Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Examining perspectives of academic autonomy in community college students: a quantitative study
(USC Thesis Other)
Examining perspectives of academic autonomy in community college students: a quantitative study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 1
EXAMINING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
STUDENTS: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY
by
Paula Elizabeth Obermeyer
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2019
Copyright 2019 Paula Elizabeth Obermeyer
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES 4
ABSTRACT 5
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 6
Background of the Problem 7
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of Study 11
Importance of Problem 12
Limitations 13
Delimitations 13
Definitions of Terms 14
Organization of the Study 16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 18
Community College 18
Purpose 20
Student Demographics 20
Outcomes 21
Barriers to Graduation/Transfer Relative to Instructional Practice 22
Motivation of Community College Students 23
Autonomous Motivation 24
Self-Determination Theory 25
Cognitive Evaluation Theory 26
Basic Psychological Needs Theory 27
Autonomy-Supportive Instructional Practices 28
Interest Building and Choice Making 31
Communicating Value and Providing Rationale 31
Informational Language 33
Providing Structure 34
Autonomy-Supportive Behaviors 34
Critique of Self-Determination Theory 35
Cultural Implications of Autonomy-Supportive Instruction 38
Conclusion 40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 41
Sample and Population 42
Instrumentation 42
Student Perceptions of Autonomy-Supportive Instructional Practices 43
Autonomous and Controlled Motivation 43
Student Perceptions of Competence and Autonomy Need Satisfaction 44
Data Collection 44
Data Analysis 45
Confidentiality 46
Trustworthiness and Credibility 46
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 47
Preliminary Analysis 47
Data Analysis 50
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 3
Research Question 1 51
Research Question 2 51
Discussion 52
Chapter Summary 53
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 55
Summary of the Study 55
Summary of Findings 56
Implications for Practice 58
Further Research 62
Limitations and Conclusions 62
REFERENCES 64
APPENDIX A The Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ) 83
APPENDIX B The Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L) 85
APPENDIX C Activity-Feeling States (AFS) Scale 86
APPENDIX D Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix 87
APPENDIX E IRB Approval and Study Description 89
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Fall 2017 State of California Community College Enrollment Status Summary 21
Table 2: Five-year Attainment or Transfer to 4-year Institution for First-time Beginning
Community College Students: 2004–2008 22
Table 3: Gender/Ethnicity of the Study 48
Table 4: Expected Grade by Gender of the Study 48
Table 5: Psychometric Properties of the Study Variables 50
Table 6: Correlational Properties of the Study Variables 51
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 5
ABSTRACT
This study applied self-determination theory (SDT), from the academic motivation literature, to
understand the motivational deficit associated with community college students not completing
courses leading to degree completion or transfer. The purpose of this study was to gain insight
into students’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction and to determine effects on
academic achievement, academic autonomy, and competence. This quantitative study utilized
cluster sampling, to include 188 community college psychology students. Students self-reported
perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction, academic autonomy, and competence using the
Learning Climate Questionnaire, Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire, and Activity-Feeling
States Scale. Findings demonstrate a significant correlation between the student perceptions of
teacher autonomy-supportive instructional practices and perceived academic autonomy,
competence, and autonomy. Contrary to previous research, a correlation between student
perceptions of the learning climate, and expected grade was not demonstrated.
keywords: self-determination theory, motivation, academic achievement, academic
autonomy, competence
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 6
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Community colleges in California provide access to higher education for a growing
population, currently serving 1,434,590 students representing 60% of California’s
undergraduates (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2018; National Center
for Education Statistics [NCES], 2018). Community college students, often low-income and
from marginalized populations may be ill-equipped to handle the rigor of higher education
(Barnett, 2011; Nakajima, Dembo, & Mossler, 2012).
Marginalized community college students often come from low-income families that
struggle to pay college fees. This struggle leads to a wide range of financial challenges,
including a lack of money for basic living necessities. Maintaining a full course load, as well
as taking care of financial responsibilities outside of school can be overwhelming for many
students (Abdul-Alim, 2016; Chacón, 2013). In addition to the stress factors of home-life
financial responsibilities, marginalized students may not be prepared for college-level
coursework. Furthermore, the many individuals may be first-generation college students that
face many challenges including lack of knowledge about the college experience and face
difficulty fitting in on campus. Hispanic students account for 58% of the community college
population, as compared to 42% White students (Snyder, Tan, & Hoffman, 2006). The
majority of these Hispanic students are academically unprepared to experience success to
degree completion or transfer, as 61% of all Hispanic students take at least one
developmental education course (Crisp & Nora, 2010; Parsad & Lewis, 2003). The stress of
financial responsibilities along with a lack of academic preparation, contribute to a students’
ability and desire to persist in higher education. The National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) reports that, for the 2004–2008 period, 26.4% of students who have attended college
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 7
for 5 years either attained their associate degree or certificate or transferred to a
baccalaureate-granting institution (NCES, 2018). Qualitative studies of community college
students suggest that although many students are willing to try hard to succeed, they do know
the strategies for success. In response, they may earn poor grades, withdraw from courses,
and become discouraged (Grubb, 2013; Karp & Bork, 2012).
Autonomy-supportive instruction has been found to increase student engagement and
persistence (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010). Self-determination theory asserts that all
individuals have basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Deci
& Ryan, 1985). Research suggests that if these basic psychological needs are fulfilled within
an academic setting, students will experience increased intrinsic motivation and academic
achievement (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004). Therefore, this study examines
students’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction and their relation to their perceived
autonomy, competence, and academic achievement.
Background of the Problem
The future of California is dependent upon an educated population; therefore, it is
essential to consider factors that affect student perseverance (Johnson, Mejia, & Bohn, 2015).
Concerns for losses to the overall economy have led policymakers to create incentives based on
student certificate or graduation completion rates, and researchers to consider demographic,
financial and academic variables affecting persistence rates (Barnett, 2011; The Campaign for
College Opportunity, 2016; Nakajima et al., 2012). However, there is a deficit specifically
relative to the instructional practices of community college instructors, how students may
perceive such practices, and how those perceptions may affect academic achievement (Bailey,
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 8
Jaggars, & Jenkins, 2015; Ng, Liu, & Wang, 2015). It is critical to address this deficit in light of
the economic demands of an educated population for the state of California.
Sixty–eight percent of all new jobs in California will require college credentials by 2020
(Johnson et al., 2015). California is projected to be 1.1 million college-educated workers short
by 2030 and will be unable to meet future demands of a 21st century economy (Johnson et al.,
2015). The need for college-educated workers is projected to increase the most in these
occupational categories, requiring college degrees, by 2030: business operations, computer and
mathematical science, financial operations, life and physical science, and health care (Johnson et
al., 2015). Student perceptions of community college instruction must be considered as an
impetus to retain students to degree completion or transfer.
Traditionally, institutions of higher education have focused on the knowledge
transmission model, or lecture style, as their primary instructional pedagogy (Bailey et al., 2015).
This knowledge transmission model of instruction does not allow for classroom interaction nor
does it address the development of course interest and autonomous motivation (Bailey et al.,
2015; Reeve, 2006). Instructors spend little time facilitating classroom discussions and
collaborative activities. As a result, students become reactive, alienated, and passive as opposed
to proactive and engaged (Bailey et al., 2015; Reeve, 2006). In contrast, autonomy-supportive
environments support students’ basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Reeve, 2006).
Students taught by autonomy-supportive teachers experience positive educational
outcomes including increased perceived competence (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991),
and improved mastery motivation (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). In addition, students experience
intensified conceptual understanding (Benware & Deci, 1984), greater engagement (Reeve et al.,
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 9
2004), and raised intrinsic motivation (Reeve, Nix, & Hamm, 2003). Researchers Vallerand,
Fortier, and Guay (1997) found that academic persistence and achievement also improved.
Interest and autonomy may be developed as a means to support motivation as an
instructor adopts autonomy-supportive instructional practices (Reeve, 2016; Stroet, Opdenakker,
& Minnaert, 2013). Teachers demonstrate autonomy support when they avoid external regulators
and nurture inner motivational resources, utilize informational and noncontrolling language,
provide rationale, acknowledge students’ expressions of negative effect, and take the students’
perspective (Reeve, 2006).
Community College Student Profile
Community colleges struggle to support first-year students to persist beyond the first year
of study (Smith & Vellani, 1999). To address this concern, and to ultimately prepare community
college students for the workforce, it is necessary to define “who” the community college
students are. Typically, community college students tend to be over the age of 25, academically
ill-prepared for college rigor and in need of remediation coursework, and face financial
challenges necessitating full-time employment (Hawley & Harris, 2005). Some students may
differ in their educational goals, and do not desire to obtain a degree. Many students have to
choose between attending school or working full time to support their families. Rendón and
Valadez (1993) found risk factors hindering Hispanic students from enrolling in community
college and persisting to transfer to baccalaureate degree institution include (a) family, (b)
economic considerations, (c) knowledge of the system, (d) cultural understanding, (e)
relationship with feeder schools, (f) maintenance of social relationships, (g) academic difficulty,
and (h) perceptions and attitudes toward faculty. Academic programs need to consider the unique
needs of the community college students, and develop coursework built around instructional
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 10
pedagogies that may benefit marginalized community college students. Most of a community
college student’s experience is classroom-based. Students live off-campus and, generally, the
only college representative that they interact with are faculty members. Reflective to the diverse
and commuter-based population, many marginalized students, may feel isolated leading to low
success rates.
Marginalized Community College Students
Community college students of color and low-income, in addition to incurring
challenges caused by financial, cultural, or social constraints, often come from secondary
experiences that lack access to high-quality teachers that practice student engaging and
motivationally-supportive instructional pedagogies (Scott Krei, 1998; Nye, Konstantopoulos, &
Hedges, 2004). This disparity, in comparison higher-income and White peers, may have a
profound effect on marginalized students’ readiness for higher education. Low-income students
and students of color are more likely required to participate in developmental education courses
before they may enroll in college-level credit classes, causing a delay toward goal achievement
of degree completion or transfer. The gap between low and high-income students continues to
widen (Reardon, 2013). Low-income students are more likely to have been raised by a single
mother with a low level of education, creating a limitation in family characteristics and resources
that are important to a child’s development (Reardon, 2013). Lower achievement and
engagement of Hispanic students in the K-12 setting has sometimes been attributed to the
individualistic, rather than collectivist nature of the schools, which may result in less engagement
and motivation for these students (Boykin, 1986). Perhaps this lack of engagement and
motivation transcends into the individualistic culture of higher education. However, other
research indicates Hispanic, and low-income students may be more engaged than their
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 11
counterparts (Shernoff & Schmidt, 2008). Of utmost importance to understanding differences in
motivation and engagement, is a consideration of context. Research findings suggest that
although student-teacher relationships are important to students to marginalized students, their
relations and perspectives of their teachers is poor in comparison to their White and high-income
peers (Murdock, 1999). Furthermore, research suggests that autonomy-supportive instruction
that emphasizes the development of student autonomy need satisfaction, competence, and
relatedness is important for marginalized, at-risk students (Sabol & Pianta, 2012).
Statement of the Problem
Policy makers have called for community colleges to improve their degree completion
and/or academic transfer results by offering more resources to students and their parents (Bailey
et al., 2015). Furthermore, some states have opted to incentivize and fund colleges based on
graduation outcomes (Bailey et al., 2015). Due to a lack of steady funds to maintain such
systems, it is necessary to consider how community colleges may continue to serve
underrepresented students and improve their performance without being dependent on an
increase in funding.
Purpose of Study
Evidence of the motivational factors that may affect a student’s academic autonomy is
difficult to demonstrate without thoroughly considering the perspectives students have of
autonomy support and their effects on motivation and academic achievement (Ng et al., 2015).
This study will address the knowledge gap found in literature that examines diverse urban
community college students’ perspectives on autonomy-supportive instructional practices and
how those practices may influence motivation and academic achievement. Research
demonstrates that academic achievement, when nurtured by autonomy-supportive teachers, leads
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 12
to increases in motivation and persistence (Black & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 1987; Reeve,
2002). The purpose of this study is to determine to what extent do students perceive their
psychology instructor to provide autonomy-supportive instruction in a community college setting
and to what extent do students’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction relate to their
perceived autonomy, competence, and academic achievement. The goal is to gain insights into
student engagement and motivation and to consider the alignment between teacher practices and
student expectations. In this study will focus on psychology students from an urban community
college will complete questionnaires to provide data regarding the following research questions.
To what extent do students perceive their psychology instructor to provide autonomy-supportive
instruction in a community college setting? To what extent do students’ perceptions of
autonomy-supportive instruction relate to their perceived autonomy, competence, and academic
achievement? It is predicted that academic achievement, autonomy need satisfaction, and
competence will increase as students perceive their teachers to practice autonomy-supportive
instructional practices to a greater extent.
Importance of Problem
This problem is necessary to address because examining the motivational factors affected
by autonomy related to the academic achievement, and subsequent persistence, of community
college students is of paramount importance given the critical nature of obtaining a college
degree in today’s economy (Bailey et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2015). Studies demonstrate that
students who perceive their teacher engages in autonomy-supportive instructional practices
exhibit increased autonomy and willingness to master educational objectives (Linnenbrink-
Garcia, Patall, & Pekrun, 2016). Moreover, students display increased positive academic
emotions (Cheon & Reeve, 2015), intrinsic motivation (Cheon, Reeve, Lee, & Lee, 2018; Lee &
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 13
Reeve, 2017; Patall, 2013), and academic achievement (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016; Patall et
al., 2018). Results of this study may inform community college teachers and policymakers of the
prospective positive effects of autonomy-supportive instructional practices. Autonomy-
supportive instructional practices may serve to empower students by giving them a say in course
decisions leading choice instead of compliance, flexible problem solving, efficient knowledge
acquisition, and self-worth (Deci et al., 1991).
