See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/310781121

Self-determination, Self-efficacy and Self-regulation in School: A

Longitudinal Intervention Study With Primary School Pupils

Article · February 2016

DOI: 10.17265/2159-5526/2016.02.005

CITATIONS READS

5 5,289

2 authors:

Daniela Martinek Ulrike Kipman

University of Salzburg PH Salzburg
36 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   253 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SoE_Project View project

Motivierte Lehrperson werden und bleiben View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ulrike Kipman on 16 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sociology Study, February 2016, Vol. 6, No. 2, 124‐133 
doi: 10.17265/2159‐5526/2016.02.005
D DAVID PUBLISHING

Self­determination, Self­efficacy and 
Self­regulation in School: A Longitudinal 
Intervention Study With Primary School Pupils 
Daniela Martineka, Ulrike Kipmana 

Abstract 
The study documents an intervention programme based on the Self‐determination Theory of Deci and Ryan (2000) with school 
beginners in an Austrian primary school with the aim to improve perceived self‐determination and academic self‐regulation of 
school  beginners.  For  two  years,  teachers  were  guided  by  a  team  of  educational  scientists  to  design  challenging  autonomous 
learning  settings  and to  foster  self‐determined academic regulation. Before  and after the intervention,  about  100  pupils were 
questioned  concerning  their  well‐being  in  school,  perceived  autonomy  support,  their  academic  self‐regulation,  and 
school‐related  self‐efficacy.  Teachers’  autonomy  support  decreased  during  the  first  year  but  remained  stable  from  then  on. 
Pupils’ intrinsic regulation, as well as their introjected and external regulation and their self‐efficacy, decreased throughout the 
intervention but identified regulation remained stable. The results indicate that perceived self‐determination, self‐determined 
academic  regulation,  and  self‐efficacy  contribute  to  school‐related  well‐being  and  offer  interesting  recommendations  for 
improving the climate in schools for pupils and teachers. 

Keywords 
Self‐determined learning, academic self‐regulation, self‐efficacy, early education 

Numerous studies stress the relevance of academic In so doing, the authors were able to collect data
intrinsic motivation for learning processes right from concerning perceived autonomy, academic
the beginning of education in schools (cf. Boggiano self-regulation, subjective well-being, and
1998; Miserandino 1996; Bouffard et al. 2003; Lepper, school-related self-efficacy of a target group that is
Corpus, and Iyengar 2005; Spinath and Steinmayr rarely analysed—the six to 10 years old primary
2008), yet extrinsic types of motivation seem pupils in grades one to three.
inevitable elements of education (Reeve 2009).
Building on the multidimensional approach of the
 
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) by Deci and Ryan
(2012) and on empirical studies focusing on the
academic motivation of primary school children
aUniversity of Salzburg, Austria
(Gottfried 1990; Skinner et al. 2009; Dresel et al. 2010;
Corpus and Wormington 2014), the authors developed Correspondent Author: 
Daniela  Martinek,  School  of  Education/Educational 
an intervention programme for school beginners and
Sciences,  University  of  Salzburg,  Erzabt‐Klotz‐Str.  1,  5020 
guided teachers and pupils for a period of two years. Salzburg, Austria 
Martinek and Kipman  125

