3) European American or White, non-Hispanic
(4) Hispanic or Latino/a – If so: specify descent? (e.g., Mexican, Colombian, etc.): __________
(5) Native American or Indigenous American
(6) Middle Eastern
(7) Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian
(8) Other, specify: ___________
(9) I don’t know

Demographics/Background Questionnaire
Age
How old are you? _____
Year
What year in school are you in?
(1) freshman
(2) sophomore
(3) junior
(4) senior
(5) other (specify): ______

114

Gender
What is your gender?
(0) Male
(1) Female
(2) Non-binary
(3) Other: ____

Race/ethnicity
How would you classify your race/ethnicity? (please mark all that apply)
(1) African American or Black
(2) Asian or Asian American -- If so: specify your descent? (e.g., Chinese, Indian, etc.):
__________
(3) European American or White, no Hispanic
(4) Hispanic or Latino/a – If so: specify your descent? (e.g., Mexican, Colombian, etc.): ______
(5) Native American or Indigenous American
(6) Middle Eastern
(7) Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian
(8) Other, specify: ___________

Identity
If you checked more than one racial or ethnic group, indicate below which, if any, you identify
with the most. If you identify with them equally, you can say that. _______________________
Generation

Parent 1: To the best of your knowledge, what is the HIGHEST level of education earned by one
of your parents or legal guardians (e.g., mother)?

(1) Did not finish high school
(2) Finished high school, no college degree
(3) Took some college courses, no college degree
(4) AA or AS: Associate’s degree (i.e., community college or junior college)
(5) BA or BS: Bachelor’s degree (four-year college or university)
(6) MA, MS, or MBA: Master’s degree
(7) Doctorate: Lawyer, Doctor or PhD
(8) Other; Please specify or explain: ___________
(9) Do not know

Parent 2: To the best of your knowledge, what is the HIGHEST level of education earned by
your other parent or legal guardian (e.g., father)?

(1) Did not finish high school
(2) Finished high school, no college degree

115

(3) Took some college courses, no college degree
(4) AA or AS: Associate’s degree (i.e., community college or junior college)
(5) BA or BS: Bachelor’s degree (four-year college or university)
(6) MA, MS, or MBA: Master’s degree
(7) Doctorate: Lawyer, Doctor or PhD
(8) Other; Please specify or explain: ___________
(9) Do not know

GPA
What is your current overall GPA? _________ (i.e. 2.7 on a 4.0 scale)
Major
What is your major? (If you have not declared a major, write “not declared”).
____________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation
Please select the university that you attend:
(1) University of Southern California
(2) CSU Los Angeles
(3) CSU Long Beach
(4) Other: ________
Please enter your name. Note: This survey is completely confidential. We are collecting this
information in order to keep track of survey responses. This information will be deleted from the
survey once this study concludes in December 2022. ____________________________
Please enter your student ID number: _________________
Please enter your school email address (ending in .edu). Your gift card will be sent to this email
address with 10 business days: __________________________________

116

APPENDIX D
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix

117

118

APPENDIX E
Factor Loadings for Predictors and Outcomes

119

Table 7.1. Factor loadings for CRRE scales.
Scale/Items Overall BIPOC Asian White
Providing Choices
My instructor provides me with choices and options to learn
about topics that are relevant to or reflective of my family and
community.
.87 .88 .87 .90
My instructor provides me with choices and options to learn
about information relevant to or reflective of my community.
.89 .91 .89 .88
My instructor provides me with choices and options to engage
with issues that concern my family, community, and/or
culture.
.84 .81 .86 .84
My instructor provides me with choices and options to learn
about cultures other than my own.
.71 .67 .70 .74
Understanding & Incorporating Student Interests/Opinions
My instructor encourages students to share their different
cultural perspectives.
.78 .75 .79 .81
My instructor likes to hear about students’ unique life
experiences.
.85 .82 .84 .89
My instructor encourages personal storytelling and sharing
during class.
.87 .85 .88 .90
My instructor listens to my lived experience and perspective. .85 .83 .84 .88
My instructor is interested in hearing about students’ home
life.
.86 .86 .87 .87
Providing Rationales
My instructor connects what we are learning to issues in the
community.
.72 .68 .73 .73
My instructor explains how we can use what we are learning
in class to help others.
.85 .82 .85 .86
My instructor explains how what we are learning can be used
to address problems that people are facing.
.87 .88 .86 .88
My instructor encourages us to reflect on how knowledge can
be used to attend to the needs of others.
.89 .92 .89 .88
My instructor encourages students to share useful information
that may benefit our friends, family, and community.
.81 .83 .79 .82
Providing Question Opportunities
My instructor allows students to openly critique knowledge. .82 .81 .83 .83
My instructor is open to student questioning of conceptions of
scholarly truth.
.86 .84 .89 .85
My instructor provides students with space to cast their
doubts, skepticism, or critiques about what is being taught.
.90 .89 .89 .91
My instructor allows students to question aspects of the
content that are usually accepted as truth.
.92 .92 .93 .92
Consideration of Negative Affect
My instructor is empathetic to the issues or challenges that
students from diverse backgrounds are facing.
.92 .90 .91 .96
My instructor is sensitive to how current events may be
impacting students from diverse backgrounds.
.91 .90 .92 .92
My instructor is open to discussing stressful events that may
be impacting students’ performance and well-being in the
class.
.83 .82 .89 .85

120

My instructor would listen if students expressed that aspects of
the class were racially or culturally offensive.
.80 .78 .80 .80
Suppressing Student Opinions
My instructor does not acknowledge their own biases. .91 .91 .90 .92
My instructor does not acknowledge how their background
influences what and how they teach.
.95 .95 .94 .98
My instructor is unaware of how their identities influence
what and how they teach.
.90 .88 .93 .88
Forcing Meaningless Activities
My instructor facilitates lectures and discussions that do not
incorporate multiple cultural perspectives.
.88 .84 .90 .91
My instructor does not ensure that are variety of views are
represented in the course.
.90 .92 .86 .93
My instructor does not include multiple cultural perspectives
in course readings and materials.
.89 .86 .89 .92
Use of Controlling Messages
My instructor makes me feel like I have to speak in a certain
way in class.
.82 .82 .84 .83
My instructor makes me feel like I have to behave in a specific
way in class.
.89 .90 .86 .88
My instructor makes me feel like I have to think a certain way. .86 .85 .84 .90
I think my instructor wants students to act in a specific way in
class.
.87 .82 .90 .87

121

Table 7.2. Factor loadings for SDT scales.
Scale/Items Overall BIPOC Asian White
Providing Choices
My instructor allows me to choose how to do my work for the
class.
.72 .72 .71 .71
My instructor provides options for course assignments or
activities.
.81 .79 .82 .82
My teacher allows me to choose which questions or parts of an
assignment to work on.
.78 .75 .80 .76
My instructor allows me to make decisions about presentation,
format, or aesthetics of my work.
.75 .70 .80 .79
Understanding & Incorporating Student Interests/Opinions
My instructor structures class activities around students’
interests.
.86 .85 .85 .86
My instructor takes students’ preferences into consideration
for assignments.
.88 .85 .88 .93
My instructor works students’ interests into their lessons. .91 .89 .92 .93
My instructor asks for students’ opinions about what we learn
in class.
.76 .73 .79 .77
Providing Rationales
My instructor explains how what we are learning is important. .90 .91 .88 .92
My instructor demonstrates how what we are learning is
useful.
.91 .93 .89 .88
My instructor explains how the course assignments are
important.
.70 .71 .69 .71
My instructor talks about the connections between what we
are studying in school and real life.
.78 .81 .76 .75
Providing Question Opportunities
My instructor provides opportunities for me to ask questions. .90 .91 .89 .90
My instructor listens carefully to me. .96 .82 .88 .88
My instructor encourages students to ask questions. .91 .90 .92 .93
Consideration of Negative Affect
My instructor is open to hearing criticism or complaints about
activities.
.90 .88 .91 .88
My instructor is accepting of any negative feelings about
course material.
.92 .92 .92 .91
My instructor is understanding when students express
concerns about the course.
.93 .92 .94 .93
My instructor considers students’ negative feedback about
course assignments or activities.
.91 .92 .91 .91
Suppressing Student Opinions
My instructor stops students from expressing their opinions in
class.
.96 .96 .95 .95
My instructor stops students from asking questions in class. .96 .97 .95 .94
My instructor prevents students from expressing complaints or
talking about negative feelings during class.
.94 .95 .93 .94
My instructor is willing to listen only to opinions that fit their
own opinion.
.89 .91 .90 .84
Forcing Meaningless Activities
My instructor has me doing uninteresting assignments. .87 .84 .89 .85

122

My instructor has me studying boring topics. .94 .94 .92 .96
My instructor has me reading boring content. .92 .93 .92 .89
My instructor has me participating in aggravating discussions. .69 .67 .69 .69
Use of Controlling Messages
My instructor is strict about me doing everything his or her
way.
.89 .89 .89 .88
The language my instructor uses includes how I “should” or
“ought” to do things.
.88 .85 .85 .90
My instructor tells students to do things a certain way because
she or he says so.
.90 .90 .91 .89
My instructor sets rigid and inflexible deadlines for course
tasks and assignments.
.69 .74 .69 .62
My instructor pressures students to do a lot in a short amount
of time.
.77 .75 .76 .76

123

Table 7.3. Factor loadings for psychological need satisfaction and engagement scales.
Scale/Items Overall BIPOC Asian White
Autonomy Need Satisfaction
In class, I feel free. .82 .90 .78 .84
I feel free to be my “true self” in class. .83 .81 .83 .85
I get to do interesting things in class. .50 .47 .50 .49
Competence Need Satisfaction
In class, I feel successful on tasks and projects. .79 .81 .79 .80
I like the hard challenges in class. .60 .55 .61 .59
I do well in class, even on hard things. .61 .61 .61 .67
Relatedness Need Satisfaction
I feel close with people in class. .91 .90 .90 .91
I feel connected with people in class. .94 .92 .96 .95
I feel a strong sense of connection with people in class. .92 .91 .90 .93
Agentic Engagement
I let my class instructor know what I need and want. .69 .68 .72 .68
During my class, I express my preferences and opinions. .77 .74 .78 .76
When I need something in my class, I'll ask the instructor for
it.
.68 .65 .70 .70
I let my class instructor know what I am interested in. .75 .42 .77 .75
Emotional Engagement
When I’m in my class, I feel good. .75 .74 .73 .75
When we work on something in my class, I feel interested. .85 .84 .85 .87
My class is fun. .77 .79 .76 .79
I enjoy learning new things in my class. .65 .61 .63 .72
When we work on something in my class, I get involved. .53 .53 .57 .53
Cognitive Engagement
When I study for my class, I try to connect what I am learning
with my own experiences.
.72 .64 .69 .78
I try to make all the different ideas fit together and make sense
when I study for my class.
.78 .74 .73 .81
When doing work for my class, I try to relate what I'm
learning to what I already know.
.76 .74 .71 .75
I make up my own examples to help me understand the
important concepts I study for my class.
.67 .62 .68 .67
Sense of Empowerment
I have the power to make a difference in how things are done
in this class.
.68 --
-- --
My participation is important to the success of this class. .81 -- -- --
I can help others learn in this class. .63 -- -- --
Instructor Trust -- -- --
I am treated fairly by my instructor. .85 -- -- --
My instructor treats me with respect. .92 -- -- --
Students in my racial group are treated fairly by the instructor. .59 -- -- --

124

APPENDIX F
Results Tables for Question 2

125

Table 8.1: Providing Choices Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample).
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.01

(.05) 0.14
**
(.17) -0.03 (.05)
BIPOC 0.01 (.06) -0.06 (.06) 0.05 (.05)
Asian 0.01 (.06) -0.18
**
(.06) -0.01 (.05)
Gender 0.06 (.05) 0.02 (.05) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.36
***
(.05) .131 0.33
***
(.05) .135 0.21
***
(.05) .047
B GPA -0.01