Limitations
There are 144 community colleges in California. This study focuses on a small sample
from one of these colleges. This student sample represents a limited size and presents a limited
understanding of how autonomy support may influence academic achievement and persistence.
This type of convenience sampling, based on the availability of respondents, is likely to produce
less generalizable results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In addition, students may have different knowledge of the survey terminology or feel
rushed to complete the survey, affecting the validity of the self-report data. Self-report data can
produce invalid responses if participants submit untruthful or inaccurate responses (Creswell,
2014).
Delimitations
Study delimitations are related to the data analysis and single-site implementation for this
study. The psychology cohort at an urban community college was chosen as the source of student
participants to complete a survey instrument and participate in interviews. Self-determination
theory was the chosen theoretical framework to guide the quantitative study. Furthermore, choice
of metrics may have a result on study outcomes. Given the several metrics available to measure
students’ perceptions of autonomy support, an explicit decision was made to use the Learning
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 14
Climate Questionnaire (LCQ) to measure perceived autonomy support concerning a particular
learning setting. Given the limited site and population, generalizability to other students, target
audiences, and community college settings will be precluded.
Definitions of Terms
Amotivation - Amotivation refers to the state of lacking the intention to act or the
relative absence of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). For example, individuals who display
amotivation do not perceive a possibility between their behavior and outcomes, so they do not
act with the intention to achieve an outcome. Amotivation is similar to learned helplessness
because individuals act like they have little or no control over their outcomes (Abramson,
Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).
Autonomy - Autonomy refers to being the perceived origin or source of one’s own
behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Autonomy experiences are characterized by the perception of
control over outcomes of one’s actions and pursuits (Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Patall, Cooper, &
Robinson, 2008).
Autonomous motivation - Autonomous motivation is experienced when individuals feel
volitional or willing to engage in a behavior because the behavior is personally interesting (Deci
& Ryan, 1987). In contrast, to be controlled means to act with a feeling of pressure because of a
coercive demand. Autonomous motivation represents a students’ intention to act based on full
volition, choice, and self-determination (Ng et al., 2015).
Basic psychological needs theory (BPNT) - BPNT asserts that psychological well-being
and optimal functioning is dependent on autonomy, competence, and relatedness. All three needs
are required for well-being. Contexts that support versus thwart these needs may impact
wellness. (Deci & Ryan, 1985). If any need is thwarted, there will be distinct repercussions.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 15
Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) - CET addresses the effects of social contexts on
intrinsic motivation, and how factors such as rewards and interpersonal controls may impact
intrinsic motivation and interest (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Expanded upon Decharms’ (1968) study
of perceived locus of causality, the theory posits that the needs for competence and autonomy are
integral to intrinsic motivation and the offer a reward may thwart the satisfaction of these needs
(Deci & Ryan, 2002)
Competence - Competence refers to feeling effective in one’s ongoing interactions with
the social environment and experiencing opportunities to exercise and express one’s capacities
(Ryan & Deci, 2000c; Harter, 1985). Competence is hypothesized to underlie processes of
control (Bandura & Schunk, 1981).
Engagement - Engagement refers to the intensity and emotional quality of student
involvement during learning (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). An
engaged student displays both high effort and a sustained emotional tone during that effort. The
concept of engagement provides a means to apply SDT to educational settings because it affords
teachers with an observable lens to monitor the quality of a students’ motivation (Deci & Ryan,
2002).
External regulation - External regulation is the least autonomous form of extrinsic
motivation and includes being motivated to obtain rewards or avoid punishment (Deci & Ryan,
1985). External regulation may thwart the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence,
and relatedness. Students who are externally regulated may be motivated either to obtain rewards
or avoid punishment.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 16
Extrinsic motivation - Extrinsic motivation is motivation to engage in a task as a means
to an end (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2002). Students who are extrinsically motivated work on
a task because they believe their participation will result in desirable outcomes.
Integrated regulation - The process by which individuals are motivated or regulated by
integration of internal and external factors that become part of the self (Schunk et al., 2002). In
this form of regulation, students integrate internal and external sources of information until it
becomes part of their own schema and they engage in a behavior because it is essential to their
sense of self (Rigby, Deci, Patrick, & Ryan, 1992).
Introjected regulation - The process by which individuals are motivated or regulated by
internal feelings or feelings of ought, should, or guilt (Schunk et al., 2002). The source of
regulation is external, and the learners are not self-determined (Deci & Ryan, 2002).
Regulation through identification - Regulation through identification is a more self-
determined form of extrinsic motivation as it involves a conscious valuing of a behavioral goal
or regulation, an acceptance of the behavior as personally important (Ryan & Deci, 1995).
Learners will engage in an activity because it is important to them (Schunk et al., 2002).
Organization of the Study
The researcher used a five-chapter format to present this study. Chapter Two is a review
of literature that presents a synthesis of theoretical frameworks and empirical research relevant to
the study. In Chapter Two the history, purposes, and demographics of community colleges,
autonomous motivation, and autonomy-supportive instructional practices are discussed.
Additionally, the chapter includes a critique of SDT. Chapter Three describes the methodology
and research design of the quantitative study. In addition, Chapter Three describes the
identification of and rationale of sample selection, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 17
Four describes the research findings and includes coded data representing quantitative or survey
data. Chapter Five includes interpretations of the results of the study, implications, and
recommendations. Empirical literature and theoretical frameworks provide a context for the
discussion of findings. Finally, Chapter Five presents the limitations of the study,
recommendations for community colleges, and recommendations for further research.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The NCES (2018) reported that, in fall 2017, 20.4 million students were expected to
attend American colleges and universities, of whom 7 million were expected to attend 2-year
institutions. In addition to academic preparedness, instruction-related factors may affect a
student’s ability to persist in community college and ultimately earn a degree or certificate and
transfer to a 4-year college or university (Nakajima et al., 2012). Although research has
investigated factors likely to influence a student’s decision to persist in college, including an
analysis of demographic, financial, and academic variables, very little research has considered
other factors affecting persistence at the community college (Barnett, 2011; Nakajima et al.,
2012). The study examines students’ perspectives of autonomy-supportive instructional
behaviors and the perceived relationship between classroom instructional practices and students’
academic achievement, academic autonomy, and competence.
Community College
Community colleges, starting in the early years of the 20th century evolved from the need
to train workers to operate the nation’s expanding industries. The progress of science and the
development of new technologies led individuals to perceive schooling as an avenue to upward
mobility and a means to contribute the wealth of the nation (Cohen, Brawer, & Kisker, 2014;
Kane & Rouse, 1999). Initially operating only as an extension of secondary school and primarily
offering agricultural and teacher training colleges programs, as the attending population became
more diverse, so did the programs being offered. Business, forestry, journalism, and social work
soon became readily available educational opportunities to not only solve societal unemployment
concerns, but also mitigate racial segregation and promote social equity by merging students
across ethnic lines into various programs (Cohen et al., 2014; Kane & Rouse, 1999).
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 19
Initially called junior colleges, community colleges have also experienced many
iterations defining their purpose in society. In 1922, at the second annual meeting of the
American Association of Junior Colleges, a junior college was defined as “an institution offering
two years of instruction of strictly collegiate grade” (Bogue, 1950, p. xvii). Expanding on that
definition in 1925 it was stated,
The junior college may, and is likely to, develop a different type of curriculum suited to
the larger and ever-changing civic, social, religious, and vocational needs of the entire
community in which the college is located. It is understood that in this case, also, the
work offered shall be on a level appropriate for high-school graduates” (p. xvii). But the
instruction was still expected to be “of strictly collegiate grade”; that is, if such a college
had courses usually offered in the first two years by a senior institution, institution, “these
courses must be identical, in scope and thoroughness, with corresponding courses of the
standard four-year college. (p. xvii)
During the 1950s and 1960s the term junior college was applied to lower-division
branches of private universities and 2-year, independent colleges. Community college, the term
for publicly supported 2-year institutions became the accepted term in the 1970s (Cohen et al.,
2014; Kane & Rouse, 1999). Today, the community college may be defined as any not-for-profit
institution regionally accredited to award the associate in arts or the associate in science as its
highest degree (Cohen et al., 2014; Kane & Rouse, 1999).
The need for formal education to continue after high school has been a constant theme
throughout recent history by means of federal commissions and presidential addresses. In 1947,
the President's Commission on Higher Education articulated the needs of free access of 2 years
of additional study because half of all young people could clearly benefit from the continued
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 20
education (Cohen et al., 2014; Kane & Rouse, 1999). President Clinton, many years later in
1998, reiterated the need for young people to continue their education for 2 years past high
school, and President Obama in 2009 expressed concern of the additional 5 million community
college degrees and certificates over the course of the ensuing decade.
Community colleges experienced their greatest growth in the West, perhaps because of
the lack of competition from established and well-supported private universities. Obtaining
leadership and direction from the University of California, the community colleges in California
currently house 60% of all college students (Cohen et al., 2014; Kane & Rouse, 1999).
Purpose
The significant and various curricular functions of the community colleges include
academic transfer preparation, occupational, continuing and developmental education, and
community service opportunities. Hollinshead (1936) stated that junior college should be a
community college meeting community needs. Therefore, in addition to developmental
educational needs, community colleges also offer recreational and occupational activities, and
avail their cultural facilities to the needs of the community.
Student Demographics
Community colleges have traditionally made an effort to enroll students who could not
afford the tuition of 4-year institutions, could not attend college full time, and who came from
marginalized racial or ethnic population who has been presented with myriad systemic barriers to
obtaining a college education. In addition, many community college students are ill-prepared
academically for higher education or may need specific training to retain or obtain employment.
To serve the diverse needs of the community college, developmental course offerings are made
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 21
available, along with access to learning laboratories whereby a student may obtain additional
tutoring as required.
Table 1
Fall 2017 State of California Community College Enrollment Status Summary
Student Count Student Count (%)
State of California Total 1,434,590 100.00%
African American 77,062 5.37%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 6,481 0.45%
Asian 163,648 11.41%
Filipino 42,995 2.99%
Hispanic 638,194 44.49%
Multi-Ethnicity 58,188 4.06%
Pacific Islander 6,090 0.42%
Unknown 59,846 4.17%
White Non-Hispanic 382,189 26.64%
Note: The data are adapted from the California Community College Chancellor’s Office
Management Information Systems Data Mart. Retrieved June 2, 2018 from
http://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Enrollment_Status.aspx
The data above represent the increasingly diverse population attending California’s
community colleges. Of particular interest to note is the significant Hispanic and Asian
populations who are especially dominant population in this study.
Outcomes
A historical and ongoing mission of community colleges is to grant certificates or
associate’s degrees and enable transfer to a baccalaureate degree granting institution. The NCES
tracked the percentage of first-time beginning community college students who attained a degree
or certificate or transferred to a 4-year institution within 5 years.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 22
Table 2
Five-year Attainment or Transfer to 4-year Institution for First-time Beginning Community
College Students: 2004–2008
Total attained (%) Transferred to a 4-year
institution with or without
attainment (%)
26.4% 21.1%
Race/Ethnicity
White 30.1 23.0
Black 19.8 16.0
Hispanic 17.6 15.9
Asian/Pacific Islander 29.4 31.6
American Indian/Alaska
Native
29.3 6.0
Note: The data are adapted from the California Community College Chancellor’s Office
Management Information Systems Data Mart. Retrieved June 2, 2018 from
https://datamart.cccco.edu/Outcomes/Course_Ret_Success.aspx
Barriers to Graduation/Transfer Relative to Instructional Practice
Considering the systems and factors assisting in program completion and facilitating
transfer are essential to enable student success, current literature sites a variety of individual,
academic, and institutional barriers to goal achievement (Wang, Chuang, & McCready, 2017).
Students often enter community college lacking metacognitive skills, and are unable to assess
their academic weaknesses, develop study plans, and improve accordingly (Bailey et al., 2015).
Qualitative studies suggest that they want to be successful, but they are unsure of what to do
(Zimmerman & Pons, 1986). Community college instructors primarily structure their classes
around the knowledge transmission and learning facilitation models (Bailey et al., 2015). The
knowledge transmission model focuses on the diffusion of facts to students, whom are believed
to be intrinsically motivated and readily available to think critically and develop a conceptual
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 23
understanding of the knowledge transmitted (Bailey et al., 2015). In this model, low-academic
motivation does not concern teacher instructional practices and is exclusively a student issue best
addressed outside of the classroom (Gardiner, 1998).
In contrast, the learning facilitation approach to instruction addresses conceptual
understanding, metacognition, and student motivation (Bailey et al., 2015). Although instructors
site the benefits of the learning facilitation approach to instruction as students develop
collaboration and critical thinking skills (Weimer, 2002), others are opposed to implementing
this approach. Many instructors believe that implementing this type of approach restricts their
ability to cover course content and that students are ill-prepared to participate in class
discussions. Furthermore, they believe that course preparation is too time consuming (Michael,
2007). In addition, instructors admit lacking knowledge of how to implement this instructional
approach, drawing attention to the culture of isolation in typical community colleges and the
need for professional development in relevant pedagogy (Bailey et al., 2015; Michael, 2007).