SELF­DETERMINATION AND SUBJECTIVE  to grow and learn (Reeve, Deci, and Ryan 2004). The
WELL­BEING IN SCHOOL  prototype of autonomous behaviour is intrinsic
motivation, when pupils engage in activities because
Self-determination plays an important role for
they are spontaneously interesting and enjoyable
successful learning (Ryan and Deci 2013) and being
without the requirements of separable consequences.
able to act self-determinedly is conducive for academic
When confronted with external demands, learners are
achievement, for positive classroom functioning and
inherently motivated to integrate the regulation of
pupils’ psychological well-being (Deci and Ryan 2000;
extrinsically motivated activities within themselves
Jang et al. 2009). The way teachers interact with their
(Ryan 1993). In this proactive process, external
pupils and how they initiate and organise learning
regulations are transformed into regulations by the self,
processes has an essential impact on perceived
autonomy (Deci and Ryan 2008) and educators can and supportive as well as nurturing social conditions
actively use autonomy supportive strategies in class to in class can contribute to this internalisation (Deci et
foster self-determined involvement (Chatzisarantis al. 1994).
and Hagger 2009; Tessier, Sarrazin, and Ntoumanis With respect to extrinsic motivation, the
2010). Educational research provides empirically multidimensional SDT approach distinguishes
well-tested methods that are effective to promote different types: external, introjected, identified, and
self-determination (Su and Reeve 2011). In addition to integrated regulation (Deci et al. 1994). Behaviour
concentrating on individual interests, the provision of regulated through external means such as constraints,
significant choices, making structures and punishment, or rewards corresponds with external
arrangements clear, providing meaningful rationales regulation. Introjected regulation occurs when a pupil
and a considerate way of interacting with pupils, accepts a regulation or contingency without accepting
including the use of non-controlling language and it as his or her own and refers to behaviour that is
openness toward students’ perceptions and attitudes, driven by internal pressure, e.g. anxiety or emotions of
are fundamental strategies to support self-esteem (Ryan and Connell 1989). Pupils
self-determination in class (Reeve and Cheon 2014). understanding the value of uninteresting behaviours
According to intervention studies, teachers can be and being willing to accept responsibility for their
trained to use these methods effectively (Reeve, Deci, behaviours experience identified regulation and, if
and Ryan 2004; Chatzisarantis and Hagger 2009; learners are able to fully endorse the requested
Tessier et al. 2010; Cheon and Reeve 2013) and behaviours with their self-concept, the behavioural
research indicates that an autonomy supportive regulation is integrated (Deci and Ryan 2016).
teaching style contributes to well-being Learning environments that support autonomy
(Vansteenkiste et al. 2004) and to developing contribute to maintaining and developing intrinsic,
autonomous forms of academic self-regulation integrated, and identified regulations, which are
(Sierens et al. 2009; Vansteenkiste et al. 2009; Jang, considered to be (rather) self-determined types of
Reeve, and Deci 2010; Soenens et al. 2012). motivation, whereas pressure-inducing and controlling
teachers foster introjected and external regulations,
which are (rather) controlled types of motivation
ACADEMIC SELF­REGULATION AND 
(Deci and Ryan 1987; Ryan and Stiller 1991;
AUTONOMY SUPPORT 
Vallerand, Fortier, and Guay 1997; Deci, Koestner,
According to SDT, pupils have an evolved tendency and Ryan 1999). A convincing line of educational
126 Sociology  Study  6(2) 

research documents that self-determined regulation self-efficacy beliefs represent domain-specific

corresponds with positive consequences, such as: perceptions of competence and are instrumental for
engagement (Jang et al. 2010); conceptual learning goal attainment (Bandura 1997), whereas the basic
(Grolnick and Ryan 1987); achievement and mastery psychological need for competence, as defined within
orientation (Gurland and Grolnick, 2005; Pelletier et SDT, rather refers to feeling effective in interactions
al. 2013); perceived competence and better with the social environment and being able to explore
performance (Grolnick, Ryan, and Deci 1991; Fortier, one’s capacities (Ryan and Deci 2002). Relating these
Vallerand, and Guay 1995; Miserando 1996; De two concepts to each other, it seems feasible that if
Naeghel et al. 2012); well-being (Kasser and Ryan supporting autonomy fosters the satisfaction of the
1996) and higher self-efficacy (Thøgersen-Ntoumani basic psychological needs (Deci and Ryan 2000), then
and Ntoumanis 2006). experiencing self-determination—with respect to
individual academic self-regulation or teachers’
support—should consequently contribute to higher
PUPILS’ ACADEMIC SELF­EFFICACY AND 
self-efficacy.
SELF­DETERMINED REGULATION 
According to Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory
THE PRESENT STUDY 
(1997), academic self-efficacy beliefs refer to pupils’
judgments concerning their capability of accomplishing In the present research, a team of primary school
a task or succeeding in an activity. Self-efficacy teachers and educational scientists cooperated in order
beliefs determine pupils’ choices, their efforts, their to design and establish an innovative educational
persistence, and their perseverance when facing concept with a special emphasis on self-determined
difficult challenges, and these beliefs are nurtured by learning (SE3W—self-determination, self-regulation,
interpreting information from four primary sources: self-efficacy, and well-being). The authors collected
mastery experience, vicarious experience, social longitudinal data concerning perceived
persuasions, and physiological and emotional states self-determination, academic self-regulation,
(Bandura 1986). Research has determined that self-efficacy, and subjective well-being from 131
self-efficacy influences academic achievement across pupils from grades one to three in an Austrian primary
academic areas and levels (Pajares and Urdan 2006) school. In line with the main intervention objective,
and it is associated with motivational constructs such the authors hoped to achieve constant results
as causal attributions, self-concept, optimism, concerning the perception of autonomy support
achievement goal orientation, academic help-seeking, (Reeve 2011) and positive development of the
anxiety, and value (Usher and Pajares 2008). Moreover, academic self-regulation of the participating pupils
pupils who are confident in their academic capabilities (Bandura 1997; Vallerand et al. 1997; Deci et al. 1999;
engage in more self-regulatory strategies that promote Schunk and Pajares 2005). Based on prior findings
success in school (Schunk and Pajares 2005). The (Thøgersen-Ntoumani and Ntoumanis 2006; Sierens et
self-beliefs of school beginners are likely to be most al. 2009; Vansteenkiste et al. 2009; Jang et al. 2010;
malleable and to have an impact on the structure of Soenens et al. 2012), the authors assumed that
subsequent efficacy beliefs (Bandura 1997). perceived autonomy, self-determined types of
From a conceptual standpoint, the basic academic regulation, and self-efficacy contribute to
psychological need for competence, defined within subjective well-being. In addition to monitoring the
SDT, can be related to self-efficacy, although individual development of learners, they also analysed
Martinek and Kipman  127