(.05) 0.16
**
(.05) -0.03 (.05)
BIPOC 0.04 (.06) -0.03 (.06) 0.07 (.05)
Asian 0.04 (.05) -0.15
**
(.06) 0.00 (.05)
Gender 0.06 (.05) 0.02 (.05) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.20
***
(.06) 0.15
**
(.06) 0.13
*
(.06)
CRRE 0.32
***
(.05) .209 0.37
***
(.06) .237 0.15
**
(.06) .062
ΔR
2
= .078 Small ΔR
2
= .102 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .015 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engage. Cognitive Engagement
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.01

(.05) -0.03 (.05) 0.11 (.05)
BIPOC -0.10 (.06) 0.10 (.06) 0.02 (.06)
Asian -0.05 (.06) -0.03 (.05) -0.16
**
(.06)
Gender 0.00 (.05) 0.11
*
(.05) 0.14
**
(.05)
SDT 0.41
***
(.05) .170 0.34
***
(.05) .117 0.18
***
(.05) .082
B GPA 0.01

(.04) -0.01 (.04) 0.13
**
(.05)
BIPOC -0.07 (.06) 0.05 (.05) 0.05 (.06)
Asian -0.02 (.06) 0.00 (.05) -0.14
*
(.06)
Gender 0.00 (.04) 0.11
**
(.04) 0.14
***
(.04)
SDT 0.25
***
(.06) 0.13
*
(.05) 0.02

(.06)
CRRE 0.32
***
(.05) .246 0.42
***
(.05) .248 0.33
***
(.06) .164
ΔR
2
= .076 Small ΔR
2
= .131 Med ΔR
2
= .082 Small
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.04

(.05) 0.05 (.05) -0.36
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.11 (.06) -0.04 (.06) 0.17
***
(.05)
Asian 0.09 (.06) -0.15
**
(.05) 0.03 (.04)
Gender 0.10 (.05) 0.08 (.04) 0.00 (.04)
SDT 0.43
***
(.05) .199 0.36
***
(.04) .138 0.10
*
(.04) .193
B GPA -0.02

(.05) 0.06 (.05) -0.36
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.13
**
(.06) -0.01 (.05) 0.16
***
(.05)
Asian 0.11 (.06) -0.13
**
(.05) 0.02 (.04)
Gender 0.10
*
(.05) 0.08
*
(.04) 0.00 (.04)
SDT 0.29
***
(.06) 0.24
***
(.05) -0.07

(.05)
CRRE 0.29
***
(.06) .262 0.24
***
(.05) .181 -0.05

(.05) .195
ΔR
2
= .063 Small ΔR
2
= .043 NPS ΔR
2
= .002 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.96 0.05 0.04
Engagement 0.95 0.04 0.04
Empowerment/Trust 0.95 0.05 0.04
Grades 0.97 0.05 0.03
Note. N = 595. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

126

Table 8.2: Providing Choices Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.04

(.07) 0.13 (.08) -0.03 (.08)
Gender -0.01 (.08) 0.07 (.08) 0.07 (.08)
SDT 0.32
***
(.08) .104 0.21
*
(.09) .060 0.14

(.08) .024
Model B
GPA -0.01

(.07) 0.17
*
(.08) -0.01 (.08)
Gender -0.01 (.08) 0.08 (.08) 0.08 (.07)
SDT 0.21
*
(.09) 0.06

(.11) 0.05

(.09)
CRRE 0.27
**
(.09) .164 0.34
***
(.10) .153 0.21
**
(.08) .057
ΔR
2
= .060 Small ΔR
2
= .093 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .033 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.08

(.07) -0.08 (.08) 0.11 (.07)
Gender 0.13 (.09) 0.15 (.09) 0.15 (.08)
SDT 0.41
***
(.05) .169 0.34
***
(.05) .071 0.18
***
(.05) .072
Model B
GPA -0.03

(.06) -0.03 (.08) 0.15 (.07)
Gender 0.13 (.08) 0.15 (.08) 0.15 (.08)
SDT 0.25
**
(.10) 0.04

(.10) 0.09

(.09)
CRRE 0.34
***
(.08) .258 0.41
***
(.09) .200 0.30
***
(.07) .145
ΔR
2
= .089 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .129 Med ΔR
2
= .073 Small
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.14
*
(.06) 0.07 (.06) -0.42
***
(.06)
Gender 0.16 (.09) 0.13 (.09) -0.02 (.07)
SDT 0.48
***
(.07) .262 0.37
***
(.08) .150 -0.13

(.08) .193
Model B
GPA -0.11
*
(.06) 0.10 (.06) -0.44
***
(.06)
Gender 0.16
*
(.08) 0.13 (.08) -0.02 (.07)
SDT 0.37
***
(.08) 0.27
**
(.09) -0.05

(.09)
CRRE 0.25
**
(.09) .320 0.24
***
(.08) .196 -0.17
*
(.07) .216
ΔR
2
= .058 Small ΔR
2
= .046 Small ΔR
2
= .023 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.93 0.06 0.06
Engagement 0.92 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.95 0.05 0.05
Grades 0.92 0.09 0.05
Note. N = 196. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

127

Table 8.3: Providing Choices Predicting Outcomes for Asian Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.06

(.09) 0.09 (.09) -0.06 (.07)
Gender 0.15
*
(.07) 0.04 (.07) -0.06 (.07)
SDT 0.35
***
(.08) .133 0.51
***
(.07) .260 0.20
**
(.08) .050
Model B
GPA 0.06

(.08) 0.08 (.08) -0.06 (.07)
Gender 0.13 (.07) 0.02 (.07) -0.07 (.07)
SDT 0.14

(.09) 0.32
***
(.08) 0.11

(.10)
CRRE 0.40
***
(.08) .245 0.36
***
(.08) .355 0.18

(.10) .073
ΔR
2
= .112 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .095 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .023 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.00

(.08) -0.00 (.09) 0.12 (.11)
Gender -0.04 (.07) 0.14
*
(.07) 0.22
**
(.08)
SDT 0.48
***
(.06) .239 0.37
***
(.07) .137 0.18

(.10) .084
Model B
GPA 0.00

(.08) -0.01 (.08) 0.11 (.10)
Gender -0.06 (.06) 0.12 (.06) 0.19
**
(.08)
SDT 0.30
***
(.08) 0.14

(.09) -0.05

(.12)
CRRE 0.35
***
(.08) .331 0.45
***
(.08) .286 0.46
***
(.10) .238
ΔR
2
= .092 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .149 Med ΔR
2
= .154 Med
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.01

(.08) -0.01 (.11) -0.26
**
(.09)
Gender 0.08 (.07) 0.13 (.07) -0.03 (.07)
SDT 0.46
***
(.07) .202 0.40
***
(.07) .160 -0.16
**
(.06) .096
Model B
GPA 0.00

(.08) -0.01 (.10) -0.26
**
(.09)
Gender 0.06 (.07) 0.11 (.07) -0.03 (.07)
SDT 0.29
***
(.09) 0.26
**
(.09) -0.16

(.09)
CRRE 0.33
***
(.10) .279 0.28
***
(.08) .216 0.01

(.09) .096
ΔR
2
= .077 Small ΔR
2
= .056 Small ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.96 0.05 0.05
Engagement 0.94 0.05 0.05
Empowerment/Trust 0.94 0.06 0.05
Grades 0.95 0.07 0.04
Note. N = 215. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

128

Table 8.4: Providing Choices Predicting Outcomes for White Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.09

(.10) 0.20 (.11) -0.05 (.08)
Gender 0.00 (.09) -0.12 (.08) 0.06 (.07)
SDT 0.42
***
(.08) .198 0.29
**
(.10) .115 0.28
***
(.08) .087
Model B
GPA -0.11

(.10) 0.17 (.11) -0.05 (.08)
Gender 0.02 (.09) -0.09 (.08) 0.06 (.07)
SDT 0.27
**
(.11) 0.05

(.13) 0.29
**
(.11)
CRRE 0.28
**
(.10) .254 0.41
***
(.11) .226 0.00

(.10) .089
ΔR
2
= .056 Small ΔR
2
= .111 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .002 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.09

(.08) 0.00 (.07) 0.18
*
(.07)
Gender -0.05 (.09) 0.00 (.08) -0.03 (.09)
SDT 0.42
***
(.08) .179 0.39
***
(.09) .150 0.18

(.09) .051
Model B
GPA 0.08

(.09) -0.02 (.06) 0.18
*
(.08)
Gender -0.03 (.09) 0.03 (.08) -0.02 (.09)
SDT 0.27
*
(.12) 0.20

(.11) 0.09

(.10)
CRRE 0.29
*
(.13) .242 0.35
***
(.11) .243 0.17

(.12) .073
ΔR
2
= .063 Small ΔR
2
= .093 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .022 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.10

(.10) 0.06 (.07) -0.35
**
(.11)
Gender 0.05 (.10) -0.05 (.08) 0.04 (.09)
SDT 0.48
***
(.10) .221 0.26
***
(.08) .071 -0.04

(.08) .116
Model B
GPA 0.08

(.10) 0.06 (.07) -0.36
***
(.11)
Gender 0.07 (.10) -0.04 (.08) 0.04 (.09)
SDT 0.29
*
(.15) 0.19

(.10) -0.09

(.11)
CRRE 0.32
*
(.14) .286 0.14

(.11) .087 0.09

(.10) .121
ΔR
2
= .065 Small ΔR
2
= .016 NPS ΔR
2
= .005 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.94 0.06 0.07
Engagement 0.93 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.96 0.05 0.05
Grades 1.00 0.01 0.03
Note. N = 146. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

129

Table 9.1: Incorporating Student Interests Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample).
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.01

(.05) 0.13
*
(.06) -0.04 (.05)
BIPOC 0.02 (.06) -0.05 (.06) 0.06 (.05)
Asian 0.04 (.05) -0.15
**
(.06) 0.01 (.05)
Gender 0.05 (.05) 0.00 (.05) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.44
***
(.05) .192 0.32
***
(.05) .126 0.27
***
(.05) .078
B GPA -0.03

(.05) 0.12
*
(.06) -0.04 (.05)
BIPOC 0.05 (.05) -0.03 (.06) 0.07 (.05)
Asian 0.05 (.05) -0.14
*
(.06) 0.01 (.05)
Gender 0.04 (.04) 0.00 (.05) 0.00 (.04)
SDT 0.26
***
(.06) 0.15
*
(.06) 0.20
***
(.06)
CRRE 0.29
***
(.06) .246 0.28
***
(.06) .175 0.12
*
(.06) .086
ΔR
2
= .054 Small ΔR
2
= .049 Small ΔR
2
= .008 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engage. Cognitive Engagement
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.02

(.04) -0.04 (.05) 0.11
*
(.05)
BIPOC -0.09 (.06) 0.02 (.05) 0.02 (.06)
Asian -0.01 (.06) 0.00 (.05) -0.14
**
(.06)
Gender -0.01 (.04) 0.10
*
(.04) 0.14
**
(.05)
SDT 0.51
***
(.04) .271 0.44
***
(.04) .202 0.25
***
(.05) .109
B GPA -0.03

(.04) -0.06 (.04) 0.09
*
(.05)
BIPOC -0.07 (.06) 0.05 (.05) 0.05 (.06)
Asian 0.00 (.05) 0.01 (.05) -0.14
**
(.06)
Gender -0.01 (.04) 0.09
*
(.04) 0.13
**
(.04)
SDT 0.37
***
(.06) 0.20
***
(.06) 0.06

(.06)
CRRE 0.23
***
(.06) .306 0.41
***
(.05) .310 0.31
***
(.06) .170
ΔR
2
= .035 NPS ΔR
2
= .108 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .061 Small
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.04

(.05) 0.04 (.05) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.11
*
(.06) -0.03 (.05) 0.17
***
(.05)
Asian 0.13
*
(.06) -0.12
*
(.05) 0.02 (.04)
Gender 0.09 (.05) 0.07 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.51
***
(.05) .276 0.40
***
(.04) .172 -0.04