Motivation of Community College Students
Community college students come from diverse backgrounds and are driven by myriad
goals for their impetus to enroll and attend classes at a community college. According to The
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 52% of students indicated their desire was to
transfer, while 43% stated their reason for attending was to complete and associate’s degree. In
California, out of the 2.3 million students who are enrolled in community colleges, in 2013–2014
less than 4% transferred to a 4-year university (The Campaign for College Opportunity, 2016).
Community college students often have a low level of academic motivation (Bailey et al., 2015).
Many factors may be affecting the motivation of community college students, impacting their
desire and ability to achieve and persist. Studies examining the role of motivation in college
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 24
performance have found motivation to have a strong association with achievement (Spitzer,
2000). Academic discipline, or the willingness to expend effort to complete schoolwork and self-
perceptions of diligence, self-confidence, and study-skills were reported as factors influencing
motivation by researcher Robbins, Allen, Casillas, Peterson, and Le (2006). Qualitative research
reveals that motivation, from the student perspective, is influenced by setting clear goals, having
a positive mindset, and support from family, friends, and faculty (Martin, Galentino, &
Townsend, 2014)
Autonomous Motivation
Autonomous motivation is defined as engaging in activities out of a sense of personal
agency and in the absence of external contingencies or rewards. Autonomous motivation is
considered most adaptive, in contrast to external or introjected regulation, due to the potential for
better educational outcomes (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2016). Research demonstrates that
students holding moderate levels of extrinsic motivation, such as external performance goals, and
high levels of intrinsic motivation, including internal or mastery learning goals, were more
successful in achieving their academic goals (List & Nadasen, 2016). Barron and Harackiewicz
(2001) found that both intrinsic and extrinsic goals are necessary for students to perform.
Within educational contexts, students may be motivated to persist, often self-directed, out
of interest and satisfaction derived from the activity (Boiché, Sarrazin, Grouzet, Pelletier, &
Chanal, 2008; Fortus & Vedder-Weiss, 2014). Autonomous goals are defined as those that reflect
personal interests, in contrast to controlled goals that reflect something one feels compelled to do
by external or internal pressures (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). Koestner, Otis, Powers, Pelletier, and
Gagnon (2008) examined the relationship among autonomous motivation, controlled motivation
and goal progress to determine the importance of autonomous motivation and controlled
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 25
motivation in the pursuit of achieving personal goals. Participants were 409 high school students
in Quebec who listed their most important academic and leisure goals for the school year, rating
them in levels of importance and goal motivation. Students were asked to follow up one month
later, rating their goal progress using a 9-point Likert scale. Results indicated that autonomous
motivation was significantly positively related to greater implementation planning for both the
academic and social goal.
Self-Determination Theory
Cognitive theories of development (Piaget, 1971; Werner, 1948) suggest that individuals
integrate experiences from their environment to their self and subsequent cognitive development.
SDT is an approach to human motivation that highlights the importance of an individuals’ inner
resources for behavioral self-regulation (Amoura, Berjot, Gillet, & Altintas, 2014; Ryan & Deci,
2000a; Ryan, Legate, Niemiec, & Deci, 2012;). SDT supports the motivation mediation model to
explain the relationship between a teacher’s motivating style and students’ motivation and
functioning (Jang et al., 2009). This model suggests that teacher-provided autonomy support
nurtures students’ psychological needs satisfaction and predicts the extent of classroom
engagement and achievement (Jang et al., 2009).
SDT identified empirically based innate psychological needs as the basis of self-
motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Origins of SDT can be traced to psychodynamic and
humanistic theories of personality and cognitive theories of development that recognize that
human functioning is based on the drives and forces within the person (Freud, 1927; Nunberg,
1931; White, 1963). Humanistic psychology postulates an actualizing tendency emphasizing
personal choice and free will (Maslow, 1955; Rogers, 1963). Recent theories also embrace
assumptions set forth by SDT that individuals possess the propensity to explore activities of
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 26
curiosity and interest and integrate the new experiences to the self (Ford, 1992; Loevinger &
Blasi, 1991). In an educational context, students’ attitudes, communication behaviors, and
success rates are understood as products relative to their motivation to learn (Goldman,
Goodboy, & Weber, 2016).
Intrinsic motivation results in natural inclination toward assimilation, mastery, and
spontaneous interest essential to cognitive and social development (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). It is a
naturally occurring inclination toward exploration, interest, and mastery that emerges when an
individual anticipates discovering new information, learning and extending existing capacities,
leading to feelings of enjoyment and satisfaction (Lee & Reeve, 2017). In addition, research by
Black and Deci (2000) and Niemiec and Ryan (2009) concluded that SDT is useful for
understanding college students’ intrinsic motivation to learn. Reeve (2002) found intrinsically
motivated students flourish across academic settings when compared to extrinsically motivated
or amotivated students and college instructors play a major role in promoting students’ intrinsic
motivation by assisting in the fulfillment of psychological needs in the classroom (Bolkan,
2014).
SDT identifies six mini-theories on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation: CET, organismic
integration theory, causality orientations theory, basic psychological needs theory, goal contents
theory, and relationships motivation theory. Each theory reflects a distinct level of self-
determination. For the purpose of this literature review, CET and basic psychological needs
theory are discussed in detail.
Cognitive Evaluation Theory
Early CET was developed as a component of SDT to consider the effect of monetary
incentives and other external factors had on intrinsic motivation, determining that the use of
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 27
external rewards may, in effect, reduce the likelihood that behavior would be continued. Deci
and Ryan (1985) further developed CET to explain those results and people’s “cognitive
evaluation” of the intention behind external factors on motivation. An important outgrowth of
CET is the concept of autonomy support and the core features of autonomy-supportive behaviors
recognizing that individuals benefit from opportunities for self-direction, including choice,
acknowledgement of feelings, and opportunities for self-direction to enhance autonomy and
intrinsic motivation.
SDT provides a theory of human nature while recognizing humans’ trajectories toward
growth and self-actualization are not always positive and consistent. Positive feedback is
predicted to enhance motivation only when people feel a sense of perceived autonomy and
competence toward the activity. In addition, CET suggests that controlling forms of regulation
will diminish intrinsic regulation, while more enhanced forms of self-regulation will enhance
intrinsic regulation. Researchers have found that tangible rewards, when administered in a non-
evaluative context do not undermine autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). The research
documenting CET and autonomous motivation for students is substantial, demonstrating that
autonomous motivation influences goal progress (Koestner et al., 2008).
Basic Psychological Needs Theory
SDT indicates that the basic needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy must be
satisfied across the life-span for an individual to experience an ongoing sense of well-being
(Ryan & Frederick, 1997; Waterman, 1993). In the educational setting, the needs for competence
and relatedness lead students to seek challenges that will optimize their capabilities while
allowing them to feel connected to others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leahy, 1985). Finally,
autonomy refers to being the perceived origin of one’s behavior (DeCharms, 1968). Researchers
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 28
have found that autonomously functioning people are more engaged, productive, and generate
more human capital (Ryan & Deci, 2006).
Autonomy-Supportive Instructional Practices
Reeve (2016) stated that all students possess six engagement-fostering resources:
autonomy, competence, relatedness, curiosity, interest, and intrinsic goals. Initiation and
regulation of student engagement require that instruction be built around these resources (Reeve,
2016). In addition, autonomy-supportive teaching consists of three theoretical dimensions:
structure, involvement, and autonomy (Stroet et al., 2013). Teachers may enhance students’
competence by providing structure using clarity, guidance, encouragement, and feedback (Jang
et al., 2010). In addition, involvement is associated with the need for relatedness and concerns
the desire to belong and feel cared for by others (Ryan, 1995). To satisfy the need for
involvement, teachers may show understanding or devote time and resources to the student while
demonstrating dependability (Osterman, 2000). Finally, students who experience academic
autonomy experience learning as a self-chosen act that reflects their own authentic needs and
values (Stroet et al., 2013).
Stroet et al. (2013) systematically reviewed evidence of 71 empirical studies on the
effects of needs supportive teaching (defined as autonomy support, structure, and involvement)
on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement. Results indicated a positive association
between supportive teaching and students’ motivation and engagement.
Students’ own autonomy need satisfaction can be viewed as an antecedent in determining
changes to a teachers’ provision of classroom autonomy support. Researchers Jang, Reeve, Ryan,
and Kim (2009) tested a multilevel structural equation model in which early-semester perceived
autonomy support increased mid-semester autonomy need satisfaction, which, in turn, increased
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 29
end-of-the-semester engagement, which predicted course achievement. Using questionnaires
measuring perceived autonomy support, autonomy need satisfaction, classroom engagement, and
achievement, researchers found support for the model with the exception of the replacement of
autonomy support of autonomy need satisfaction with mid-semester changes in students’
classroom engagement. During the course of the semester, by working hard, and taking initiative
in their own learning, students created the environment in which they became responsible for
their own learning. In this learning environment, they became more likely to experience
autonomy and need satisfaction. This led researchers to conclude changes in classroom
engagement anticipate later and corresponding changes in autonomy need satisfaction (Jang et
al., 2009).
Autonomy-supportive teaching predicts positive functioning in both teachers and
students. For students, autonomy-supportive instruction leads to needs satisfaction and positive
functions (Cheon & Reeve, 2015; Cheon et al., 2018; Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2012; Jang et al.,
2010; Patall et al., 2018; Reeve & Jang, 2006). The goals of autonomy support are two-fold. The
first goal is to provide students with classroom activities, and classroom environment that will
support autonomous motivation. The second goal is the formation of a dialectical student and
teacher relationship (Reeve, 2016).
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 30
Relationship Building
All students, per SDT, have a need for relatedness, as the distal factor relative to intrinsic
motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Teachers may foster relatedness by creating opportunities for
students to engage with face-to-face interaction with other students by means of cooperative
learning activities. Relatedness occurs as teachers and students are able to share their selves
through activities that build authenticity, meaningful relationships, and care through learning
opportunities (Reeve, 2016).
As teachers demonstrate concern for students and build relationships, a positive climate,
including the evidence of shared positive affect, an interactive peer environment, positive
expectation, and a responsiveness to students is developed (Ruzek et al., 2016). Students who
feel connected to their teachers, and peers in school report increased academic autonomy and
motivation (Reeve, 2006; Ruzek et al., 2016).
The second goal, according to Reeve (2016) is for a teacher to become in synch with
students through the formation of dialectical relationship in which the actions of one influence
the actions of another. By forming the transactional relationship, students will eventually and
increasingly be able to motivate themselves. Autonomy support in the classroom context may be
broken into several components. First, teachers provide choice to students, enabling them to
choose between several tasks that they may deem to be of interest and importance. Secondly,
teachers may foster the relevance of lessons by providing a rationale and identifying the purpose
of tasks. Third, teachers may provide students with an autonomy-supportive classroom
environment by showing respect, allowing criticism, and using informational instead of
controlling language. Finally, teachers may provide structure, promoting a students’ feeling of
competence (Jang et al., 2010; Reeve, 2009). Through the use of autonomy-supportive
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 31
instruction, students may experience increased conceptual understanding of content, and
subsequently, better academic performance (Benware & Deci, 1984; Boggiano, Flink, Shields,
Seelbach, & Barrett, 1993).
Interest Building and Choice Making
Teachers may nurture students’ inner motivational resources through building high-
interest lessons and activities aligned with students’ preferences and interests. Offering students
choice among activities with similar learning outcomes will support academic autonomy and
interest. Offering opportunities for personal choice will support a person’s sense of autonomy
and facilitate task persistence and intrinsic motivation (Patall, 2013; Patall et al., 2008). A meta-
analysis on 41 studies that tested the effect of providing choice on intrinsic motivation between
the years of 1974 and 2004 suggested that choice can positively affect intrinsic motivation, as
well as effort, task performance, and challenge preference (Patall et al., 2008).
In addition to offering choice, throughout activities, teachers must provide students with
ongoing cognitive academic autonomy support by scaffolding independent work, while allowing
students opportunities to realign assignment requirements to facilitate individual learning needs
to sustain persistence and vitalize students’ need for competence. Finally, teachers may vitalize
students’ needs for curiosity, interest, and intrinsic goals by framing high-interest activities that
generate knowledge, a motivational urge to explore, and intrinsic goals as opportunities for
personal growth (Patall et al., 2008; Reeve, 2016).
Communicating Value and Providing Rationale
When planning lessons and daily agendas, teachers may engage students by soliciting
input regarding preferences, lesson adjustments, and schedule choices as a means to facilitate
learning. This means of perspective taking, in addition to a method of gleaning information on
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 32
how to make lessons more interesting and personally important to students, is a cognitive
empathetic response in which the teacher understands what students feel and desires for the
students to feel motivated and empowered. Teachers frequently ask students to complete tasks
and assignments without explaining the rationale or the why. When the activity is of little interest
to the student, it may be particularly challenging to persist through the activity without providing
value or a rationale. If a student is provided with a rationale for an uninteresting lesson, this
understanding may allow for the process of internalization to occur (Reeve, Jang, Hardre, &
Omura, 2002; Vansteenkiste et al., 2012). Compliance and persistence will then incur, perhaps to
the point of building eventual intrinsic motivation.
