Autonomy-Supportive Teaching: What It Is, How to Do It

By J. Reeve. 2016

346 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8dbfd2d7a64fb15717237d786848815882e7dcdb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Different combinations of perceived autonomy support and control: identifying the most optimal motivating style (2018, background): “…choices and asking for input, allowing the expression of deviant points of view, making use of inviting language, providing meaningful rationales for requests, and respecting youngsters pace of progress (e.g. Mitchell, Gray, and Inchley 2015; Reeve 2009; 2015; Vansteenkiste and Soenens 2015).”
Personality-based antecedents of teachers’ autonomy-supportive and controlling motivating styles (2018, background): “…the students' perspective; support students' psychological needs during instruction; use invitational language; provide explanatory rationales for teacher requests; display patience; and acknowledge and accept students' expressions of negative affect (for more information, see Reeve, 2009, 2016).”
Recommending goals and supporting needs: An intervention to help physical education teachers communicate their expectations while supporting students' psychological needs (2019, methodology): “Students completed the professionally translated and back-translated Korean version of each measure that had been used in previous research (Cheon et al., 2012; Song, Kim, & Cheon, 2017).”
Fostering student engagement with motivating teaching: an observation study of teacher and student behaviours (2020, background): “The observed differences in the use of certain (de)motivating teaching behaviours between the highly and lowly engaging lessons seemed to further support the argument that timing, namely providing the right kind of motivating teaching behaviour at the right time, is of importance for fostering stude”
Emotion regulation and need satisfaction shape a motivating teaching style (2020, background): “…and need frustration (NF) reduce the adoption of a controlling style (2a); the higher the need frustration or the tendency to suppress the more teachers adopt a chaotic style (2b). self-directed activities, to experience competence and a sense of connectedness (for reviews see Reeve, 2009, 2016).”
The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating teaching style in higher education: a circumplex approach (2020, neutral): “…in secondary education, showing that student perceived autonomy support (Patall et al. 2018) and structure (Jang et al. 2010; Sierens et al. 2009) relate to various favorable outcomes, including behavioral engagement, self-regulated learning, and well-being (see Reeve 2016 for an overview).”
Teachers become more autonomy supportive after they believe it is easy to do (2016, neutral): “…(3) provide explanatory rationales for their requests; (4) communicate using informational (rather than pressuring) language; (5) acknowledge and accept expressions of negative affect; and (6) display patience (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Reeve, 2009, 2015a).”
Self-compassionate teachers are more autonomy supportive and structuring whereas self-derogating teachers are more controlling and chaotic: The mediating role of need satisfaction and burnout (2020, background): “The behaviors teachers routinely use to engage their students (“teachers’ motivating style”; see Reeve, 2016) play a key role in students’ motivation to learn.”
When teachers learn how to provide classroom structure in an autonomy-supportive way: Benefits to teachers and their students (2020, background): “, 2008), allows students towork in their ownway (Jang, Reeve,&Halusic, 2016; Reeve & Jang, 2006) and at their own pace (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002), communicates a tone of understanding (Reeve, 2016), provides explanatory rationales (Steingut, Patall, & Trimble, 2017), acknowledges negative feeling”
Self-Determination and Classroom Engagement of EFL Learners: A Mixed-Methods Study of the Self-System Model of Motivational Development (2019, background): “…evidence that engagement is strongly related to effective learning (e.g., academic achievement, Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2016; Schlenker, Schlenker, & Schlenker, 2013), and it is often portrayed as a remedy for students’ disruptive school behaviors and failing…”
How teachers can support students’ agentic engagement (2020, background): “A teacher’s motivating style refers to the “interpersonal tone” (Reeve, 2016), “orientation toward students” (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981), or “basic attitude” (Aelterman et al.”
Toward an Integrative and Fine-Grained Insight in Motivating and Demotivating Teaching Styles: The Merits of a Circumplex Approach (2019, background): “…Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 1, No. 999, 000 0022-0663/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293 1 & Hagger, 2009) and structuring (Cheon, Reeve, & Vansteenkiste, 2017) motivating style, to the benefit of both their students and themselves (Cheon, Reeve, Yu, & Jang, 2014; Reeve, 2016).”
A Meta-Analysis of Negative Feedback on Intrinsic Motivation (2018, background): “This controlling feedback may undermine IM more than feedback that uses non-controlling language to the extent that the controlling language is itself autonomy-thwarting (Reeve 2016).”
A needs‐supportive intervention to help PE teachers enhance students' prosocial behavior and diminish antisocial behavior (2018, methodology): “…preference for optimal challenge), learning (conceptual understanding, deep processing), performance (task performance, grades), and well-being (vitality, school satisfaction, lesser cortisol) (Chatzisarantis & Hagger, 2009; Cheon & Reeve, 2015; Cheon et al., 2016; Tessier et al., 2010).”
Expanding Autonomy Psychological Need States From Two (Satisfaction, Frustration) to Three (Dissatisfaction): A Classroom-Based Intervention Study (2019, background): “…when they occur, energize students’ positive classroom functioning, such as greater engagement and conceptual learning (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2016; Jang et al., 2016; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Soenens, & Matos, 2005).”
Students' Agentic Engagement Predicts Longitudinal Increases in Perceived Autonomy-Supportive Teaching: The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease (2018, neutral): “The left side of Table 6 list several agentic acts of engagement students ’ might display (taken from Reeve, 2013), while the right side of Table 6 lists several acts of autonomy-supportive instruction a teacher might display (taken from Reeve, 2016).”
Fostering Personal Meaning and Self-relevance: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Internalization (2018, background): “An autonomy-supportive teaching style consists of several building blocks, including (1) the provision of choice and input, (2) attuning the tempo of teaching to learners’ pace of development, and (3) eliciting students’ interest and curiosity for the learning content (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; D”