(.04) .187
B GPA -0.05

(.05) 0.02 (.05) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.13
**
(.06) 0.00 (.05) 0.17
***
(.05)
Asian 0.13
**
(.06) -0.11
*
(.05) 0.02 (.04)
Gender 0.08 (.05) 0.07 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.41
***
(.06) 0.19
***
(.05) 0.05

(.06)
CRRE 0.17
**
(.06) 0.262 0.35
***
(.05) 0.181 0.01

(.06) .187
ΔR
2
= .063 Small ΔR
2
= .043 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.96 0.05 0.05
Engagement 0.96 0.04 0.04
Empowerment/Trust 0.96 0.05 0.04
Grades 0.98 0.04 0.03
Note. N = 595. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

130

Table 9.2: Incorporating Student Interests Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.02

(.08) 0.13 (.09) -0.02 (.08)
Gender -0.03 (.07) 0.06 (.08) 0.07 (.08)
SDT 0.41
***
(.07) .170 0.25
**
(.08) .077 0.21
**
(.08) .050
Model B
GPA -0.03

(.08) 0.12 (.09) -0.03 (.08)
Gender -0.03 (.07) 0.05 (.08) 0.06 (.07)
SDT 0.30
***
(.10) 0.12

(.11) 0.11

(.10)
CRRE 0.19
*
(.09) .202 0.22
*
(.10) .109 0.17

(.09) .068
ΔR
2
= .032 NPS ΔR
2
= .032 NPS ΔR
2
= .018 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.04

(.06) -0.05 (.08) 0.13
*
(.07)
Gender 0.12 (.08) 0.14 (.08) 0.14 (.07)
SDT 0.55
***
(.05) .309 0.43
***
(.06) .205 0.34
***
(.06) .137
Model B
GPA -0.05

(.05) -0.07 (.07) 0.12 (.06)
Gender 0.10 (.08) 0.12 (.07) 0.13 (.07)
SDT 0.39
***
(.10) 0.16

(.10) 0.21

(.08)
CRRE 0.26
**
(.10) .350 0.44
***
(.08) .326 0.24
**
(.08) .180
ΔR
2
= .041 NPS ΔR
2
= .121 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .043 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.12

(.07) 0.10 (.07) -0.43
***
(.06)
Gender 0.13 (.08) 0.11 (.08) -0.02 (.07)
SDT 0.53
***
(.06) .317 0.47
***
(.06) .233 -0.11

(.06) .192
Model B
GPA -0.12

(.06) 0.09 (.07) -0.43
***
(.06)
Gender 0.13 (.08) 0.11 (.07) -0.01 (.07)
SDT 0.45
***
(.09) 0.36
***
(.08) -0.11

(.09)
CRRE 0.15

(.09) .332 0.22
**
(.08) .275 -0.02

(.09) .192
ΔR
2
= .015 NPS ΔR
2
= .042 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.95 0.06 0.06
Engagement 0.94 0.05 0.05
Empowerment/Trust 0.96 0.05 0.05
Grades 0.98 0.04 0.04
Note. N = 196. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

131

Table 9.3: Incorporating Student Interests Predicting Outcomes for Asian Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.03

(.09) 0.07 (.09) -0.08 (.07)
Gender 0.14
*
(.07) -0.01 (.08) -0.07 (.07)
SDT 0.45
***
(.06) .209 0.36
***
(.08) .141 0.23
**
(.08) .064
Model B
GPA 0.03

(.08) 0.07 (.09) -0.07 (.08)
Gender 0.14
*
(.07) 0.00 (.08) -0.07 (.07)
SDT 0.20
*
(.09) 0.21

(.11) 0.17

(.10)
CRRE 0.39
***
(.09) .299 0.26
*
(.11) .183 0.10

(.10) .070
ΔR
2
= .090 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .042 NPS ΔR
2
= .006 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.05

(.08) -0.04 (.09) 0.11 (.11)
Gender -0.06 (.06) 0.13 (.07) 0.21
**
(.08)
SDT 0.57
***
(.05) .325 0.42
***
(.07) .177 0.22
*
(.11) .100
Model B
GPA -0.05

(.08) -0.03 (.09) 0.11 (.10)
Gender -0.06 (.06) 0.13 (.07) 0.21
**
(.07)
SDT 0.49
***
(.08) 0.15

(.11) -0.03

(.14)
CRRE 0.13

(.10) .345 0.44
***
(.09) .300 0.42
***
(.11) .208
ΔR
2
= .020 NPS ΔR
2
= .123 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .108 Sm-M
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.04

(.08) -0.04 (.11) -0.27
**
(.09)
Gender 0.07 (.07) 0.11 (.07) -0.01 (.07)
SDT 0.52
***
(.08) .261 0.43
***
(.06) .182 -0.03

(.06) .074
Model B
GPA -0.04

(.08) -0.04 (.09) -0.27
**
(.09)
Gender 0.07 (.07) 0.11 (.07) -0.01 (.07)
SDT 0.49
***
(.10) 0.17
*
(.08) -0.07

(.11)
CRRE 0.06

(.10) .267 0.42
***
(.09) .286 -0.07

(.11) .077
ΔR
2
= .006 NPS ΔR
2
= .104 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .003 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.96 0.05 0.05
Engagement 0.94 0.05 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.96 0.05 0.05
Grades 0.97 0.06 0.04
Note. N = 215. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

132

Table 9.4: Incorporating Student Interests Predicting Outcomes for White Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.14

(.09) 0.14 (.11) -0.07 (.08)
Gender 0.00

(.09) -0.11 (.07) 0.06 (.07)
SDT 0.46
***
(.08) .240 0.38
***
(.08) .166 0.35
***
(.07) .129
Model B
GPA -0.17

(.09) 0.12 (.11) -0.08 (.08)
Gender 0.01

(.09) -0.10 (.07) 0.06 (.07)
SDT 0.29
**
(.11) 0.24
*
(.10) 0.32
***
(.09)
CRRE 0.29
**
(.11) .294 0.24
*
(.10) .203 0.04

(.10) .131
ΔR
2
= .054 Small ΔR
2
= .037 NPS ΔR
2
= .002 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.06

(.09) -0.04 (.06) 0.15
*
(.08)
Gender -0.05 (.09) 0.00 (.08) -0.03 (.09)
SDT 0.51
***
(.07) .261 0.42
***
(.08) .185 0.14

(.09) .040
Model B
GPA 0.02

(.09) -0.08 (.06) 0.13 (.08)
Gender -0.05 (.09) 0.01 (.08) -0.03 (.09)
SDT 0.31
**
(.11) 0.24
**
(.09) -0.02

(.10)
CRRE 0.32
**
(.12) .317 0.33
***
(.10) .266 0.27
**
(.10) .087
ΔR
2
= .056 Small ΔR
2
= .081 Small ΔR
2
= .047 Small
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.05

(.09) 0.03 (.08) -0.34
**
(.11)
Gender 0.04 (.10) -0.05 (.08) 0.04 (.09)
SDT 0.54
***
(.07) .288 0.27
***
(.08) .079 0.03

(.09) .112
Model B
GPA 0.03

(.09) 0.00 (.08) -0.34
**
(.11)
Gender 0.05 (.10) -0.05 (.07) 0.04 (.09)
SDT 0.42
***
(.12) 0.08

(.10) -0.02

(.10)
CRRE 0.20

(.12) .310 0.33
**
(.11) .150 0.08

(.08) .116
ΔR
2
= .022 NPS ΔR
2
= .071 Small ΔR
2
= .004 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.94 0.07 0.08
Engagement 0.94 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.94 0.07 0.06
Grades 0.98 0.06 0.04
Note. N = 146. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

133

Table 10.1: Providing Rationales Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample).
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.01

(.05) 0.14
**
(.05) -0.04 (.05)
BIPOC -0.01 (.06) -0.08 (.06) 0.05 (.06)
Asian 0.08 (.06) -0.11 (.06) 0.02 (.05)
Gender 0.02 (.05) -0.02 (.05) -0.02 (.04)
SDT 0.40
***
(.05) .159 0.38
***
(.05) .169 0.12
**
(.05) .020
B GPA -0.02

(.05) 0.12
*
(.05) -0.05 (.05)
BIPOC -0.01 (.06) -0.08 (.06) 0.05 (.05)
Asian 0.06 (.05) -0.12
*
(.06) 0.01 (.05)
Gender 0.04 (.04) 0.00 (.05) -0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.19
**
(.08) 0.19
**
(.07) -0.01

(.07)
CRRE 0.31
***
(.07) .212 0.29
***
(.06) .217 0.20
***
(.06) .042
ΔR
2
= .053 Small ΔR
2
= .048 Small ΔR
2
= .022 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engage. Cognitive Engagement
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.01

(.05) -0.03 (.04) 0.12
**
(.05)
BIPOC -0.11 (.06) -0.02 (.05) -0.01 (.06)
Asian 0.02 (.06) 0.05 (.05) -0.10 (.06)
Gender 0.05 (.05) 0.07 (.04) 0.13
**
(.04)
SDT 0.34
***
(.05) .126 0.52
***
(.04) .268 0.41
***
(.06) .213
B GPA -0.03

(.05) -0.04 (.04) 0.11
*
(.05)
BIPOC -0.11
*
(.06) -0.02 (.05) -0.01 (.05)
Asian 0.01 (.06) 0.03 (.05) -0.12
**
(.05)
Gender -0.03 (.04) 0.09
*
(.04) 0.15
***
(.04)
SDT 0.13
*
(.06) 0.31
***
(.09) 0.21
**
(.09)
CRRE 0.32
***
(.06) .185 0.31
***
(.06) .322 0.30
***
(.07) .263
ΔR
2
= .059 Small ΔR
2
= .054 Small ΔR
2
= .050 Small
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.04

(.05) 0.06 (.05) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.09 (.06) -0.06 (.05) 0.17
***
(.05)
Asian 0.15
*
(.06) -0.08 (.05) 0.01 (.04)
Gender 0.05 (.05) 0.05 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.32
***
(.05) .115 0.51
***
(.04) .272 -0.05

(.04) 0.187
B GPA -0.06

(.05) 0.05 (.05) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.09 (.06) -0.06 (.05) 0.17
***
(.05)
Asian 0.14
*
(.06) -0.09 (.05) 0.01 (.04)
Gender 0.06 (.05) 0.06 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.13

(.07) 0.37
***
(.07) -0.04

(.06)
CRRE 0.28
***
(.07) 0.158 0.22
***
(.06) 0.298 -0.03

(.05) .188
ΔR
2
= .043 NPS ΔR
2
= .026 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.96 0.05 0.05
Engagement 0.96 0.04 0.04
Empowerment/Trust 0.96 0.04 0.04
Grades 0.98 0.04 0.03
Note. N = 595. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

134

Table 10.2: Providing Rationales Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.04

(.07) 0.12 (.08) -0.03 (.08)
Gender -0.05 (.07) 0.05 (.08) 0.06 (.07)
SDT 0.36
***
(.07) .134 0.31
***
(.08) .113 0.16
*
(.07) .030
Model B
GPA -0.05

(.07) 0.12 (.08) -0.04 (.08)
Gender -0.04 (.07) 0.06 (.08) 0.07 (.07)
SDT 0.24

(.13) 0.20

(.12) 0.02

(.09)
CRRE 0.20

(.11) .164 0.19

(.11) .137 0.21
*
(.09) .054
ΔR
2
Effect ΔR
2
Effect ΔR
2
Effect
0.030 NPS 0.024 NPS 0.024 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.07

(.06) -0.07 (.07) 0.12 (.07)
Gender 0.08 (.07) 0.11 (.07) 0.12 (.07)
SDT 0.44
***
(.06) .204 0.53
***
(.05) .306 0.43
***
(.07) .211
Model B
GPA -0.08