Studies have shown positive associations between providing rationale and effort,
demonstrating that learners are more efficacious when a lesson is perceived to have personal
utility (Reeve et al., 2002). Reeve et al. (2002) utilizing 141 college students from a large
Midwestern university as participants, tested two hypotheses. The first was that the provision of
a rationale in an autonomy-supportive manner would facilitate a participants’ identification
experience and, thus, secondly, predict the extent of their subsequent effort. Participants were
divided into experimental and control groups and received Chinese language lessons, either with
or without an autonomy-supportive or controlling rationale supportive (i.e., you had better learn
this information because you will be tested, or you need to try hard because it is what good
teachers do). In the autonomy-supportive group, participants were provided reasons the activity
would be personally useful, and negative affect was recognized by an acknowledgement of level
of difficulty. The study measured perceived importance, perceived self-determination, and effort
with self-report measures. Results indicate that participants who received the identification
experience, or reason to put effort into the task reflecting the personal utility of the task, showed
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 33
a proportional extent of effort during the lesson. Therefore, when a rationale is delivered in an
autonomy-supportive way, people will perceive the rationale as a conduit of for autonomy
support, thus promoting autonomous forms of motivation. By providing a rationale as a means to
extrinsically motivate others, teachers may, in turn, cultivate identified regulation.
Acknowledgement of Students’ Expressions of Negative Affect
Students, while understanding that teachers have rules and agendas to follow, often wish
to complain and express resistance to the teachers’ plans (Cheon & Reeve, 2015; Reeve &
Tseng, 2011; Vansteenkiste, et al., 2012). By acknowledging and accepting students’ negative
affect, teachers may understand students’ perspectives. Doing so may allow a teacher the
opportunity to best align the learning environment with the needs of the students. Although
teachers may begin to solicit students’ opinions, and become more tolerant and appreciative of
students’ academic autonomy, acknowledging and accepting negative affect is most timely when
conflict arises (Reeve, 2016). By doing so, a teacher may address the concern, gaining an
opportunity to restructure a conflict-generating lesson to become something more appealing to
facilitate learning.
Informational Language
Instead of confronting students’ amotivation as a behavioral issue and using controlling,
high-pressure language to coerce students into classroom compliance, autonomy-supportive
teachers use language that is information rich, and competence affirming (Reeve, 2016). Non-
controlling language utilizes positive messages, encouraging academic performance and
persistence as opposed to negative language, criticizing student behaviors. Controlling language
functionally interrupts autonomous self-regulation to replace it with external regulation or
teacher regulation (Cheon & Reeve, 2015; Jang et al., 2010; Patall et al., 2018; Reeve, 2009). In
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 34
contrast, autonomy-supportive communications further students’ autonomous regulation (Reeve,
2009). For example, teachers may offer students hints, advocate risk-taking, provide
encouragement, and answer questions (Reeve, 2016). In addition, teachers can provide a
rationale by explaining why putting forth effort during an activity might be a useful thing to do.
Finally, autonomy-supportive teachers display patience while allowing time for students to self-
pace, thus maximizing learning opportunities. Providing encouragement for initiative and effort
provides students with an autonomy-supportive environment that facilitates learning.
Providing Structure
The provision of structure in an autonomy-supportive classroom is needed to enhance
feelings of competence as students acquire more control over their educational outcomes (Stroet
et al., 2013). Teachers may provide structure by means of clarity through understandable and
explicit instructions, guidance by means of ongoing support, encouragement through positive
messages regarding progress, and, finally, informational feedback, thus promoting student valued
outcomes (Stroet et al., 2013). In addition, regarding the construct of structure, studies support
positive associations between students’ perceptions of guidance, clarity, and interest on
motivation (Plunkett, Henry, Houltberg, Sands, & Abarca-Mortensen, 2008; Vansteenkiste, et
al., 2012; Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney, 2010).
Autonomy-Supportive Behaviors
An autonomy-supportive teacher may, for example, display a sincere interest in a
student’s perception of a classroom activity and ask the student directly what they may need to
experience success. Therefore, the student may experience autonomy satisfaction and will feel
increased confidence in their approach. Finally, the student will experience relatedness
satisfaction by the perceived level of care the teacher is exhibiting. Research has demonstrated
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 35
that teachers exhibit certain autonomy-supportive behaviors, including providing students
opportunities for collaboration and problem solving, encouraging effort and persistence, and
communicating understanding and acknowledgement of student perspective. Analysis of the
learning climate from the perspective of SDT was considered by researchers Orsini, Binnie,
Wilson and Villegas (2018) in the education of health care professionals.
Critique of Self-Determination Theory
Critics of SDT assert that the theory, based upon the three innate psychological needs of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness, does not fully address the social context of human
motivation and individual differences in behavior (Buunk & Nauta, 2000). Furthermore,
Pyszczynski, Greenberg, and Solomon (2000), from the perspective of their terror management
theory (TMT) argued that SDT is too idealist to address the darker sides of human existence,
particularly anxiety and mortality. According to TMT, because everyone has death anxiety, there
is a desire to accept culture as an anxiety defense. SDT does not address undermining, alienating,
and pathogenic effects of need-thwarting contexts. Ryan and Deci (2000b) countered that SDT is
concerned with more salient anxieties, such as fear, depression, anger, and frustration, that
represent life experiences relative to unfulfilled basic psychological needs. SDT further focuses
on the viability of the social context to afford opportunities for the fulfillment of basic
psychological needs that contribute to health and well-being.
Second, critics including Buunk and Nauta (2000), questioned the meaning of well-being
addressed in SDT. Ryan and Deci (2000b) positioned well-being as a eudemonic state addressing
not only happiness or positive mood relative to the hedonic position, but also the vitality of the
fully functioning person. SDT contends that it is the pursuit and attainment of aspirations and
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 36
fulfillment of personal growth that are aligned with basic psychological needs, hence tending the
more enduring state of well-being, known as eudemonia (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).
Third, critics, including Pyszczynski et al. (2000), contended that the three psychological
needs addressed in SDT are too general and do not address the full range of human phenomena.
For example, safety, security, meaningfulness, personal growth, life purpose, self-acceptance,
and self-esteem have been argued by researchers to be explicit human psychological needs
required for well-being (Andersen, Chen, & Carter, 2000; Kernis, 2003; Korotkov, 1998;
Pyszczynski et al., 2000). SDT, however, while maintaining that autonomy, competence, and
relatedness do not explain everything, argue they are core to most significant life events.
Furthermore, SDT also considers the influence of other factors such as genetics and
neurobiological processes (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).
Fourth, Vallerand (2000) asserted that measuring individual need strength is essential in
that it allows for a direct match to be made between an individual’s exact need based on motives
as revealed in self-reports. SDT reveals that the measurement of motives is not identical to the
measurement of needs, as self-report requires dynamic interpretation. Ryan and Deci (2000b)
contended that need strength will, instead, be translated to become motive strength, and thus
acknowledge that, while many individuals may not be aware of their basic psychological needs,
they still clearly exist.
Critique of the Autonomy Construct
The construct of autonomy has been for the most part accepted and refined across
economic and psychological domains. However, researchers have begun to question the concepts
of choice, will, and volition declaring them bound by specific cultural values or genders (Iyengar
& DeVoe, 2003; Jordan, 1991). Some believe that autonomy often simply evokes making
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 37
decisions between meaningless choices, rendering self-determination a tyrannical construct
(Schwartz, 2000). In addition, there are those who take a cultural determinism perspective in
which individual behavior is scripted by culture (Cross & Gore, 2003). Individuals are viewed as
conformist to contexts, without self-organization that influences action (Gergen, 2010).
In SDT, autonomy, or regulation by the self, is considered a basic psychological need that
has pervasive effects upon well-being. Autonomy-supportive contexts enhance well-being,
while, in contrast, autonomy-controlling contexts yield negative effects on wellness (Ryan &
Deci, 2006). Skinner (1971) posited a salient denial of autonomy when he argued that the
concept of autonomy reflects an ignorance of the actual factors that control behavior. Action,
from Skinner’s perspective, is attributed to the reinforcement of external contingencies as
opposed to an integrative process. Based on Skinner’s beliefs, behaviorists have attempted to
discredit SDT on empirical grounds. However, SDT has always acknowledged that behavior may
be reinforced by external contingencies, arguing that the rewards often inherent in external
reinforcement may cause a loss of intrinsic motivation, particularly when actions do not coincide
with individuals’ interest or values.
Social-cognitive theorist Bandura (1989) also depicted autonomy as freedom from
external influences. He further regarded autonomy as an action entirely independent on the
environment, and, because virtually all actions are dependent on one’s environment, there can be
no defined construct of autonomy. Instead, Bandura considers agency derived from autonomy,
aligned to the construct of self-efficacy. SDT views Bandura’s self-efficacy as a construct of
perceived competence. In addition to the criticism of construct of autonomy, there are those who
argue that too many opportunities for choice may be overwhelming and ultimately detrimental to
freedom (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Schwartz, 2000).
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 38
Finally, there are those who argue that autonomy is exclusively a concept based on
Western values (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In that sense, researchers Iyengar and DeVoe
(2003) argued that SDT’s assertions regarding autonomy have been disconfirmed in non-
Western samples. However, it should be noted that Iyengar and DeVoe defined autonomy as
acting independently of any external influences. To that end, SDT disputes that, even in
collectivist societies, individuals autonomously choose to act in accord with the culture’s values.
There is a persuasive and growing body of literature that demonstrates that SDT’s claim
of autonomy does apply to collectivist or other diverse cultural settings that will be discussed in
the cultural implication of autonomy-supportive instruction section of this literature review.
Cultural Implications of Autonomy-Supportive Instruction
SDT asserts that people from all cultures share basic psychological needs, including
autonomy, competence, and relatedness and that the satisfaction of those shared needs contribute
to psychological well-being. Researchers Yamauchi and Tanaka (1998) studied the relationship
of autonomy, self-referenced beliefs, and self-regulated learning in accordance with motivation,
goal orientation, and learning styles among 365 elementary fifth- and sixth-grade students in
Japan. Self-reported measures on autonomy reflected greater references to intrinsic motivation.
Hayamizu (1997) studied 483 junior high school students, also in Japan, by means of the self-
reported stepping motivation scale (Hayamizu, 1997) to measure the continuum from extrinsic to
intrinsic motivation. Students who reported low autonomy also reported low levels of interest
and motivation. Similar findings also emerged in studies of schoolchildren in South Korea,
indicating that low reports of autonomy resulted in low indications of motivation (Kim, 2004).
Studies across nations comparing collectivist and individualist cultures have yielded similar
results.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 39
Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, and Kaplan (2003) assessed the relative autonomy of behaviors
representing a wide variety of cultural forms with the assumption that autonomy can be
understood in diverse cultural settings. Participants were 559 students from the United States,
Turkey, South Korea, and Russia. Surveys focused on four sets of cultural practices representing
horizontal collectivism, vertical collectivism, horizontal individualism, and horizontal
collectivism. Findings indicated that, regardless of the cultural practice identified, there was a
positive relation between internalized or autonomous regulation of the practices and well-being.
These findings were replicated in Brazil and Canada by Chirkov, Ryan, and Willness (2005) that
asserted autonomous reasons for engaging in behavior were associated with greater well-being
regardless of cultural context.
Cross-cultural studies of China, Russia, and the United States reveal similar findings.
Researchers Lynch, La Guardia, and Ryan (2009) examined the relationship between perceived
autonomy support and self-concept with 642 participant college students from China, Russia, and
the United States. Perceived autonomy support was measured using the Basic Need Satisfaction
in Relationships Scale (Lynch et al., 2009) and the Health Care Climate Questionnaire. Findings
indicated a strong relationship between autonomy as a basic psychological need and an
association with greater well-being in all three countries.
Research reflecting samples from Latin American countries is sparse (Puente Díaz &
Cavazos Arroyo, 2013). Researchers Puente Díaz and Cavazos Arroyo (2013) addressed the
sparse data from Latin American countries and the debate about perceived autonomy and well-
being from cultures holding a primarily individualistic versus collectivist mindset. Their results
provided evidence of the universality of autonomy support as consistent with the constructs set
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 40
by SDT. Autonomy support was found to be a strong predictor of life satisfaction for both
college students from Mexico and adult participants from Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil.
Conclusion
SDT is the proper theory through which to address autonomy-supportive instructional
practices at the community college level. Research indicates while promoting autonomy in the
community college classroom, instructors may not see immediate gains in performance yet may
see students exhibiting greater course interest, leading to an increase in persistence and
subsequent gains in achievement (Black & Deci, 2000; Garcia & Pintrich, 1996). Research has
demonstrated that fostering a sense of autonomy leads to improved psychological well-being,
and positive motivational beliefs, as individual initiate and regulate their own behaviors. An
increase in autonomous self-regulation, perceived competence, and interest in a course may, in
turn, lead to increase academic motivation and improved academic achievement (Black & Deci,
2000; Garcia & Pintrich, 1996).