differences and transformations at class level in order true” (1) to “very true” (5). The authors calculated
to gain further insights concerning the impact of mean representing the four different types of academic
teaching styles on pupils’ motivational development self-regulation: intrinsic regulation, identified
(Hattie 2009). regulation, introjected regulation, and external
regulation (Müller et al. 2007).
Self-efficacy. Students’ self-efficacy was assessed
METHOD 
with a 6-item scale adapted from a 7-item instrument
Sample and Procedure  developed from Jerusalem and Satow (1999).
Cronbach’s α in the original 7-item instrument ranges
One hundred and forty-eight (148) pupils aged
between .70 and .73 (Jerusalem and Satow 1999).
between six and nine years old in the pre-test (M =
Answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
6.96, SD = .728) and aged between six and 10 years
from “not at all true” (1) to “very true” (5). Mean
old (M = 7.90, SD = 1.04) in the post-test from one
scores were calculated over all items to measure
primary school in Austria participated in this study self-efficacy.
called SE3W. Seventy-five pupils participated in the Well-being. Students’ well-being was assessed
pre-test and the post-test sessions. Pupils answered with 3 items on a 5-point scale. Students were asked
questions concerning perceptions of autonomy, how they enjoy school, whether they feel well at
academic self-regulation, subjective well-being, and school, and whether they often feel lonely at school
self-efficacy in both sessions. Due to the elementary (in the style of Eder 2007). Answers were given on a
school basic reading competencies of the students, test 5-point Likert scale ranging from “I don’t enjoy
sessions were guided by trained interviewers. school” (1) to “I enjoy school very much” (5)
respectively from “not at all true” (1) to “very true”
Instruments 
(5). Cronbach’s α in the sample is .6. Mean scores
Self-determination. Students’ self-determination was were calculated over all items (item 3 was recoded) to
assessed by applying the 6-item scale adapted from measure well-being.
the Learning Climate Questionnaire (Black and Deci
2000). Cronbach’s α in the original 15-item
Analyses 
instrument ranges between .93 and .96 (Black and As pupils were clustered in classes, the authors
Deci 2000; Williams and Deci 1996). Answers were checked whether variables significantly differed
provided on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “not between classes. The authors conducted a multivariate
at all true” (1) to “very true” (5). Mean scores were analysis of variance with class as fixed factor and
calculated over all items to measure differences between pre-test and post-test sessions as
self-determination. dependent variables. The authors did not find
Academic self-regulation. Students’ academic significant differences between groups in intrinsic
self-regulation was assessed using 12 items adapted regulation, in introjected regulation, and in well-being
from Müller, Hanfstingl, and Andreitz (2007) based (all F < 1.36, p > .05) but they found significant
on the Academic Self-regulation Questionnaire differences between groups in self-determination
according to Ryan and Connell (1989). Cronbach’s α (F = 7.83, p = .000), in identified regulation (F = 3.61,
ranges from .75 for extrinsic regulation to .92 for p = .018), in external regulation (F = 2.96, p = .039)
intrinsic regulation (Müller et al. 2007). Answers were and in self-efficacy (F = 3.69, p = .017). Thus, the
given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all authors conducted all analyses split for pupils
128 Sociology  Study  6(2) 