(.06) -0.08 (.07) 0.11 (.07)
Gender 0.09 (.07) 0.12 (.07) 0.13 (.07)
SDT 0.28
**
(.10) 0.41
***
(.08) 0.29
**
(.10)
CRRE 0.26
**
(.09) .248 0.21
**
(.08) .337 0.22
*
(.09) .242
ΔR
2
= .044 NPS ΔR
2
= .031 NPS ΔR
2
= .031 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.15
*
(.06) 0.07 (.06) -0.42
***
(.06)
Gender 0.10 (.08) 0.09 (.07) -0.01 (.07)
SDT 0.41
***
(.06) .207 0.49
***
(.06) .256 -0.08

(.07) 0.182
Model B
GPA -0.15
**
(.06) 0.06 (.06) -0.42
***
(.06)
Gender 0.11 (.08) 0.10 (.07) -0.02 (.07)
SDT 0.30
***
(.09) 0.32
**
(.12) 0.00

(.10)
CRRE 0.19
*
(.09) 0.239 0.26
*
(.12) 0.291 -0.12

(.09) .191
ΔR
2
= .032 NPS ΔR
2
= .035 NPS ΔR
2
= .009 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.94 0.07 0.06
Engagement 0.93 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.95 0.06 0.05
Grades 0.96 0.07 0.04
Note. N = 196. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

135

Table 10.3: Providing Rationales Predicting Outcomes for Asian Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.07

(.08) 0.11 (.08) -0.05 (.07)
Gender 0.10 (.07) -0.04 (.08) -0.09 (.07)
SDT 0.42
***
(.07) .189 0.46
***
(.07) .219 0.12

(.08) .026
Model B
GPA 0.06

(.08) 0.10 (.08) -0.06 (.07)
Gender 0.12 (.07) -0.02 (.08) -0.09 (.07)
SDT 0.19

(.13) 0.30
*
(.12) 0.08

(.12)
CRRE 0.34
**
(.12) .248 0.23

(.13) .250 0.06

(.12) .028
ΔR
2
Effect ΔR
2
Effect ΔR
2
Effect
0.059 Small 0.031 NPS 0.002 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.02

(.09) 0.01 (.08) 0.12 (.10)
Gender -0.12 (.07) 0.10 (.07) 0.19
**
(.07)
SDT 0.24
**
(.08) .075 0.52
***
(.06) .277 0.50
***
(.08) .296
Model B
GPA 0.01

(.09) 0.00 (.08) 0.11 (.10)
Gender -0.11 (.07) 0.12 (.06) 0.21
**
(.07)
SDT 0.09

(.11) 0.33
**
(.12) 0.33
*
(.16)
CRRE 0.23
*
(.11) .106 0.28
**
(.11) .319 0.25

(.14) .326
ΔR
2
= .031 NPS ΔR
2
= .042 NPS ΔR
2
= .030 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.02

(.09) 0.01 (.10) -0.27
**
(.09)
Gender 0.02 (.08) 0.07 (.07) -0.01 (.07)
SDT 0.30
***
(.09) .089 0.52
***
(.06) .269 -0.12

(.07) 0.086
Model B
GPA 0.01

(.09) 0.00 (.10) -0.27
**
(.09)
Gender 0.03 (.08) 0.09 (.07) -0.00 (.07)
SDT 0.23

(.13) 0.37
**
(.12) -0.15

(.08)
CRRE 0.12

(.13) .103 0.22

(.12) .295 0.05

(.08) .088
ΔR
2
= .014 NPS ΔR
2
= .026 NPS ΔR
2
= .002 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.97 0.04 0.05
Engagement 0.94 0.05 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.93 0.06 0.05
Grades 0.96 0.06 0.04
Note. N = 215. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

136

Table 10.4: Providing Rationales Predicting Outcomes for White Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.13

(.09) 0.16 (.10) -0.10 (.08)
Gender 0.00 (.09) -0.09 (.07) 0.04 (.08)
SDT 0.42
***
(.09) .205 0.44
***
(.08) .214 0.06

(.10) .015
Model B
GPA -0.16

(.09) 0.12 (.09) -0.12 (.08)
Gender 0.03 (.09) -0.06 (.07) 0.06 (.08)
SDT 0.17

(.13) 0.20
*
(.09) -0.10

(.12)
CRRE 0.39
***
(.11) .291 0.37
***
(.09) .289 0.26
*
(.11) .056
ΔR
2
Effect ΔR
2
Effect ΔR
2
Effect
0.086 Sm-M 0.075 Small 0.041 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.05

(.09) -0.02 (.07) 0.19
*
(.08)
Gender -0.05 (.09) 0.01 (.08) 0.00 (.08)
SDT 0.29
***
(.08) .159 0.52
***
(.07) .272 0.43
***
(.07) .197
Model B
GPA 0.02

(.08) -0.05 (.06) 0.17
*
(.08)
Gender -0.02 (.08) 0.04 (.08) 0.02 (.08)
SDT 0.10

(.11) 0.32
**
(.12) 0.29
**
(.16)
CRRE 0.45
***
(.11) .271 0.32
**
(.13) .327 0.23

(.12) .228
ΔR
2
= .112 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .055 Small ΔR
2
= .031 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.03

(.10) 0.06 (.07) -0.33
**
(.11)
Gender 0.02 (.11) -0.03 (.07) 0.04 (.10)
SDT 0.27
*
(.12) .069 0.47
***
(.07) .219 0.05

(.10) .114
Model B
GPA -0.01

(.08) 0.05 (.07) -0.33
**
(.11)
Gender 0.07 (.10) -0.01 (.07) 0.05 (.10)
SDT -0.10

(.14) 0.39
***
(.10) 0.04

(.14)
CRRE 0.56
***
(.12) .253 0.14

(.11) .234 0.02

(.11) .114
ΔR
2
= .184 Medium ΔR
2
= .015 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.94 0.06 0.08
Engagement 0.93 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.94 0.06 0.06
Grades 0.98 0.05 0.05
Note. N = 146. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

137

Table 11.1: Providing Question Opportunities Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample).
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA 0.00

(.05) 0.14
**
(.05) -0.03 (.05)
BIPOC 0.01 (.06) -0.05 (.06) 0.06 (.05)
Asian 0.06 (.05) -0.14
*
(.06) 0.02 (.05)
Gender 0.00 (.04) -0.03 (.05) -0.02 (.04)
SDT 0.43
***
(.05) .182 0.24
***
(.05) .085 0.14
**
(.05) .025
B GPA 0.00

(.05) 0.13
**
(.05) -0.04 (.05)
BIPOC 0.01 (.06) -0.07 (.06) 0.04 (.05)
Asian 0.04 (.05) -0.16
**
(.06) 0.00 (.05)
Gender 0.01 (.04) -0.02 (.05) -0.03 (.09)
SDT 0.24
***
(.07) 0.03

(.07) 0.00

(.06)
CRRE 0.28
***
(.04) .227 0.32
***
(.06) .143 0.20
***
(.06) .048
ΔR
2
= .045 Small ΔR
2
= .058 Small ΔR
2
= .023 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engage. Cognitive Engagement
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA 0.00

(.05) -0.02 (.05) 0.12
**
(.05)
BIPOC -0.09 (.06) 0.01 (.06) 0.02 (.06)
Asian 0.00 (.06) 0.01 (.05) -0.13
*
(.06)
Gender -0.07 (.04) 0.04 (.04) 0.11
*
(.04)
SDT 0.37
***
(.04) .150 0.45
***
(.05) .208 0.32
***
(.05) .152
B GPA -0.01

(.05) -0.03 (.04) 0.12
*
(.05)
BIPOC -0.11
*
(.06) -0.01 (.05) 0.00 (.06)
Asian -0.03 (.05) -0.02 (.05) -0.16
**
(.06)
Gender -0.05 (.04) 0.06 (.04) 0.12
**
(.04)
SDT 0.16
**
(.06) 0.21
***
(.06) 0.14
*
(.07)
CRRE 0.32
***
(.06) .206 0.37
***
(.06) .282 0.28
***
(.06) .196
ΔR
2
= .056 Small ΔR
2
= .074 Small ΔR
2
= .044 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.04

(.05) 0.07 (.05) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.11 (.06) -0.03 (.05) 0.17
***
(.05)
Asian 0.14
*
(.06) -0.10
*
(.04) 0.02 (.04)
Gender 0.03 (.05) 0.02 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.37
***
(.05) .150 0.59
***
(.04) .362 -0.02

(.04) 0.185
B GPA -0.05

(.05) 0.06 (.05) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.08 (.06) -0.04 (.05) 0.17
***
(.05)
Asian 0.11 (.06) -0.11
*
(.04) 0.01 (.04)
Gender 0.05 (.05) 0.02 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.10

(.07) 0.48
***
(.06) -0.03

(.05)
CRRE 0.40
***
(.07) 0.239 0.18
**
(.06) 0.379 0.02

(.05) .186
ΔR
2
= .089 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .017 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.97 0.05 0.04
Engagement 0.96 0.04 0.04
Empowerment/Trust 0.97 0.04 0.03
Grades 0.99 0.03 0.02
Note. N = 595. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

138

Table 11.2: Providing Question Opportunities Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.04

(.07) 0.12 (.08) -0.03 (.08)
Gender -0.07 (.08) 0.04 (.08) 0.05 (.07)
SDT 0.35
***
(.09) 0.124 0.16

(.09) 0.041 0.17
**
(.07) 0.035
Model B
GPA -0.04

(.07) 0.12 (.08) -0.03 (.08)
Gender -0.05 (.07) 0.06 (.08) 0.06 (.07)
SDT 0.17

(.12) 0.02

(.13) 0.08

(.11)
CRRE 0.27
*
(.11) 0.165 0.21

(.12) 0.068 0.14

(.10) 0.047
ΔR
2
= .041 NPS ΔR
2
= .027 NPS ΔR
2
= .012 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.06

(.06) -0.06 (.07) 0.12 (.06)
Gender 0.04 (.07) 0.07 (.08) 0.08 (.07)
SDT 0.45
***
(.05) .216 0.49
***
(.06) .254 0.43
***
(.08) .207
Model B
GPA -0.06

(.06) -0.06 (.07) 0.12 (.06)
Gender 0.05 (.08) 0.09 (.07) 0.09 (.07)
SDT 0.36
***
(.09) 0.32
**
(.11) 0.36
***
(.11)
CRRE 0.15

(.10) .243 0.26
**
(.10) .300 0.12

(.09) .226
ΔR
2
= .027 NPS ΔR
2
= .046 Small ΔR
2
= .019 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.14
**
(.06) 0.08 (.06) -0.42
***
(.06)
Gender 0.06 (.08) 0.03 (.07) -0.01 (.07)
SDT 0.49
***
(.05) .270 0.63
***
(.06) .398 -0.02

(.06) .180
Model B
GPA -0.14

(.06) 0.08 (.06) -0.42
***
(.06)
Gender 0.07 (.08) 0.04 (.07) -0.01 (.07)
SDT 0.38
***
(.09) 0.54
***
(.11) 0.00

(.10)
CRRE 0.19
*
(.10) .312 0.14

(.10) .412 -0.03

(.10) .180
ΔR
2
= .042 NPS ΔR
2
= .014 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.95 0.06 0.06
Engagement 0.93 0.06 0.05
Empowerment/Trust 0.98 0.04 0.04
Grades 0.98 0.06 0.03
Note. N = 196. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

139

Table 11.3: Providing Question Opportunities Predicting Outcomes for Asian Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.11

(.08) 0.14 (.09) -0.05 (.07)
Gender 0.10 (.07) -0.04 (.08) -0.09 (.07)
SDT 0.47
***
(.06) 0.232 0.29
***
(.08) 0.094 0.09

(.08) 0.020
Model B
GPA 0.09

(.08) 0.10 (.08) -0.07 (.08)
Gender 0.12 (.06) -0.02 (.07) -0.08 (.07)
SDT 0.20

(.11) -0.06

(.12) -0.13

(.12)
CRRE 0.38
***
(.09) 0.301 0.49
***
(.11) 0.210 0.31
**
(.11) 0.070
ΔR
2
= .069 Small ΔR
2
= .116 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .050 Small
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.04