Community college instructors may make changes to their classroom instruction and
adopt autonomy-supportive instructional practices that may lead students to increase students’
academic motivation and achievement. Autonomy-supportive practices, including interest
building, choice making, communicating value and providing rationale, providing structure, use
of informational language, acknowledging students’ negative affect are integral to SDT to
promote intrinsic motivation.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 41
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Community colleges face the challenge of educating students who often have a weak
foundation of academic skills and are ill-prepared for the rigors of higher education (Bailey et
al., 2015). Research asserts that autonomy-supportive instructional practices, referring to
identifying and fostering students’ intrinsic motivation, may result in increased academic
achievement and persistence (Ng et al., 2015). The purpose of this quantitative study is to
consider the perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction in a community college setting and
determine how autonomy-supportive instruction may affect academic achievement. Self-
determination theory asserts that autonomy, along with competence and relatedness are basic
psychological needs and is the framework on which this study is based (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
There is a gap in literature that examines the perspectives community college students have of
autonomy-supportive instructional practices and how those practices may influence motivation
and academic achievement.
Two research questions guide this study: To what extent do students perceive their
psychology instructor to provide autonomy-supportive instruction in a community college
setting? To what extent do students’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction relate to
their perceived academic autonomy, competence, and academic achievement?
The researcher will implement a correlational analysis approach to analyze survey data
(Creswell, 2014). It is hypothesized that academic achievement and motivation will increase as
students perceive their teachers to practice autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors.
Quantitative data will assess students’ perceptions of autonomy support relative to academic
success, perceptions of autonomy-supportive instructional practices, autonomy, competence, and
academic achievement.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 42
Sample and Population
The study sample of students is an urban community college comprised of 28.6% Asian,
21.9% Hispanic, and 37.8% White students. Sixty-three percent of all students are less than 25
years old. The percentage of first-generation students is 25. At this institution, of the 23,133
registered students, 45% are full-time students. This community college was chosen for this
study for the numbers of Hispanic and Asian students. Additionally, of particular interest is the
first-generation students and the challenges that they incur as result of being the first in their
family to attend college. Furthermore, 43% of students enrolled in remedial math, 67% in
remedial English, and 24% are enrolled in English as a second language courses.
For this study, the researcher will use one-stage sampling as all potential student
participants from the psychology classes at the institution are available (Creswell, 2014). Study
participants included 188 students from psychology classes at a community college. By
identifying the psychology students, the researcher has identified a cluster to sample. Cluster
sampling allows a researcher to determine a population to research when it is impractical to
compile a list of the elements composing the population (Creswell, 2014).
Instrumentation
To measure student perceptions of autonomy-supportive instructional practices and their
effect on autonomy, perceived competence, and academic achievement the researcher utilized a
quantitative approach. Quantitative surveys measured perceived autonomy-supportive
instructional practices, autonomous regulation, academic autonomy, and competence. All
assessment tools are freely available on the internet for use by researchers; specifically,
selfdeterminationtheory.org/ and http://www.johnmarshallreeve.org/.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 43
Student Perceptions of Autonomy-Supportive Instructional Practices
The researcher used the LCQ, adapted by Williams and Deci (1996) from the Health-
Care Climate Questionnaire (Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996) to measure
students’ perceived autonomy support with respect to a particular learning setting. Research
studies for this measure substantiate a Cronbach’s alpha of greater than .90 (Black & Deci, 2000;
Williams, Saizow, Ross, & Deci, 1997; Williams & Deci, 1996). For this study, the LCQ 6-item
short-form version (Appendix A) was used to assess the general learning climate and the degree
which a student’s teacher facilitates autonomy. Specific responses for measuring autonomy
support within a particular learning setting are rated on a scale from one to seven, with one
denoting strong disagreement and seven detonating strong agreement. Sample items include I
feel that my instructor provides me choices and options, I feel understood by my instructor, My
instructor conveyed confidence in my ability to do well in the course, and My instructor
encouraged me to ask questions. The scores are averaged to calculate mean values. Scores that
are above the mean represent a higher level of perceived autonomy support.
Autonomous and Controlled Motivation
To measure autonomy, to include both controlled and autonomous regulation, the
researcher used the 14-item Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L). This scale
(Appendix B), adapted by Black and Deci (2000), asks questions regarding why people engage
in learning-related behaviors, referencing two scales: controlled regulation and autonomous
regulation. Specific responses for measuring autonomy within a particular setting are rated on a
scale from one to seven, with one denoting not true at all, four somewhat true, and seven very
true. Sample items include I will participate actively in psychology class: 1. Because I feel like
it’s a good way to improve my understanding of the material. 2. Because others might think
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 44
badly of me if I didn’t. 3. Because I would feel proud of myself if I did well in the course. 4.
Because a solid understanding of psychology is important to my intellectual growth. The SRQ-L
is shown to have Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities of approximately 0.75 for controlled regulation
and 0.80 for autonomous regulation. To score controlled and autonomous regulation subscales,
calculate the mean for each subscale. Analyses can be done with the two separate subscales
whereby scores above the mean represent either a higher level of autonomous regulation or
controlled regulation. Relative autonomy index may be achieved by subtracted the controlled
subscale score from the autonomous subscale score.
Student Perceptions of Competence and Autonomy Need Satisfaction
The 12-item Activity-Feeling States (AFS) Scale (Reeve & Sickenius, 1994) measured
students’ perceived competence and autonomy, assessed as situation-specific and experiential
states. The AFS Scale (Appendix C) has been shown to possess a Cronbach’s alpha greater than
.80, good construct validity, and good predictive validity (Jang et al., 2012; Reeve & Tseng,
2011; Reeve et al., 2003). Specific responses for measuring student perceptions of competence
and autonomy are rated on a scale from 1 to 7 with 1 denoting strongly disagree, 4 denoting
agree and disagree equally, and 5 strongly agree. Sample items include Attending psychology
class makes me feel… capable, free, competent, free to decide for myself what to do. Scores are
averaged to calculate mean for competence and autonomy subscales. Scores that are above the
mean represent a higher level of perceived competence or autonomy, dependent on the question
subset.
Data Collection
Data collection began following approval from both the host institution and a community
college institutional review board. A meeting was held between the researcher and the
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 45
community college instructors at the host institution. Participation was voluntary, and included
188 students from psychology classrooms.
Quantitative data was collected by means of the LCQ, SRQ-L, and AFS surveys during
the sixth week of the community college academic semester to 188 psychology students using
Qualtrics online survey software. Research participants were given the option of dropping out of
the study at any point during the semester.
Additionally, demographic data was collected to include gender, ethnicity, the number of
semesters attended at the institution, current grade point average, and the final grade expected for
course.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was completed after all quantitative data were collected and analyzed,
using the appropriate scoring measure for each metric. Data was analyzed using correlation
analysis to measure differences in student perceptions of autonomy-supportive instructional
practices, autonomous regulation, academic autonomy, and competence as correlated to
academic achievement and learning climate. Descriptive analysis of data for all predictors in the
study to include the means, standard deviations, and the range of score for perceptions of
academic achievement, autonomy-supportive instructional practices, autonomy, and competence
will be provided. Bivariate correlation analysis was performed to determine the strength of
correlation between predictors: student perceptions of autonomy, competence, psychology
course academic achievement and the extent of their relation to autonomy-supportive
instructional practices.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 46
Confidentiality
The community college, in addition to the names of all participating students, are kept
confidential. Pseudonyms are used to represent students’ names and whenever deemed
appropriate by the researcher to protect confidentiality. Student survey instruments, and resulting
data are stored in locked cabinets accessible by the researcher only. Student and data entered into
statistical programs and all data analysis procedures are secured in password-protected files
accessible only by the researcher.
Trustworthiness and Credibility
Metrics selected reflect the desired outcome for the study and possess strong reliability
coefficients (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Validity assures the accuracy of the findings by the
use of certain procedures (Creswell, 2014). For this study, the researcher triangulated the survey
results to build a coherent justification of themes and results. Self-reflection by the researcher to
clarify existing bias will, in addition, serve to further illuminate research results (Creswell,
2014).
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 47
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This study examined community college student perceptions of autonomy-supportive
instructional practices, and their effects on academic autonomy, academic achievement, and
competence. This chapter provides an overview of the quantitative findings to address the
research questions:
1. To what extent do students perceive their psychology instructor to provide autonomy-
supportive instruction in a community college setting?
2. To what extent do students’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction relate to
their perceived autonomy, competence, and academic achievement?
Preliminary Analysis
This section presents the results of descriptive analyses: (a) percentages and frequencies
for demographic information and participant qualities (i.e., gender, ethnicity/race), and (b)
descriptive statistics, to include mean, median, and standard deviations for the remaining
variables (i.e., LCQ, Self-Regulation Questionnaire-Learning, AFS Scale).
The population for this study consisted of community college students who attended on-
campus psychology classes. There were 188 participants (64.89% female, 35.11% male).
Although the ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 57 years, the majority of participants
were in the age range of 19 to 24 years. In terms of race, 39.89% of participants were White, and
37.23% were Asian, 15.43% were Hispanic, 2.66% were of multiple ethnicities, and 2.13% were
African American. One student (.53%) did not identify their race. These results are presented in
Table 3.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 48
Table 3
Gender/Ethnicity of the Study
N (%)
Participants Total 188 100.00%
Gender
Male
Female
66
122
35.11%
64.89%
Ethnicity
African American 4 2.13%
Asian 70 37.23%
Filipino 4 2.13%
Hispanic 29 15.43%
White 75 39.89%
Multi-Ethnicity 5 2.66%
Not Identified 1 .53%
With regard to expected course grade, the majority, or 78.19% of students expected to
receive an A in their psychology course, 19.68% expected to receive a B, and 2.13% expected to
receive a C. These results are reported in Table 4.
Table 4
Expected Grade by Gender of the Study
Gender Grade N (%) Grade N (%) Grade N (%)
Female A 98 (80.33%) B 20 (16.39%) C 4 (3.28%)
Male A 49 (74.24%) B 17 (25.76%)
The 6-item short-form LCQ asks students the degree to which their psychology teacher
supports their autonomy. The students answered the following questions by use of a 7-point
Likert scale: I feel that my instructor provides me choices and options, I feel understood by my
instructor, My instructor conveyed confidence in my ability to do well in the course, My
instructor tries to understand how I see things before suggesting a new way to do things, My
instructor encouraged me to ask questions, and my instructor listens to how I would like to do
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 49
things. The mean score for the LCQ for all participants was 5.48 and the median score was 5.83,
reflecting a higher level of perceived autonomy support.
Additionally, participants completed the Self-Regulation Questionnaire-Learning. This
questionnaire, designed for older students, asks why they engage in learning-related behaviors,
including why they participate in the class, follow their teacher’s suggestions for studying, and
work to expand their knowledge of course content. Formed with two subscales representing
external or introjected regulation and identified or intrinsic motivation, the questionnaire was
scored for autonomous regulation. The mean score on the Self-Regulation Questionnaire-
Learning (SRQ – L) was 5.50, and the median score was 5.60. Scores reflect students who rate
their teachers as autonomy-supportive, exhibit a high-level of autonomous regulation.
The AFS Scale was completed by all participants to assess the three motivational
phenomena of autonomy, competence, and relatedness stressed in SDT. This 12-item
questionnaire asked students to reflect, using a Likert scale, on whether attending psychology
class made them feel capable, like they belong, stressed, involved, free, pressured, competent,
feeling like they are doing what they want to be doing, uptight, emotionally close to the people
around them, their skills are improving, and feeling free to decide for themselves what to do.
This scale was scored for student perspectives of both perceived competence and perceived
autonomy. The mean score for perceived competence was 5.30 and median was 5.33. For the
AFS Scale scored for perceived autonomy, the mean scale was 4.95 and the median 5. These
results are presented in Table 5.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 50
Table 5
Psychometric Properties of the Study Variables
Variable Expected Grade # LCQ SRQ-L A REG. AFS Scale-C AFS Scale-A
n 188 188 188 188 188
M (SD) 3.76 (.48) 5.48 (1.33) 5.50 (1.06) 5.30 (1.03) 4.95 (0.10)
Median 4 5.83 5.6 5.33 5
Mode 4 7 5.8 5 5.66
Range 3 6 5.2 6.33 7.66
Minimum 2 1 1.8 1.33 1
Maximum 4 7 7 7.66 8.66
Skewness -1.81 -1.26 -0.81 -0.48 -0.27
Data Analysis
A correlational analysis was conducted to determine how student perceptions of the
learning climate of the classroom affects perceptions of autonomy, competence, and academic
achievement. There was strong significant correlation between the learning climate and
autonomous regulation as scored by the Self-Regulation Questionnaire – Learning (r(df) =
.436(186), p < .05), a strong correlation between the AFS Scale, scored for competence, (r(df) =
.366(186), p < .05), and a strong correlation between the AFS Scale, scored for autonomy (r(df)
= .310(186), p < .05).
It was found that the students’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction presented
a significant correlation between autonomy and competence.
Additionally, there was not a significant correlation between the students’ perceptions of
autonomy-supportive instruction as measured by the LCQ and their expected grade, (r(df) =
.030(186), p >.05, a nonsignificant correlation between the Self-Regulation Questionnaire scored
for autonomous regulation and their expected grade (r(df) = .020(186), p <.05), a negative
correlation between the AFS Scale, scored for competence, (r(df) = -0.011(186), p < .05), and a
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 51
nonsignificant correlation between the AFS Scale, scored for autonomy (r(df) = .310(186), p <
.05). These results are presented in Table 6.
Table 6
Correlational Properties of the Study Variables
Measure
Expected
Grade
LCQ SRQ-L-
A REG
AFS
Scale - C
AFS
Scale- A
Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ) 1
Self-Regulation Questionnaire –
Learning -Autonomous Regulation
(SRQ-A REG)
.436** 1
AFS Scale–Competence (AFS Scale C) .366** .491** 1
AFS Scale-Autonomy (AFS Scale A) .310** .410** .573** 1
Expected Grade 1 .030 .020 -0.011 0.199
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, “To what extent do students perceive their psychology
instructor to provide autonomy-supportive instruction in a community college setting?” Student
participants completed the LCQ reporting their perceptions of the autonomy-supportive
instructional practices provided by their psychology teacher. On the LCQ 7-point scale, the
participants scored a mean of 5.48, a mode of 7, and a range of 6.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, “To what extent do students’ perceptions of autonomy-
supportive instruction relate to their perceived autonomy, competence, and academic
achievement?” Results of the correlation analyses indicated that Autonomy was significantly
correlated to Competence and that Autonomous Self-Regulation was a significantly correlated to
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 52
Competence. Specifically, students who reported feelings of Autonomy reported increased
Autonomous Self-regulation and Competence. Additionally, student perceptions of the learning
climate correlated strongly to Autonomous Self-regulation. The learning climate was also found
to be correlated to increased Autonomy and Competence.
Discussion
The present study pursued two objectives. The first was to learn of the interplay of the
student’s perceptions of the psychology classroom learning climate and their perceptions of their
autonomous regulation, academic autonomy, and competence. The second was to investigate the
systematic impacts on the learning climate.
The analysis reveals significant correlation between autonomy support in a learning
climate, self-regulated autonomy, competence, and academic autonomy. Previous research on
student perceptions of teacher autonomy-supportive instructional practices and their effects on a
student’s basic psychological needs of autonomy and competence are supported by the present
study. Research has shown that students who perceive their teacher engages in autonomy-
supportive instructional practices demonstrate increased autonomy and competence, resulting in
a willingness to reach educational objectives (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016). In addition,
students display increased positive academic emotions (Cheon & Reeve, 2015), intrinsic
motivation (Cheon et al., 2018; Lee & Reeve, 2017; Patall, 2013), and academic achievement
(Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016; Patall et al., 2018).
This study does support the effects of autonomy and competence on intrinsic motivation,
as research indicates that students’ autonomy is associated with motivation to develop and
improve their competence (Ciani, Middleton, Summers, & Sheldon, 2010; Greene, Miller,
Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004). Furthermore, research demonstrates that, when students
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 53
experience self-regulated autonomous motivation, they are more likely to experience subsequent
competence and stay in a course (Black & Deci, 2000).
These study results show that academic autonomy and competence was not strongly
correlated to expected grade or course academic achievement. This result is contrary to research
that demonstrates a correlation between academic autonomy and academic achievement
(Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016; Patall et al., 2018). Additionally, studies by Black & Deci
(2000) and Garcia & Pintrich (1996) determined, contrary to present study findings, that an
increase in autonomous self-regulation, perceived competence, and interest in a course may, in
turn, lead to increase academic motivation and improved academic achievement.
Chapter Summary
Results of the correlational analyses reveal significant correlation between student
perceptions of autonomy-supportive instructional practices as measured by the LCQ and
perceptions of autonomous regulation. Specifically, students who perceive their instructor as
fostering autonomy support present autonomous regulation, or intrinsic motivation.
Additionally, a significant correlation was found between student perceptions of autonomy and
competence. This indicates that, the more students report perceptions of academic autonomy, the
more they experience competence or effectiveness within their academic environment. Previous
research on supports in the educational setting suggests, per SDT, that, when students possess
competence, autonomy, and relatedness, they may seek challenges that will optimize their
capabilities to become engaged and productive as well as generate more human capital
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leahy, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2006).
Additionally, results of the correlation analysis indicate the learning climate is the
strongest predictor of academic autonomy, indicating that, as students perceive that their basic
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 54
psychological need of autonomy is being satisfied, they perceive their instructor as being
autonomy-supportive. Research has shown that students who experience academic autonomy
understand learning as a self-chosen act that reflects their own authentic needs (Stroet et al.,
2013). Additional results indicated a positive association between supportive teaching and
students’ motivation and engagement.
Although research supports autonomy-supportive instructional practices as a strong
predictor of academic achievement (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016; Patall et al., 2018), the
present study did not find any relationship between the learning climate and academic
achievement.
Additionally, significant difference was found between males and females in regard to
effect of the learning climate on academic autonomy. It would prove worthwhile to explore this
gender difference in more detail with a larger population.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 55
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
This study examined community college student perceptions of autonomy-supportive
instructional practices, academic autonomy, academic achievement, and competence. This
chapter provides an overview of the study, a review of the findings, conclusions based on the
findings, implications regarding the issues raised in the research, and suggestions for future
research.
Summary of the Study
There is predicted to be a shortage of college-educated workers in California by 2030
(Johnson et al., 2015), causing great concern for the economic future of the state. Therefore, the
focus is on community college students, who often come from marginalized populations, and
their lack of transferring to 4-year institutions and eventually earning baccalaureate degrees.
Many of these students may struggle academically, withdraw from courses, and eventually drop
out of college.
Researchers and policymakers alike consider demographic, financial, and academic
variables affecting persistence rates when considering the factors affecting community college
students’ retention rates (Barnett, 2011; The Campaign for College Opportunity, 2016; Nakajima
et al., 2012). However, very few studies have considered the instructional practices of
community college faculty and how students may perceive such practices affect their academic
achievement and persistence, highlighting the importance of this exploration (Bailey et al., 2015;
Ng et al., 2015).
According to the SDT, all individuals have basic psychological needs of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985). If these basic psychological needs are
fulfilled within an academic setting, students will experience increased intrinsic motivation and
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 56
academic achievement (Reeve et al., 2004). One means to increase student engagement and
persistence is through autonomy-supportive instruction, which has been found to increase student
engagement and persistence (Jang et al., 2010). Therefore, this study examined the relation
between students’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction and their perceived academic
autonomy, competence, and academic achievement.
Two research questions guided this study: To what extent do students perceive their
psychology instructor to provide autonomy-supportive instruction in a community college
setting? To what extent do students’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction relate to
their perceived autonomy, competence, and academic achievement? It was hypothesized that
academic achievement and motivation will increase as students perceive their teachers to practice
autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors. Quantitative data were used to assess community
college psychology students’ perceptions of classroom autonomy support relative to perceptions
of academic autonomy, competence, and academic achievement. Participants were 188
psychology students at one community college who completed the LCQ, the AFS Scale, and the
Self-Regulation Questionnaire – Learning. A correlational analysis was performed to determine
the strength of the relationships among academic autonomy, autonomy, competence, and
academic achievement. In addition, a correlation was performed to determine the extent to
which there was a linear relationship between student perceptions of academic autonomy and
competence and their perceptions of the learning climate and their expected course grade.
Summary of Findings
This exploratory study examined community college students’ perceptions of the learning
climate of their psychology classroom and the extent to which their instructor provides
autonomy-supportive instructional practices. Additionally, relationships between students’
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 57
perceptions of academic autonomy, competence, autonomy, and academic achievement were
also explored. Overall, findings suggest that students who perceive that their instructor provides
a learning climate that fosters autonomy-supportive instructional practices, in turn, present
greater academic autonomy and intrinsic motivation. This finding is in accordance with prior
research.
As discussed in Chapter Two, according to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985), all humans
possess the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomous
motivation is experienced when individuals feel willing to engage in a behavior because the
behavior is personally interesting (Deci & Ryan, 1987). In contrast, to be controlled means to act
with a feeling of pressure because of a coercive demand. Autonomous motivation represents a
students’ intention to act based on full volition, choice, and self-determination (Ng et al., 2015).
SDT supports the motivation mediation model to explain the relationship between a teacher’s
motivating style and students’ motivation and functioning (Jang et al., 2009). This model
suggests that teacher-provided autonomy support nurtures students’ psychological needs
satisfaction and predicts the extent of classroom engagement and achievement (Jang et al., 2009).
Autonomous motivation may be supported by autonomy-supportive instructional practices.
Reeve (2016) stated that all students possess six engagement-fostering resources: autonomy,
competence, relatedness, curiosity, interest, and intrinsic goals. If a classroom environment
supports these resources, student perceptions of academic autonomy, competence, and autonomy
may improve, creating a positive association between supportive teaching and students’
motivation and engagement.
Additionally, when a self-regulatory climate is forged by developing a set of conditions
including establishing a learning climate built on relationships between teacher and students, the
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 58
students’ basic psychological need of autonomy may be satisfied requiring less extrinsic control.
Students will trust their teacher and take on many of their academic demands. This present study
demonstrated the relationship the learning climate and academic autonomy.
Furthermore, empirical studies have demonstrated that a student’s perceived competence
is directly correlated to a teacher’s autonomy-supportive classroom behaviors (Grolnick & Ryan,
1987; Vallerand et al., 1997). Research findings have determined a relationship between the
learning environment and the development of learning and interest leading to increased feelings
of competence and well-being. This present study demonstrated such a relationship.
However, findings show that academic autonomy and competence were not strongly correlated
with expected grade or course academic achievement, demonstrating a result contrary to research
that demonstrates a correlation between academic autonomy and academic achievement
(Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016; Patall et al., 2018). Researcher Prochaska (1994) found, in
accordance with previous research findings, that students of lower academic ability tend to
overestimate their actual academic performance when estimations regarding final grades are
collected before the end of the semester. Therefore, relative to the present study, a measurement
error most likely affected the ability to find a positive, significant correlation between an
autonomy supportive learning climate and academic autonomy as prior research confirms.
Implications for Practice
Several implications arise from this study. First, students who perceive that their
community college teacher is providing a learning climate that supports academic autonomy may
exhibit increased perceptions of autonomous regulation. This finding is relevant to community
college curriculum developers and teachers as they are implementing classroom instruction.
Instruction that builds interest while providing choice, communicates value by providing
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 59
rationale, acknowledges students’ expressions of negative affect, while using informational
language and providing structure (Reeve, 2016). Students who can be amotivated are unable or
hesitant to cope with certain tasks if they feel that their autonomy is threatened (Assor, 2012).
The need for autonomy involves the desire to self-regulate and organize. Therefore, when
students perceive that their teacher is offering classroom autonomy support, as opposed to
feeling frustrated when coerced and pressured to do things that are not of interest, they invest
time in tasks which may be difficult. Research supports this finding for students representing
cultures world-wide.
The second implication of this study is that students who perceive that their community
college teacher is providing a learning climate that supports academic autonomy may exhibit
increased perceptions of competence. Perceptions of competence, resulting from a learning
climate that fosters autonomy support, allows students to experience success rather than
believing that capacity is inborn and cannot be developed by practice (Covington, 2002).
Instead, success may be developed by acquiring strategies for learning, seeking help from others,
and effectively reducing frustration by managing emotions (Dweck, 1999). Community college
teachers should receive professional development on the implementation of autonomy-
supportive instructional practices: the joint establishment of learning objectives, work and
evaluation plans; syllabi that allow for student voice, interest, and choice; structures for the
ongoing dissemination of informational and timely feedback; and plans to support students’ non-
success.
Additionally, although empirical studies support the associations of autonomous
motivation and achievement (Reeve, 2013), this study did not reveal similar findings. A
significant, positive correlation was not found between student perceptions of the learning
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 60
climate supporting autonomous regulation, competence, and autonomy and expected grade.
These results may be attributed to the complexity of the factors that affect learning and academic
achievement. Researchers Gard, Paton, and Gosselin (2012) examined student perceptions of
factors contributing to community-college-to-university transfer success. Although not all
factors can be directly attributed to academic achievement, they may have a mitigating role in
determining the perceived academic achievement, autonomous regulation, competence, and
autonomy of the students. Students reported that the quality of academic advisement, access to
financial aid, and social and cultural issues represent factors that impede transfer success.
Therefore, in addition to improving the learning environment through teacher autonomy-
supportive instructional practices, institutions must provide accessible and ongoing academic
advisement, financial support and assistance for all students, and professional development for
all teachers and staff in cultural sensitivity and culturally relevant teaching. Furthermore, the
training of community college teachers to build strong interpersonal connections among all
learners, provide means for students to enhance their individual autonomy based on interest,
goals, and background, and develop a sense of competence by setting appropriate academic
challenges in tandem with specific, targeted support (Bailey et al., 2015).
A final implication is the need to inform community college teachers of how their
instructional practice, as well as their personal social-emotional level, affects the social-
emotional and self-determination needs satisfaction of their students. Community college
teachers often report that they are overwhelmed with mandates and a multitude of job
requirements, whereby actual student instructional methodology may become of lesser
importance. That said, instructors often resort to the knowledge transmission approach while
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 61
teaching, consisting of lectures, note taking, and traditional tests. Such traditional approaches,
coupled with a lack of awareness of the instructor’s own social-emotional level, ignore important
student psychological needs, often leading to student frustration and eventual withdrawal from
courses.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 62
Further Research
Although motivation research is extensive, and research addressing marginalized students
and ways to develop agentic engagement is in development by Dr. Erika Patall of the University
of Southern California, there is a need to further illuminate the motivation of community college
students. The present study provided a starting point for analysis topics that may be explored in
more depth. Several areas were not addressed, and several topics could be addressed in response
to the findings. First, differences in result by gender were evident, but these were not explored.
For example, findings suggest that male students appeared to have a stronger correlation between
their perception of the learning climate of the classroom (i.e., extent of teacher autonomy-
supportive instructional practices provided) and their reported perception of academic autonomy
and competence.
Second, differences in ethnicity sub-groups were evident relative to learning climate and
expected grade but were not explored with greater sample sizes. For example, although African
American students reported a significant correlation between the learning climate and academic
achievement, the group number proved too small to explore in greater detail. Therefore, a larger
sample size may yield sub-groups that may be fully examined.
Limitations and Conclusions
There are several limitations to the present study. First, the absence of the effects of
students’ perceptions of the leaning climate and reported academic autonomy, competence, and
autonomy on academic achievement might reflect the constraints of collecting just one data
point, expected grade. To overcome this limitation and for further study, to explore the
motivational impact of the learning climate on academic achievement, additional measures may
be required to include multiple grades throughout the semester.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 63
Another limitation is the small sample size, making it difficult to analyze the effects of
the learning climate on academic autonomy, competence, and academic achievement for sub-
groups by ethnicity and gender. Future research should include larger sample sizes to include
representative samples of ethnicity and gender to determine further effects of the learning
climate.
Finally, the present study focused solely on students of one community college academic
department, psychology and did not include students from multiple academic departments.
Future studies may examine the effects of the learning climate and autonomy-supportive
instructional practices on students from multiple academic departments to note if there is a
consistency, or lack thereof, of effects on academic autonomy, competence, autonomy, and
academic achievement.
In conclusion, results of this study suggest the importance of autonomy-supportive
teachers in the community college setting in establishing a learning climate to foster student
academic autonomy, competence, and intrinsic motivation. However, while important,
policymakers and educators alike should also recognize the need to address other issues that may
prohibit community college students’ academic achievement and eventual transfer to a
baccalaureate degree granting institution.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 64
REFERENCES
Abdul-Alim, J. (2016). Juggling Act. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 33(8), 10.
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans:
Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49–74.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49
Amoura, C., Berjot, S., Gillet, N., & Altintas, E. (2014). Desire for control, perception of control:
Their impact on autonomous motivation and psychological adjustment. Motivation and
Emotion, 38(3), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9379-9
Andersen, S., Chen, S., & Carter, C. (2000). Fundamental human needs: Making social cognition
relevant. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 269–275. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449619
Assor, A. (2012). Allowing Choice and Nurturing an Inner Compass: Educational Practices
Supporting Students’ Need for Autonomy. Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement,421-439. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_20
Bailey, T. R., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674425934
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist,44(9),
1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
41(3), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 65
Barnett, E. A. (2011). Validation experiences and persistence among community college
students. Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 193–230.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2010.0019
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation:
Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 706–
722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.706
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active
self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive
motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 755–765.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021004755
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’
autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory
perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-
237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
Boggiano, A. K., Flink, C., Shields, A., Seelbach, A., & Barrett, M. (1993). Use of techniques
promoting students self-determination: Effects on students analytic problem-solving
skills. Motivation and Emotion, 17(4), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992323
Bogue, J. P. (1950). The community college. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 66
Boiché, J. C., Sarrazin, P. G., Grouzet, F. M., Pelletier, L. G., & Chanal, J. P. (2008). Students
motivational profiles and achievement outcomes in physical education: A self-
determination perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 688–701.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.688
Bolkan, S. (2014). Intellectually Stimulating Students Intrinsic Motivation: The Mediating
Influence of Affective Learning and Student Engagement. Communication Reports,
28(2), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2014.962752
Boykin, A. W. (1986). The triple quandary and the schooling of Afro-American children. The
school achievement of minority children: New perspectives, 57-92.
Buunk, B., & Nauta, A. (2000). Why intraindividual needs are not enough: Human motivation is
primarily social. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 279–283. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449621
The Campaign for College Opportunity. (2016). Keeping the promise, going the distance on
transfer reform. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2018). Enrollment status summary.
Retrieved from http://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Enrollment_Status.aspx
Chacón, J. A. (2013). The experiences of low-income Latino/a students in the California
community college system at a time of education budget cuts. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 12(3), 207-224.
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E., Van Der Kaap-Deeder, J., …
Verstuyf, J. (2014). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need
strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216–236.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 67
Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease
students’ amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 99–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2018). Why autonomy-supportive interventions
work: Explaining the professional development of teachers’ motivating style. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 69, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.022
Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M., & Willness, C. (2005). Cultural context and psychological needs in
Canada and Brazil. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 423–443.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275960
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from
individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on
internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97
Ciani, K. D., Middleton, M. J., Summers, J. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (2010). Buffering against
performance classroom goal structures: The importance of autonomy support and
classroom community. Contemporary Educational Psychology,35(1), 88-99.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.001
Clinton, W. (1998). Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou98.htm?noredirect=on
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2014). The American community college. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley brand.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 68
Connell, J., & Wellborn, J. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational
analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar and A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota
Symposium on Child Development (Vol. 22, pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Covington, M. V. (2002). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school
reform. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crisp, G., & Nora, A. (2010). Hispanic student success: Factors influencing the persistence and
transfer decisions of Latino community college students enrolled in developmental
education. Research in Higher Education, 51(2), 175-194.
Cross, S. E., & Gore, J. S. (2003). Cultural models of the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney
(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 536–564). New York, NY: Guilford.
DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: the internal affective determinants of behavior. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination
in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134., doi:10.1016/0092-
6566(85)90023-6.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (2002). Handbook of Self--Determination Research (pp. 227-268).
Rochester: University of Rochester Press. Deci, EL, & Ryan.
Deci, E., Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., & Ryan, R. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-
determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 325–346.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_6
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 69
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,53(6), 1024-1037.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1024
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Caution--Praise Can Be Dangerous. American Educator, 23(1), 4-9.
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Fortus, D., & Vedder-Weiss, D. (2014). Measuring students continuing motivation for science
learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(4), 497–522.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21136
Freud, S. (1927). The ego and the id. Vienna, Austria: Norton.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance in
the college classroom. Contemporary educational psychology, 21, 477-486.
Gard, D. R., Paton, V., & Gosselin, K. (2012). Student Perceptions of Factors Contributing to
Community-College-to-University Transfer Success. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice,36(11), 833-848. doi:10.1080/10668920903182666
Gardiner, L. F. (1998). Why we must change: The research evidence. Thought & Action, 14(1),
71–88.
Gergen, K. J. (2010). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Goldman, Z. W., Goodboy, A. K., & Weber, K. (2016). College students’ psychological needs
and intrinsic motivation to learn: An examination of self-determination Theory.
Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 167–191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2016.1215338
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 70
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high
school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom
perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,29(4), 462-482.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.006
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and
individual difference investigation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(5),
890.
Grubb, W. N. (2013). Basic skills education in community colleges: Inside and outside of
classrooms. Routledge.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2016). The trans-contextual model of autonomous
motivation in education. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 360–407.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315585005
Harter, S. (1985). Competence as a dimension of self-evaluation: Toward a comprehensive
model of self-worth. The development of the self, 2, 55-121.
Hawley, T. H., & Harris, T. A. (2005). Student characteristics related to persistence for first-year
community college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 7(1), 117-142.
Hayamizu, T. (1997). Between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Examination of reasons for
academic study based on the theory of internalization. The Japanese Psychological
Research,39(2), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5884.00043
Hollinshead, B. S. (1936). The community junior college program. Junior College Journal,7(3),
111–116.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 71
Iyengar, S. S., & DeVoe, S. E. (2003). Rethinking the value of choice: Considering cultural
mediators of intrinsic motivation. In V. Murphy-Berman & J. J. Berman (Eds.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation: Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on self (Vol. 49, pp.
129–174). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
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), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028089
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not
autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what
underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented
Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 644–661.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014241
Johnson, H., Mejia, M. C., & Bohn, S. (2015). Will California Run Out of College Graduates?
San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
Jordan, J. V. (1991). The relational self: A new perspective for understanding in women’s
development. In J. Strauss & G. Goethals (Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches
(pp. 136–149). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4684-8264-5_8
Kane, T. J., & Rouse, C. E. (1999). The community college: Educating Students at the margin
between college and work. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 63–84.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.13.1.63
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 72
Karp, M. M., & Bork, R. H. (2012). " They Never Told Me What to Expect, so I Didn't Know
What to Do": Defining and Clarifying the Role of a Community College Student. CCRC
Working Paper No. 47. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Target Article: Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem.
Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_01
Kim, A. (2004, May). Investigating self-regulation in Korean students. Paper presented at the
Second International Conference on Self-Determination Theory. Ottawa, Canada.
Koestner, R., Otis, N., Powers, T. A., Pelletier, L., & Gagnon, H. (2008). Autonomous
motivation, controlled motivation, and goal progress. Journal of Personality, 76(5),
1201–1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00519.x
Korotkov, D. L. (1998). The sense of coherence: Making sense out of chaos. In P. T. P. Wong &
P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research
and clinical applications (pp. 51–70). Mahwah, NJ, US: Erlbaum.
Leahy, R. L. (1985). The development of the self. Orlando, FL: Academic.
Lee, W., & Reeve, J. (2017). Identifying the neural substrates of intrinsic motivation during task
performance. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(5), 939–953.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-017-0524-x
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Adaptive motivation and emotion in
education. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 228–236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216644450
List, A., & Nadasen, D. (2016). Motivation and Self-regulation in community college transfer
students at a four-year online university. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice,41(12), 842–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1242096
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 73
Loevinger, J., & Blasi, A. (1991). Development of the self as subject. In J. Strauss & G. R.
Goethals (Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 150–167). New York, NY:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8264-5_9
Lynch, M. F., La Guardia, J. G., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). On being yourself in different cultures:
Ideal and actual self-concept, autonomy support, and well-being in China, Russia, and the
United States. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(4), 290–304.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902933765
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.98.2.224
Martin, K., Galentino, R., & Townsend, L. (2014). Community college student success.
Community College Review, 42(3), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552114528972
Maslow, A. H. (1955). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328591
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching,55(2),
42–47. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.55.2.42-47
Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivational predictors of
alienation in middle school. Journal of educational psychology, 91(1), 62.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 74
Nakajima, M. A., Dembo, M. H., & Mossler, R. (2012). Student persistence in community
colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(8), 591–613.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920903054931
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Home Page, part of the U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/
Ng, B., Liu, W. C., & Wang, C. K. (2015). A preliminary examination of teachers’ and students’
perspectives on autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors. Qualitative Research in
Education, 4(2), 192–221. https://doi.org/10.17583/qre.2015.1463
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom.
School Field, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
Nunberg, H. (1931). The synthetic function of the ego. The International Journal of Psycho-
Analysis, 12, 123-140.
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher
effects?. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
Orsini, C., Binnie, V., Wilson, S., & Villegas, M. J. (2018). Learning climate and feedback as
predictors of dental students’ self-determined motivation: The mediating role of basic
psychological needs satisfaction. European Journal of Dental Education, 22(2), e228–
e236. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12277
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003323
Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2003). Remedial Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary
Institutions in Fall 2000. Statistical Analysis Report.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 75
Patall, E. A. (2013). Constructing motivation through choice, interest, and interestingness.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 522–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030307
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), 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270
Patall, E. A., Steingut, R. R., Vasquez, A. C., Trimble, S. S., Pituch, K. A., & Freeman, J. L.
(2018). Daily autonomy supporting or thwarting and students’ motivation and
engagement in the high school science classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology,
110(2), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000214
Piaget, J. (1971). The theory of stages in cognitive development.
Plunkett, S. W., Henry, C. S., Houltberg, B. J., Sands, T., & Abarca-Mortensen, S. (2008).
Academic support by significant others and educational resilience in Mexican-origin
ninth grade students from intact families. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 28(3), 333–
355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431608314660
Prohaska, V. (1994). "I know Ill get an A": Confident overestimation of final course
grades. Teaching of Psychology,21(3), 141-143. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2103_2
Puente Díaz, R., & Cavazos Arroyo, J. (2013). Personality factors, affect, and autonomy support
as predictors of life satisfaction. Universitas Psychologica, 12(1), 41–53. Retrieved from
http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1657-
92672013000100005&lng=en&tlng=en
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (2000). Toward a dialectical analysis of growth
and defensive motives. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 301–305. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449626
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 76
Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8),
10-16.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R.
M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY,
US: University of Rochester Press.
Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as Facilitators: What Autonomy-Supportive Teachers Do and Why
Their Students Benefit. The Elementary School Journal,106(3), 225-236.
doi:10.1086/501484
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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990
Reeve, J. (2013). Agentically engaged students: How they create motivationally supportive
learning environments for themselves. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e642622013-
067
Reeve, J. (2016). Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. In W. Liu, J. Wang, &
R. Ryan (Eds.), Building Autonomous Learners (pp. 129–152). Singapore: Springer;
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-630-0_7
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students autonomy during a
learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology,98(1), 209-218. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.98.1.209
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.
doi:10.1023/b:moem.0000032312.95499.6f
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 77
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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054002025
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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021711629417
Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination
in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(2), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.375
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during
learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
Reeve, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Assor, A., Ahmad, I., Cheon, S. H., Jang, H., … Wang, C. K.