changing from first grade to second grade and for analyse possible gender differences, the authors
children changing from second grade to third grade included gender as a between subjects factor. The
and additionally controlled for gender-related effects. authors did not identify significant gender differences
The authors firstly analysed changes in in self-determination [F (1) < .895, p > .352], intrinsic
self-determination, academic self-regulation, regulation [F (1) = 2.15, p > .151], introjected
self-efficacy, and well-being calculating repeated regulation [F (1) = 2.71, p = .109], identified
measures ANOVAs. Secondly, the authors analysed regulation [F (1) = 1.05, p > .314], external regulation
correlations among self-determination, academic [F (1) = 2.95, p > .095], well-being [F (1) < 2.82,
self-regulation, well-being, and self-efficacy. Thirdly, p > .104] and self-efficacy [F (1) < .923, p > .345].
the authors conducted a path model to examine the Self-determination was significantly correlated to
impact of perceived self-determination, academic intrinsic regulation (r = .400, p = .000) and academic
self-regulation, and school-related self-efficacy on self-regulation strategies were correlated to each other:
subjective well-being. Intrinsic regulation was correlated significantly with
introjected regulation (r = .229, p = .039) and
identified regulation (r = .264, p = .017). Introjected
RESULTS 
regulation was significantly correlated with identified
Self-determination decreased significantly from first regulation (r = .404, p = .000) and external regulation
grade to second grade [F (128) = 9.86, p = .004], but (r = .453, p = .000). Identified regulation and external
not from second grade to third grade [F (135) = .55, p regulation were also significantly correlated (r = .385,
= .816]. p = .000). Well-being was correlated with intrinsic
With respect to academic self-regulation, the regulation (r = .345, p = .002) , identified regulation (r
authors were able to identify a decrease in intrinsic = .245, p = .026), and self-efficacy (r = .324, p = .003)
regulation from first to second grade [F (128) = 4.32, (cp. Table 1: Coefficients from pre-test session, the
p = .047] as well as for the children changing from post-test results are comparable).
second to third grade [F (135) = 12.35, p = .001]. The As can be seen in Figure 1, perceived
same phenomenon was observed in introjected self-determination had a weak but significant impact
regulation from first to second grade and from second on subjective well-being in the post-test session
to third grade [F (128) =5.19, p = .037; F (135) = 8.73, (β = .17, p < .05) but not in the pre-test session.
p = .006]. For external regulation, scores decreased Academic self-regulation (a summary of
from second to third grade [F (135) = 13.45, p = .001]. self-regulation strategies defined by Müller et al. 2007)
Identified regulation did not change significantly. and school-related self-efficacy had a significant
Well-being did not change between first and second impact on subjective well-being in pre-test and
grade [F (128) = 2.04, p = .164] but decreased post-test sessions (β > .23, p < .05).
between second grade and third grade [F (135) =
10.71, p = .002]. Self-efficacy decreased both from
DISCUSSIONS 
first to second grade [F (128) = 6.99, p = .013] and
from second to third grade [F (135) = 44.39, p = .000]. The study demonstrates that intervention programmes
Between classes, the authors found significant in primary schools can contribute to fostering teachers’
differences for self-determination, introjected autonomy support and to improving pupils’ well-being
regulation, intrinsic regulation, identified regulation, in schools by considering motivational aspects, like
and self-efficacy [t (27) > 2.27, p < .031]. In order to their academic self-regulation and self-efficacy.
Martinek and Kipman  129

Table 1. Correlations Between Variables in the Pre‐test Session 
  (1)  (2)  (3)  (4)  (5)  (6)  (7) 
Self‐determination (1)  1  .400**  .223*  .137  .004  .077  .184 
Intrinsic reg. (2)  .400**  1  .229*  .264*  –.067  .092  .345** 
Introjected reg. (3)  .223*  .229*  1  .404**  .453**  –.056  –.078 
Identified reg. (4)  .137  .264*  .404**  1  .385**  .169  .245* 
External reg. (5)  .004  –.067  .453**  .385**  1  .007  –.059 
Self‐efficacy (6)  .077  .092  –.056  .169  .007  1  .324** 
Well‐being (7)  .184  .345**  –.078  .245*  –.059  .324**  1 
Notes: ** correlation significant with p < .01; * correlation significant with p > .05. 

perceived self- .12 .17*

determination

.23* .43***
academic self- subjective
regulation well-being
.31** .26***

school-related
self-efficacy

pretest posttest
CFI= .930; RMSEA= .040 CFI= .930; RMSEA= .157
Figure 1. The Impact of Self‐determination, Self‐regulation, and Self‐efficacy on Well‐Being. 

Especially in times when comparative assessments pursue their interests and act in line with their intrinsic
and achievement-related pressure have a serious motivation. It is possible to foster self-determined
impact on teaching and learning in schools (Ryan and forms of extrinsic motivation, although the impulse to
Weinstein 2009), it seems essential to dedicate act derives from another person—e.g., an authority as
research to aspects like motivation and well-being as the teacher (Deci and Ryan 2012). When designing
well. autonomy supportive contexts in schools, it is
The data reflect that the intervention could not important to avoid excessive external control and
stop a decrease in perceived self-determination from pressure (Reeve, Deci, and Ryan 2004; Bartholomew
first grade to second grade in primary school whereas et al. 2011; Reeve and Assor 2011). Although the
autonomy support remained stable in the other classes. main aim of the intervention was to help teachers to
An autonomy supportive teaching style avoids create opportunities for self-determined learning,
controlling strategies and is built around the inner some pupils reported that they perceived less
motivational resources of the pupils (Reeve 2009). autonomy support. One reason might be that these
Learners experience autonomy in school, if they can teachers felt under pressure by the intervention itself,
130 Sociology  Study  6(2) 