(.09) 0.05 (.09) 0.15 (.11)
Gender -0.12 (.07) 0.10 (.07) 0.19
**
(.07)
SDT 0.28
***
(.08) .094 0.47
***
(.06) .223 0.41
***
(.09) .209
Model B
GPA 0.01

(.09) 0.02 (.08) 0.12 (.10)
Gender -0.10 (.07) 0.11 (.06) 0.21
**
(.07)
SDT -0.02

(.13) 0.18

(.11) 0.10

(.12)
CRRE 0.42
***
(.12) .184 0.41
***
(.10) .305 0.42
***
(.11) .288
ΔR
2
= .090 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .082 Small ΔR
2
= .079 Small
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.04

(.09) 0.06 (.12) -0.28
**
(.09)
Gender 0.02 (.08) 0.08 (.07) -0.01 (.07)
SDT 0.33
***
(.08) .104 0.56
***
(.06) .312 -0.07

(.06) .077
Model B
GPA 0.00

(.09) 0.05 (.11) -0.28
**
(.09)
Gender 0.04 (.07) 0.09 (.07) -0.01 (.07)
SDT -0.04

(.16) 0.39
***
(.11) -0.07

(.09)
CRRE 0.51
***
(.14) .234 0.24
*
(.11) .337 0.00

(.09) .077
ΔR
2
= .13 Medium ΔR
2
= .025 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.99 0.03 0.04
Engagement 0.97 0.04 0.05
Empowerment/Trust 0.98 0.04 0.04
Grades 1.00 0.01 0.02
Note. N = 215. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

140

Table 11.4: Providing Question Opportunities Predicting Outcomes for White Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.15

(.09) 0.12 (.11) -0.10 (.08)
Gender -0.07 (.08) -0.16
*
(.08) 0.02 (.08)
SDT 0.50
***
(.07) 0.275 0.26
**
(.09) 0.096 0.18
*
(.08) 0.044
Model B
GPA -0.17
*
(.09) 0.11 (.11) -0.11 (.08)
Gender -0.05 (.08) -0.14 (.08) 0.03 (.08)
SDT 0.35
**
(.11) 0.08

(.11) 0.09

(.11)
CRRE 0.25
*
(.12) 0.317 0.31
**
(.11) 0.157 0.16

(.11) 0.061
ΔR
2
= .042 NPS ΔR
2
= .061 Small ΔR
2
= .017 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.03

(.09) -0.06 (.07) 0.16
*
(.08)
Gender -0.12 (.09) -0.06 (.08) 0.07 (.09)
SDT 0.37
***
(.08) .143 0.41
***
(.09) .174 0.25
**
(.08) .082
Model B
GPA 0.00

(.09) -0.09 (.06) 0.15 (.08)
Gender -0.09 (.08) -0.04 (.08) -0.05 (.09)
SDT 0.09

(.10) 0.15

(.14) 0.12

(.11)
CRRE 0.45
***
(.10) .259 0.42
***
(.12) .276 0.20

(.13) .110
ΔR
2
= .116 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .102 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .028 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.01

(.09) 0.04 (.06) -0.34
**
(.11)
Gender -0.02 (.11) -0.11 (.06) 0.04 (.09)
SDT 0.34
***
(.10) .112 0.56
***
(.05) .319 0.00

(.08) .113
Model B
GPA -0.02

(.10) 0.03 (.06) -0.35
**
(.11)
Gender 0.01 (.11) -0.10 (.06) 0.05 (.09)
SDT 0.04

(.16) 0.48
***
(.09) -0.09

(.10)
CRRE 0.48
***
(.14) .247 0.14

(.11) .334 0.15

(.10) .128
ΔR
2
= .135 Medium ΔR
2
= .015 NPS ΔR
2
= .015 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.95 0.07 0.07
Engagement 0.94 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.98 0.04 0.05
Grades 1.00 0.00 0.02
Note. N = 146. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

141

Table 12.1: Understanding Negative Affect Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample).
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.01

(.05) 0.13
**
(.05) -0.03 (.05)
BIPOC -0.03 (.06) -0.08 (.06) 0.03 (.05)
Asian 0.02 (.06) -0.16
**
(.06) -0.01 (.05)
Gender 0.04 (.05) -0.01 (.05) 0.00 (.04)
SDT 0.41
***
(.05) .171 0.31
***
(.05) .123 0.23
***
(.04) .058
B GPA -0.02

(.05) 0.12
*
(.05) -0.04 (.05)
BIPOC 0.02 (.06) -0.05 (.06) 0.04 (.05)
Asian 0.09 (.05) -0.11 (.06) 0.01 (.05)
Gender 0.05 (.04) 0.00 (.05) 0.00 (.04)
SDT 0.19
**
(.06) 0.14
*
(.06) 0.19
***
(.05)
CRRE 0.37
***
(.06) .254 0.29
***
(.06) .174 0.07

(.06) .060
ΔR
2
= .083 Small ΔR
2
= .051 Small ΔR
2
= .002 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engage. Cognitive Engagement
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.01

(.05) -0.03 (.04) 0.11
*
(.05)
BIPOC -0.13 (.06) -0.03 (.06) -0.01 (.06)
Asian -0.04 (.06) -0.03 (.05) -0.16
**
(.06)
Gender -0.03 (.04) 0.09
*
(.04) 0.13
**
(.04)
SDT 0.42
***
(.04) .189 0.47
***
(.04) .221 0.26
***
(.05) .116
B GPA -0.02

(.04) -0.04 (.04) 0.10
*
(.05)
BIPOC -0.11 (.06) 0.01 (.05) 0.03 (.06)
Asian 0.01 (.06) 0.04 (.05) -0.10 (.06)
Gender -0.02 (.04) 0.10
**
(.04) 0.14
**
(.04)
SDT 0.28
***
(.06) 0.23
***
(.06) 0.07

(.06)
CRRE 0.23
***
(.06) .222 0.39
***
(.06) .315 0.32
***
(.06) .178
ΔR
2
= .033 NPS ΔR
2
= .094 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .062 Small
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.04

(.04) 0.05 (.05) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.06 (.06) -0.09 (.05) 0.16
***
(.05)
Asian 0.10 (.06) -0.15
***
(.05) 0.01 (.04)
Gender 0.07 (.05) 0.07 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.49
***
(.04) .258 0.58
***
(.03) .342 -0.01

(.04) 0.185
B GPA -0.04

(.04) 0.04 (.04) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.08 (.06) -0.05 (.05) 0.16
***
(.05)
Asian 0.13
*
(.06) -0.09
*
(.04) 0.00 (.04)
Gender 0.08 (.05) 0.08
*
(.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.40
***
(.05) 0.36
***
(.05) 0.03

(.05)
CRRE 0.16
**
(.06) 0.273 0.35
***
(.05) 0.416 -0.06

(.06) .188
ΔR
2
= .015 NPS ΔR
2
= .074 Small ΔR
2
= .003 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.96 0.05 0.04
Engagement 0.96 0.04 0.04
Empowerment/Trust 0.95 0.05 0.04
Grades 0.97 0.05 0.03
Note. N = 595. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

142

Table 12.2: Understanding Negative Affect Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.04

(.07) 0.12 (.08) -0.03 (.08)
Gender -0.06 (.07) 0.04 (.08) 0.05 (.07)
SDT 0.35
***
(.07) .127 0.19
*
(.08) .051 0.25
***
(.07) .066
Model B
GPA -0.05

(.07) 0.11 (.08) -0.03 (.08)
Gender -0.05 (.07) 0.06 (.08) 0.05 (.07)
SDT 0.21
*
(.10) 0.05

(.10) 0.21
**
(.08)
CRRE 0.27
**
(.10) .183 0.26
**
(.09) .098 0.07

(.08) .069
ΔR
2
= .056 Small ΔR
2
= .047 Small ΔR
2
= .003 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.06

(.06) -0.07 (.07) 0.11 (.07)
Gender 0.06 (.07) 0.10 (.07) 0.11 (.08)
SDT 0.47
***
(.05) .235 0.47
***
(.06) .242 0.23
**
(.08) .081
Model B
GPA -0.07

(.06) -0.08 (.06) 0.10 (.07)
Gender 0.07 (.07) 0.11 (.07) 0.13 (.07)
SDT 0.35
***
(.08) 0.31
***
(.08) 0.03 (.08)
CRRE 0.22
**
(.08) .273 0.31
***
(.08) .314 0.36
***
(.08) .169
ΔR
2
= .035 NPS ΔR
2
= .072 Small ΔR
2
= .088 Sm-M
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.13
**
(.05) 0.08 (.05) -0.42
***
(.06)
Gender 0.08 (.07) 0.06 (.07) -0.01 (.07)
SDT 0.57
***
(.05) .355 0.59
***
(.06) .358 -0.01

(.06) .178
Model B
GPA -0.14
**
(.05) 0.07 (.05) -0.42
***
(.06)
Gender 0.08 (.06) 0.07 (.07) -0.02 (.07)
SDT 0.46
***
(.07) 0.45
***
(.05) 0.06

(.08)
CRRE 0.19
*
(.08) .382 0.27
**
(.09) .419 -0.12

(.08) .189
ΔR
2
= .027 NPS ΔR
2
= .061 Small ΔR
2
= .011 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.95 0.07 0.06
Engagement 0.94 0.06 0.05
Empowerment/Trust 0.97 0.05 0.04
Grades 0.98 0.05 0.03
Note. N = 196. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

143

Table 12.3: Understanding Negative Affect Predicting Outcomes for Asian Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.09

(.08) 0.12 (.09) -0.05 (.07)
Gender 0.16
*
(.06) 0.01 (.08) -0.08 (.07)
SDT 0.52
***
(.06) .271 0.41
***
(.08) .174 0.14

(.09) .033
Model B
GPA 0.08

(.08) 0.11 (.08) -0.05 (.07)
Gender 0.15
*
(.06) 0.00 (.07) -0.08 (.07)
SDT 0.28
**
(.09) 0.12

(.14) 0.07

(.13)
CRRE 0.33
***
(.09) .330 0.39
**
(.13) .239 0.11

(.12) .038
ΔR
2
= .059 Small ΔR
2
= .065 Small ΔR
2
= .005 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.03

(.09) 0.02 (.08) 0.13 (.11)
Gender -0.08 (.07) 0.15
*
(.06) 0.23
**
(.07)
SDT 0.36
***
(.08) .142 0.51
***
(.06) .254 0.38
***
(.09) .184
Model B
GPA 0.02

(.09) 0.01 (.08) 0.12 (.11)
Gender -0.09 (.07) 0.14
*
(.06) 0.22
**
(.07)
SDT 0.21

(.13) 0.21

(.11) 0.16

(.16)
CRRE 0.21

(.12) .167 0.40
***
(.11) .333 0.30
*
(.15) .228
ΔR
2
= .025 NPS ΔR
2
= .079 Small ΔR
2
= .044 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.03

(.09) 0.02 (.10) -0.27
**
(.09)
Gender 0.07 (.07) 0.14
*
(.06) -0.01 (.07)
SDT 0.48
***
(.08) .224 0.60
***
(.05) .348 -0.04

(.07) .073
Model B
GPA 0.03

(.09) 0.01 (.10) -0.27
**
(.09)
Gender 0.07 (.08) 0.13
*
(.06) -0.01 (.07)
SDT 0.51
***
(.14) 0.31
**
(.10) 0.09

(.13)
CRRE -0.03

(.14) .232 0.39
***
(.10) .418 -0.17

(.12) .086
ΔR
2
= .008 NPS ΔR
2
= .070 Small ΔR
2
= .013 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.98 0.04 0.04
Engagement 0.96 0.05 0.05
Empowerment/Trust 0.97 0.05 0.04
Grades 0.98 0.06 0.03
Note. N = 215. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

144

Table 12.4: Understanding Negative Affect Predicting Outcomes for White Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.17