(2013). The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching: A
multinational investigation. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 93–110.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9367-0
Rendón, L. I., & Valadez, J. R. (1993). Qualitative indicators of Hispanic student
transfer. Community College Review, 20(4), 27-37.
Rigby, C. S., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic
dichotomy: Self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion,
16(3), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991650
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 78
Robbins, S. B., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Peterson, C. H., & Le, H. (2006). Unraveling the
differential effects of motivational and skills, social, and self-management measures from
traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3),
598–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.598
Rogers, C. R. (1963). Actualizing tendency in relation to "Motives" and to consciousness. In M.
R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 1-24). Oxford, England:
University of Nebraska.
Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. C. (2016).
How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer
relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42, 95–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of
Personality, 63(3), 397–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–
78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic
psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 319–338.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_03
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000c). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 79
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does
psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6),
1557–1586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On Energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a
dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529–565.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and
projective assessments of individual differences in childrens perceptions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,50(3), 550-558. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.550
Ryan, R. M., Legate, N., Niemiec, C. P., & Deci, E. L. (2012). Beyond illusions and defense:
Exploring the possibilities and limits of human autonomy and responsibility through self-
determination theory. In P. R. Shaver & M. Mikulincer (Eds.), Meaning, mortality, and
choice: The social psychology of existential concerns (pp. 215-233). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association https://doi.org/10.1037/13748-012
Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child
relationships. Attachment & human development, 14(3), 213-231.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Goals and goal orientations. Motivation in
Education: Theory, Research, and Applications, 170-209.
Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. The American
Psychologist,55(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.79
Scott Krei, M. (1998). Intensifying the barriers: The problem of inequitable teacher allocation in
low-income urban schools. Urban Education, 33(1), 71-94.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 80
Sheldon, K., & Elliot, A. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous
and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298245010
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York, NY: Knopf.
Shernoff, D. J., & Schmidt, J. A. (2008). Further evidence of an engagement–achievement
paradox among US high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(5), 564-
580.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(4), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
Smith, J. L., & Vellani, F. A. (1999). Urban America and the community college imperative: The
importance of open access and opportunity. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 1999(107), 5-13.
Snyder, T. D., Tan, A. G., & Hoffman, C. M. (2006). Digest of education statistics 2005 (NCES
2006-030). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Spitzer, T. M. (2000). Predictors of college success: A comparison of traditional and
nontraditional age students. NASPA Journal, 38(1), 82–98. https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-
6014.1130
Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early
adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature. Educational
Research Review, 9, 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.003
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 81
Vallerand, R. (2000). Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory: A view from the hierarchical
model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 312–318.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449629
Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-
life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1161–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1161
Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Muynck, G. D., Haerens, L., Patall, E., & Reeve, J. (2017).
Fostering Personal Meaning and Self-relevance: A Self-Determination Theory
Perspective on Internalization. The Journal of Experimental Education,86(1), 30-49.
doi:10.1080/00220973.2017.1381067
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.04.002
Wang, X., Chuang, Y., & McCready, B. (2017). The effect of earning an associate degree on
community college transfer students’ performance and success at four-year institutions.
Teachers College Record, 119(2), 1–30
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness
(eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
64(4), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 82
Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., & Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers
and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 35(3), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.002
Werner, H. (1948). Comparative psychology of mental development. New York, Ny: Harper
White, R. W. (1963). Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory. New York, NY: International
Universities.
Williams, G., Grow, V., Freedman, Z., Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (1996). Motivational predictors of
weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.115
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical
students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,70(4), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767
Williams, G. C., Saizow, R., Ross, L., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Motivation underlying career choice
for internal medicine and surgery. Social Science & Medicine, 45(11), 1705–1713.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00103-2
Yamauchi, H., & Tanaka, K. (1998). Relations of autonomy, self-referenced beliefs, and self-
regulated learning among Japanese children. Psychological Reports, 82(3), 803–816.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1998.82.3.803
Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing
student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research
Journal,23(4), 614–628. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312023004614
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 83
APPENDIX A
The Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ)
Short Form
1. I feel that my instructor provides me choices and options.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly neutral strongly
disagree agree
2. I feel understood by my instructor.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly neutral strongly
disagree agree
3. My instructor conveyed confidence in my ability to do well in the course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly neutral strongly
disagree agree
4. My instructor encouraged me to ask questions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly neutral strongly
disagree agree
5. My instructor listens to how I would like to do things.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly neutral strongly
disagree agree
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 84
6. My instructor tries to understand how I see things before suggesting a new way to do
things.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly neutral strongly
disagree agree
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 85
APPENDIX B
The Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L)
Please use the following scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not true somewhat very
at all true true
A. I will participate actively in psychology class:
a. Because I feel like it is a good way to improve my understanding of the material.
b. Because others might think badly of me if I didn’t.
c. Because I would feel proud of myself if I did well in the course.
d. Because a solid understand of psychology is important to my intellectual growth.
B. I am likely to follow my instructor’s suggestion for studying psychology:
a. Because I would get a bad grade if I didn’t do what he/she suggests.
b. Because I am worried that I am not going to perform well in the course.
c. Because it’s easier to follow his/her suggestions than come up with my own study
strategies.
d. Because he/she seems to have insight about how best to learn the material.
C. The reason that I will work to expand my knowledge of psychology is:
a. Because it’s interesting to learn more about human nature.
b. Because it is a challenge to really understand psychological theories.
c. Because a good grade in psychology will look positive on my record.
d. Because it’s interesting to apply what I’m learning in psychology class to daily
life.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 86
APPENDIX C
Activity-Feeling States (AFS) Scale
Attending psychology class makes me feel….
Strongly
Disagree
Agree &
Disagree
Equally
Strongly
Agree
Capable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I belong
and the
people here
care about
me
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Stressed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Free 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Involved
with close
friends
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pressured 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Competent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I’m doing
what I want
to be doing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Uptight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Emotionally
close to the
people
around me
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My skills
are
improving
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Free to
decide for
myself what
I want to do
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 87
APPENDIX D
Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix
Research Question
Theoretical
Framework
Outcome Variable
Measurement
Instrument
To what extent do students
perceive their psychology
instructor to provide autonomy-
supportive instruction in a
community college setting?
To what extent do students’
perceptions of autonomy-
supportive instruction relate to
their perceived autonomy,
competence, and academic
achievement?
Self-Determination
Theory
(Deci & Ryan,
1987)
Academic
Autonomy
Learning
Climate
Questionnaire
(Williams &
Deci, 1996)
Self-
Regulation
Questionnaire
(Black & Deci,
2000)
Activity-
Feeling States
Scale (Reeve,
& Sickenius,
1994)
Competence
Learning
Climate
Questionnaire
(Williams &
Deci, 1996)
Self-
Regulation
Questionnaire
(Black & Deci,
2000)
Activity-
Feeling States
Scale (Reeve,
& Sickenius,
1994)
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 88
Research Question
Theoretical
Framework
Outcome Variable
Measurement
Instrument
Academic
Achievement
Learning
Climate
Questionnaire
(Williams &
Deci, 1996)
Self-
Regulation
Questionnaire
(Black & Deci,
2000)
Activity-
Feeling States
Scale (Reeve,
& Sickenius,
1994)
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 89
APPENDIX E
IRB Approval and Study Description
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board
1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90033-9269
Telephone: (323) 442-0114
Fax: (323) 224-8389
Email: irb@usc.edu
Date: Aug 17, 2018, 07:22pm
Action Taken: Approve
Principal
Investigator:
Paula Obermeyer,
ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Faculty
Advisor:
Patricia Tobey
OFFICE OF THE PROVOST
Co-
Investigator(s):
Project Title: Examining Perspectives of Academic Autonomy in Community College
Students
Study ID: UP-18-00450
Funding: N/A - no funding source listed
The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) designee determined that your project
meets the requirements outlined in 45 CFR 46.101(b) category (2) and qualifies for exemption
from IRB review. This study was approved on 08/17/2018 and is not subject to further IRB
review.
Minor revisions were made to the application (sections 2.1, 5, 11, 21, 22, 25.1 & 26.5) by the
IRBA.
Consent and recruitment documents are not required to be uploaded for exempt studies;
however, researchers are reminded that USC follows the principles of the Belmont Report,
which requires all potential participants to be informed of the research study, their rights
as a participant, confidentiality of their data, etc. It is recommended that you utilize the
Information Sheet For Exempt Research and revise the template to be specific to your
study. This document will not be reviewed by the IRB. It is the responsibility of the
researcher to make sure the document is consistent with the study procedures listed in the
application.
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 90
Reminders:
**Per USC Policy, someone may not collect data about people he or she oversees in a
professional capacity. Please ensure that someone on the study (represented in 2.1, with the
required human subjects certification) is able to serve as an independent data collector. Further,
data must be stripped of any identifying information before being provided to people who have
the supervisory relationship in order to protect the confidentiality of the participant responses.**
**Note: Data stored on a cloud service must comply with USC policy**
All submissions, including new applications, contingency responses, amendments and
continuing reviews are reviewed in the order received.
Attachments:
Recruitment Tool Instructions.doc
Information Sheet for Exempt or Flex-Exempt Studies, dated 03-29-2013.doc
Social-behavioral health-related interventions or health-outcome studies must register
with clinicaltrials.gov or other International Community of Medical Journal Editors
(ICMJE) approved registries in order to be published in an ICJME journal. The
ICMJE will not accept studies for publication unless the studies are registered prior to
enrollment, despite the fact that these studies are not applicable “clinical trials” as
defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For support with registration,
go to www.clinicaltrials.gov or contact Jean Chan (jeanbcha@usc.edu, 323-442-
2825).
Important
The principal investigator for this study is responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals before
commencing research. Please be sure that you have satisfied applicable requirements, for example conflicts of
interest, bio safety, radiation safety, biorepositories, credentialing, data security, sponsor
approval, clinicaltrials.gov or school approval. IRB approval does not convey approval to commence research
in the event that other requirements have not been satisfied.
Abstract: Provide a simple explanation of the study and briefly address (in 1 to 2
sentences) each of the following points: rationale; intervention; objectives or
purpose; study population or sample characteristics; study methodology; description of
study arms (if appropriate); study endpoints or outcomes; follow-up; statistics and plans
for analysis.
This study applies self-determination theory (SDT), from the academic motivation literature, to understand
the motivational deficit associated with community college students not completing courses leading to
degree completion or transfer. The purpose of this study is to gain insight into students’ perceptions of
autonomy supportive instruction and determine effects on academic achievement, academic autonomy,
and competence. This quantitative study utilizes cluster sampling, to include 150 community college
psychology students. Students will self-report perceptions of autonomy supportive instruction, academic
autonomy, and competence using the Learning Climate Questionnaire, Learning Self-Regulation
EXAMING PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY 91
Questionnaire, and Activity Feeling State Scale. Data will be collected late fall semester, metrics scored
separately, with descriptive, correlational, and bivariate correlational statistics applied.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study applied self-determination theory (SDT), from the academic motivation literature, to understand the motivational deficit associated with community college students not completing courses leading to degree completion or transfer. The purpose of this study was to gain insight into students’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction and to determine effects on academic achievement, academic autonomy, and competence. This quantitative study utilized cluster sampling, to include 188 community college psychology students. Students self-reported perceptions of autonomy-supportive instruction, academic autonomy, and competence using the Learning Climate Questionnaire, Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire, and Activity-Feeling States Scale. Findings demonstrate a significant correlation between the student perceptions of teacher autonomy-supportive instructional practices and perceived academic autonomy, competence, and autonomy. Contrary to previous research, a correlation between student perceptions of the learning climate, and expected grade was not demonstrated.
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
Cultivating motivation and persistence for urban, high achieving, low-SES African American students
PDF
Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced
PDF
Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom
PDF
Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students
PDF
Culturally-relevant, autonomy supportive instruction: toward an integration for enhancing the motivation of racially and ethnically diverse learners
PDF
Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses
PDF
Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success
PDF
The arc of students with disabilities in California Community College through the lens of the disabled student programs and services coordinators
PDF
Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment
PDF
Stories of persistence and courage: undocumented students' educational experience enrolled at a 4-year institution
PDF
Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion
PDF
Academic coaching for Pell-eligible, academically at-risk freshmen: an evaluation study
PDF
Academic success of students who come from highly stressful homes
PDF
Struggles build character: the impact of developmental math and the psychological, social and cultural factors that influence Latino males' persistence in STEM
PDF
Examining internal communication practices to improve teachers’ motivation to use ICTs in instruction: a case study of Peruvian secondary schools
PDF
Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities
PDF
Finding academic success during political times of uncertainty for undocumented students in California state community colleges
PDF
Program customization in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income students
PDF
Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom
Asset Metadata
Creator
Obermeyer, Paula Elizabeth
(author)
Core Title
Examining perspectives of academic autonomy in community college students: a quantitative study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/15/2019
Defense Date
03/05/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Academic Achievement,academic autonomy,competence,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-determination theory
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tobey, Patricia (
committee chair
), Combs, Wayne (
committee member
), Patall, Erika (
committee member
)
Creator Email
obermeye@usc.edu,obermeyerp811@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-139214
Unique identifier
UC11675672
Identifier
etd-ObermeyerP-7195.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-139214 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ObermeyerP-7195.pdf
Dmrecord
139214
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Obermeyer, Paula Elizabeth
Type
texts
Source
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 a...
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
Tags
academic autonomy
competence
self-determination theory