an assumption that is stressed by research have access to their motives, emotions, and meanings
documenting that perceived pressure increases underpinning these actions, and therefore integrated
controlling teacher behaviour (Pelletier, regulation requires awareness, autonomy, and
Séguin-Lévesque, and Legault 2002; Pelletier and non-defensive processing (Weinstein, Przybylski, and
Sharp 2009). The authors’ programme included daily Ryan 2013). Supporting pupils in this respect was one
learning sessions outside the class context organised of the main aims of the intervention (Reeve et al.
by the school team. It is possible that especially the 2004). The reassuring conclusion for educators is that
educators of school beginners, who might yet not be they can support their pupils’ self-regulation and
able to trust in the learning abilities of their pupils, self-determination even when the focal activity is not
experienced a “loss of control” because they felt interesting and by fostering their students’ autonomy
responsible for the progress of their pupils but had and motivation, teachers actively contribute to the
little influence on the actual work of their pupils well-being of their learners.
during these autonomous learning phases. Teachers
act in controlling ways, if they coerce their pupils to
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 
act, think, and feel in a desired way without
acknowledging their individual perspective (Deci and The present research requires the consideration of
Ryan 2012). Sanctions and gratifications as well as certain limits. The longitudinal design only focused on
predetermined goals and rigid procedures are often the development within two years in primary school
perceived as controlling (Assor et al. 2005), but even and future studies are needed to document the trend
without relying on these obviously pressure-inducing throughout the time in primary school and to analyse
methods, teachers can use a certain style of the development of perceived autonomy, academic
communication and interaction with their pupils to self-regulation, self-efficacy, and subjective
coerce them into compliance (Reeve 2009; Reeve well-being in transition phases as well. Moreover, the
2011). Concerning the authors’ study, they selectivity of the sample and the fact that the results
specifically picked up the worries of these teachers in relied on self-report measures of very young pupils,
relation to the progress of their pupils to assist them in need to be considered, when interpreting the results.
building self-determined settings. Future research integrating the perspective of teachers
According to the results, perceived autonomy did and using objective measures, like observers’ reports,
correlate with academic intrinsic regulation but are essential to further analyse the impact of
against the intention, the intervention did not self-determination in schools (Ryan and Deci 2002).
completely stop the decrease of intrinsic regulation
and self-efficacy. Considering that the school
CONCLUSIONS 
beginners’ intrinsic motivation in the sample is rather
high, it seems feasible that maintaining this level can The study demonstrates that perceived autonomy,
be difficult but further research is required to find out, academic self-regulation, and self-efficacy have an
if and to what extend a reduction of intrinsic academic impact on school-related well-being right from the
motivation is inevitable (cf. Dresel et al. 2010). A beginning of primary school, and therefore it seems
positive result of the study was that identified important to dedicate further research to developing
regulation remained stable across the first years in successful intervention programmes for teachers to
primary school. Integrated types of motivation, like foster these aspects and to make schools an even more
identified regulation, are only possible, if students pleasant experience for learners right from the start.
Martinek and Kipman  131

References  Social Psychology 53(6):1024-1037.