(.10) 0.12 (.11) -0.09 (.08)
Gender 0.00 (.10) -0.10 (.08) 0.07 (.07)
SDT 0.40
***
(.09) .195 0.32
***
(.08) .131 0.28
***
(.07) .089
Model B
GPA -0.17

(.10) 0.12 (.11) -0.10 (.08)
Gender 0.04 (.09) -0.08 (.08) 0.08 (.07)
SDT 0.14

(.09) 0.21
*
(.10) 0.24
**
(.09)
CRRE 0.47
***
(.08) .340 0.23
*
(.10) .171 0.09

(.10) .095
ΔR
2
= .045 Small ΔR
2
= .040 NPS ΔR
2
= .006 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.03

(.09) -0.07 (.07) 0.15
*
(.08)
Gender -0.04 (.09) 0.00 (.10) -0.02 (.09)
SDT 0.44
***
(.08) .199 0.40
***
(.10) .169 0.24
**
(.10) .078
Model B
GPA 0.02

(.07) -0.07 (.06) 0.15
*
(.07)
Gender -0.01 (.08) 0.04 (.08) 0.00 (.09)
SDT 0.24
**
(.09) 0.16

(.10) 0.15

(.11)
CRRE 0.37
***
(.09) .287 0.45
***
(.09) .302 0.18

(.11) .105
ΔR
2
= .088 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .133 Medium ΔR
2
= .027 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.02

(.10) 0.02 (.07) -0.34
**
(.11)
Gender 0.06 (.11) -0.01 (.07) 0.04 (.09)
SDT 0.46
***
(.09) .211 0.51
***
(.06) .266 0.04

(.09) .115
Model B
GPA 0.02

(.10) 0.02 (.06) -0.34
**
(.11)
Gender 0.08 (.10) 0.02 (.06) 0.05 (.09)
SDT 0.31
**
(.11) 0.31
***
(.09) -0.02

(.11)
CRRE 0.30
*
(.12) .270 0.38
***
(.09) .365 0.10

(.10) .123
ΔR
2
= .059 Small ΔR
2
= .099 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .008 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.91 0.09 0.07
Engagement 0.91 0.07 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.92 0.08 0.06
Grades 0.93 0.10 0.04
Note. N = 146. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

145

Table 13.1: Suppressing Opinions Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample).
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.02

(.05) 0.13
*
(.06) -0.04 (.05)
BIPOC 0.02 (.06) -0.05 (.06) 0.06 (.06)
Asian 0.06 (.06) -0.15
*
(.06) 0.00 (.05)
Gender 0.00 (.05) -0.03 (.05) -0.01 (.04)
SDT -0.16
**
(.05) .028 0.00

(.05) .028 0.12
**
(.05) .020
B GPA -0.02

(.05) 0.13
*
(.06) -0.04 (.05)
BIPOC -0.02 (.06) -0.07 (.06) 0.05 (.06)
Asian 0.06 (.06) -0.15
*
(.06) 0.00 (.05)
Gender 0.01 (.05) -0.02 (.05) -0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.00

(.07) 0.08

(.07) 0.16
**
(.06)
CRRE -0.27
***
(.07) .073 -0.13

(.07) .039 -0.06

(.06) .023
ΔR
2
= .083 Small ΔR
2
= .011 NPS ΔR
2
= .002 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engage. Cognitive Engagement
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.02

(.05) -0.05 (.05) 0.10
*
(.05)
BIPOC -0.09 (.06) 0.01 (.06) 0.01 (.06)
Asian -0.01 (.06) 0.01 (.06) -0.13
*
(.06)
Gender -0.05 (.05) 0.05 (.05) 0.10
*
(.05)
SDT 0.02

(.05) .012 -0.14
**
(.05) .026 -0.19
***
(.05) .084
B GPA -0.02

(.05) -0.05 (.05) 0.10
*
(.05)
BIPOC -0.12 (.06) -0.01 (.06) 0.01 (.06)
Asian -0.01 (.06) 0.01 (.06) -0.13
*
(.06)
Gender -0.04 (.05) 0.06 (.05) 0.10
*
(.05)
SDT 0.16
**
(.07) -0.05

(.07) -0.20
**
(.07)
CRRE -0.23
***
(.07) .044 -0.16
**
(.06) .042 0.01

(.06) .084
ΔR
2
= .032 NPS ΔR
2
= .016 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.05

(.05) 0.02 (.05) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.11 (.06) -0.04 (.05) 0.16
***
(.05)
Asian 0.12 (.06) -0.09 (.05) 0.02 (.04)
Gender 0.05 (.05) 0.01 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.07

(.05) .021 -0.38
***
(.05) .156 0.00

(.04) .186
B GPA -0.05

(.05) 0.02 (.05) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.09 (.06) -0.08 (.05) 0.17
***
(.05)
Asian 0.12 (.06) -0.09
*
(.05) 0.02 (.04)
Gender 0.06 (.05) 0.02 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT 0.17
*
(.07) -0.19
**
(.07) -0.01

(.05)
CRRE -0.18
**
(.07) 0.040 -0.31
***
(.06) 0.216 0.01

(.05) .186
ΔR
2
= .019 NPS ΔR
2
= .060 Small ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.96 0.05 0.04
Engagement 0.95 0.05 0.04
Empowerment/Trust 0.96 0.05 0.03
Grades 0.98 0.06 0.02
Note. N = 595. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

146

Table 13.2: Suppressing Opinions Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.07

(.07) 0.12 (.09) -0.04 (.09)
Gender -0.06 (.08) 0.05 (.08) 0.06 (.07)
SDT -0.12

(.10) 0.020 -0.01

(.08) 0.016 -0.04

(.07) 0.006
Model B
GPA -0.08

(.07) 0.11 (.08) -0.04 (.09)
Gender -0.03 (.08) 0.07 (.08) 0.07 (.07)
SDT 0.06

(.09) 0.08

(.07) 0.16
**
(.06)
CRRE -0.30
**
(.12) 0.077 -0.20

(.12) 0.041 -0.18

(.10) 0.027
ΔR
2
= .057 Small ΔR
2
= .025 NPS ΔR
2
= .021 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.09

(.07) -0.10 (.08) 0.08 (.07)
Gender 0.08 (.09) 0.10 (.09) 0.11 (.08)
SDT -0.03

(.08) .014 -0.14

(.05) .040 0.17
*
(.08) .053
Model B
GPA -0.10

(.07) -0.10 (.08) 0.08 (.07)
Gender 0.12 (.08) 0.13 (.09) 0.11 (.08)
SDT 0.19
*
(.09) 0.01

(.10) -0.17

(.11)
CRRE -0.38
***
(.09) .105 -0.25
**
(.10) .081 0.01

(.12) .054
ΔR
2
= .091 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .041 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.18
**
(.07) 0.01 (.07) -0.43
***
(.06)
Gender 0.10 (.09) 0.05 (.08) -0.02 (.07)
SDT -0.08

(.09) .045 -0.39
***
(.09) .162 -0.06

(.06) .186
Model B
GPA -0.19
**
(.07) -0.01

(.07) -0.43
***
(.06)
Gender 0.13 (.09) -0.10 (.08) -0.02 (.08)
SDT 0.12

(.09) -0.10

(.09) -0.06

(.08)
CRRE -0.34
***
(.10) .119 -0.47
***
(.10) .298 0.00

(.10) .186
ΔR
2
= .074 Small ΔR
2
= .136 Medium ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.94 0.07 0.05
Engagement 0.93 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.97 0.05 0.04
Grades 0.97 0.07 0.03
Note. N = 196. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

147

Table 13.3: Suppressing Opinions Predicting Outcomes for Asian Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.06

(.09) 0.11 (.09) -0.03 (.07)
Gender 0.09 (.08) -0.05 (.08) -0.08 (.07)
SDT -0.17
*
(.09) 0.044 0.04

(.09) 0.015 -0.26
***
(.06) 0.077
Model B
GPA 0.07

(.09) 0.12 (.09) -0.03 (.06)
Gender 0.08 (.07) -0.05 (.08) -0.08 (.07)
SDT -0.04

(.13) 0.15

(.13) 0.32
***
(.09)
CRRE -0.21

(.12) 0.070 -0.17

(.13) 0.031 -0.09

(.09) 0.082
ΔR
2
= .026 NPS ΔR
2
= .016 NPS ΔR
2
= .005 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.02

(.08) 0.00 (.09) 0.11 (.11)
Gender -0.12 (.07) 0.08 (.07) 0.18
*
(.08)
SDT 0.14

(.08) .034 -0.12

(.08) .021 -0.14

(.09) .071
Model B
GPA 0.03

(.09) 0.00 (.09) 0.11 (.11)
Gender -0.12 (.07) 0.07 (.07) 0.18
*
(.08)
SDT 0.19

(.12) -0.03

(.11) -0.14

(.12)
CRRE -0.08

(.11) .039 -0.15

(.10) .034 -0.01

(.12) .071
ΔR
2
= .005 NPS ΔR
2
= .013 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.03

(.08) -0.03 (.09) -0.27
**
(.10)
Gender 0.02 (.08) 0.04 (.07) 0.00 (.07)
SDT 0.17
*
(.08) .030 -0.38
***
(.08) .144 0.05

(.09) .075
Model B
GPA 0.03

(.09) -0.02 (.09) -0.27
**
(.10)
Gender 0.03 (.08) 0.03 (.07) 0.00 (.07)
SDT 0.18

(.12) -0.21

(.13) 0.02

(.10)
CRRE -0.01

(.11) .032 -0.27
*
(.11) .191 0.05

(.08) .076
ΔR
2
= .002 NPS ΔR
2
= .047 Small ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.98 0.04 0.04
Engagement 0.95 0.05 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.96 0.05 0.04
Grades 0.98 0.05 0.02
Note. N = 215. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

148

Table 13.4: Suppressing Opinions Predicting Outcomes for White Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.15

(.10) 0.12 (.11) -0.11 (.08)
Gender -0.04 (.09) -0.15 (.08) 0.03 (.08)
SDT -0.29
*
(.14) 0.117 -0.01

(.11) 0.030 0.05 (.10) 0.013
Model B
GPA -0.15

(.10) 0.12 (.11) -0.11 (.08)
Gender -0.01 (.09) -0.16 (.09) 0.02 (.08)
SDT -0.17

(.16) -0.06

(.13) 0.02

(.12)
CRRE -0.20

(.13) 0.141 0.07

(.13) 0.034 0.04

(.12) 0.014
ΔR
2
= .024 NPS ΔR
2
= .004 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.03

(.09) -0.06 (.07) 0.15
*
(.08)
Gender -0.09 (.10) -0.04 (.09) -0.04 (.09)
SDT -0.19

(.13) .043 -0.25
*
(.11) .069 -0.22

(.12) .069
Model B
GPA 0.03

(.08) -0.06 (.07) 0.15
*
(.08)
Gender -0.04 (.09) -0.03 (.09) -0.05 (.08)
SDT 0.05

(.16) -0.21

(.15) -0.25

(.15)
CRRE -0.37
**
(.12) .120 -0.07

(.14) .073 0.04

(.12) .069
ΔR
2
= .077 Small ΔR
2
= .004 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.00

(.09) 0.04 (.06) -0.34
**
(.12)
Gender 0.00 (.11) -0.07 (.07) 0.04 (.09)
SDT 0.01

(.14) .000 -0.48
***
(.10) .232 -0.03

(.08) .114
Model B
GPA 0.01

(.09) 0.05 (.06) -0.33
**
(.12)
Gender 0.06 (.10) -0.05 (.07) 0.06 (.09)
SDT 0.27

(.17) -0.40
***
(.13) 0.06

(.11)
CRRE -0.41
**
(.15) .095 -0.14

(.11) .260 -0.13

(.10) .124
ΔR
2
= .095 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .032 NPS ΔR
2
= .010 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.93 0.08 0.06
Engagement 0.93 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.93 0.08 0.06
Grades 0.94 1.00 0.05
Note. N = 146. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