——. 2000. “The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human
Assor, A., H. Kaplan, Y. Kanat-Maymon, and G. Roth. 2005. Needs and the Self-determination of Behavior.”
“Directly Controlling Teacher Behaviors as Predictors of Psychological Inquiry 11(4):227-268.
Poor Motivation and Engagement in Girls and Boys: The ——. 2008. “Facilitating Optimal Motivation and
Role of Anger and Anxiety.” Learning and Instruction Psychological Well-Being Across Life’s Domains.”
15(5):397-413. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. 49(1):14-23.
A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: ——. 2012. “Motivation, Personality, and Development Within
Prentice-Hall. Embedded Social Contexts.” Pp. 85-107 in The Oxford
——. 1997. Self-efficacy. The Exercise of Control. New York: Handbook of Human Motivation, edited by R. M. Ryan.
W. H. Freeman and Company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bartholomew, K. J., N. Ntoumanis, R. M. Ryan, J. A. Bosch, ——. 2016. “Optimizing Students’ Motivation in the Era of
and C. Thøgersen-Ntoumani. 2011. “Self-determination Testing and Pressure: A Self-determination Theory
Theory and Diminished Functioning: The Role of Perspective.” Pp. 9-29 in Building Autonomous Learners.
Interpersonal Control and Psychological Need Thwarting.” Perspectives From Research and Practice Using
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin Self-determination Theory, edited by W. C. Liu, C. K. J.
37(11):1459-1473. Wang, and R. M. Ryan. Singapore: Springer.
Black, A. E. and E. L. Deci. 2000. “The Effects of Instructors’ Deci, E. L., H. Eghrari, B. C. Patrick, and D. R. Leone. 1994.
Autonomy Support and Students’ Autonomous Motivation “Facilitating Internalization: The Self-determination Theory
on Learning Organic Chemistry: A Self-determination Perspective.” Journal of Personality 62(1):119-142.
Theory Perspective.” Science Education 84(6):740-756. Deci, E. L., R. Koestner, and R. M. Ryan. 1999. “A
Boggiano, A. K. 1998. “Maladaptive Achievement Patterns: A Meta-analytic Review of Experiments Examining the
Test of a Diathesis-Stress Analysis of Helplessness.” Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Psychological Bulletin 125(6):627-668.
74(6):1681-1695. Dresel, M., M. Fasching, G. Steuer, and V.-D. Berner. 2010.
Bouffard, T., M.-F. Marcoux, C. Vezeau, and L. Bordeleau. “The Role and the Interplay of Classroom Goal Structures,
2003. “Changes in Self-perceptions of Competence and Individual Motivation and General Intelligence for
Intrinsic Motivation Among Elementary Schoolchildren.” (Excellent) School Achievement in Elementary School
The British Journal of Educational Psychology Classrooms.” Talent Development & Excellence 2(1):63-81.
73(2):171-186. Eder, F. 2007. Das Befinden von Kindern und Jugendlichen in
Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. and M. S. Hagger. 2009. “Effects of an der Österreichischen Schule. Befragung 2005 (Well-Being
Intervention Based on Self-determination Theory on of Children and Juveniles in Austrian Schools. Reports
Self-reported Leisure-Time Physical Activity 2005). Vol. 20. Innsbruck (u.a.): Studien Verl.
Participation.” Psychology & Health 24(1):29-48. Fortier, M. S., R. J. Vallerand, and F. Guay. 1995. “Academic
Cheon, S. H. and J. Reeve. 2013. “Do the Benefits From Motivation and School Performance: Toward a Structural
Autonomy-Supportive PE Teacher Training Programs Model.” Contemporary Educational Psychology
Endure?: A One-Year Follow-up Investigation.” 20(3):257-274.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14(4):508-518. Gottfried, A. E. 1990. “Academic Intrinsic Motivation in
Corpus, J. H. and S. V. Wormington. 2014. “Profiles of Young Elementary School Children.” Journal of
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations in Elementary School: Educational Psychology 82(3):525-538.
A Longitudinal Analysis.” The Journal of Experimental Grolnick, W. S. and R. M. Ryan. 1987. “Autonomy in
Education 82(4):480-501. Children’s Learning: An Experimental and Individual
De Naeghel, J., H. Van Keer, M. Vansteenkiste, and Y. Rosseel. Difference Investigation.” Journal of Personality and
2012. “The Relation Between Elementary Students’ Social Psychology 52(5):890-898.
Recreational and Academic Reading Motivation, Reading Grolnick, W. S., R. M. Ryan, and E. L. Deci. 1991. “Inner
Frequency, Engagement, and Comprehension: A Resources for School Achievement: Motivational
Self-determination Theory Perspective.” Journal of Mediators of Children’s Perceptions of Their Parents.”
Educational Psychology 104(4):1006-1021. Journal of Educational Psychology 83(4):508-517.
Deci, E. L. and R. M. Ryan. 1987. “The Support of Autonomy Gurland, S. T. and W. S. Grolnick. 2005. “Perceived Threat,
and the Control of Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Controlling Parenting, and Children’s Achievement
132 Sociology  Study  6(2) 

Orientations.” Motivation and Emotion 29(2):103-121. Classroom.” Theory and Research in Education
Hattie, J. 2009. Visible Learning. A Synthesis of Over 800 7(2):174-183.
Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement. London, New Pelletier, L. G., C. Séguin-Lévesque, and L. Legault. 2002.
York: Routledge. “Pressure From Above and Pressure From Below as
Jang, H., J. Reeve, and E. L. Deci. 2010. “Engaging Students in Determinants of Teachers’ Motivation and Teaching
Learning Activities: It Is Not Autonomy Support or Behaviors.” Journal of Educational Psychology
Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure.” Journal of 94(1):186-196.
Educational Psychology 102(3):588-600. Pelletier, L. G., M. A. Rocchi, R. J. Vallerand, E. L. Deci, and
Jang, H., J. Reeve, R. M. Ryan, and A. Kim. 2009. “Can R. M. Ryan. 2013. “Validation of the Revised Sport
Self-determination Theory Explain What Underlies the Motivation Scale (SMS-II).” Psychology of Sport and
Productive, Satisfying Learning Experiences of Exercise 14(3):329-341.
Collectivistically Oriented Korean Students?” Journal of Reeve, J. 2009. “Why Teachers Adopt a Controlling
Educational Psychology 101(3):644-661. Motivating Style Toward Students and How They Can
Jerusalem, M. and L. Satow. 1999. “Schulbezogene Become More Autonomy Supportive.” Educational
Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung” (School-Related Psychologist 44(3):159-175.
Self-efficacy Beliefs). Pp. 15-16 in Skalen zur Erfassung ——. 2011. “Teaching in Ways That Support Student’s
von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen. Dokumentation der Autonomy.” Pp. 90-103 in Empirical Research in Teaching
Psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der and Learning. Contributions From Social Psychology,
Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs edited by D. J. Mashek and E. Y. Hammer. Malden, MA:
Selbstwirksame Schulen (Scales to Measure Teachers’ and Wiley-Blackwell.
Pupils’ Variables. Documentation of Psychometric Reeve, J. and A. Assor. 2011. “Do Social Institutions
Instruments Used in the Scientific Guidance of the Necessarily Suppress Individuals’ Need for Autonomy?
Experiment Self-efficacy in Schools), edited by R. The Possibility of Schools as Autonomy-Promoting
Schwarzer and M. Jerusalem. Berlin: Free University. Contexts Across the Globe.” Pp. 111-132 in Cross-Cultural
Kasser, T. and R. M. Ryan. 1996. “Further Examining the Advancements in Positive Psychology. Vol. 1, Human
American Dream: Differential Correlates of Intrinsic and Autonomy in Cross-Cultural Context. Perspectives on the
Extrinsic Goals.” Personality and Social Psychology Psychology of Agency, Freedom, and Well-Being, edited by
Bulletin 22(3):280-287. V. I. Chirkov, R. M. Ryan, and K. M. Sheldon. Dordrecht,
Lepper, M. R., J. H. Corpus, and S. S. Iyengar. 2005. “Intrinsic New York: Springer.
and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations in the Classroom: Reeve, J. and S. H. Cheon. 2014. “An Intervention-Based
Age Differences and Academic Correlates.” Journal of Program of Research on Teachers’ Motivating Styles.” Pp.
Educational Psychology 97(2):184-196. 293-339 in Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Vol.
Miserandino, M. 1996. “Children Who Do Well in School: 18, Motivational Interventions, edited by S. A. Karabenick
Individual Differences in Perceived Competence and and T. C. Urdan. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing
Autonomy in Above-Average Children.” Journal of Limited.
Educational Psychology 88(2):203-214. Reeve, J., E. L. Deci, and R. M. Ryan. 2004.
Müller, F. H., B. Hanfstingl, and I. Andreitz. 2007. Skalen zur “Self-determination Theory: A Dialectical Framework for
Motivationalen Regulation Beim Lernen von Schülerinnen Understanding Socio-Cultural Influences on Student
und Schülern: Adaptierte und Ergänzte Version des Motivation.” Pp. 31-60 in Big Theories Revisted, edited by
Academic Self-regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A) nach D. M. McInerney and S. van Etten. Greenwich, CT:
Ryan & Connell [Scales for Pupils’ Motivational Information Age Press.
Regulation of Learning: Adapted and Supplemented Reeve, J., H. Jang, D. Carrell, S. Jeon, and J. Barch. 2004.
Version of the Academic Self-regulation Questionnaire “Enhancing Students’ Engagement by Increasing Teachers’
(SRQ-A) by Ryan & Connell]. Retrieved Autonomy Support.” Motivation and Emotion
(http://ius.aau.at/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IUS_Forschu 28(2):147-169.
ngsbericht_1_Motivationsskalen.pdf). Ryan, R. M. 1993. “Agency and Organization: Intrinsic
Pajares, F., and T. C. Urdan, eds. 2006. Adolescence and Motivation, Autonomy and the Self in Psychological
Education, Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Greenwich, Development.” Pp. 1-56 in Nebraska Symposium on
CT: IAP-Information Age Pub. Motivation. Vol. 40, Developmental Perspectives on
Pelletier, L. G. and E. C. Sharp. 2009. “Administrative Motivation. 40th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation:
Pressures and Teachers’ Interpersonal Behaviour in the Papers, edited by J. E. Jacobs. Lincoln: University of
 Martinek and Kipman  133

Nebraska Press. Effectiveness of Intervention Programs Designed to

Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci. 2002. “An Overview of Support Autonomy.” Educational Psychology Review
Self-determination Theory: An Organismic-Dialectic 23(1):159-188.
Perspective.” Pp. 3-33 in Handbook of Self-determination Tessier, D., P. Sarrazin, and N. Ntoumanis. 2010. “The Effect
Research, edited by E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan. Rochester, of an Intervention to Improve Newly Qualified
NY: University of Rochester Press. Teachers’ Interpersonal Style, Students Motivation and
——. 2013. “Toward a Social Psychology of Assimilation: Psychological Need Satisfaction in Sport-Based Physical
Self-determination Theory in Cognitive Development and Education.” Contemporary Educational Psychology
Education.” Pp. 191-207 in Self-regulation and Autonomy. 35(4):242-253.
Social and Developmental Dimensions of Human Conduct, Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. and N. Ntoumanis. 2006. “The Role
edited by B. W. Sokol, F. M. E. Grouzet, and U. Müller. of Self-determined Motivation in the Understanding of
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Exercise-Related Behaviours, Cognitions and Physical
Ryan, R. M. and J. P. Connell. 1989. “Perceived Locus of Self-evaluations.” Journal of Sports Sciences 24:393-404.
Causality and Internalization: Examining Reasons for Usher, E. L. and F. Pajares. 2008. “Sources of Self-efficacy in
Acting in Two Domains.” Journal of Personality and School: Critical Review of the Literature and Future
Social Psychology 57(5):749-761. Directions.” Review of Educational Research
Ryan, R. M. and J. Stiller. 1991. “The Social Contexts of 78(4):751-796.
Internalization: Parent and Teacher Influences on Vallerand, R. J., M. S. Fortier, and F. Guay. 1997.
Autonomy, Motivation and Learning.” Pp. 115-149 in “Self-determination and Persistence in a Real-Life Setting:
Advances in Motivation and Achievement. A Research Toward a Motivational Model of High School Dropout.”
Annual, edited by M. L. Maehr. Greenwich, CT (u.a.): JAI Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Press. 72(5):1161-1176.
Ryan, R. M. and N. Weinstein. 2009. “Undermining Quality Vansteenkiste, M., E. Sierens, B. Soenens, K. Luyckx, and W.
Teaching and Learning: A Self-determination Theory Lens. 2009. “Motivational Profiles From a
Perspective on High-Stakes Testing.” Theory and Research Self-determination Perspective: The Quality of Motivation
in Education 7(2):224-233. Matters.” Journal of Educational Psychology
Schunk, D. H. and F. Pajares. 2005. “Competence Beliefs in 101(3):671-688.
Academic Functioning.” Pp. 85-104 in Handbook of Vansteenkiste, M., J. Simons, W. Lens, K. M. Sheldon, and E.
Competence and Motivation, edited by A. J. Elliot and C. S. L. Deci. 2004. “Motivating Learning, Performance, and
Dweck. New York: Guilford Press. Persistence: The Synergistic Effects of Intrinsic Goal
Sierens, E., M. Vansteenkiste, L. Goossens, B. Soenens, and F. Contents and Autonomy-Supportive Contexts.” Journal of
Dochy. 2009. “The Synergistic Relationship of Perceived Personality and Social Psychology 87(2):246-260.
Autonomy Support and Structure in the Prediction of Weinstein, N., A. K. Przybylski, and R. M. Ryan. 2013. “The
Self-regulated Learning.” The British Journal of Integrative Process: New Research and Future Directions.”
Educational Psychology 79(1):57-68. Current Directions in Psychological Science 22(1):69-74.
Skinner, E. A., T. A. Kindermann, J. P. Connell, and J. G. Williams, G. C. and E. L. Deci. 1996. “Internalization of
Wellborn. 2009. “Engagement and Disaffection as an Biopsychosocial Values by Medical Students. A Test of
Organizational Construct in the Dynamics of Motivational Self-determination Theory.” Journal of Personality and
Development.” Pp. 223-245 in Educational Psychology Social Psychology 70(4):767-779.
Handbook Series, Handbook of Motivation at School,
edited by K. R. Wentzel and A. Wigfield. New York,
London: Routledge.
Bios 
Soenens, B., E. Sierens, M. Vansteenkiste, F. Dochy, and L. Daniela Martinek, Ph.D., assistant professor, head of
Goossens. 2012. “Psychologically Controlling Teaching: Educational Science Department of the School of Education,
Examining Outcomes, Antecedents, and Mediators.” University of Salzburg, Austria; research fields: teacher
Journal of Educational Psychology 104(1):108-120. education, teaching profession, self-determination,
Spinath, B. and R. Steinmayr. 2008. “Longitudinal Analysis of motivation, autonomous teaching and learning.
Intrinsic Motivation and Competence Beliefs: Is There a Ulrike Kipman, Ph.D. in philosophy, science, and law,
Relation Over Time?” Child Development researcher, University of Salzburg, Austria; research fields:
79(5):1555-1569. diagnostics, decision-making, probability, activity-oriented
Su, Y.-L. and J. Reeve. 2011. “A Meta-Analysis of the education.

View publication stats