149

Table 14.1: Forcing Meaningless Activities Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample).
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA 0.00

(.05) 0.14
**
(.05) -0.04 (.05)
BIPOC -0.01 (.06) -0.07 (.06) 0.05 (.06)
Asian 0.05 (.06) -0.14
*
(.06) 0.01 (.05)
Gender -0.03 (.05) -0.06 (.05) -0.03 (.04)
SDT -0.38
***
(.05) .139 -0.27

(.05) .100 -0.10
*
(.05) .015
B GPA 0.00

(.05) 0.13
**
(.05) -0.04 (.05)
BIPOC -0.01 (.06) -0.07 (.06) 0.05 (.06)
Asian 0.05 (.06) -0.14
*
(.06) 0.01 (.05)
Gender -0.02 (.05) -0.05 (.05) -0.03 (.04)
SDT -0.30
***
(.06) -0.23
***
(.06) -0.10

(.06)
CRRE -0.14
*
(.06) .152 -0.08

(.06) .104 0.01

(.06) .015
ΔR
2
= .013 NPS ΔR
2
= .004 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engage. Cognitive Engagement
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.01

(.05) -0.02 (.04) 0.13
**
(.05)
BIPOC -0.11 (.06) 0.03 (.05) -0.01 (.05)
Asian -0.01 (.06) 0.01 (.05) -0.14
**
(.05)
Gender -0.08 (.05) -0.01 (.04) 0.07 (.04)
SDT -0.24
***
(.05) .069 -0.57
***
(.04) .322 -0.41
***
(.04) .211
B GPA -0.01

(.05) -0.01 (.04) 0.13
**
(.05)
BIPOC -0.11 (.06) 0.03 (.05) -0.01 (.05)
Asian 0.00 (.06) 0.00 (.05) -0.14
**
(.05)
Gender -0.08 (.05) -0.01 (.04) 0.07 (.04)
SDT -0.22
***
(.06) -0.59
***
(.05) -0.43
***
(.05)
CRRE -0.05

(.06) .070 0.04

(.06) .324 0.03

(.06) .212
ΔR
2
= .001 NPS ΔR
2
= .002 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.04

(.05) 0.06 (.05) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.09 (.06) -0.06 (.05) 0.17
***
(.05)
Asian 0.13
*
(.06) -0.12
*
(.05) 0.02 (.04)
Gender 0.02 (.05) -0.01 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT -0.23

(.06) .069 -0.42
***
(.04) .189 -0.02

(.04) .185
B GPA -0.04

(.05) 0.05 (.05) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.09 (.06) -0.05 (.05) 0.16
***
(.05)
Asian 0.13
*
(.06) -0.10
*
(.05) 0.01 (.04)
Gender 0.02 (.05) 0.01 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT -0.23
***
(.07) -0.26
***
(.05) -0.06

(.05)
CRRE -0.01

(.07) 0.069 -0.30
***
(.06) 0.255 0.08

(.05) .190
ΔR
2
= .000 NPS ΔR
2
= .066 Small ΔR
2
= .005 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.95 0.05 0.05
Engagement 0.95 0.05 0.04
Empowerment/Trust 0.96 0.05 0.04
Grades 0.98 0.05 0.03
Note. N = 595. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

150

Table 14.2: Forcing Meaningless Activities Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.05

(.07) 0.11 (.08) -0.03 (.08)
Gender -0.08 (.08) 0.02 (.08) 0.04 (.07)
SDT -0.32
***
(.08) 0.109 -0.25
***
(.07) 0.075 -0.15
*
(.07) 0.026
Model B
GPA -0.06

(.07) 0.11 (.08) -0.04 (.08)
Gender -0.07 (.08) 0.04 (.08) 0.05 (.07)
SDT -0.26
**
(.09) -0.20
*
(.09) -0.09

(.08)
CRRE -0.14

(.10) 0.124 -0.10

(.10) 0.082 -0.13

(.09) 0.039
ΔR
2
= .015 NPS ΔR
2
= .007 NPS ΔR
2
= .013 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.08

(.07) -0.07 (.07) 0.11 (.07)
Gender 0.06 (.09) 0.06 (.08) 0.08 (.07)
SDT -0.24
**
(.08) .071 -0.55
***
(.05) .323 -0.36
***
(.07) .150
Model B
GPA -0.09

(.07) -0.07 (.07) 0.11 (.07)
Gender 0.07 (.09) 0.05 (.08) 0.08 (.07)
SDT -0.18

(.09) -0.56
***
(.07) -0.37
***
(.08)
CRRE -0.13

(.10) .085 0.01

(.09) .324 0.03

(.09) .151
ΔR
2
= .014 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.16

(.06) 0.06 (.06) -0.42
***
(.06)
Gender 0.07 (.08) 0.04 (.07) -0.02 (.07)
SDT -0.30
***
(.07) .125 -0.46
***
(.08) .220 -0.05

(.06) .182
Model B
GPA -0.17

(.06) 0.04 (.06) -0.42
***
(.06)
Gender 0.09 (.09) 0.08 (.07) -0.03 (.07)
SDT -0.26
**
(.09) -0.29
**
(.09) -0.09

(.08)
CRRE -0.10

(.10) .136 -0.35
***
(.10) .308 0.08

(.08) .187
ΔR
2
= .011 NPS ΔR
2
= .088 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .005 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.95 0.06 0.06
Engagement 0.95 0.05 0.05
Empowerment/Trust 0.99 0.03 0.05
Grades 1.00 0.01 0.03
Note. N = 196. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

151

Table 14.3: Forcing Meaningless Activities Predicting Outcomes for Asian Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.07

(.08) 0.10 (.09) -0.05 (.07)
Gender 0.06 (.07) -0.07 (.08) -0.10 (.07)
SDT -0.40
***
(.07) 0.173 -0.28
**
(.09) 0.089 -0.03

(.09) 0.013
Model B
GPA -0.06

(.07) 0.11 (.08) -0.04 (.08)
Gender -0.07 (.08) 0.04 (.08) 0.05 (.07)
SDT -0.33
***
(.10) -0.28
*
(.13) -0.07

(.12)
CRRE -0.11

(.11) 0.181 0.01

(.13) 0.090 0.06

(.12) 0.015
ΔR
2
= .008 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS ΔR
2
= .002 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.01

(.09) 0.00 (.08) 0.11 (.10)
Gender -0.14
*
(.07) 0.05 (.07) 0.14
*
(.07)
SDT -0.20
*
(.09) .056 -0.48
***
(.08) .235 -0.45
***
(.08) .249
Model B
GPA 0.01

(.08) 0.00 (.08) 0.11 (.10)
Gender -0.14
*
(.07) 0.05 (.07) 0.14
*
(.07)
SDT -0.32
**
(.11) -0.47
***
(.12) -0.49
***
(.12)
CRRE -0.17

(.10) .072 -0.01

(.13) .235 0.06

(.14) .251
ΔR
2
= .016 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS ΔR
2
= .002 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.01

(.09) 0.00 (.10) -0.27
**
(.09)
Gender 0.00 (.08) 0.03 (.07) 0.00 (.07)
SDT -0.20
*
(.10) .039 -0.39
***
(.07) .156 0.07

(.07) .077
Model B
GPA 0.01

(.08) 0.00 (.10) -0.27
**
(.09)
Gender 0.00 (.08) 0.03 (.07) 0.00 (.07)
SDT -0.36
**
(.12) -0.18

(.11) -0.01

(.09)
CRRE 0.24

(.13) .071 -0.32
**
(.11) .214 0.13

(.10) .086
ΔR
2
= .032 NPS ΔR
2
= .058 Small ΔR
2
= .009 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.95 0.06 0.05
Engagement 0.94 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.95 0.06 0.05
Grades 0.95 0.08 0.05
Note. N = 215. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

152

Table 14.4: Forcing Meaningless Activities Predicting Outcomes for White Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.11

(.11) 0.17 (.10) -0.09 (.08)
Gender -0.08 (.09) -0.14 (.08) 0.03 (.08)
SDT -0.40
***
(.10) 0.191 -0.30
**
(.10) 0.111 -0.06

(.10) 0.014
Model B
GPA -0.11

(.11) 0.17 (.10) -0.09 (.08)
Gender -0.06 (.09) -0.16
*
(.08) 0.03 (.08)
SDT -0.34
***
(.10) -0.27
**
(.10) -0.06

(.11)
CRRE -0.16

(.11) 0.211 -0.07

(.12) 0.115 -0.01

(.12) 0.014
ΔR
2
= .020 NPS ΔR
2
= .004 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.08

(.08) 0.05 (.06) 0.22
***
(.07)
Gender -0.13 (.09) -0.11 (.06) -0.10 (.08)
SDT -0.37
***
(.09) .139 -0.68
***
(.05) .448 -0.42
***
(.09) .185
Model B
GPA 0.07

(.07) 0.05 (.06) 0.22
***
(.07)
Gender -0.09 (.09) -0.11 (.06) -0.10 (.08)
SDT -0.27
**
(.11) -0.68
***
(.06) -0.43
***
(.09)
CRRE -0.27
*
(.12) .196 0.00

(.08) .448 0.02

(.11) .186
ΔR
2
= .057 Small ΔR
2
= .000 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.03

(.10) 0.08 (.07) -0.34
**
(.11)
Gender -0.02 (.11) -0.11 (.07) 0.04 (.09)
SDT -0.18

(.12) .031 -0.37
***
(.08) .136 -0.02

(.08) .114
Model B
GPA 0.03

(.10) 0.08 (.07) -0.34
**
(.11)
Gender 0.02 (.10) -0.07 (.07) 0.03 (.08)
SDT -0.07

(.14) -0.26
**
(.09) -0.02

(.10)
CRRE -0.29
*
(.14) .100 -0.32
***
(.09) .221 0.01

(.10) .114
ΔR
2
= .069 Small ΔR
2
= .085 Sm-M ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.91 0.08 0.08
Engagement 0.94 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.96 0.05 0.06
Grades 0.98 0.05 0.04
Note. N = 146. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

153

Table 15.1: Controlling Messages Predicting Outcomes (Full Sample).
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.01

(.05) 0.13
**
(.05) -0.04 (.05)
BIPOC -0.03 (.06) -0.07 (.06) 0.06 (.06)
Asian 0.05 (.06) -0.14
*
(.06) 0.01 (.05)
Gender 0.00 (.05) -0.03 (.05) -0.02 (.04)
SDT -0.37
***
(.05) .138 -0.18
***
(.06) .060 -0.01

(.05) .006
B GPA -0.02

(.05) 0.12
*
(.05) -0.05 (.05)
BIPOC -0.04 (.06) -0.08 (.06) 0.05 (.06)
Asian 0.06 (.06) -0.14
*
(.06) 0.01 (.05)
Gender -0.02 (.05) -0.04 (.05) -0.02 (.04)
SDT -0.18
*
(.08) -0.09

(.08) 0.08

(.07)
CRRE -0.28
***
(.08) .175 -0.13

(.08) .068 -0.13

(.07) .014
ΔR
2
= .037 NPS ΔR
2
= .008 NPS ΔR
2
= .008 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engage. Cognitive Engagement
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.02

(.05) -0.03 (.05) 0.12
**
(.05)
BIPOC -0.11 (.06) -0.03 (.06) -0.01 (.06)
Asian -0.01 (.06) 0.00 (.05) -0.14
**
(.06)
Gender -0.06 (.05) 0.05 (.05) 0.11
*
(.05)
SDT -0.19
***
(.05) .046 -0.37
***
(.04) .137 -0.21
***
(.05) .093
B GPA -0.03

(.05) -0.04 (.05) 0.11
*
(.05)
BIPOC -0.12 (.06) -0.03 (.06) -0.01 (.06)
Asian 0.00 (.06) 0.01 (.05) -0.14
**
(.06)
Gender -0.07 (.05) 0.04 (.04) 0.11
*
(.05)
SDT -0.10

(.08) -0.27
***
(.08) -0.19
**
(.07)
CRRE -0.13

(.08) .055 -0.14

(.08) .145 -0.03

(.07) .093
ΔR
2
= .009 NPS ΔR
2
= .008 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Model Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

A GPA -0.05

(.05) 0.05 (.04) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.09 (.06) -0.09 (.05) 0.17
***
(.05)
Asian 0.12
*
(.06) -0.11
**
(.05) 0.02 (.04)
Gender 0.04 (.05) 0.02 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT -0.14
*
(.06) .034 -0.54
***
(.04) .300 0.02

(.04) .187
B GPA -0.05

(.05) 0.04 (.04) -0.35
***
(.05)
BIPOC 0.09 (.06) -0.10
*
(.05) 0.17
***
(.05)
Asian 0.12
*
(.06) -0.11
*
(.05) 0.02 (.04)
Gender 0.04 (.05) 0.01 (.04) 0.01 (.04)
SDT -0.10

(.09) -0.39
***
(.08) 0.06

(.06)
CRRE -0.05

(.08) .036 -0.22
**
(.08) 0.323 -0.05

(.06) .188
ΔR
2
= .002 NPS ΔR
2
= .023 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.95 0.05 0.04
Engagement 0.94 0.05 0.04
Empowerment/Trust 0.95 0.05 0.03
Grades 0.96 0.06 0.03
Note. N = 595. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

154

Table 15.2: Controlling Messages Predicting Outcomes for BIPOC Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.08

(.07) 0.10 (.08) -0.05 (.08)
Gender -0.05 (.07) 0.05 (.08) 0.06 (.07)
SDT -0.37
***
(.09) 0.140 -0.17
*
(.08) 0.045 -0.19
*
(.08) .042
Model B
GPA -0.13

(.07) 0.09 (.08) -0.09 (.07)
Gender -0.06 (.07) 0.05 (.08) 0.05 (.07)
SDT -0.18

(.12) -0.11

(.11) -0.03

(.11)
CRRE -0.30
**
(.12) 0.188 -0.10

(.11) 0.051 -0.26
**
(.10) .079
ΔR
2
= .048 Small ΔR
2
= .006 NPS ΔR
2
= .037 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.10

(.07) -0.10 (.07) 0.09 (.07)
Gender 0.09 (.08) 0.12 (.08) 0.12 (.08)
SDT -0.25
**
(.09) .079 -0.40
***
(.06) .182 -0.21
**
(.08) .073
Model B
GPA -0.10

(.07) -0.11 (.08) 0.10 (.07)
Gender 0.09 (.09) 0.11 (.08) 0.13 (.08)
SDT -0.23

(.12) -0.35
***
(.10) -0.24
**
(.10)
CRRE -0.04

(.12) .081 -0.08

(.12) .186 0.05

(.11) .074
ΔR
2
= .002 NPS ΔR
2
= .004 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.18
**
(.06) 0.03 (.07) -0.42
***
(.06)
Gender 0.10 (.09) 0.09 (.08) -0.01 (.07)
SDT -0.31
***
(.09) .137 -0.55
***
(.09) .310 0.01

(.07) .181
Model B
GPA -0.18
**
(.07) -0.02 (.06) -0.44
***
(.06)
Gender 0.10 (.09) 0.08 (.08) -0.02 (.07)
SDT -0.30
**
(.11) -0.32
*
(.14) 0.08

(.10)
CRRE -0.02

(.11) .137 -0.33
*
(.14) 0.358 -0.12

(.10) .189
ΔR
2
= .000 NPS ΔR
2
= .048 Small ΔR
2
= .008 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.93 0.07 0.06
Engagement 0.91 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.97 0.04 0.05
Grades 0.97 0.05 0.04
Note. N = 196. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

155

Table 15.3: Controlling Messages Predicting Outcomes for Asian Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.07

(.08) 0.11 (.08) -0.05 (.07)
Gender 0.09 (.07) -0.05 (.08) -0.09 (.07)
SDT -0.35
***
(.08) 0.140 -0.22
*
(.10) 0.045 0.18
*
(.07) .042
Model B
GPA 0.09

(.08) 0.11 (.08) -0.05 (.07)
Gender 0.06 (.07) -0.06 (.08) -0.12 (.07)
SDT -0.20

(.15) -0.15

(.16) 0.31
*
(.14)
CRRE -0.21

(.16) 0.158 -0.09

(.15) 0.064 -0.17

(.15) .053
ΔR
2
= .018 NPS ΔR
2
= .019 NPS ΔR
2
= .011 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.10

(.09) 0.01 (.09) 0.12 (.11)
Gender -0.13 (.07) 0.09 (.07) 0.18
*
(.08)
SDT -0.06

(.08) .020 -0.30
***
(.07) .095 -0.19
**
(.08) .088
Model B
GPA 0.02

(.09) 0.02 (.09) 0.12 (.11)
Gender -0.15 (.08) 0.06 (.07) 0.19
*
(.08)
SDT 0.07

(.16) -0.19

(.14) -0.21

(.17)
CRRE -0.16

(.16) .029 -0.14

(.14) .102 0.01

(.19) .088
ΔR
2
= .009 NPS ΔR
2
= .007 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.02

(.09) 0.01 (.08) -0.27
**
(.09)
Gender 0.02 (.08) 0.06 (.06) 0.00 (.07)
SDT 0.03

(.09) .002 -0.56
***
(.06) .320 0.09

(.09) .079
Model B
GPA 0.02

(.09) 0.01 (.08) -0.27
**
(.09)
Gender 0.00 (.08) 0.04 (.06) 0.00 (.07)
SDT 0.14

(.16) -0.51
***
(.11) 0.05

(.11)
CRRE -0.13

(.15) .008 -0.08

(.12) 0.331 0.05

(.10) .080
ΔR
2
= .006 NPS ΔR
2
= .011 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.94 0.06 0.05
Engagement 0.93 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.94 0.06 0.04
Grades 0.96 0.07 0.04
Note. N = 215. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

156

Table 15.4: Controlling Messages Predicting Outcomes for White Students.
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA -0.10

(.10) 0.14 (.11) -0.08 (.08)
Gender -0.07 (.09) -0.15 (.08) 0.03 (.08)
SDT -0.44
***
(.10) 0.220 -0.16

(.10) 0.053 -0.12

(.09) .024
Model B
GPA -0.13

(.11) 0.13 (.11) -0.08 (.08)
Gender -0.03 (.09) -0.14 (.09) 0.02 (.08)
SDT -0.23

(.17) -0.09

(.14) -0.16

(.13)
CRRE -0.28

(.17) 0.254 -0.10

(.15) 0.057 -0.05

(.14) .025
ΔR
2
= .034 NPS ΔR
2
= .004 NPS ΔR
2
= .001 NPS
Agentic Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.08

(.08) 0.01 (.07) 0.18
**
(.07)
Gender -0.11 (.09) -0.07 (.08) -0.06 (.08)
SDT -0.40
***
(.09) .164 -0.46
***
(.08) .215 -0.26
**
(.10) .084
Model B
GPA 0.06

(.08) -0.01 (.06) 0.18
*
(.08)
Gender -0.08 (.09) -0.04 (.08) -0.06 (.09)
SDT -0.25

(.13) -0.33
*
(.16) -0.25
*
(.12)
CRRE -0.20

(.14) .182 -0.18

(.15) .230 -0.01

(.12) .084
ΔR
2
= .018 NPS ΔR
2
= .015 NPS ΔR
2
= .000 NPS
Empowerment Trust Current Grade
Predictor B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2
B (SE) R
2

Model A
GPA 0.05

(.10) 0.11 (.06) -0.34
**
(.11)
Gender -0.02 (.10) -0.11 (.07) 0.04 (.09)
SDT -0.28
**
(.11) .074 -0.54
***
(.07) .286 -0.04

(.09) .118
Model B
GPA 0.05

(.10) 0.10 (.06) -0.36
***
(.11)
Gender -0.02 (.10) -0.09 (.07) 0.06 (.09)
SDT -0.29

(.17) -0.44
***
(.13) 0.07

(.15)
CRRE 0.02

(.18) .074 -0.14

(.15) 0.302 -0.15

(.15) .128
ΔR
2
= .000 NPS ΔR
2
= .016 NPS ΔR
2
= .010 NPS
Model CFA Model A/B RMSEA Model A/B SRMR Model A/B
Need satisfaction 0.94 0.06 0.07
Engagement 0.92 0.06 0.06
Empowerment/Trust 0.95 0.06 0.05
Grades 0.97 0.06 0.04
Note. N = 146. Med = Medium, Sm-M = Small-Medium, NPS = Not practically significant.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Despite considerable overlap between self-determination theory’s (SDT) approach to autonomy supportive instruction and culturally relevant and responsive education (CRRE), there has been little consideration in the literature about the potential benefits of integrating these frameworks in theory, research, and practice. This study examined whether these two frameworks can be integrated to promote student success. After considering the overlap and divergences, I race-reimaged autonomy support to be in line with the goals and tenets of CRRE. Preliminary data collection involved interviews to improve the newly developed integrated CRRE scales. For the main analyses, I collected cross-sectional quantitative data from 595 undergraduate students. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that two-factor models between CRRE and SDT fit the data best, and strong correlations between the CRRE and SDT factors suggested that CRRE and SDT are different, but also highly interrelated. Structural equation modeling was used to test the incremental validity of the integrated CRRE practices. Results showed that CRRE autonomy supportive practices (e.g., providing choices) predicted many of the outcomes, including students’ psychological need satisfaction, engagement, sense of empowerment, and feelings of instructor trust, over and above SDT practices. However, CRRE autonomy thwarting practices (e.g., use of controlling messages) did not predict many of the outcomes. Some of the effects were variable across racial and ethnic groups. This study provides evidence that SDT should consider students’ cultural perspectives, that CRRE is motivationally supportive, and that an integrated instructional approach may improve motivation and learning for racially and ethnically diverse students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effects of teacher autonomy support with structure on marginalized urban student math achievement

PDF

Examining perspectives of academic autonomy in community college students: a quantitative study

PDF

Self-determination among adult Chinese English language learners: the relationship among perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement

PDF

A meta-analysis exploring the relationships between racial identity, ethnic identity, and Black students' positive self-perceptions in school

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Examining internal communication practices to improve teachers’ motivation to use ICTs in instruction: a case study of Peruvian secondary schools

PDF

An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

Aligning digital technology to support motivation, physical activity, and sports

PDF

A curriculum for faculty implementation of culturally relevant instruction in a community college classroom

PDF

Culturally relevant pedagogy in Khan Academy’s Algebra 1 course

PDF

Examining teacher pre-service/credential programs and school site professional development and implementation of culturally relevant teaching of BIPOC students

PDF

Into the wildfire: campus racial climate and the Trump presidency

PDF

I love you, too: interventions for secondary teachers to critically self-reflect on, create, and solidify a loving and culturally relevant classroom culture

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

Perceived factors for narrowing the achievement gap for minority students in urban schools: cultural norms, practices and programs

PDF

Supporting world language teachers to develop a culturally sustaining curriculum and reflect on its enactment

PDF

Help, I need somebody: an examination of the role of model minority myth and goal orientations in Asian American college students' academic help-seeking practices

PDF

What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?

PDF

(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges

Asset Metadata

Creator Zambrano, Jeanette (author)

Core Title Culturally-relevant, autonomy supportive instruction: toward an integration for enhancing the motivation of racially and ethnically diverse learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Urban Education Policy

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 06/20/2023

Defense Date 06/06/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag autonomy support,cultural relevance,culturally relevant and responsive education,empowerment,engagement,instructor trust,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychological need satisfaction,self-determination theory,teaching practices

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Patall, Erika A. (committee chair), Aguilar, Stephen J. (committee member), Quinn, David (committee member), Ruzek, Erik (committee member)

Creator Email zambranj@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113178794

Unique identifier UC113178794

Identifier etd-ZambranoJe-11978.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ZambranoJe-11978

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Zambrano, Jeanette

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230621-usctheses-batch-1057 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu