AUTONOMY IN YOUNG CHILDREN

Suzette Carrie Hechst, B.S., M.A.

A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of

Saint Louis University in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

2017




ProQuest Number: 10267128




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10267128

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF CANDIDACY:

Interim Dean Professor Ann Rule,

Chairperson and Advisor

Professor Lauren Arend

Professor Paul Wreford

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Ann Rule, my advisor and committee chair, for her guidance,

encouragements and support throughout this process. Thank you to my committee members,

Dr. Lauren Arend and Dr. Paul Wreford, for their time, expertise, support and advice. Thank

you also to Dr. Jessica Leonard and Maureen Wikete-Lee for their helpful feedback on my

proposal and useful suggestions for the study.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..….. v

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. vi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Purpose……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
Assumptions…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Definitions of Terms…………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
Organization of the Study………………………………………………………………………………... 15

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Autonomy-Supportive Teacher Practices…………………………………………………………. 17
Autonomy-Suppressive Teacher Practices……………………………………………………….. 42
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 55

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………….………. 57
Subjects………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
Instruments Used……………………………………………………………………………………………. 61
Data Collection Process………………………………………………………………..………………... 63
Trustworthiness……………………………………………………………………………………..………. 65
Ethical Assurances………………………………………………………………………………………….. 65
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 66

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF DATA

Description and Categorization of Data Collected……………………………………………. 70
iii
 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..…. 96

CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS

Major Findings…………………………………………………………….…………………………………… 98
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 98
Conclusions/Recommendations For Practice………………………………………….………... 115
Recommendations/Implications For Further Research…..………………………………... 118
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……. 119

Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 120

Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 121

Appendix C………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 122

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….... 123

Vita Auctoris……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 142

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Eleven Autonomy-Supportive and Autonomy-Suppressive Behaviors………..….. 43

Table 4.1: Education Level and Experience of Teachers……………………………………………….…. 69
Table 4.2: Teachers Definition of Autonomy…………………………………………………………..…….… 72

Table 4.3: How Teachers Promote Autonomy in Their Classroom…………………..………….….. 73

Table 4.4: Teachers Reported Struggles in Their Classroom……………………………………….….. 75

Table 4.5: The Shared Success & Strengths From the Teachers in Promoting Autonomy.. 77

Table 4.6: How Teachers Provide an Autonomy Supportive Environment……………………… 79

Table 4.7: How Teachers Feel About Offering Choices to Children……………………………….… 81

Table 4.8: How Teachers Feel About Rewards and Punishments Instead of Intrinsic
Motivation………………………………………………….…………………………………………………. 85

Table 4.9: How Teachers Help Children Attend to a Task……………………………………………….. 90

Table 4.10: How Teachers Help Children Comply in the Classroom………………………………….. 91

Table 4.11: How Teachers Help Children Learn Decision Making Skills…………………………….. 92

Table 4.12: How Teachers Help Children Feel Empowered………………………………………………. 93

Table 4.13: How Teachers Help Children Redirect Their Own Behavior and Learn Impulse
Control……………………………………………………………………………………………………….….. 94

Table 4.14: How Teachers Help Children Establish and Maintain Self-Control…………….……. 95

Table 5.1: Best Practices for Promoting Autonomy in ECE for Teachers…………………………. 116

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Traits of Autonomy-Supportive Teachers……………………………………………………… 18

Figure 2.2: Three Levels of Autonomy Support…………………………………………………………….... 28
Figure 3.1: Spiral of Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………… 58
Figure 4.1: Types of Choices Offered to Children……………………………………………………………. 83

Figure 4.2: When Teachers Offer Children Choices……………………………….………………………… 83

Figure 5.1: Spiral of Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………… 98

Figure 5.2: Participants Ways to Provide an Autonomy-Supportive Environment…………… 102

Figure 5.3: How Participating Pre-school Teachers Support Autonomy With Their
Interactions………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 103

Figure 5.4: Teachers Perceptions of How They Promote Autonomy……………………………….. 118

vi
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Although Sigmund Freud (1917) declared we are not “der Herr im eigenen Haus”

(master of our own house), most of us, a century later, still want to feel as though we have

control over parts of our lives. Indeed, most people, even children, ultimately want to feel in
‫ﻓطرة ﻟﮭﺎ أﺻل ﻋﻧد اﻷطﻔﺎل‬
charge of their choices and situations, which provides a sense of power and autonomy.

Children often exhibit behaviors that are a symptom of their healthy need to have some control

over their lives, which may be expressions of the need for personal power (Fields & Fields,

2006).

When the 2003 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward Public

Schools (Rose & Gallup, 2003) asked respondents to identify the most pressing problem in

education, they ranked discipline second after finance. Marzano and Marzano (2003) reported

that classroom management has the greatest effect on student achievement and children are

able to learn more effectively when the classroom is running efficiently, allowing the educator

to focus on teaching and assisting instead of handling classroom disturbances. Teachers want

to be able to focus on teaching and helping children learn rather than controlling and focusing

on discipline problems, which can reduce or impede learning for other children in the class

(Marzano & Marzano, 2003). “If learners of all ages were placed in responsive, positive,

challenging learning environments designed to foster feelings of self-worth, attitudes of

confidence, and success, schooling would be promoting healthy individuals” (Johnson, 1996,

p.v).

1
 Classroom management is a significant challenge for school teachers and

administrators, often rated as the primary area of concern for first year teachers (Cakmak,

2008; Hertzog, 2002; Martin, Chiodo, & Chang, 2001; Meister & Melnick, 2003). Many

traditional classroom management approaches are based on behavioral theories and systems

of rewards and punishments (Brophy, 1999; Erwin, 2004), emphasizing operant conditioning

techniques (Brophy, 2004). McCaslin and Good (1992) noted that such approaches have been

widely used in schools; however, chronic classroom behavioral problems have only continued

to increase (Lohrmann & Talerico, 2004). Some have noted that although curricula have

changed significantly, behavior management approaches generally have not—and in schools

where this is the case, this has created a potential discrepancy between “a curriculum that

urges problem solving and critical thinking and a management system that requires compliance

and narrow obedience” (McCaslin & Good, 1992, p.12). Researchers and educators have

promoted alternatives and supplements to traditional classroom management approaches

(Bailey, 2000; Brophy, 1999; Smart 2010), many of which incorporate the use of social and

emotional learning. Recently there has been an increased interest in social and emotional

learning and its relationship to improved student behavior, academic outcomes, and emotional

health, particularly during the early childhood years (Caldarella, Page, & Gunter, 2012).

Emotional and behavioral problems can occur frequently during pre-school, as young

children are just beginning to develop language as well as capacities to regulate their thoughts,

emotions, and behaviors (Egger & Angold, 2006). Behaviors such as noncompliance,

aggression, and destruction of property comprise some of the typical behavioral problems

found in pre-school classrooms (Bear, Cavalier & Manning, 2002). Compliance in the pre-school

2
classroom is beneficial for students academically, behaviorally, socially, and emotionally, as it

allows for students to receive maximum educational opportunities (Cipani, 1998). Research has
‫ﻣﺷﻛﻠﺔ اﻟﻔوﺿﻰ‬
shown that academic engagement increases as student rates of compliance increase (Matheson ‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﻣدارس‬
‫ﺣﻠﮭﺎﻓﻲ ﻻو‬
‫! اﻟﻣﺑﻛر‬
& Shriver, 2005). It is important for noncompliance to be addressed during the pre-school

years because the ages of 2-5 represent a significant period of development, and the pre-school

classroom is usually the first place that socially and educationally relevant behavioral difficulties

emerge (Carey, 1997).

Historically, most educators have recognized two primary aims of school discipline: first,

managing student behavior, which relies primarily on the use of teacher-centered techniques

for preventing and correcting misbehavior, through discipline and obedience; and second,

developing self-discipline, which combines teacher-centered techniques with more student-

centered techniques focusing on inculcating students with social, emotional, moral, and

behavioral competencies needed to manage their own behavior (Bear, 2005). This second goal

is achieved through children’s experimentation and choice making (Goodman, 2006). The

“primary aim of school discipline should not be compliance; it should be developing self-

discipline” (Bear, 2011). Often used interchangeably with the terms autonomy, self-

determination, responsibility, self-regulation, and self-control, self-discipline refers to students

inhibiting inappropriate behavior and exhibiting prosocial behavior under their own volition,

reflecting the internalization of values, standards, beliefs, and attitudes of their parents,

teachers, peers, and others in society (Bear, 2011).

3
 Teachers who are autonomy-supportive have been found to promote students’ positive

functioning in the classroom (Kami, Clark & Dominick, 1994; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987a; Reeve &

Jang, 2006; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). In his theory of child development, Piaget’s (1965) main

goal for education was the development of intellectual and moral autonomy in young children

(Kamii et al., 1994). Within his constructivist theory, Piaget (1965) described autonomy and

heteronomy as two kinds of morality. Deci and Ryan’s (1987) Self-Determination Theory

defined autonomy as “action that is chosen; action for which one is responsible” (p. 1025).

Similarly, Grolnick and Seal (2007) described autonomy as “a sense of volition….the opposite of

feeling controlled by someone else” (p. 132). In contrast, a heteronomous individual is

governed by someone other than himself or herself (Deci & Ryan, 1987). Autonomous

characteristics tend to promote, whereas heteronomous characteristics tends to impede, the

child’s construction of knowledge or morality (DeVries & Zan, 1994; Kamii et al., 1994). Both

characteristics are found in adult-child relationships in the pre-school classroom, and the

difference between the two is a difference in the exercise of power.

aspects:
Researchers have identified specific teacher behaviors that provide autonomy support teachers roles

for young students (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987a; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Soohyun, & Barch, 2004;

Skinner & Belmont, 1993). These autonomy-supportive teacher behaviors included providing

choice, encouraging self-initiation, minimizing the use of controls, acknowledging others’

perspectives and feelings, and clarifying the relevance of an activity. Autonomy-supportive

teachers identify and nurture students’ needs, interests, and preferences by creating classroom

opportunities where students can be self-determined in their learning (Deci & Ryan, 1987).

When children’s personal, social and cognitive needs are attended to at school, the classroom-

4
learning environment can provide an ideal supportive context for learning (Perry, Donohue, &

Weinstein, 2007; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). According to Deci and Ryan’s (1987) Self-

Determination Theory (SDT), children are born with intrinsic motivation to learn, and teachers

need to nurture this inner passion to explore the world and build their competence. People are

happiest and perform best when they feel that what they do comes from their own decision-

making (Deci & Ryan, 1987). Grolnick and Seal (2007) stated that teachers who display

autonomy-supportive behaviors are more likely to have students who are more intrinsically

motivated than students whose autonomy is suppressed. Intrinsically motivated students also

tend to be persistent and feel more competent (Grolnick & Seal, 2007).

One option is promoting autonomy in the classroom by offering children choices

(Skinner & Belmont, 1993). This approach increases children’s decision-making skills, builds

children’s self-esteem, and ultimately helps children comply within the structure of the

classroom (Kohn, 2006). The concern with teaching character through a rewards and

punishments system is the child learns to avoid bad consequences, but not how to make good

and moral choices (Froiland, 2011a; Kohn, 1996). The necessary self-control is not ‫ﻣﻣﻛن‬
‫ﺗﺿﺎ‬
‫ف ﻣﻊ‬
accomplished by imposing discipline but by giving children continual practice in decision-
‫أﺻل‬
‫ﻓﻛرة‬
making (Durkheim, 2002; Kohn, 1993; Goodman, 2006). According to early childhood ‫ﻻو‬

education theorists Dewey (1933), Piaget (1963), Vygotsky (1962), Bruner (1968), and Gardner

(1983), constructivism is an approach which supports autonomy. Piaget, a genetic

epistemologist, coined the term “constructivism” to describe his theory of how knowledge

develops in humans (Thomas, 2005). In addition to academic learning, the goals of

constructivism include autonomy, mutual respect and empowerment (Fosnot, 2005). By

5
exercising her ability to govern her own beliefs and actions, a child gradually constructs

internally coherent knowledge, morality and personality. This view emphasizes the active role

of the learner in building understanding and making sense of information (Roopnarine &

Johnson, 2005).

Students need structure, but within that structure, students need choice (Grolnick &

Seal, 2007). Student autonomy, such as participation in decision-making, is not a new or

unusual idea. Its beginnings can be traced back to the progressive education movement.

Principles regarding decision-making have been part of the educational literature for over a

century, but have been inconsistently implemented (D’Amico, 1980). Kohn (2006) stated,

“Students learn how to make good choices by making choices, not by following directions…we

teach reading, writing and math by having students do them, but we teach democracy by ‫ﻻزم ﻧﻌﻠم ﻻو ﻣن‬
‫ﺑدري واﻟﺳﺑب‬
lecture” (p. 85). We cannot expect children to accept the values and truths given to them by

adults all the way through school and then suddenly be able to make choices in adulthood

(Kamii, 1991). Studies have shown that students who participated in decision making at school

were more committed to decision making in other contexts (D’Amico, 1980). Furthermore,

genuine choice implies weighing options without discipline or threats and selecting with ‫ﺷروط ﺗطﺑﯾﻘﮫ‬

impunity; it cannot be associated with sanctions and disapproval. The construction of meaning

is an active process and requires the learner to have substantial power to make decisions and

evaluate the results of her decisions (Kohn, 2006).

6
 Purpose

This study intended to discover what perceptions early pre-school educators have about

the concept of autonomy as it relates to early childhood education and the techniques, if any,
‫اﻟﻘﻠﯾ‬
they employ to promote autonomy in the classroom. There is little known about the ‫ل‬
‫ذﻛر‬
techniques that are actually being used in real pre-school classrooms, the frequency with which ‫ﻋن‬
‫ھذا‬
‫اﻟﻣو‬
the techniques are being used, and the reasons teachers have chosen to use these particular ‫ﺿو‬
‫ع‬
techniques. Additionally, the researcher wanted to gain insight from the educators on their

perspectives of offering choices and the affects this has on pre-school children’s decisions and

attitudes, as well as other interventions that encourage children to have control over their

decisions while still being compliant. Researching deeper into pre-school educators’ ‫اﯾن‬
‫ﻣوﻗﻊ‬
perspectives and goals for their students in relation to preferred behavior management ‫اﻹﺿﺎﻓ‬
‫ﺔ‬
techniques and strategies could make an important contribution to the existing knowledge

about children’s learning environments.

A pilot study was completed as a preliminary investigation with one child after receiving

IRB approval through Webster University. The pilot study was titled Using Choice Making to

Reduce Naptime and Bedtime Noncompliance in Children. The purpose of the pilot study was to

implement a new routine during naptime and bedtime in order to see if the intervention

produced compliant behavior in one child. The effects of choice during an unpleasant activity

were studied, with the unpleasant activity being taking a nap or going to bed for the night. The

goal was to find an intervention that produced the desired effect, which was overall compliance

and fewer disturbances. Specifically the data collected were incidents of leaving the child’s

7
room, opening the bedroom door, crying, screaming, whimpering or stalling the caregiver to

have them stay in the room longer.

Ten days of baseline behavior data were collected while observing any of these negative

behaviors. The amount and duration were recorded. Next was the eight-week intervention

phase. The intervention chosen by the researcher was choice making. This method was chosen

based on current research, specifically that of Bailey (2001). The four different interventions

researched were the following: extinction, gradual extinction, bedtime routines, and choice

making. Choice making allows a child to make a choice from an offered set and allows for

ownership in the decision making process. Choice, as defined by Shevin and Klein (1984), “is the

act of an individual’s selection of preferred alternatives from among several familiar options”

(p.160). The goal of offering choices is to promote autonomy in the individual (Bambara, 2004).

During this phase the child was asked who he wanted to put him to bed, where he wanted to

read books, how many books he wanted to read, which books he wanted to read, which music

he wanted to listen to and which socks he wanted to wear. While conducting research for the

methods section, the researcher discovered in the literature the concept of a bedtime pass.

The bedtime pass enabled the child to leave the room one time for any reason, giving the child

a choice as to when it could be used and allowing for autonomy in the bedtime process. The

bedtime pass was implemented 17 days into the study.

When choices were offered during naptime, the undesired behavior declined. The

baseline data, prior to the intervention, revealed the child left his room an average of 2.875

times, used stall techniques an average of 3 times and cried for an average of 2.6 minutes each

8
day at naptime. When averages were taken at the end of the study, the data revealed the child

left the room .89 times, used 1.5 verbal stall techniques and cried for .89 minutes per

occurrence during naptime per day. This is a significant statistical decline of more than 50

percent.

When the data were averaged for bedtime behavior, the results were also positive.

Baseline data yielded an average of 2.25 leaving of the room, 6.75 times using a verbal stall

technique and 5.375 minutes of crying each evening. After the completion of the intervention,

the data revealed a drop in non-compliant behavior. The new averages were as follows: he left

his room .51 times, used verbal stall techniques 1.89 times and cried .8 minutes. This is a

significant statistical decline of more than 50 percent.

When the child was given some control over an unpleasant situation, there were fewer

instances of unwanted behavior. The three year old became more of an active participant in

both the naptime and bedtime routines. The child was able to make choices, which may help

later in life with the skill of decision making and being autonomous.

The pilot study, consisting of one child, investigated the idea of choice making on a small

scale. The study also only researched naptime and bedtime. The positive outcome intrigued

the researcher to conduct further research on choice making in greater detail, by interviewing

pre-school educators. The review of available research regarding, pre-school teachers’ beliefs

and knowledge about autonomy, and how they support children’s autonomy in the classroom

revealed a gap in the literature. For example, many studies existed concerning student

motivation, and autonomy-supportive and suppressive behaviors in the upper elementary,

9
middle school and high school grades, but there was minimal research that evaluated

interventions for the pre-school constructivist teacher who values offering choices and

encouraging intrinsic motivation. Promoting autonomy in pre-school children may affect

autonomy, decision-making skills and classroom behaviors in younger children, and the

teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and expertise may also play a large role in the outcome.

A large number of children in diverse cultural environments attend early child care

institutions and often spend more waking time with teachers and peers than with their parents

(Hsueh & Barton, 2006). Thus, it can be assumed that child care teachers significantly influence

children’s socialization and education (Pierrehumbert, Ramstein, Karmaniola, Miljkovitch, &

Halfon, 2002). In particular, as the main components of caregivers’ belief systems, the

teachers’ socialization goals and ideas about appropriate behavioral strategies influence

children’s experiences (Ahnert & Lamb, 2003; Maccoby & Lewis, 2003). Although the idea of

children being offered choices is not new, there is a lack of literature examining the complexity

of offering choices and how choices support autonomy and children’s behavior in the pre-

school classroom. This study adds to the growing literature that takes a closer look at

autonomy-supportive practices in which teachers engage (Reeve, 2006; Skinner & Belmont,

1993). If teachers can create a classroom environment to help children make better choices,

then children’s disruptive behavior could potentially be minimized (Brown, 1991; Dyer, Dunlap

& Winterling, 1990; Koegel, Dyer & Bell, 1987; Meyer & Evans, 1989). Furthermore, teacher

preparation should include knowledge and practical guidance on how to support student

autonomy in the early childhood classroom through offering choice, encouraging self-initiation,

minimizing the use of controls, providing relevance, and acknowledging others’ perspectives

10
(Deci, Nezlek, & Sheinman, 1981; Deci & Ryan, 1987; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Grolnick, Deci &

Ryan 1997; Reeve, Jan, Carrell, Soohyun, & Barch, 2004; Reeve & Jang, 2006).

This study was designed to explore the perceptions pre-school educators have about

autonomy and how they perceived they promoted autonomy in the classroom. This study first

investigated teachers’ beliefs and perspectives about autonomy and how that related to their

practices with the children in their classroom. Secondly, this study adds to the body of existing

literature regarding autonomy-supportive and autonomy-suppressive behaviors of pre-school

educators focusing on the pre-school mixed-age classroom. Finally, this study offers pre-school

educators, administrators and collegiate faculty a deeper understanding of the impact of

autonomy-supportive teaching practices.

Research Questions

1. What perceptions do pre-school educators have of the concept of autonomy as it

relates to early childhood education?

2. In what ways, if any, do pre-school educators perceive they promote autonomy in a

multi-age classroom?

Assumptions

The assumptions of the study were as follows:

1. All participants in the study would be honest, while answering the questions.
2. Teachers would do their best to communicate during the interviews.
3. Participants were representative of the pre-school population.
4. The interview questions were appropriate to the study.

11
 Limitations

In Educational Research, Creswell (2011) states:

Limitations are potential weaknesses or problems with the study identified by the
researcher. These weaknesses are enumerated one by one, and they often relate to
inadequate measures of variables, loss or lack of participants, small sample sizes, errors
in measurement, and other factors typically related to data collection and analysis
(p.198).

Glesne (2011) also noted that it is “your [the researcher’s] responsibility to do the best that you

can do under certain circumstances” (p.169). There are certain limitations to every study that

must be considered. This study only reflected the views of the participants in this study and

their own perceptions. Even though the teachers were diverse in age and ethnicity, they were

all female. Participation was voluntary, so the data may not have reflected all possible

perspectives. Additionally, anonymity was not guaranteed, which could have caused teachers

to be cautious in answering questions; however, confidentiality was maintained throughout the

study. Steps were in place to minimize the risk of identification; no names were disclosed and

no identifiers were linked to the teachers. The privacy and confidentiality of the participants

was ensured by not requiring them to reveal their names in order to ensure anonymity of their

responses and protect them from any retributive action; additionally, they were ensured that

the data collected would not be disclosed to un-authorized persons. The teachers were

referred to as teacher one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten.

12
 Definitions of Terms

The following section was intended to define key terms as used in this study. Although

some of these terms may allow for different meanings in accordance with certain contexts, the

researcher has chosen definitions that best suit this particular study.

Autonomy refers to the ability to think for oneself, decide between right and wrong, decide

between truth and untruth using one’s own experiences and knowledge, and make decisions

independently of rewards and punishments (Kamii et al., 1994; Piaget, 1965).

Autonomy-supportive behaviors include those behaviors, usually of an individual in a position

of authority such as an educator, that take into account a student’s perspective and provide

him/her with information and opportunities for choice while minimizing the use of pressures

and demands (Black & Deci, 2000). Autonomy-supportive behaviors include providing choice,

encouraging self-initiation, minimizing the use of controls and acknowledging others’

perspectives and feelings as well as clarifying the relevance of an activity (Grolnick, Deci, &

Ryan, 1997; Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

Autonomy-suppressive behaviors include those teacher behaviors that suppress student

autonomy, such as suppressing student criticism, intruding on students’ work time, and forcing

meaningless tasks on students (Assor, Kaplan & Roth, 2002).

Choice is the action of an individual picking up an item (Parsons & Reid, 1990); or actively

selecting an item or action (Guess, Benson, & Siegel-Causey, 1985).

13
Classroom management is everything a teacher does with the goal of making learning effective

and efficient in the classroom (Jacobsen, Eggen & Kauchak, 1999).

Conscious Discipline is a program which fosters the development of a person’s consciousness

of his or her own modes of learning, of teaching and of self (Bailey, 2001).

Cognitive autonomy is a type of choice offered to students in the classroom that gives students

the autonomy to think in their own way (Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, &Turner, 2004).

Constructivism is a term coined by Piaget (1965) to describe his theory of how knowledge

develops in humans. For the purpose of this study, constructivism is a theory about knowledge

and learning; “it describes both what knowing is and how one comes to know” (Fosnot, 2005, p.

ix).

Constructivist Approach is child-centered, with teachers serving primarily as resources for

children’s self-initiated activities, and indicates a cultural orientation toward an individual

psychological conception of autonomy and relatedness (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

Constructivist Education engages the child’s interest, inspires active experimentation with all

its necessary trial and error, and fosters cooperation between adults and children (DeVries &

Zan, 2003).

Didactic Approach is characterized by the use of direct, highly structured teaching strategies,

based on the principles of repetition and reinforcement. It can be assumed to be in line with a

high cultural emphasis on social responsibility and hierarchical relatedness (Bredekamp &

Copple, 1997).

14
Emotional Intelligence is a subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s

own and other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this

information to guide one’s thinking and actions (Salovery and Mayer, 1990).

Heteronomy refers to an individual being governed by someone other than himself or herself

(Kamii et al., 1994).

Organizational autonomy is a type of choice offered to students in the classroom, such as

allowing students decision-making power in the areas of classroom management or choosing

with whom they work (Stefanou et al, 2004).

Procedural autonomy is a type of choice offered to students in the classroom, such as allowing

students decision-making power regarding classroom procedures (Stefanou et al., 2004).

Organization of the Study

Chapter One introduced the study, stated the problem, provided the purpose, proposed

the significance and listed the assumptions and limitations of the study. Chapter Two presents

a review of the literature to include both autonomy-supportive and autonomy-suppressive

‫ﻓﺻول‬
practices of classroom teachers. Chapter Three focuses on the methodology used in this
‫اﻟرﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬
qualitative study. Chapter Four presents the analysis of data collected in this study through

qualitative research. Chapter Five concludes with a summary and discussion of the study’s

findings, recommendations for practice, and implications for future research.

15
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Chapter Two provides the literature review pertaining to the current research study of
‫ﻣﺎذا ؟‬

pre-school educators’ perceptions in relationship to understanding and promoting autonomy in

‫ﻟﻣﺎذا؟‬

pre-school classrooms. This review of available literature confirms the current gap of

autonomy-supportive teacher behaviors focused on children ages 3-5. The following

‫ﻣﺣﺗوﯾﺎﺗﮫ‬
prominent topics will be addressed:

 Autonomy-supportive behaviors of classroom teachers

o The effects of the learning environment on the children

o The importance of communication between teachers and students

o How motivation effects children

 Autonomy-suppressive behaviors of classroom teachers

o The effects of the learning environment on the children

o The importance of communication between teachers and students

o How motivation effects children

Piaget (1965) conceptualized one goal for education in his theory of child development

– the development of intellectual and moral autonomy in young children (Kamii, Clark, &

Dominick, 1994). Within his constructivist theory, Piaget (1965) described two kinds of morality:

autonomy and heteronomy. By autonomy, Piaget did not mean the independence

demonstrated in doing things by oneself or the right to self-govern; rather, the autonomous

person has the ability to be self-governing and to think for oneself. According to Kamii et al.

(1994), “Autonomy is the ability to decide between right and wrong in the moral realm and

16
between truth and untruth in the intellectual realm by taking all relevant factors into account,

independently of rewards or punishments” (p. 672). Deci and Ryan (1987) defined autonomy as

“action that is chosen; action for which one is responsible” (p. 1025). Autonomy, mutual

respect and empowerment are the goals of the constructivist classroom (Fosnot, 2005).

In contrast, heteronomous individuals are governed by someone other than

themselves. This concerns educators in that autonomy promotes children’s development and

heteronomy obstructs it (DeVries & Zan, 1994). If adults do not overuse their authority,

children naturally evolve toward autonomous thinking. Although young children are not yet

developmentally or emotionally capable of being autonomous, this does not invalidate

supporting all children in the process of learning and developing the attitudes and abilities they

will need to become self-regulating as adults (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003).

Autonomy-Supportive Teacher Practices

Because autonomy support has been found to promote students’ positive functioning,

researchers have identified specific teacher behaviors that support autonomy in students and

are distinct from teacher behaviors that are autonomy-suppressive (Kamii et al., 1994; Grolnick

& Ryan, 1987a; Reeve & Jang, 2006; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Grolnick and Ryan (1987a)

specified several autonomy-supportive teacher behaviors, including providing choice,

encouraging self-initiation, minimizing the use of controls, and acknowledging others’

perspectives and feelings. Skinner and Belmont (1993) added clarifying the relevance of an

activity as an additional autonomy-supportive behavior. Autonomy-supportive teachers

identify and nurture students’ needs, interests, and preferences by creating classroom

17
opportunities where students can be self-determined in their learning (Reeve, Jang, Carrell,

Soohyun, & Barch, 2004). Teachers who are less controlling and more inclined to support

children’s autonomy have students who are more self-confident and more interested in

learning for its own sake (Deci, Nezlek, & Sheinman, 1981). When students perceive that

teachers support their autonomy, they are likely to value the learning activity (Grolnick, Ryan, &

Deci, 1991) and show behavioral and cognitive engagement (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan,

1991). “See Figure 2.1.”

Provide Choices

Clarify the
Minimize the Use
Relavance of an
of Controls
Activity

Autonomy-
Supportive
Teachers
Identify and
Acknowledge
Nurture
Others'
Children's Needs,
Perspectives and
Interests and
Feelings
Preferences

Encourage Self-
Initiation

Figure 2.1: Traits of Autonomy-Supportive Teachers (Deci & Ryan, 1987)

18
 Learning environment. Classroom environments can be defined in terms of the

students’ and teachers’ shared perceptions of their environment, which includes the

relationships that exist between teachers and students as well as among students (Pickett &

Fraser, 2010). The perceptions of those who are in the classroom environment on a daily basis

can provide valuable information and deep understanding of these relationships (Pickett &

Fraser, 2010). Researchers have revealed that autonomy-supportive environments encourage

students to talk, question, and think in the classroom (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; DeVries &

Zan, 1994; Kamii et al., 1994). These environments emphasize students’ thinking, reasoning,

decision making, and problem solving as suggested by the National Association for the

Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) guidelines

for best practice in the care and education of young children (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).

Developmentally appropriate practice, according to Copple and Bredekamp (2009, pg. xii),

 Requires both meeting children where they are-which means that teachers must

get to know them well-and enabling them to reach goals that are both

challenging and achievable.

 Should be appropriate to children’s age and developmental status, attuned to

them as unique individuals, and responsive to the social and cultural contexts in

which they live.

 Does not mean making things easier for children. Rather, it means ensuring that

goals and experiences are suited to their learning and development and

challenging enough to promote their progress and interest.

19
  Is based on knowledge-not assumptions-of how children learn and develop. The

research base yields major principles in human development and learning.

Those principles, along with evidence about curriculum and teaching

effectiveness, form a solid basis for decision making in early care and education.

According to DAP, to enhance development and learning in teaching, the children’s

environment is the starting point. “Teachers create a learning environment that fosters

children’s initiative, active exploration of materials, and sustained engagement with other

children, adults, and activities (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, pg. 153).

There is a general consensus that when children’s personal, social, and cognitive needs

are attended to at school, the classroom learning environment can provide an ideal supportive

context for learning (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Perry, Donohue, & Weinstein, 2007). Dewey

(1896) remarked, “A large part of the educational waste comes from the attempt to build a

superstructure of knowledge without a solid foundation in the child’s relation to his social

environment” (p. 353). Establishing both a cognitive and social dimension in the learning

environment is consistent with the social-constructivist theories on how best to promote

children’s learning and development (Perry et al., 2007).

Numerous researchers in educational environments have focused on measuring the

associations between students’ cognitive learning outcomes and their perceptions of the

learning environment (Fraser, Welch, & Walberg, 1986; Pickett & Fraser, 2010). Due to

increased teacher accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), teacher practices

and their impact on children’s learning has become a current issue. Most of these studies

centered on academic achievement and other quantifiable learning outcomes; however, these

20
measures cannot provide a complete portrait of the educational process (Pickett & Fraser,

2010). Research focused on learning environments includes the Learning Environment

Inventory (LEI) that was developed in the late 1960s (Fraser, 2002). In the late 1990s, the

Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) was developed to assess the degree to

which a particular classroom’s environment is consistent with a constructivist epistemology

(Taylor, Fraser, & Fisher, 1997). According to Fraser (2002), constructivists view learning as a

cognitive process in which students make sense of the world in relation to the knowledge which

they already have constructed. Examples of some of the CLES survey items include, “I help the

teacher to decide what activities I do,” and “Other students ask me to explain my ideas”

(Fraser, 2002). Another questionnaire, the What is Happening In this Class (WIHIC) survey, was

refined in the late 1990s to assess contemporary educational concerns, such as student

cohesiveness, cooperation, equity, and teacher support (Fraser, Fisher, & McRobbie, 1996).

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), both classrooms and

school environments are strong predictors of both achievement and attitudes (Fraser, Welch, &

Walberg, 1986).

Decades of both quantitative and qualitative research on learning environments has led

to more in-depth understanding of the complexity of the factors that affect the teaching and

learning process (Pickett & Fraser, 2010). Convincing evidence has been provided that the

quality of the classroom environment in schools is a significant determinant of student learning

(Fraser, 2002). Pickett and Fraser (2010) noted that when teachers feel that they have created

classroom environments that positively engage their students and optimize student learning,

the teachers’ self-efficacy soars.

21
 In a study conducted by Perry et al. (2007), the teaching practices of 14 first grade

teachers were observed as predictors of student achievement, behavior, and self-perceived

competence. Two components of teacher practice were found to be central to the positive

adjustment of early childhood students: academic support and social support. Regarding the

social elements of the classroom, effective teachers were observed to be carefully attending to

students’ interests, trying to make learning relevant, and emphasizing positive social

relationships. Teachers who were regarded as academically effective were observed

scaffolding and guiding students’ learning and providing individual help. Overall, it was found

that meeting children’s needs provides a supportive context for learning. In addition, students

held a positive perception of themselves as learners. These social and academic practices were

consistent with social-constructivist theories on how best to promote learning (Vygotsky, 1962).

Examining early childhood learning environments is significant in that research has shown

children who achieve early academic success continue to show achievement gains. Likewise,

students with poor adjustment to the early academic demands of school will continue to see

negative consequences that will compound over time (Perry et al., 2007).

DeVries and Zan (1994) advocated a constructivist approach to creating a sociomoral

atmosphere in the early childhood classroom, while defining a sociomoral atmosphere as the

entire network of interpersonal relations that comprise a child’s experiences in school,

including children’s interactions with their teachers. According to DeVries and Zan (1994),

“schools influence social and moral development, whether they intend to or not” (p. 25).

Some teachers are unaware of the sociomoral atmosphere they create in their classrooms, and

continually communicate social and moral messages about rules and behavior as well as impose

22
sanctions for their students’ behavior (DeVries & Zan, 1994). Teachers respecting children’s

thinking, decreasing adult authority, alleviating arbitrary rules, and providing opportunities for

cooperative interactions that require the coordination of multiple perspectives are valued for

their contributions to children’s moral development (Goffin & Wilson, 2001). Examples of such

opportunities are children creating classroom rules and negotiating conflicts with peers and

teachers.

Schools, because they are such a pervasive socializing influence, shape many aspects of

development, including children’s self-esteem and values (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987a). Grolnick

and Ryan (1987a) replicated the study conducted by Deci, Nezlek, and Sheinman (1981) in

hopes of expanding their findings. In Grolnick and Ryan’s (1987a) study, sources of children’s

perceptions of autonomy in the classroom environment were investigated. Grolnick and Ryan

(1987a) administered the deCharms (1977) origin-climate questionnaire, as did Deci, Nezlek,

and Sheinman (1981), and both studies found that when teachers provided students with high

freedom and high structure, students showed high levels of motivation, engagement and

learning. This suggests that the more autonomy-supportive the students’ environment is, the

greater their motivation and competence will be and the more likely they will be to view

themselves versus their teachers as in control over their success in school. Additionally,

Grolnick and Ryan (1987a) found variability in the extent to which children experience

themselves as autonomous in the classroom. The researchers explored differences of

perceived autonomy between classrooms as well as individual differences within classrooms.

23
 Grolnick and Ryan (1987a) suggested the between-classroom differences resulted from

teachers providing different contexts for learning that accounted for differing experiences of

autonomy for the students in their classrooms. This result demonstrated the importance of the

climate provided by the teacher. Results showing within-classroom differences indicate that

individual differences in the students lead them to experience themselves as more or less

autonomous, regardless of the teacher. This suggests that some of the experience of autonomy

is derived from classroom experience and some is derived from students’ perceptions of

themselves.

Each of these studies points to similar conclusions: when teachers use classroom

structure to control students’ behavior, students’ motivation and learning suffers. If teachers

use autonomy-supportive behaviors to support students’ autonomy, students’ motivation is

high and learning flourishes (Reeve, 2006). Reeve (2006) states, “rather than existing as

opposites, autonomy support and structure work well together because structure facilitates in

students an intention to act, whereas autonomy support allows those formulated intentions to

be self-determined and coordinated with one’s inner resources” (p. 232). The autonomy-

supportive classroom is not one where there is complete freedom, but rather one in which

there is appropriate structure. The determining factor in autonomy-supportive versus

autonomy-suppressive classrooms is not whether there are rules and directives, but rather the

ways in which these structures are imposed and the extent to which choices and autonomy are

encouraged (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987b).

24
 Communication. Arcavi and Isoda (2007) explained that ‘listening’ to students is not a

passive undertaking. They suggested teachers should create opportunities in which students

are likely to engage in freely expressing their ideas; question students in order to uncover the

essence and sources of their ideas; (analyze what they hear sometimes in consultation with

peers and make the enormous intellectual effort to take the ‘other’s perspective’ in order to

understand its merits); and decide in which ways the teaching can productively integrate

students’ ideas (p. 112). Breyfogle and Herbal-Eisenmann (2004) found it important to focus on

students’ thought processes in addition to their answers, asking students to elaborate on their

answers, and giving time for students to think. Bettelheim (1976) offered a rationale for

refraining from giving young children quick and easy, scientifically correct answers to their

questions. He warned that realistic explanations are usually incomprehensible to children

because they lack the abstract understanding required to make sense of them. While giving

scientifically correct answers makes teachers think they have clarified things for students, such

explanations leave the young child “confused, overpowered, and intellectually defeated...even

as the child accepts such an answer, he comes to doubt that he had asked the right question”

(pp. 47-48).

van Zee and Minstrell (1997) examined the ways a teacher’s questioning elicited what a

student thinks. The teacher in this case study spoke of “catching” the meaning of his students’

comments and “throwing” responsibility for thinking back to the students, not only to the

individual student doing the talking but also to all of the students in the class. The results of

this study revealed that the use of teacher questioning helped students articulate their

thoughts by acknowledging student contributions in a neutral manner. The teacher created an

25
environment in which the students felt comfortable enough to comment on changes in their

understanding in front of the class.

Erdogan and Campbell (2005) investigated the impact of teacher questions, including

the types of questions and interaction patterns that correspond with high levels of

constructivist teaching practices (HLCTP) and low levels of constructivist teaching practices

(LLCTP). All of the participants were teachers who developed and implemented science units

that were found in the National Science Education Standards and were aligned to a

constructivist framework. The study found that teachers facilitating classrooms with high levels

of constructivist teaching practices asked a notably higher number of questions compared to

the teachers in classrooms with low levels of constructivist teaching practices. The findings also

revealed that HLCTP teachers, when compared with LLCTP teachers, asked a significantly

greater number of open-ended questions. Open ended-questions are thought-provoking and

encourage creative thinking; examples are questions that ask “why,” and “how” (Anderson,

2008). Open-ended questions were asked more often by HLCTP teachers when compared with

the other types of questions that they asked. Finally, interactions occurring in the HLCTP

classroom were more focused on knowledge construction, whereas the focus found in LLCTP

classrooms was more focused on knowledge reproduction, with the objective being toward an

end that had been previously determined by the teachers. This study suggested that the LLCTP

teachers were more focused on managing students with an emphasis on controlling the

classroom and the flow of interaction, in contrast to the HLCTP teachers who empowered their

students by allowing them more choice in the classroom investigations.

26
 In a longitudinal study of early childhood students, Montie, Xiang, and Schweinhart

(2006) identified how process and structural characteristics of school settings affected students’

cognitive and language performance. The study examined family background, teacher

characteristics, structural characteristics of the school setting, children’s experiences in the

setting, and the children’s developmental status. The findings revealed that oral language

improves in children when the predominant type of activity offered was free choice. When

teachers allowed children to choose their own activities, they achieved a significantly higher

average language score than students who only participated in required whole group activities.

Cognitive performance improved as children were offered a greater variety of equipment and

materials to use. Cognitive development in young children is fostered by the manipulation of

materials (Piaget, 1970; Kamii, 2000); therefore, in settings with an inadequate variety of

materials, young children may not have as many opportunities to experiment and solve

problems on their own. These results support developmentally appropriate activities such as

child initiated projects, manipulation of materials, and small group work.

Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, and Turner, (2004) examined the personal and

structural supports that teachers implement in practice to facilitate student autonomy. In this

study, the researchers distinguished among three levels of autonomy support: organizational,

procedural, and cognitive (see Figure 2.2). Organizational autonomy support allowed students

some decision-making in terms of classroom management issues such as choosing group

members, choosing seating arrangements, and participating in creating classroom rules.

Procedural autonomy support referred to the choices offered to students regarding procedures

such as choosing what materials to use or choosing the way work will be displayed. Cognitive

27
autonomy support afforded students the opportunities of discussing a variety of strategies to a

single problem, justifying solutions for the purpose of sharing expertise, and having ample time

for decision making. The study proposed that organizational and procedural autonomy support

may encourage initial engagement with learning, but that cognitive autonomy support may be

the essential ingredient to foster a deeper psychological investment in higher level thinking.

Figure 2.2: Three Levels of Autonomy Support (Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner,

2004).

Because the motivating style of one person, the teacher, can influence the motivation,

learning, and performance of so many, Reeve, Jang, Soohyun, and Barch (2004) looked at ways

teachers with generally controlling motivational styles could learn and utilize autonomy-

supportive behaviors as a way to promote student engagement during lessons. The teachers

28
attended a workshop and completed a self-study website to help change their motivating style

to an autonomy-supportive one. After the teachers were shown empirically that students

benefit when teachers support their autonomy rather than control their behavior, four

autonomy-supportive instructional strategies were taught. The study showed that teachers

who received guidance consistent with self-determination theory on how to support students’

autonomy were able to teach and motivate their students in more autonomy-supportive ways

than the non-trained teachers in this study, and their students showed greater engagement.

This is important because engagement in school activities has been shown to predict student

achievement (Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Connell, 1998). Few teachers would disagree with

the goals of supporting the students’ interests and promoting autonomous self-regulation. The

practical aspect of how to turn autonomy supportive behaviors from theory to practice has

remained unclear, especially with the familiarity of more controlling approaches such as

behavior modification. Skinner et al. (1998) discovered professional development with the aim

of promoting autonomy in others is achievable.

A mixed methods research design was completed by Ritz, Noltemeyer, Davis, and Green

(2014), with the purposes of examining, through observations and interviews, the methods that

pre-school teachers are currently using to respond to noncompliant behavior in their

classroom; measuring the frequency with which was strategy was used or attempted; and

examining the reasons that teachers have chosen to use the particular strategies. During the

interviews the common themes that emerged were classroom arrangement, reviewing

classroom rules, and encouraging prosocial behavior. Ritz et al., (2014) found that the teachers

try and minimize open spaces and having areas where the children would be out of view. They

29
also have the rules posted and use books and songs to review the rules. The students are given

choices, either between performing two tasks or between performing a task independently and

receiving assistance (e.g. “you can either pick up the blocks or pick up the puzzle” or “you may

choose to do it yourself or I can help you do it”). Other strategies used were warning the

students of transitions and keeping the classroom routine consistent. Teachers mentioned they

use strategies that they were taught in school, as well as strategies learned in continuing

education or professional development settings. Overall, the information obtained through the

teacher interviews was consistent with the teacher observations. The results of this study

indicated that the behavior management techniques that are currently researched and

recommended to promote self-regulation are generally being practiced in today’s pre-schools.

Self-discipline allows children to inhibit antisocial behavior, assume responsibility for their

actions, differentiate between right and wrong, and develop cooperative relationships with

peers and adults (Bear, Cavalier & Manning, 2002). Although this may not sound like a novel

conclusion on the surface, prior research has revealed that behavior management was an area

of weakness for teachers (Isaacs, Elliot, McConney, Wachholz, & Greene, 2007). This study was

a small, homogeneous sample size of 5 teachers and did not specifically record which strategies

were most effective.

Choice. The goal of offering choices is to promote autonomy in the individual (Bambara,

2004).

Choices empower children to be active thinkers who challenge themselves.

Teachers who offer choices do not give up control, nor are they passive. Rather
they look for ways to be active participants in the children’s learning processes,
while ensuring that the children are also active and engaged (Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009, p. 206).

30
 Making choices is a fundamental right that most people take for granted (Brown, Belz,

Corsi, & Wenig, 1993); additionally, opportunities for choice making can have beneficial

behavioral effects. These benefits include an increased engagement level (Parsons, Reid,

Reynolds, & Bumgarner, 1990) and improved behavior (Jolivette, Wehby, Canale, & Massey,

2001). One of the ways to support autonomy is through allowing students to make their own

choices (Froiland, 2011a; Reeve, & Jang, 2006). Recognizing that children may be exhibiting

behaviors due to their need for personal power (Fields & Fields, 2006), teachers can give the

student as many opportunities for choice as possible that are desirable to the child and

acceptable to the teacher (Katz & Chard, 2000). This will give the student a chance to satisfy his

or her need for control as well as support growing autonomy (Stefanou et al., 2004).

Research also indicates the brain acts differently when choice is offered (Glasser, 2001;
‫اﻻﺧﺗﯾﺎر وﺗرﻛﯾب اﻟدﻣﺎغ‬
Harter, 1982; Jensen, 2009). Choice changes the brain’s chemistry. When we feel we are

lacking in choices, the brain produces norepinephrine. Norepinephrine is a part of the brain’s

alarm system. In this state, motivation and morale are low and learning efficiency is poor.

Choices, on the other hand, trigger the release of the brain’s optimal thinking chemicals. These

chemicals, known as endorphins, increase motivation, reduce stress, create positive attitudes

and foster an optimistic “I can” outlook. Overall, the child given choices experiences a general

sense of well-being and confidence (Ornstein, 1991).

In a study by Morgan (2006), it was revealed that the “findings from 15 studies suggest

that preference and choice-making may improve both academic performance and behavior” (p.

176). When the children were allowed to make choices, their problem behavior declined. An

advantage is that the teachers found choice-making easy to use in the classroom. By offering

31
choices to a child, the teacher or parent is setting the child up for success. Choice making

allows a child to make a choice from an offered set. This gives him or her ownership in the

decision making process. The adult is empowering the child and giving him or her a sense of

control. This type of successful environment should be arranged by the adult. Choice making

has been found to make undesirable situations more pleasant for the children involved (Keilty

& Fruend, 2004). Furthermore, studies have shown the effectiveness of choice making in

reducing tantrums and non-compliant behavior (Brown, 1991; Dyer, Dunlap & Winterling, 1990;

Koegel, Dyer & Bell, 1987; Meyer & Evans, 1989).

Katz and Assor (2007) studied the controversy regarding the value of providing choice as

a teaching practice. They found that choice can be motivating when it was offered in a way

that met the needs of the students. Choice was found to enhance motivation, learning, and

well-being. According to Kamii et al. (1994), if teachers want children to be able to make their

own decisions, they should allow students to begin making decisions from an early age.

Children will often devise the same rules a teacher would make but they are more willing to

respect the decision if they can play a part in helping to make it on their own (Dewey, 1938).

Kohn (1993b) stated there is nothing new about the idea that students should be able to

participate in making decisions. This idea has been in schools designated as “progressive,

democratic, open, free, experimental, or alternative; in educational philosophies such as

constructivist, developmental, or child-centered; in programs such as inquiry-based science and

in the daily practice of teachers whose natural instinct is to treat children with respect” (Kohn,

1993b, p. 8). Students actually do have a choice about whether they will learn. Teachers may

be able to force students to complete assignments, but they cannot compel students to learn or

32
to care about learning. “Teaching requires the consent of students, and discontent will not be

chased away by the exercise of power” (Nicholls & Hazzard, 1993, p. 76). Kohn (1993b)

believed that allowing students to make decisions about what happens to them is preferable to

controlling them. Children should have the chance to participate in a democracy while they are

in school, not only once they are an adult (Chanoff, 1981).

Individuals who lack the ability and opportunity to make choices become dependent on

others to make choices and decisions for them (Guess, Benson, & Siegel-Causey, 1985). Choice,

as defined by Shevin and Klein (1984), is “the act of an individual’s selection of preferred

alternatives from among several familiar options” (p.160). deCharms (1977) examined the

paradox that the more a teacher held the responsibility of learning, the more the student felt

like a pawn, or someone who feels that someone other than themselves is in control.

deCharms (1977) examined teachers who participated in a motivation project. Before the

project, teachers rarely considered giving students choice, and when they did give choice, it was

often not a real choice but a pseudo-choice such as, and “You can finish your math problems or

visit the principal. Which would you prefer?” The student would obviously not choose the

second choice, so the teacher has attempted to camouflage the coercion by pretending to offer

a choice (Kohn, 1993b). If teachers want students to be responsible for their decisions and

learn how to make good choices, the student must have the opportunity to make real choices

(Goodman, 2006). deCharms (1977) proposed that students who were taught to make

responsible choices would not feel like pawns and would take responsibility for their learning.

Bailey’s Conscious Discipline Program, educates adults on how to perceive daily conflict

as an opportunity for children to learn social and educational skills as opposed to viewing

33
children as a disruption to the educational process. Conscious Discipline educates teachers in

how to transform resistance into cooperation through the use of seven basic skills (Bailey,

2001). The seven basic skills include Composure, Encouragement, Assertiveness, Choices,

Empathy, Positive Intent and Consequences. When focusing on the skill of choice, one of the

keys is having the teacher ask, “How can I help the children be more likely to choose to stay on

task,” versus thinking how can “I ‘make’ or ‘get’ the child to…” Bailey (2001, p. 135) stated that

by removing children’s choices, we remove their self-esteem and their will power.

A study was conducted by Hoffman, Hutchinson and Reiss (2005) to examine the impact

of educating elementary school teachers in a classroom management program in Conscious

Discipline and the effects of the program on student behavior. Teachers learned skills needed

to be successful in classroom management, including: self-composure, the ability to offer

encouragement to others, assertiveness, discovering and allowing for choices when allocating

tasks, the framing of goals with positive intent, and empathy. The researchers developed their

design to measure the impact that teachers, trained in the concepts of Conscious Discipline,

had in their classrooms.

In the study, the Teacher Rating Scales (TRS) portion of the Behavior Assessment System

for Children (BASC) was completed by teachers about their students. The survey was

administered to 12 students, identified as most difficult, prior to the teachers receiving

workshop instruction and then again 7 months later. Ten of the 12 students were ages 5-8.

The schools were selected to provide diversity in geographic regions, socioeconomic status,

culture and ethnicity. The group of children who were placed in a classroom where the teacher

had been exposed to the Conscious Discipline program showed statistically significant

34
improvement in behavior compared to the control group. Children exhibited marked

improvements in the areas of hyperactivity, aggression and impulsivity. Seventy-five percent of

the children in the study went from behavioral problems to functioning within typical behavior

ranges in a Conscious Discipline School Family (Hoffman, Hutchinson & Reiss, 2005). The

findings suggest that teachers who want to develop the emotional intelligence of their students

should allow for choices when allocating classroom tasks. The researchers have shown that

changing teacher behaviors can have a significant impact on student behavior. Because

behavioral problems in children require an inordinate amount of teacher time and attention,

children who display hyperactivity and aggressiveness impact all students’ learning in the

classroom. If the number of incidences of these behaviors can be reduced, learning for all

children increases (Hoffman, Hutchinson & Reiss, 2005). It should be noted that while

improvements were demonstrated, this was a small study with a limited number of

participants.

Recently there has been an increased interest in social and emotional learning and its'

relationship to improved student behavior, academic outcomes, and emotional health,

particularly during the early childhood years (Caldarella, Page, & Gunter, 2012). Caldarella,

Page, and Gunter (2012) completed a study to investigate the early childhood educators’

perceptions of conscious discipline. The study examined the social validity of Conscious

Discipline, a classroom management program which incorporates social and emotional learning.

Seventeen early childhood special educators rated the significance, appropriateness, and

effects of the program in a pre-school setting. Results indicated that the program had high

social validity, with ratings positively correlated with both teaching experience and experience

35
using the program. All of the participants agreed that the goal of teaching social and emotional

learning in pre-school is important.

Bailey (2001) teaches the concept of two positive choices. Young children still

developing a sense of their own autonomy often need to assert themselves when they hear an

adult command. Instead of giving an assertive command, a teacher can offer children two

acceptable choices. These choices allow children to comply with the teacher’s wishes while still

having the last word. By offering children two positive choices, teachers help them do the

following (Bailey, 2001):

 Attend to the task deemed important

 Comply with wishes

 Learn decision-making skills

 Feel empowered, thereby reducing power struggles

 Redirect their behavior and learn impulse control

 Establish and maintain self-control

Bailey (2001) believes that by educating the teacher to better handle the situations of conflict

within the classroom, behavior incidents such as hyperactivity and aggression could be reduced.

Bailey’s (1994) research teaches that there are several benefits of offering choices to

children. Choices can be used as a guidance tool, especially for children who need extra

structure to be successful. Instead of constantly directing the child with commands, choices

give them structure, provide practice in making decisions and ultimately build self-esteem.

Choices give children control over situations and aid in compliance. Since children are

36
developing autonomy and initiative skills, they sometimes like to assert themselves in response

to adult commands. Choices provide the option of complying with adult wishes while still

maintaining the last word and also help promote autonomy in young children. Decision making

skills are enhanced when choices are presented; this also helps build self-esteem. In order for

the adult to deliver choices to children, two things are required:

 The adult must think in terms of what he or she wants the child to do.

 The adult must give the child two positive choices. A true choice is given when adults do

not care which option the child chooses.

To create choices, the adult needs to think first about what they want the outcome to be, then

create two positive options to accomplish the goal.

Examples of choices:

 You have a choice. You may pick up the big blocks first or the little blocks first. What is

your choice?

 Do you want to wash off the table with a towel or washcloth?

 Do you want to put the trash in this trashcan or that one?

 If you choose to throw the bears, I will take them away. You can count with them or

play the matching game. What will you choose?

A person’s ability to make choices and commit to those choices is a measure of self-esteem. To

really make a choice, you must make a decision and accept the consequence of that decision.

Therefore, it is vital to help children who have trouble making choices and/or accepting the

consequences of their choices (Bailey, 2001). Goodman (2006) agrees that offering a child

37
genuine choice implies allowing the child to weigh the options presented without threats and

making a selection with impunity.

Intrinsic Motivation. Enhancing intrinsic motivation within children requires autonomy-

supportive school environments (Froiland, 2011a; Froiland, Oros, Smith, & Hirchert, 2012; Ryan

& Deci, 2000). When students are intrinsically motivated to learn they exhibit better behavior

and are happier (Froiland et al., 2012). School psychologists teach educators to promote

autonomous motivation through the following components of autonomy- supportive

communication: making empathetic statements, allowing students to make their own choices,

and letting students know they value creative self-expression (Froiland, 2011a; Reeve & Jang,

2006). An autonomy-supportive teaching style can initiate cascading effects that enhance the

classroom, when teachers share their own passion for the subject matter, they will not only

enhance the intrinsic motivation of their students, but those inspired students will also spread

their motivation to their other classmates (Froiland et al., 2012).

Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, and Ryan (1991) indicated that when a behavior is self-

determined, the regulatory process is a choice, but when it is controlled, the regulatory process

is compliance. Ryan and Deci (2000) expanded on their earlier work on Self-Determination

Theory (SDT) by further differentiating between intrinsic motivation (behavior motivated purely

by the inherent benefit) and extrinsic motivation (seeking to avoid punishments and gain

external rewards). They proposed three main intrinsic needs that motivate the self to initiate

behavior that is required for psychological health and a feeling of well-being called the self-

determination theory. These three needs are said to be universal and innate: the need for

competence, the need for autonomy, and the need for relatedness. Relatedness, also referred

38
to as belongingness, refers to creating meaningful connections with others and autonomy

refers to perceiving that one is able to initiate and regulate one’s own actions (Deci et al.,

1991). Satisfaction of these psychological needs promotes intrinsic motivation (Deci et al.,

1991).

One large-scale intervention that emphasizes autonomy supportive communication in

the Child Development Project now called the Caring School Community (CSC). The CSC is a

prevention program that has been implemented in 321 schools across the United States and

has followed the participating students for 7 years. The program was developed based on the

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) position and teachers were provided training on how to

provide a school environment which promotes this theory. For example, teachers were taught

how to hold class meetings, where students are given the chance to voice their opinions and

work as a team to come up with a solution for a problem affecting everyone. This activity

clearly fosters autonomy because the teacher is allowing the students to contribute to the

discussion in a creative way as well as empowering students to help solve their own classroom

issues (Froiland et al., 2012). After implementing classroom meeting lessons and other

components of the program for two years, the research team evaluated several measures of

student well-being in both experimental and control groups. The experimental group showed

significantly more improvement in intrinsic motivation to learn, prosocial intrinsic motivation

peer relationships, and perception they are part of a community. The U.S. Department of

Education’s (USDE) Institute of Education Sciences (IES) lists the CSC as a research-based

prevention program within What Works Clearinghouse (USDE, IES, 2007).

39
 A study by Palmer and Wehmeyer (2003) designed a model to help educators teach

young students to be self-directed during instruction. The implementation of the model started

the process with younger children to help them become “self-determined before adolescence

to give added time for building the children’s capacity for choice, decision making, goal setting,

and problem solving that are essential for later self-determination” (Palmer & Wehmeyer,

2003, p. 116). The study suggested that teachers can use the model to help students

investigate their interests, facilitate choice, and set goals. The results of this study indicated

that teachers of young children can use the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction to

help students problem solve, set goals in various subjects and settings, self-monitor progress

toward their goals, and self-evaluate whether they are making adequate progress. It seems

evident from this study that involving young children in setting their own goals, allowing

students to be responsible for part of their learning, and providing opportunities for students to

evaluate their progress are all worthwhile objectives (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003). Kohn

(1993b) explained how teachers who are restricted by curriculum guidelines, administrators,

and testing mandates know from experience how a child’s enthusiasm for their work can

quickly disappear. Students can also be restricted by teachers who deprive them of self-

determination and in turn, of motivation. Kohn (1993b) emphasized the idea that students

should have a choice about what goes on in their classroom. Researchers have indicated that

young children need to feel a sense of competency, autonomy and relatedness in order to

develop decision-making abilities (deCharms, 1977; Deci & Ryan, 1994; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci,

1991; Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003).

40
 Froiland, Oros, Smith and Hirchert (2012) investigated the use of intrinsic motivation

versus external motivation with students and how this benefits the children. Intrinsic

motivation to learn entails engaging in learning opportunities because they are seen as

enjoyable, interesting, or relevant to meeting one’s core psychological needs (Ryan & Deci,

2000). Because teachers struggle to motivate children (Brophy, 2008; Froiland, 2010), some

rely on external motivation, thinking that it is both their best and only option. Contradictorily,

studies have shown that students who are excessively extrinsically rewarded lose initiative and

do not learn as well (Benware & Deci, 1984; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987a). Moreover, despite the

fact that a contingent behavioral reward system often results in positive behavior changes,

these changes often do not endure (due to extinction once the reward system is removed)

(Hardman, Horne & Lowe, 2011) and are not nearly as healthy due to the generally negative of

extrinsic rewards (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001).

Having intrinsic motivation benefits children on many levels. Typically children who

have developed intrinsic motivation are more likely than others to demonstrate strong

conceptual learning, improved memory, high overall achievement in school (Gottfried, 1990),

and improved psychological well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Specifically, teachers that focus on

facilitating intrinsic motivation have been found to promote cognitive flexibility (McGraw &

McCullers, 1979) and conceptual understanding of learning activities (Benware & Deci, 1984;

Grolnick & Ryan, 1987b). Furthermore, intrinsic motivation is linked to prosocial behavior,

which involves being agreeable and helpful, as well as caring about the welfare of others

(Grant, 2008). Intrinsic motivation is also a strong factor in performance, persistence, and

productivity for adults in the working world (Grant, 2008), and is a pathway to happiness for

41
both adults and children (Froiland, Smith, & Peterson, 2012). Ways of promoting intrinsic

motivation include understanding students’ perspectives in developing more interesting

curricular activities, providing choice, and ensuring that tasks are developmentally challenging

(Grolnick & Ryan, 1987a).

Autonomy-Suppressive Teacher Practices

Although autonomy has been shown to encourage students to be more engaged in their

learning, autonomy is not often encouraged in schools. Classrooms today are mostly

heteronomous due to teachers utilizing controlling strategies, such as offering rewards or

issuing punishments, in order to manipulate children’s behavior or elicit a correct response.

Children who are discouraged from developing autonomy construct less knowledge than those

who do their own thinking (Kamii et al., 1994).

Teachers cannot directly give students an experience of autonomy; instead, teachers

can only encourage this experience by creating classroom opportunities wherein students can

align their inner resources, such as their needs, interests and goals, with the classroom

activities (Reeve & Jang, 2006). Reeve and Jang (2006) identified 11 specific autonomy-

supportive teacher behaviors and compared them with 11 controlling style behaviors to

determine if these behaviors had an effect on students’ autonomy. The 11 autonomy-

supportive behaviors shown in Table 1 were displayed more frequently by teachers categorized

as autonomy-supportive. Some of the identified autonomy-supportive behaviors were listening

and asking what students want, creating time for students to work in their own way, giving

students opportunities to talk, encouraging student collaboration, providing rationales, giving

42
hints and feedback, and being responsive to student-generated questions. Some of the

identified autonomy-suppressive behaviors, also shown in Table 2.1, included the teacher doing

most of the talking, holding and monopolizing learning materials, having all of the answers, and

directly telling the student the right answer instead of allowing the student time and

opportunity to respond. In this study, students’ perceived autonomy correlated significantly

and positively with students’ enjoyment, engagement, and performance. Overall, autonomy

support includes “finding ways to nurture, support, and increase students’ inner endorsement

of their classroom activity” (Reeve, 2006, p. 211).

Table 2.1: Eleven Autonomy-Supportive and Autonomy-Suppressive Behaviors (Reeve & Jang, 2006)

Autonomy-supportive behaviors Autonomy-suppressive behaviors

Time teacher listening Time teacher talking

Asking what a student wants Time holding/monopolizing learning materials

Time allowing student to work in own way Exhibiting solutions/answers

Time for student talking Uttering solutions/answers

Seating arrangements Uttering directives/commands

Providing rationales Making should/ought statements

Praise as informational feedback Asking controlling questions

Offering encouragements Deadline statements

Offering hints Praise as contingent reward

Being responsive to student-generated questions Criticizing the student

Communicating perspective-taking statements Operational definition

43
 Learning Environment. Piaget (1965) stated:

Traditional schools, whose ideal has gradually come to be the preparation of pupils for
competitive examinations rather than for life, have found themselves obliged to shut
the child up in work that is strictly individual: the class listens in common, but the pupils
do their homework separately. This procedure...seems to be contrary to the most
obvious requirements of intellectual and moral development (p. 405).

Also intrigued with intellectual and moral development of children, Mitchell (1987)

feared that the formulation of detailed standards of normal growth might, “distort individual

variations in development and lead to the promulgation of mechanistic, rigid norms, which

could deaden rather than enhance children’s impulses to learn” (Antler, p. 292).

Unfortunately, in most schools, the sociomoral atmosphere is coercive, requiring

children to conform, which impedes children’s autonomous thinking. Classrooms today are

often heteronomous environments in which controlling teachers tell children what to do and

give them ready-made rules. Children who are discouraged from thinking autonomously and

critically will construct less knowledge than those who are mentally active and confident (Kamii,

1991). Kamii and DeVries (1993) expressed concerns that when adults impose their answers,

children learn to distrust their ability to make sense of their own experiences. DeVries and Zan

(1994) stated that because adults determine the nature of the sociomoral atmosphere in which

children live, early childhood teachers who want to establish a constructivist learning

environment in their classrooms could begin by reflecting on the relationships they have with

their students. Although controlling strategies are prevalent in classrooms today, there are

autonomy-supportive practices that teachers can learn to help develop autonomy in children,

including encouraging students to make decisions, helping students learn to enforce their own

44
rules, fostering intrinsic motivation, and encouraging children to exchange viewpoints with

others (Kamii et al., 1994).

Autonomy is often confused with a laissez-faire classroom environment and autonomy-

support is frequently and erroneously related with the removal of structure (Reeve, 2006). A

lack of structure does not produce an autonomy-supportive environment, but rather one that is

permissive, indulgent, or laissez-faire. Reeve (2006) explained, “The opposite of structure is

chaos and a lack of clarity as to what students are supposed to do” (p. 232). By structuring a

learning environment in an autonomy-supportive way, teachers provide students with a clear

plan of what to do, along with freedom for choice, voice, and initiative. In contrast, by

structuring a learning environment in a controlling way, autonomy-suppressive teachers clearly

tell students what to do, and students have little or no voice in the process (Reeve, 2006). The

opposite of a DAP learning environment, is one that is disorderly, with little structure or

predictability (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 153). One example of this would be an

environment arranged to limit the children’s opportunities to pursue engaging learning

experiences causing them to have to ask for materials versus the materials being readily

accessible. This results in the children having no variety of materials or choices to choose what

they want to use.

Communication. Dewey (1916) wondered why, “No one has ever explained why

children are so full of questions outside of the school... [yet there is a] conspicuous absence of

display of curiosity about the subject matter of school lessons” (p. 183). This Initiation-

Response-Evaluation (IRE) pattern usually prevails in the classroom (Cazden, 1988). These kinds

45
of interaction patterns lead students toward an answer previously determined by the teacher

but does not encourage the student to articulate his or her thoughts. Herbal-Eisenmann and

Breyfogle (2005) examined interaction patterns between teachers and students in a classroom.

The study suggested the most common form of interaction that occurs between teachers and

students is when the teacher asks a question, a student provides a response, and the teacher

offers evaluative feedback that is aligned with the reproduction of knowledge interaction.

Deci, Nezlek, and Sheinman (1981) studied elementary students’ perceptions of

classroom experiences to determine if they perceived their autonomy as being supported or

controlled. The researchers used a measure developed by deCharms (1977) to assess the

extent to which children described their teachers’ behavior and the classroom climate as

supportive of autonomy or as controlling. deCharms termed these experiences origins or

pawns, respectively. Deci et al. (1981) disseminated a questionnaire regarding autonomy and

motivation to 610 children in elementary school. The questionnaire assessed three

motivational tendencies: preferences for challenge, curiosity, and independent mastery

attempts. The students’ descriptions of their classrooms regarding autonomy-supportiveness

were then compared to the motivation questionnaires. The results of the study indicated that

the children in the autonomy-supportive classroom described themselves as initiators of their

own learning and as active participants in the classroom. These children also viewed

themselves as competent in school and had higher self-esteem than those that experienced a

more controlling classroom environment. The children in the controlling classroom were

closely directed by the teacher in the learning process and were more passive than the children

in the supportive classroom.

46
 A recurring paradox exists in the contemporary elementary classroom. Most teachers

recognize that their students benefit from autonomy-supportive behaviors, while continuing to

implement controlling strategies rather than autonomy-supportive strategies (Newby, 1991).

Some teachers admit that they would like to open up the decision-making process to involve

their students, but the decisions are not theirs to give away (Kohn, 1993b). Highly controlling

schools may leave teachers very few choices for themselves. Kohn (1993b) stated that even if,

“controlling structures do not literally remove options from teachers, they may create a climate

in which teachers do to children what is done to them” (p. 14). Controlling teachers interfere

with students’ inner motives because they define what students should think, feel, and do

(Reeve et al., 2004). According to Reeve and Jang (2006), autonomy-suppressive teachers have

students put aside their inner motivational resources and instead comply with a teacher-

centered agenda, coercing students by offering extrinsic incentives, to modify student behavior.

This is not a new phenomenon. As Young (1900) stated, “The teacher is not free to

teach according to his conscience and power but his high office is degraded to the grinding of

prescribed grists, in prescribed quantities, and with prescribed fineness - to the turning of the

crack of a revolving mechanism” (p. 13). As Dewey (1938) noted, classrooms characterized by

demands for “sheer obedience to the will of an adult” (p. 55) may sometimes indicate a

situation that has forced the teacher to comply with administrators with the absence of

democracy within the systems of the school itself. Likewise, Edwards (1994) found when

administrators exercised excessive control over school operations, teachers felt disenfranchised

and tended to control their students more tightly. This in turn led to teachers providing less

meaningful lessons for their students as they attempted to comply with the administrative

47
demands. It was observed students often react with rebellion under these conditions. Edwards

also noted that children who are at-risk are particularly vulnerable to excessive control

practices at school.

Although autonomy has been found to promote persistence on tasks and increase self-

regulation, many teachers continue to support the use of controlling strategies in classrooms

(Deci & Ryan, 1987). The use of a constructivist framework to guide teaching practices in the

classroom requires teachers to move in directions that are contrary to how they themselves

were taught (Gieryn, 1999). Furthermore, as teachers have numerous mandates being imposed

on them today, such as predetermined curricular frameworks and standardized testing, they

often find their energy directed toward issues such as structured implementation of a particular

program and away from the complexities of constructivist classroom life (Walsh, Smith,

Alexander, & Ellwein, 1993). Although there are many benefits of encouraging autonomy in the

classroom, many principals, parents, and teachers have nevertheless continued to support the

use of controlling strategies in classrooms (Deci & Ryan, 1987).

Reeve (2009) studied the conditions under which teachers used controlling styles of

teaching and how it linked to student achievement. Three conditions were identified as

controlling: thinking exclusively from the teacher’s own perspective, intruding into students’

thoughts or actions, and pressuring students to think, feel, or behave in particular ways. Reeve

(2009) found that a controlling style aimed at motivating students’ actually undermined

students’ functioning and achievement. Several forces influenced whether and to what extent

a teacher would display a controlling teaching style during instruction. Some of the forces were

imposed on teachers by outside agents, such as school policies, administrators, parents,

48
societal expectations, or cultural norms. Additional influences were present inside the

classroom, such as students’ lackluster reaction to a lesson. Still other influences emerged from

within the teachers themselves, originating from their own temperament, personality, and

beliefs about the nature of student motivation. Although there are many understandable

reasons why teachers adopt a controlling style of teaching, researchers have suggested that

both teachers and students function better in school when teachers support students’

autonomy (Kohn, 2006; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Soohyun, & Barch, 2004).

James and McCormick (2009) researched how elementary and high school teachers

developed their teaching practices. They found that for many schools, external constraints

made it difficult for teachers to promote student autonomy without fundamentally changing

the nature of the classroom. These changes would require extended collaborative professional

development in which teachers in a school developed a common understanding of instructional

goals and methods. James and McCormick (2009) also found that for teachers to be successful,

they needed to be supported by school leadership and their co-teachers.

Even if autonomy-suppressive teachers appreciate the benefits of autonomy support,

they may still resist becoming autonomy-supportive if they perceive it to be unrealistic,

especially given the pressing challenges of schooling. From these researchers (Edwards, 1994;

James & McCormick, 2009; Reeve, 2009), it is apparent that many teachers endeavor to

develop autonomy-supportive behaviors that they know produce effective teaching, but often

come up against forces that influence the extent to which they use autonomy-supportive or

autonomy-suppressive teaching behaviors. Likewise, schools may know what kinds of teaching

styles and learning environments are best for children, but they are also required to contend

49
with outside distractions, such as federal regulations, testing mandates, and other similarly

uncontrollable/external factors. These thwart both the teachers’ and schools’ efforts to help

children achieve autonomy.

Assor, Kaplan and Roth (2002) focused on three autonomy-supportive behaviors:

fostering relevance, allowing criticism, and providing choice. They also focused on three types

of autonomy-suppressive behaviors: suppressing criticism, intruding, and forcing

inconsequential acts. These observations were used to determine which behaviors were

important in predicting a child’s engagement in school. The findings of this study suggested

that there are two teacher behaviors that are particularly important in terms of their effects on

feelings toward learning. These two behaviors are fostering relevance and suppressing

criticism. While offering choices was identified as an autonomy-supportive behavior, teachers

who clarified the relevance of schoolwork encouraged more positive feelings and engagement

in learning for students. The fact that criticism suppression was found to be the most

important autonomy-suppressive behavior might suggest that the opportunity to voice one’s

criticism is fundamental for a child to develop autonomy. These findings have valuable practical

implications for teachers. Teachers who offer choice, foster relevance, and allow criticism

encourage more interest and engagement in learning among their students than teachers who

are autonomy-suppressive.

Extrinsic Motivation. Teachers use a variety of strategies to engage and motivate

students. These motivating strategies can range along a continuum from being highly

controlling to highly autonomy-supportive (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981). In

general, autonomy-supportive teachers facilitate, whereas controlling teachers interfere with,

50
 students’ self-determined motives and their school activities (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002). In a

study by Assor, Kaplan, and Roth (2002), children were questioned to determine if they could

differentiate between autonomy supportive and autonomy-suppressive teacher behaviors that

were characterized in the Self-Determination Theory developed by Ryan & Deci (2000). Self-

Determination Theory (SDT) originated in a study by Deci and Ryan (1987) and is considered to

be a current theory of motivation. Adding to many other theories of motivation, Deci and Ryan

(1987) showed the significance of distinguishing between self-determined and controlled types

of intentional regulation and noted that student motivation revolves around the concept of

intentionality. When an intention originates from within a student, it is associated with

autonomous types of motivation; alternatively, if an intention is coerced by an external cause,

such as a teacher’s directive or an extrinsic reward, it is associated with controlled types of

motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1987).

Children who are extrinsically regulated to learn are merely pursuing rewards and

avoiding punishments (Froiland, 2010). Extrinsic motivations associated with the least

psychological health of all the levels of academic self-regulation (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Since

extrinsically regulated children feel controlled by others or by circumstances, extrinsic

regulation is considered a form of controlled motivation (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006).

‫ﯾﻘﻠل اﻟداﻓﻌﯾﺔ‬ Rewards and Punishment. Researchers have indicated that children who are exposed to

autonomy-suppressive teacher behaviors, such as rewards, punishments, evaluation, and

controlling statements, have less intrinsic motivation after the controlling strategy is no longer

present (Deci, 1971, 1995; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973; Vallerand, 1997). In a study by

51
Reeve (2009), teachers who acted in controlling ways most often relied on external sources of

motivation, such as directives, incentives, consequences, and threats of punishment.

Autonomy-suppressive teachers neglected to provide rationales or made little effort to explain

why they were asking students to work. They relied on pressure-inducing language such as

“should” and “have to,” displayed impatience for students to produce the right answer, and

often intruded on students’ natural rhythm to produce answers on the teacher’s timetable.

Boggiano, Barrett, Weiher, McClelland, and Luck (1987) found that adults favored using

tangible rewards with children over less controlling techniques such as reasoning, especially

when it came to school activities. Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001) discovered that tangible

rewards (both material, such as pizza parties for reading, and symbolic, such as good student

certificates) significantly undermined intrinsic motivation for the rewarded activity.

Unfortunately, rewards such as these are widely advocated by educators and are commonly

used in classrooms.

During the Progressive era, Pratt (1924) rejected rewards for student motivation just as

she rejected the “big stick” when working with young children (p. 53). She believed children’s

motivation would develop through purposeful work and perseverance (Pratt, 1924). Bruner

(1961) wanted to create an environment where students could “experience success and failure

not as reward and punishment but as information" (p. 26). Likewise, children who are

rewarded are being controlled, manipulated, and governed by someone other than themselves

(Kohn, 2006). Instead of hindering autonomy by using rewards and punishments, teachers

could encourage the exchange of points of view with children. This would help them consider

52
relevant factors and others’ feelings so that the children may begin to construct knowledge of

treating others as they would like to be treated (Kamii et al., 1994).

Rewards such as prizes and money (extrinsic motivation) are often used by parents and

teachers as a means of motivating desired behavior (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991).

Several studies have shown that when students received rewards, such as money (Deci, 1971),

or awards for being a good player (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973), they tended to lose

interest in the activity after the rewards were gone. Piaget (1965) stated, “Every practicing

teacher who has made the experiment in favorable conditions, has observed - anyone who

watches a child outside of school hours will have noted the same thing - that a child who is

interested in what he does is capable of making efforts to the limits of his physical endurance”

(pp. 364-365).

Hoffman, Hutchinson, and Reiss (2009) completed a study to address the effects of

school climate, specifically investigating ways to reduce reliance on systems of rewards and

punishment. They reported that pre-school and elementary teachers (n=117) who practiced

the tenets of Conscious Discipline perceived a better school climate than those who did not

practice these tenets (n=89). The authors noted that teachers who practiced Conscious

Discipline dealt with student behavior issues as learning experiences, using conflict resolution

strategies rather than traditional methods of classroom management such as rewards and

punishments. The results of the study also indicated that many of the teachers implementing

the program showed improvements in student/teacher relationships. The outcome of this

study advocates the training of teachers in classroom management approaches that foster

more intrinsic motivation to behave, learn, and excel (Hoffman, Hutchinson, & Reiss, 2009).

53
 Teachers too often rely on commercially prepared behavior management systems as

their intervention of choice, such as Canter and Canter’s (2002) Assertive Discipline program.

This program expresses the belief that, “students are not innately motivated to behave in

school” (p. 7). Although Assertive Discipline boasts that it is a systematic approach where

teachers “lay down the law” and “demand that your children change their behavior problem,”

there is no research referenced to support the background for the program (Canter & Canter,

2002, p. 55). Many behaviorists believe punishment is bad and rewards are good; however,

rewards do not help children to become autonomous any more than punishments do (Kamii et

al., 1994).

Teaching children valued behaviors is a large task for teachers of young children. In

facing this daily challenge, many teachers today rely on extrinsic rewards (Kohn, 1993a).

Although a widespread practice, this strategy has been questioned in regard to the

undermining effects of enlisting compliance in this way (Kohn, 2006). As predicted by self-

determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1987), rewards are not necessary for activities that children

find inherently interesting. Receiving a reward for doing an activity that is enjoyable can

actually lead to a decrease in intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1991). Furthermore, the negative

impact of rewards is more pronounced with children than for young adults (Deci, Koestner, &

Ryan, 2001). In a quantitative study that compared rewards and autonomy support as methods

to promote children’s self-regulation of an activity that was important but not necessarily

inherently enjoyable, Joussemet, Koestner, Lekes and Houlfort (2004) found that autonomy

support was a beneficial alternative to the common use of rewards. Although this and other

studies have failed to confirm any benefit for the use of rewards or other controlling strategies

54
when children are faced with completing an uninteresting task, teachers continue to rely on

rewards to bring about desired behaviors in children.

Summary

Giving children the power to make rules and decisions offers them opportunities to

genuinely think for themselves. By creating and utilizing opportunities when they arise in daily

classroom life, teachers can support their students’ autonomy (DeVries & Zan, 2003). The

characteristics of ownership and justification of ideas, the construction of meaning, and the

intentional self-reliance used in critical thinking are at the heart of learning in the classroom

(Stefanou et al., 2004). Researchers have shown that students with autonomy- supportive

teachers, compared with students with controlling teachers, experience not only greater

perceived autonomy but also more positive functioning in terms of their classroom

engagement, emotionality, creativity, intrinsic motivation, psychological well-being, conceptual

understanding, academic achievement, and persistence in school (Benware & Deci, 1984; Black

& Deci, 2000; Boggiano, Flink, Shields, Seelbach, & Barrett, 1993; Deci & Ryan, 1987; Deci et al.,

1981; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987a; Hardre & Reeve, 2003; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987b; Vallerand, 1997).

55
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to collect research relating to the perceptions pre-school

educators have of the concept of autonomy and the techniques used to promote autonomy in

their classroom. The procedures employed in conducting this study are presented in this

chapter through the following sections: the chosen research methodology, subjects, and

instruments used in the study, data collection procedures, trustworthiness and ethical

assurances. A summary of the research methodology will conclude chapter Three.

A large number of children in diverse cultural environments attend early child care

centers and often spend more waking time with teachers and peers than with their parents

(Hsueh & Barton, 2006). Thus, it can be assumed early child care teachers significantly

influence children’s socialization and education (Pierrehumbert, et al., 2002). In particular, the

teacher’s socialization goals and ideas about appropriate behavioral strategies influence

children’s experiences (Ahnert & Lamb, 2003; Maccoby & Lewis 2003). This study further aimed

to answer the following research questions:

1. What perceptions do pre-school educators have of the concept of autonomy as it

relates to early childhood education?

2. In what ways, if any, do pre-school educators perceive they promote autonomy in

the classroom?

56
 Methodology

This is a qualitative study, in which the researcher “formulated to investigate topics in all

their complexity, in context” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 2) and looked at relationships among

data collected. Qualitative research methodologies lead to results by using the following steps

(Peshkin, 1993, p. 136):

 Description-They can reveal the nature of certain situations, settings, processes,

relationships, systems, or people
 Interpretation-They enable a researcher to (a) gain new insights about a particular
phenomenon, (b) develop new concepts or theoretical perspectives about the
phenomenon, and/or (c) discover the problems that exist within the phenomenon
 Verification-They allow a researcher to test the validity of certain assumptions, claims,
theories, or generalizations within real-world contexts
 Evaluation-They provide a means through which a researcher can judge the
effectiveness of particular policies, practices, or innovations

Because of the distinguishing characteristics between quantitative and qualitative

approaches, the researcher chose a qualitative method. All qualitative approaches focus on

phenomena that occur in natural settings and involve studying those phenomena in all their

complexity (Peshkin, 1993). Qualitative research is rooted in several rich philosophical

traditions such as the constructivist orientation (Schwandt, 2000). This study was guided by the

assumption that reality is constructed by the participants who took part in the research study.

Through interviews, the participants described this reality. This construction of meaning

involved the participants’ explanations, experiences, activities, feelings, values, beliefs,

motivations, and concerns regarding exploring pre-school teachers’ perspectives of offering

choice to support young children’s autonomy (Hatch, 2002). The research value of qualitative

studies is based on the participants’ responses in context to the research questions. According

to Yin (2009),
57
 Qualitative research can be generalized. Analytic data can be generalized to some
defined population that has been sampled, but to a theory of the phenomenon being
studied, a theory that may have much wider applicability than the particular case
studied. In this, it resembles experiments in the physical sciences, which make no claim
to statistical representativeness, but instead assume that their results contribute to a
general theory of the phenomenon (p. 32).

Creswell (2007) discussed the “spiral of analysis,” where he detailed the various iterations of

qualitative research. He began with the gathering of data, then moved into data management,

which is followed by the importance of writing, reading, reflecting, and memoing, then on to

the art of describing, classifying, interpreting, categorizing, and comparing, and finally, to

representing and visualizing the data. Figure 3.1 depicts this spiral graphically.

Figure 3.1: Spiral of Analysis

58
 Subjects

Role of Subjects. Qualitative inquiry involves actual participants and typically focuses

on a relatively small number of participants selected deliberately to allow inquiry into and

understanding of a phenomenon in depth (Thompson & Gunter, 2006). According to Patton

(2002), participants are selected because they are “information rich and illuminative,” that is,

they offer useful manifestations of the case of interest (p. 40). The subjects in this study were

10 pre-school educators who were purposefully chosen in order to obtain ample information.

These educators were chosen because they have been lead teachers in pre-school classrooms

for 1-3 years and have earned either associate or bachelor degrees in Early Childhood Education

(ECE).

After receiving Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol ID 26151 through Saint. Louis

University (see Appendix C) approval for the study, the researcher began the recruitment

process. To align recruitment with the researcher’s goal to collect data from a specific group of

individuals (Baxter & Barbie, 2204), the researchers sought out help from local directors and

ECE college educators. Once qualified candidates were identified, the researcher explained the

purpose of the study and their responsibilities to take part if they were interested. A total of

ten teachers who had graduated from a 2-year or 4-year college within the past three years

were located. They were also all employed in pre-school programs located in a Midwestern city

and met the criteria of being pre-school teachers educating children between the ages of three

and five. Next, the willing participants received and signed a letter of participation (see

Appendix B). This method allowed for recent data from teachers who are new in the ECE field.

59
All of the subjects were female, with 6 being Caucasian and 4 African American, and they

ranged in age from 23-50. The role of the educators was participating in a recorded interview,

reviewing the transcribed data for accuracy and being honest and open in their answers. All

interviews were conducted at a convenient location and time for the participants in a quiet

space.

Risks to Subjects and Steps Taken to Minimize Risks. Thompson and Gunter (2006)

support the approach that research should be clearly explained to participants, including why

the researcher is interested in the specific area of inquiry and how they will be contributing to

the findings. There were minimal to no risks to the subjects. Steps were in place to minimize

the risk of identification. No names were disclosed and no identifiers were linked to the

teachers. The privacy and confidentiality of the participants was ensured by not requiring them

to reveal their names in order to ensure anonymity of their responses and protect them from

any retributive action; additionally they were assured that the data collected would not be

disclosed to un-authorized persons. The participants were referred to as teacher one through

ten. In compliance with the requirements of the University Ethics Committee, permission to

interview the teachers was sought and obtained prior to the investigation. Care was taken to

minimize any harm caused to the respondents by ascertaining at the onset whether they had

any objections to participating in the study or whether they saw any negative impact being

caused to them by participating. When invited to take part in the study, the teachers were fully

informed of the purpose and nature of the research and how it would be used. The teachers

were also reassured that they did not have to take part in the research and that it was safe for

them to be completely honest in their responses. The participants were contacted to set up

60
convenient times to hold the interviews. The written information was stored in a double lock

system (a locked cabinet within a locked office). All information was shredded at the

conclusion of the study.

Instruments Used

Interviews are used when researchers want to understand participants’ perspectives on

a particular topic; when they want to retrieve experiences; gain insight or information; obtain

descriptions of events or scenes that are unavailable from observations; or understand a

sensitive or intimate relationship (Lindlof, 1995). Memoing, according to Gloenewalk (2008),

allows the researcher to elaborate on concepts and themes of what seen and heard and

constitutes an important element in qualitative inductive logic where concepts derived from

narrative data are used as building blocks for constituting theoretical arguments. The

researcher uses memos to:

 Identify a specific of the expert that is worth explaining

 Note patterns, significance, or uniqueness

 Comment on variations and interconnection among repeated instances

 Pose unanswered questions

For this study, the researcher utilized two instruments. The first were semi- structured

interviews with the teachers’ responses as a source of data. A data collection journal, was also

used to record key words spoken by the participants, body language, gestures and

expressiveness. The act of recording reflective notes or memos during data collection is called

memoing. Qualitative interviewing was an appropriate data collection method since the

61
researcher wanted to understand, in a richly detailed manner, the classroom teachers’

philosophies on student choice making, what methods were successful in their classrooms, and

what challenges they encountered. Interviewing is helpful to find out what is on someone

else’s mind and to discover information researchers cannot easily observe.

Advantages existed for conducting a qualitative interview. Interviewing provides

readers with a vicarious presence and portrays an authentic description of the phenomena

(Marshall & Rossman, 2006). While allowing the researcher to enter into the participants’

perspectives and give voice to experiences (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). In addition, interviews

tend to offer a rich and vivid description (Creswell, 2009). This study’s findings included in-

depth data since the researcher’s understanding of the topic was embedded in participants’

words through direct quotes (Baxter & Babbie, 2004).

Interviewing also had disadvantages. Anonymity did not exist since the researcher was

recording the data directly from the teachers, although confidentiality was assured to all

participants because names and identities were never released. Bias could have unknowingly

occurred in data collection and analysis since qualitative research is subjective in nature.

Interviewing was a time consuming process due to the excessive required time to complete the

interviews, transcribe and code the responses. The utilization of audio-taping equipment had

the potential to create unforeseen problems due to technological malfunctions (Creswell,

2009).

To complete this research study, teachers were interviewed about their perception of

autonomy, if they promote autonomy in the classroom, how they feel about offering children

62
choices, their classroom management procedures, and what their strengths and challenges are

with behavior management. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten pre-school

educators. This interview type was chosen since it allows for a substantial amount of freedom,

flexibility and adaptability during interviews (Creswell, 2009). Compared to structured or

unstructured interviews, semi-structured interviews allowed the researcher to direct and guide

conversation; clarify for understanding; and probe with follow-up questions for greater detail

(Creswell, 2009). Teachers could answer candidly and had the opportunity to express their

opinions as well as engage in two-way communication.

Data Collection Process

According to Bogdan and Bilken (1988), qualitative data collected have been

characterized as, rich in description of people, places, and conversations, and not easily

handled by statistical procedures” (p. 1). The data for this study were collected though

memoing and semi-structured teacher interviews. The individual teacher interviews were

approximately 1-2 hours in length and protocols were followed for structure and organization.

The questions (Appendix A) were all thoughtfully prepared before the interview, which is

important when using the interview technique (Bogdan & Bilken, 1988). All interviews were

scheduled at the convenience of each individual educator and conducted face–to-face in order

to promote rich, descriptive data. Interviews were all audio-taped to ensure validity of the

data. Recordings were then transcribed verbatim by the researcher. Each participant was

given the opportunity to read the document for accuracy. This interactive process allowed the

researcher to produce trustworthy findings. All participants had access to the interview

63
questions before the interview. This provided them with time to formulate answers and to

familiarize themselves with the topic. On the day of the actual interview appointment, a brief

re-orienting discussion of the participant’s role in the study occurred prior to the interview

itself. When completing data collection, it was vital for the researcher to allow the participants

to take their time to answer and reassure them that there were no wrong answers. All

interviews took place in a secure, private, and comfortable setting. The participants were

reminded that the interviews were audio taped, and that their private identifying information

would remain confidential. General confidentiality concerns and general ethical issues were

reviewed, and the participants were provided the opportunity to raise any questions or

concerns.

The audio recording of the interviews began after the researcher facilitated a brief,

relaxing introduction into the interview process. During the interviews, the researcher used the

pre-set questions previously provided to the participants, as a guideline for the interview (see

Appendix A, “Interview Questions”). Following the transcription of each recorded interview, all

participants were provided with a complete transcription of the interview for review via email

or mail in a confidential manner. Confidence was maintained by only addressing the transcript

to the individual interviewed. Each participant was provided the opportunity to correct and

comment on the document. The researcher was available to the participant to answer

questions, review and confirm document edits, and respond to any concerns before the

document was finalized. All participants indicated that transcriptions were accurate by verbal

response to the researcher.

64
 Trustworthiness

Rigor in a study comes from the validity of the research and the reliability of the

findings. Valid work must be supported, acceptable and convincing. Credibility can be defined

as the confidence that can be placed in the data (Golafshani, 2003). Each piece of research

adds to its particular discipline by adhering to the guidelines for proper research. According to

Creswell (2009), validity plays a significant role in a qualitative study, as it is a powerful source

used to determine the accuracy of the study’s findings. All of the research completed for the

literature review was from peer-reviewed journals to guarantee the information used was

accurate and valid (Creswell, 2009). The reliability test refers to when a researcher can repeat

the steps of a previous study, given the same circumstances, and arrive at the same findings

and conclusions (Yin, 2009). This explains the need for the data collection procedures to be

well documented through the use of study protocols as well as the development of a research

database. The trustworthiness of the study was ensured by the use of an interview protocol in

addition to the process of organization and documentation to create a thorough database.

Memoing adds to the credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research and keeps the

researcher imbedded in the empirical reality of the study (Groenewald, 2008).

Ethical Assurances

Each participating teacher was contacted by the researcher to discuss the proposed

study; the requirements of the participants during the study; the knowledge that participation

in the study was voluntary; and that participants could withdraw from the study at any

anytime. All teachers were asked and obliged in signing a “Permission to Participate Letter”

65
(Appendix B). All data were confidential to protect the teachers. Confidentiality of all

information was maintained and the documentation was destroyed after the completion of the

study. During the study the electronic data were kept in a password protected file. Any

physical copy of the data was locked in a double lock system in the researcher’s office.

Summary

This chapter contained a discussion of why qualitative research was chosen. The

subjects’ role in the research was explained as well as how they were provided protection and

confidentiality throughout the process. The chapter concluded by explaining how all of the

data were gathered and how trustworthiness and ethical assurances were maintained. The

following Chapter Four presents the results for this study.

66
 CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS OF DATA

In Chapter Four the data collection process used for the study was described and the

research findings are presented. The goal of data analysis was to examine many separate

pieces of information and determine if the data pointed to the same conclusions. The data are

presented by introducing each question asked of the teachers, a paragraph discussing key

points and the individual quotations for each question. The purpose of this study was to

discover what perceptions pre-school educators have of the concept of autonomy as it relates

to early childhood education and in what ways, if any, they perceived autonomy was promoted

in their classroom.

Data analysis typically involves the following steps (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995):

1. Organization of details about the study--The specific “facts” about the study
are arranged in a logical order
2. Categorization of data--Categories are identified that can help cluster the
data into meaningful groups
3. Interpretation of single instances--Specific documents, occurrences and other
bits of data are examined for the specific meanings that they might have in
relation to the case
4. Identification of patterns--The data and their interpretations are scrutinized
for underlying themes and other patterns that characterize the study more
broadly than a single piece of information can reveal
5. Synthesis and generalizations--An overall portrait of the study is constructed

Ten pre-school teachers participated in interviews and their verbal responses were

recorded digitally on a recorder and notes were also written in a data collection journal. (See

Appendix A for the interview questions) The time frame was four months from when teachers

67
agreed to participate; interviews were completed, transcribed and verified for accuracy by the

participants.

The semi-structured interviews were systematically organized to increase understanding

and to help prepare to categorize the data by characteristics that the data suggested. While

interpreting the data the researcher was careful to present a complete and unbiased account of

the case. Categories were defined by highlighting each theme with a different colored

highlighter. Each transcript contained common codes that were grouped together in a table

and organized in an outline form by theme, sub-theme, common codes, and data. Next, the

researcher cut and pasted the participants’ words under each corresponding theme. Once

completed, the researcher looked for emerging trends and common themes, such as what

understanding teachers have of autonomy, how their answers compared and contrasted with

current literature, the differences between what they learned and what they actually do in the

classroom, and what constraints they deal with. Overall, the researcher wanted to report the

key ideas, as well as the commonalities and differences reported during the interviews and was

open to any information that might emerge during the analysis. The final step was to use all of

the data and form a collective summary to present all of the research in a clear and concise

format.

Data gained from the ten female early pre-school teachers assisted the researcher in

understanding the educators’ concepts. The individual information about each teacher is

provided in Table 4.1.

68
Table 4.1: Education Level and Experience of Teachers

Teacher Education Level Experience

One Bachelor in ECE Lead teacher for 3 years

Two Associates in ECE Lead teacher for 1 year

Three Associates in ECE Lead teacher for 1 year

Four Associates in ECE Lead teacher for 2 years

Five Associates in ECE Lead teacher for 1 year

Six Associates in ECE Lead teacher for 1 year

Seven Bachelor in ECE Lead teacher for 3 years

Eight Bachelor in ECE Lead teacher for 3 years

Nine Associates in ECE Lead teacher for 3 years

Ten Associates in ECE Lead teacher for 2 years

In order to address the research questions, data were gathered through semi-structured

interviews conducted with the teachers chosen to be part of this study. The interviews were

recorded and transcribed. The interviews with the pre-school educators included the following

questions:

1. What is your definition of autonomy?

2. How do you promote autonomy in the classroom?

a. Struggles?
b. Successes/Strengths?

3. How do you provide an autonomy supportive environment?

4. How do you feel about offering choices to children?

a. What types of choices do you offer?

69
 b. When do you offer children choices?

5. How do you feel about rewards/punishment versus intrinsic motivation?

6. What types of classroom management do you use?

a. What seems to be the most effective?
b. What seems to be the least effective?

7. What are your more challenging times of the day and why (in regards to promoting
autonomy in children)?

8. Any differences in what you actually do versus what you learned in class?

9. How do you help children:

a. Attend to a task
b. Comply
c. Learn decision making skills
d. Feel empowered
e. Redirect their behavior and learn impulse control
f. Establish and maintain self-control

10. Anything else you would like to add?

Informal conversations were written in the data collection journal during the conversations

according to the comfort level of the participants. Each interview lasted between one and two

hours. All participants were given a copy of their own transcript to review and none believed

her transcript needed altering because they agreed with the accuracy of the typed

documentation by a verbal response.

Description and Categorization of Data Collected

To categorize the data, all the typed interview questions and responses were copied.

Next the information was cut and pasted to place each participant’s answer under each

designated question. Finally, journal notes were used to affirm the verified transcribed

70
documentation. With this information, commonalities and emergent themes within the data

were deciphered.

Research Question Number One: The first research question, “What perceptions do

pre-school educators have of the concept of autonomy as it relates to early childhood

education?” was to gather information about the pre-school teachers’ definition of autonomy.

The teachers brought up Erik Erikson and his stages of development: Toddler / Early Childhood

Years: 18 Months to 3 Years, Autonomy vs. Shame – Will. The second stage occurs between 18

months and 3 years. At this point, the child has an opportunity to build self-esteem and

autonomy as he or she learns new skills and right from wrong. The well-cared for child is sure

of himself, carrying himself with pride rather than shame. During this time of the “terrible

twos,” defiance, temper tantrums, and stubbornness can also appear. Children tend to be

vulnerable during this stage, sometimes feeling shame and low self-esteem during an inability

to learn certain skills (Gonzalez-Mena, J. & Eyer, D., 2015).

The key words which emerged were independence, freedom, and choice when

answering this question. An exact quotation from each teacher is listed below in table 4.2. Of

the 10 teachers interviewed, independence occurred 70%, freedom 40% and choice 30% during

their spoken definition.

71
Table 4.2: Teachers Definition of Autonomy

Teacher Definition of autonomy

One Independence and choice making
Two Freedom and doing things your own way
Three The ability to work independent of oversight
Four Independence of one’s own thought or actions
Five Experiencing being independent of your thoughts or actions
Six Sense of individualism and observing the developmental process in
children – their freedom, goals, ideas and reasoning
Seven Individualism and having the freedom of choice and decision making
Eight Learning how to be independent and doing things on your own;
thinking for themselves
Nine Giving the children freedom of choice and providing them with
independence to learn through play and socializing
Ten Independence and self-direction

Research Question Number Two: “In what ways if any do Pre-School Educators perceive

they promote autonomy in the classroom?” Interview questions 2-10 address research

question number 2.

The second interview question was, “How do you promote autonomy in the

classroom?” One of the commonalities among teachers was promoting self-help skills in the

classroom such as handwashing, teeth brushing, serving food, pouring milk, cutting food,

putting on coats and shoes, and placing of learning materials for self-selection. Teachers also

stated having a predictable daily routine so the children knew what to expect is a valuable tool.

They also posted the daily schedule with pictures and words at eye-level to help the children

with transitioning between activities. Providing a safe environment was the third similarity; the

teachers stated that this allowed the children to be able to feel at home and safely explore the

classroom while promoting independence. A quote from each teacher is listed below in table

4.3.

72
Table 4.3: How Teachers Promote Autonomy in Their Classroom
Teacher How do you promote autonomy in the classroom?

One Allow children to make their own choices about what activity they can
do or in what order we arrange our day.
Two I love giving children many options. We have several kinds of toys out,
several books on many different topics and many different materials
available.
Three Allowing children to work on self-help skills and showing interest in
their creations.
Four Providing a safe environment.
Five Allowing children to do things on their own and promoting critical
thinking skills by asking, “How did you get…?”
Six I allow them to create ideas through the materials provided for them.
They can express creativity through art, science, blocks and dramatic
play.
Seven I give many opportunities throughout the day to allow children to
explore, have choices and make decisions.
Eight Put things at the child’s level; encourage them to make their own
choices in the classroom based on interest and comfort. Be a guide to
the child(ren) and provide them with plenty of time for activities at
their own pace.
Nine I feel we promote autonomy by allowing the children to guide our
lessons. If they are interested in volcanoes, we provide them with
facts, books, and experiments showing volcanoes.
Ten Show children how to do things on their own by facilitating self-help
skills and daily routines rather than “band-aiding”.

The follow up question asked the teachers what struggles they have with promoting

autonomy in their own classrooms. They agreed it took precious time out of the daily

schedule and dedication to teach children the classroom routines, but the outcome was

worth the effort. Helping children adjust to the guidelines and routines of the classroom is

a time-consuming process when completed the correct way. Teachers need to be

consistent and follow through with the policies and procedures at all times, while being

patient to allow the children time to practice and learn. An additional challenge the

73
participants mentioned encountering was children registering in the middle of the year,

after the currently enrolled children in the classroom were already into a routine.

At times, getting the parents on board could be a struggle. Many parents continued

to do everything for the child at home and expected the teacher to do the same thing at

school, instead of encouraging the child to try for herself or himself. Because children are

not accustomed to being granted autonomy, they sometimes struggle with the freedom of

making their own choices, especially when options are first introduced. This has led to

behavioral problems and destructive play with the classroom materials such as dress-up

clothes, cars and dolls. According to the journal entries, participants realized during their

teaching careers the importance of only giving two positive choices and limiting the amount

of materials available for self-selection to alleviate the aforementioned problem.

Even though some of the teachers interviewed stated that they know allowing

children time to problem solve is best practice, they struggle with the time to provide this

opportunity, as well as with assuring the children’s self-worth is not hindered when a child

cannot accomplish a task. Some teachers admitted it is often easier to do things themselves

when in a time crunch; even though they realize allowing children the opportunity to

problem solve and try to complete the task on their own is best practice. Summarizing the

key struggles mentioned by the participants through the semi-structured interviews and

data collection journal:

1. The time necessary to teach routines

a. Sometimes it is easier for the teacher to complete the task on their own
i. Clean-up time
ii. Putting on coat
iii. Pouring milk
2. The expectations parents have as their child enters pre-school

74
 a. They have the perception that their child does not have the ability to
complete tasks on their own
i. Eating
ii. Dressing
iii. Cleaning
3. Children who struggle with the freedom of choice
a. Impulsive behavior(s)
i. Not staying on task
b. Not understanding they need to be responsible for their actions and
choices
c. Not wanting to follow through on the choice they made

Table 4.4 contains a quotation from each teacher interviewed to support the data analysis

process.

Table 4.4: Teachers Reported Struggles in Their Classroom

Teacher Struggles in classroom
One Sometimes they all want to so the same activity. With so few
students it is hard to tell them to go back to activities they first
choose. They sometimes stray from the choices that are set out
for them.
Two I have more problems when I give children too many choices or
freedom. Children start rough playing with toys or using them in
inappropriate ways.
Three Autonomy for younger children can result in a chaos that is unsafe
for classmates.
Four Children making unsafe decisions or choices.
Five Having children make their own decisions that are good.
Six Even though children are given the sense of freedom through
expressing and creating of ideas, they still need to be instructed to
what is right and wrong. The children sometimes get frustrated or
irritated and their behavior can become rebellious.
Seven I have difficulty having an autonomous classroom during
transitions. Also, classroom management when I have difficult or
challenging children or even new children when trying to establish
behavior norms.
Eight I’ve had some children who are used to having an adult want to do
everything for them, which makes it harder for the teachers trying
to help the children succeed in becoming independent and
developing autonomy.

75
Table 4.4 Continued

Teacher Struggles in classroom

Nine Sometimes it can be hard to ensure this happens due to time
constraints, attendance and the continuity of the parents. This
results in not having a huge amount of time to spend on building
upon their knowledge, experiences and interests.
Ten At the beginning of the year setting up the routines and teaching
children what to expect and how to complete tasks can be a little
hectic but the results are worth it. New children coming in late in
the year and needing to catch them up and talking with parents at
that point of the year to get them on the same track as teachers.

The teachers also shared their successes and strengths in promoting autonomy in their

classrooms. In reviewing the data collection journal, it appears that all teachers agreed it is

fascinating to watch the children learn new skills or build on current skills and begin to do

things for themselves. Because children are encouraged to work on self-help skills, all ten of

participants have observed children learning from each other, such as the process of how to tie

their own shoes. Teachers who see a child struggling often have another child assist instead of

stepping in themselves which builds self confidence in the accomplished child. Another

emergent theme was the teachers’ success with time management. Once the children learned

the routines and gained new skills, the day flowed smoother. The teachers were able to focus

more on academics and less on behavior issues. Discussing classroom rules as a group and

having the children come up with what is safe and unsafe and why, was another strength

mentioned. This practice allows the children to take ownership of their own behavior and

establish the rules to govern the classroom.

In summary, the teachers’ most significant perceived strength or shared success was the

benefits of allowing children to have choices in their classroom. Providing the children choices

76
in a safe environment resulted in improved behavior, and children taking ownership of the

classroom while being accountable for their actions. Additionally, self-regulation was

developed and strengthened in the individual children. Below in table 4.5 are quotations from

the ten teachers to highlight their perceived successes and strengths in the classroom when

promoting autonomy.

Table 4.5: The Shared Success and Strengths From the Teachers in Promoting Autonomy

Teacher Successes/ Strengths

One The children are able to self-govern and regulate what and who
they play with.
Two If I change out the toys every so often and give children 3 center
options, they play nicely for an extended period.
Three Students learn best when they have choice over what they are
learning and doing; it ensures they are engaging in the project.
Four My strength is offering choices to children.
Five Offering children choices and having them evaluate their work is
successful.
Six Promoting autonomy in my classroom gives children the sense of
growing and developing character. It allows them to think for
themselves through different skills.
Seven By giving the children more opportunities of free choice and
decision making in the classroom, the children experience a sense
of belonging in our class family.
Eight I’ve had some children who love to do things on their own time
because it helps develop positive self-esteem in the child knowing
they can do things for themselves. I’ve even had children who
insist on doing things for themselves and don’t want adult’s help.
Nine I love when we build upon the class ideas, interests, and abilities,
showing them that we are interested in what they are. This helps
their sense of autonomy to grow, which in turn will help with their
independence and self-esteem.
Ten Teaching the children how to get assistance with tasks and how to
complete them on their own pays off greatly. With 20 children
putting coats on for example, by the end of the year your wait time
to line up and go outside significantly lessens. Teachers give fewer
reminders and students have a sense of accomplishment.

77
 The third question asked the teachers to discuss how they provide an autonomy-

supportive environment. The themes throughout this question were: providing choices,

providing accessibility with materials, and teacher availability. Some other commonalities

mentioned were structuring lesson planning to promote child independence and having

materials available to promote each child’s ability level, thereby creating success for each child.

Seven teachers reported a beneficial environment was created by providing child-sized tables

and chairs (so the children could get in and out of them on their own) as well as materials at

their level (so they can access what they want). All 10 teachers concurred that offering choices

such as what center to play in, what materials to use, what they want to eat, who they want to

play with, how they want to clean up was beneficial. Additionally, the importance of allowing

children to make their own choices was reported by all 10 teachers to encourage autonomy

over maintaining a restrictive environment, and the importance of offering choices was the

overall common theme that emerged through the semi-structured interviews.

According to Teacher 7, “By giving the children more opportunities of free choice and

decision making in the classroom, the children experienced a sense of belonging in our class

family.” Her example given was pertaining to allowing the children to have ownership of the

lesson planning and activities. “Although ‘camping’ was the original theme of the week, the

children asked many questions about snakes and bears. I was able to pull books, images,

materials and puppets to expand on these interests. We discussed characteristics of each, did a

compare and contrast activity, and completed charts of who liked bears and who liked snakes.

Engagement was high and conversation was rich among the children.” Table 4.6 below

78
contains a quotation from each teacher on the topic of how they provide an environment to

support student autonomy.

Table 4.6: How Teachers Provide an Autonomy Supportive Environment

Teacher How do you provide an autonomy supportive environment?

One I give the children enough choices that they can decide what
activities they want and I am present so the children feel they
can ask questions.
Two I offer choices and ask open-ended questions. I constantly
encourage children to play together, do things for them to
master a new skill and answer questions based on what they
think will happen.
Three I place a variety of toys at eye-level to allow the child to make
choices and make sure they can open the containers.
Four I allow them to make their own choices.
Five I place the materials at eye-level so the children may help
themselves and choose what they want.
Six I allow choice for the children to build, create, paint and draw
with the available materials.
Seven By having a variety of materials and activities readily available
to choose from. I use the children’s discussions and interests
to guide the lessons and activities.
Eight I make sure things are at the children’s levels (scissors, paper,
crayons, books, etc.) Encourage children when it comes to
being independent and offer your support when they might
need it. Offer positive choices so children feel they have some
control.
Nine I provide an environment where children can be self-sufficient
by giving them choices. I provide them with at least two
choices so they are not forced to do something they have no
interest in. This has changed from when I was a young child, we
were not given “freedom of choices,” we were made to do
what the teacher had for us and that was it.
Ten I make tasks children are expected to do independently
accessible to children at all times and allow for choice. The
environment is friendly and supportive of tasks by encouraging
children to want to complete tasks on their own. Everything
says “You can do this”!

79
 The fourth question investigated how pre-school teachers feel about offering choices to

children. All 10 teachers agreed that offering choices to children is important because it

empowers the children; however, several teachers wanted to point out the difference between

expectations and choices in relation to having a balanced classroom. A related theme was that

by allowing children the opportunity to make choices at an early age, they can learn that the

choices they make can help or hurt others which is a valuable learning opportunity.

The fact that providing choices builds independence in the children was additionally

noted, as well as the significance of offering children two positive choices to allow them to

practice making decisions in a safe environment. Using a method of offering two positive

choices allows children to learn how to make decisions and stick with the decision they made,

helping them learn both responsibility and accountability. The teacher presents choices where

either choice the child could make would be acceptable. Examples given were, “do you want to

put the blue car away first or the red car?,” and “do you want to wash your hands in this sink or

that sink?” These types of choices allow children to be part of the decision making process

instead of always being told what to do. The child will ultimately still complete the requested

task, but they have the autonomy to decide how they will chose to attend to the request.

Quotations from each teacher are contained in table 4.7.

80
Table 4.7: How Teachers Feel About Offering Choices to Children
Teacher How do you feel about offering choices to children?
One I support giving children choices.
Two I strongly support offering choices to children. They learn more
through being offered choices. Children learn some crucial life
skills such as cause and effect.
Three I think it really empowers them and helps them engage in their
own learning. A child who chooses to be involved will be more
proud of his accomplishments and learning than one who had the
lesson designed for them.
Four I feel it is important because it allows them to have a say in what is
going to happen.
Five Great idea, because they can decide what they want.
Six I do not mind as long as it is a good balance and does not interfere
with the children being obedient and respectful.
Seven Choices are important learning opportunities throughout the day,
but a balance is needed by the teacher.
Eight I feel if children can have choices it will help develop autonomy
and positive self-esteem. It will also help in promoting decision
making skills when offered choices and thinking skills will also be
developed.
Nine I feel it is essential for children today, this generation seems to be
more “hands on type” learners and need different choices to
strengthen their current knowledge. Choices give them the
opportunity to decide on their own which will help them develop
self-worth, ownership, and accomplishment. This provides a
chance for them to feel they are a part of the decision making
process.
Ten There has to be a clearly defined line of what is expected and what
a choice is. Choices are imperative to learning in young children.

The follow up question asked of teachers was to investigate the types of choices

offered. Among all the teachers, the most commonly provided choice was allowing the child

the option of what interest center the children would like to play in during “open center time.”

Of the eight teachers, some allowed the child to wear a badge to pick in which center they

wanted to play. Others had children write their names in one of the four slots available for

each center and a few teachers had children place their photo in the available slot of the center

81
they chose. As availability opened up in the centers, children were able to switch. Allowing

children to choose what supplies they wanted to play with and what they wanted to eat and

drink were tied for the second most common allowance. Teachers provided opportunities for

children to pick colors of paper, crayons, or markers to use for their projects. The teachers also

allowed a variety of materials from which to choose, such as different types of blocks, balls or

baby dolls. During meal times, a family style or self-serve option was available with snack being

an option. Once at the table, children could choose milk or water, what foods they wanted to

eat, and their portion sizes, although they were always encouraged to try at least one fruit and

vegetable. Many teachers provided two different proteins for the child to choose from. A

choice of activities was third with some examples including if they wanted to play inside or

outside, what type of game they wanted to play, which puzzle they wanted to complete, or

what book they would like to read. Finally 4 of the 10 teachers offered the children the

opportunity to vote on what they wanted to learn. Based on what the children selected, the

teachers completed lesson plans around that theme for the week or month. The children had

the opportunity to expand their knowledge in areas which interested them.

Below is a circle graph (4.1) depicting the teachers’ answers of the different types of

choices offered and a diagram (4.2) displaying when choices are offered. Choices for what they

eat and drink were offered by 7 of the 10 participants; choices about what activities are

available were offered by 6 of the 10; 8 of the 10 gave the children an option to choose what

center they played in; 7 of the 10 allowed the children to choose what materials and supplies

they could use; and 4 of the 10 asked the pre-school children what they would like to learn

about and then lesson planned around their interests.

82
 What the children want to learn

What supplies and materials the children

want to use

What center the children want to play in

What activites the children want to engage in

What the children want to eat or drink

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure 4.1: Types of Choices Offered to Children

Free
Time

When
choices are
offered

Meal Center
Times Time

Figure 4.2: When Teachers Offer Children Choices

83
 The fifth interview question asked of the pre-school teachers was how they felt about

using rewards and punishments versus intrinsic motivation with the children in their classroom.

The major concern reported with rewards and punishments was the issue that parents tend to

overuse them, which has caused children to become immune to this type of motivation. Ninety

percent of the teachers agreed that children are typically not fazed by rewards or punishments

in the classroom, decreasing the effectiveness of rewards. The same 90% of the teachers

reported that rewards are not generally successful because the child only completes the task

for the reward. Teacher 9 believes in providing many opportunities for intrinsic motivation, by

showing children their accomplishments alone are rewarding enough, making a reward system

obsolete.

Quotations provided by the teachers are in table 4.8 below. Nine of the teachers spoke

highly about intrinsic motivation and the positive effects of this method; although one teacher

supports rewarding the children in her classroom because she feels as though it motivates her

students to do better. Conversely, the other nine teachers discussed why they value intrinsic

motivation. Reasons mentioned were that they want their students to choose the activities

because of the enjoyment of learning, inspiration, achievement and accomplishment to help

create lifelong learners.

84
Table 4.8: How Teachers Feel About Rewards and Punishments Instead of Intrinsic Motivation

Teacher How do you feel about rewards/punishments instead of intrinsic

motivation?
One In my classroom I value intrinsic motivation. I appreciate that my
children pick activities they enjoy doing not because they are
going to be rewarded for it.
Two I do not believe in rewards, some things are not a choice, they are
a must. If a child does not want to make a good choice, I
encourage them to make a good choice.
Three Intrinsic motivation is best for creating lifelong learners!
Four I like rewards/punishment, but recently I have noticed that it can
make it harder for children to be intrinsically motivated if they are
always rewarded for their actions.
Five Rewarding them usually motivates them to do better.
Six I think rewards and punishments are okay if done in balance. I
believe intrinsic motivation is better because it comes from
within; it is striving to be competent and rewarding oneself
inwardly. Children learn to be more self-disciplined.
Seven I believe children will value their learning environment if they are
invested in the subject matter. I am not against rewards in order
to build self-esteem and to be proud of their hard work, as long as
they are not being rewarded (or punished) for completing a task
that does not inspire and feels like a chore.
Eight I prefer intrinsic motivation over rewards/punishment because it’s
something the child is doing out of enjoyment rather than being
forced to do. If you give rewards for something that is already
being enjoyed by a child then the motivation and enjoyment for
something is taken away.
Nine During my teaching career, in ECE, I have seen the positive effects
of intrinsic motivation. When a child I have worked with has
completed a task I get to see the joy it has brought to him. This
was so rewarding for me that I know they had to feel
accomplished and successful! I think it is the best way to teach
children, to motivate them and to keep them engaged in the
current task, knowing the joy they receive from their
accomplishments.
Ten Intrinsic motivation gives the child a lasting sense of
accomplishment that will stay with them and encourage them in
the future. Rewards/punishment are immediate and will not
imbed in a child’s psyche like intrinsic motivation.

85
 The sixth question investigated what type of classroom management the teachers use

and what they perceived to be the most effective and least effective techniques with the

children. The effective classroom management techniques the pre-school teachers reported

using were:

 Redirection

 Conscious Discipline

 Project Construct

Within these systems, teachers discussed offering choices; promoting independence and

autonomy; having predictable schedules for the children, maintaining clearly defined

expectations; providing consistency; and being respectful to the children. Furthermore,

teachers discussed the importance of frequent review of expectations and guidelines, while

assisting the children as needed with problem solving and social skills. Demonstrating patience

and staying calm while interacting with the children were also mentioned as beneficial.

Referencing the schedule, it was stated that starting with a clearly defined schedule

allows children to know what to expect. Consistency is important with routine, rules and

expectations. Rules are made as a group and the reasons for the rules are defined by the

children in a class meeting. These are then posted at eye level. Project Construct teaches that

children need the opportunity to help establish rules and limits that are consistent, reasonable,

clear, and have logical consequences, while also emphasizing children are treated with respect

and all children are created equally. Redirection is also used in this approach, as well as

discussion of conflicts and allowing the children to come up with resolutions.

86
 Redirection is used when a child needs to have another option by helping them discover

an alternate solution to the problem. This allows for autonomy and choice making. Children

talk their way through situations while problem solving and being supported with active

teacher dialogue. When discussing Conscious Discipline, several examples were brought up,

such as staying positive by stating exactly what you want the child to do, and practicing

breathing techniques, including the “balloon” and the “pretzel”.

According to the participants, the “most effective” classroom management strategies

were promoting comradery and working together in a team atmosphere while building a

community of learners, as well as talking with the children and explaining instead of only telling

them what to do, along with allowing them to have a voice and make choices. Helping children

understand the choices they make and the consequences that follow is effective.

Understanding the feelings of others helps children to be active members of the classroom

community while simultaneously allowing them to be part of the solution. A few teachers

mentioned the importance of both parents and classroom volunteers understanding Conscious

Discipline and also implementing the technique with the children.

All 10 pre-school teachers agreed the least effective type of classroom management

appeared to be “negative discipline.” Teachers found this demeaning and harmful to the self-

worth in children. Examples were saying “no,” placing a child in time out, getting upset, yelling,

threatening, removing choices, changing routines, and telling children what to do without

guidance.

Question seven was “What are your more challenging times of the day and why?” The

general consensus was “circle-time,” transitions, clean-up, line-up, mealtimes, and naptime.

87
“Circle time” was mentioned because it is more structured and a teacher-led activity. The

typical expectation during “circle time” is all children will join, sit down and listen; this can take

away the child’s choice because the teacher is telling them what to do. Additionally, teachers

stated that transitions are more teacher directive for the children, typically again taking away

choices for children. Transitions were found to be easier when the children were divided up

into small groups instead of one large group. Even though clean up time was considered a

challenging part of the day, some teachers used modeling and games to encourage the children

to pick up the toys. Teacher 2 stated that “mealtimes were difficult because the children serve

themselves and do not understand their classmates need food too. The children either take too

much food or forget to pass the food once they have taken their portion.” Finally, teachers

stated that nap time was challenging because the children were being forced to nap or lay on

their cots without any other choice. To help make these times of the days less stressful,

Teacher 7 stated that she “thinks offering additional choices for transitions, clean up time, circle

time and meal times would be beneficial.” Similarly, Teacher 3 noticed when she began to give

the children some ownership of these challenging situations, children became more compliant.

For example, she gave then children the choice of what doll to put away first, what fidget toy at

circle time, if they wanted to line up with their hands to their sides or on their head, and if they

wanted to read a book or listen to music on their cots.

Question eight asked the teachers if there were any differences between what they

actually do in their pre-school classroom verses what they learned in their ECE classes.

Teachers agreed that they say “no” more than they should instead of stating what they want

the children to do. They know they should use “positive talk” versus “negative talk,” meaning

88
they need to tell the child what they want them to do instead of what they do not want them

to do. They stated habits were hard to break, especially when they are busy dealing with

multiple children in the classroom. Teacher 3 stated sometimes she cannot think in the

moment and that causes her to over react or react incorrectly. Teacher 8 expressed that she

uses all of the information learned in class, but needs to make adjustments based on the needs

of the children served. She noted that sometimes what works for one child does not work for

the next child, referencing that having multiple tools is helpful so she can keep trying different

methods until she discovers what works for each individual child. Teacher 7 agreed that not all

methods are realistic in her classroom. Teacher 10 confessed that when she is rushed she finds

herself completing “self-help skills” for the children instead of allowing them the opportunity to

discover and learn for themselves by practicing “Self-help skills” on their own.

Question nine included several questions aimed at learning how pre-school teachers

perceived they intervene and empower children in the classroom in direct relationship to how

they promote autonomy. Teachers stated they help children attend to tasks by having the

necessary materials available; maintaining predictable routines; first allowing the child to try on

his or her own, and then either offering up their own assistance or another child’s expertise as

needed. Additionally, all 10 teachers are always providing encouragement along the way. In

table 4.9 below are the specific sample quotations recorded by the teachers.

89
Table 4.9: How Teachers Help Children Attend to a Task
Teacher How do you help children attend to a task?
One I let them do it on their own until they ask for help or have the
potential to hurt themselves.
Two I will try to sit alongside the child and talk to them, guide the
child in the task, or simply keep them going so they can follow
through with the task.
Three Talk about it with them and redirect.
Four Show and help them as needed.
Five If I see someone struggling I will approach them and offer
assistance or ask another child to help them.
Six I observe and make sure they are working and playing well
together.
Seven As a whole group at clean up time, it is an established norm.
Otherwise, we would ask for volunteers. The children are
always eager to help.
Eight Offer to help with the task or work together with a friend. Find
something to make the task fun so they like doing it.
Nine Repetition and routine is key especially in ECE. Take a three
year old who has never been in a program before…they are
used to their parents doing everything for them. We teach
them through routine/repetition how to “attend to a task.”
Ten Songs, attention getting sentences/questions, proper materials
to complete tasks, including the child as much as possible and
giving prompts if needed.

Teachers help children comply by giving them gentle reminders, using redirection,

allowing opportunities to make choices, talking calmly at their eye-level, providing routines and

repetition so they consistently know what to expect, and giving them one specific direction at a

time. Relevant quotations from each teacher on how they help children comply are included in

table 4.10 below.

90
Table 4.10: How Teachers Help Children Comply in the Classroom
Teacher How do you help children comply?
One Remind them of what they should be doing and talk about making
good choices.
Two I get down on the child’s eye level, and gently ask them to please
help in doing something. Whenever possible, I try to give the child
up to three choices and that usually gets a child to respond and
even more excited about what they are doing.
Three Offer two different ways to do the designed task, provide choices.
Four Giving two positive choices for them to choose from.
Five Work with them and a lot of patience.
Six Speak calmly and give them a choice.
Seven I use other children’s positive actions when complying and
acknowledge that for motivation.
Eight Tell the child what it is you want them to do. It’s okay to be firm,
but calm. Make sure to give one direction at a time when telling
them what to do.
Nine We help our children “comply” through routine and repetition.
Through repetition children learn classroom agreements or rules
which in turn they begin to learn how the classroom is run.
Ten Songs, redirection, attention getters (clapping), consistency and
reminders.

One-hundred percent of the teachers replied that they try to offer simple choices to

allow the children to practice making decisions in a safe environment. They also offer guidance

to help them talk through their options and learn the difference between a good choice and a

bad choice. Relevant, sample quotations from all of the participants are contained in table

4.11.

91
Table 4.11: How Teachers Help Children Learn Decision Making Skills
Teacher How do you help children learn decision making skills?
One Express to them what the outcome of their choices would be, to be
able to help them figure out which choice they would like better in
the long run.
Two When children are trying to make decisions or may be faced with a
decision, I try to talk them through the situation. I will ask things
like what do you think will happen? And how do you think that will
work/help?
Three Offer simple choices and talk them through problem-solving.
Four Discuss with the children right from wrong.
Five Practice with them to learn how to make good choices and what
the consequences would be.
Six Allow them to make their own decisions.
Seven Use open-ended questioning.
Eight Offer choices to the children and only two at a time. Make sure
they are positive and developmentally appropriate for the children.
Be calm, there are some things children will need help with so offer
support so they can come to you for help when needed.
Nine Our children learn to make decisions through their freedom of
choice. Giving them the opportunity to make their own decisions is
building on their autonomy.
Ten Giving choices, explaining and discussing consequences and asking
what might happen if? Facilitating critical thinking trial and
error/experimentation with the children.

The next question was in reference to how the teachers perceived they help children

feel empowered. The information contained in the data collection journal confirmed all

teachers interviewed believe they empower children when speaking words of affirmation to

provide encouragement and support, such as “Way to go!” or You can do it!” Offering physical

touch in the way of high fives and hugs is another technique they find beneficial. Quotations

from each teacher are listed in table 4.12 below.

92
Table 4.12: How Teachers Help Children Feel Empowered
Teacher How do you help children feel empowered?

One Give them the support they need.

Two When children get excited, I get excited. If a child builds
something they worked hard on, I will give them a hug, high-
five, and show I’m excited too. When trying a new task I will
say you can do it, I believe in you; and talk them through how
to do the task if necessary.
Three Encourage them in self-help skills and problem-solving as
needed.
Four I say, “I am so proud of you, you are working very hard”.
Five I provide comfort to the child, get down on their eye level and
provide hugs as needed.
Six Help them feel like they are doing an important project by
providing a sense of value.
Seven Acknowledge their hard work and achievements with specific
feedback.
Eight Acknowledge the child’s needs and let them know that it’s
okay for them to safely express whatever those needs might
be. Provide activities to help them build their self-esteem.
Make sure the child knows they are important and accepted.
Let them help out with activities and give them responsibility,
provide security for children and let them know they have
people they can trust.
Nine They feel empowered by giving them the freedom of choice,
they feel empowered by accomplishing a task and getting the
“reward” of knowing they did that project, or they built that
structure… this helps the children feel empowered and
successful.
Ten Teach self-help skills and allow them to achieve a sense of
accomplishments.

Teachers help children redirect their behavior and learn impulse control by establishing

partnerships with them. Giving gentle reminders, such as “Use your words,” and “Walking feet”

also was an effective use of terms with the children. Allowing the child time to cool off with a

“safe house,” “stomping square” and stress ball, and then taking time to reflect on their

behavior choice was another useful tool. A “safe house” is a place children can go to be alone

93
and a “stomping square” is an area in the classroom where they can stomp, kick or jump out

their frustrations or extra energy. The teachers teach the difference between a good choice

and bad choice to allow the children to begin taking ownership and learning how to control

their own behavior. One teacher encourages the child to look at their face in the mirror, so the

child becomes more attentive and can focus. Statements from each of the ten teachers are

contained in table 4.13.

Table 4.13: How Teachers Help Children Redirect Their Own Behavior and Learn Impulse
Control
Teacher How do you help children redirect their behavior and learn
impulse control?
One Ask them what the problem is and see what we can do
together to help.
Two When I notice a child about to get physical, I will remind them
to use their words. I will also remind them what could happen
and ask the child if that would be a good choice. As far as
redirecting, I find having the child do something else and revisit
the problem later is successful so we can talk through the
problem when they have calmed down.
Three I say, “Let’s see if we can build a tower together”.
Four Providing hugs and allowing the child to use a stress ball.
Five Getting down on their eye-level and having them look at me. I
also offer hugs as needed.
Six They can get demanding and start asking a lot of questions, I
try to convey patience and let them wait when a task is given.
Seven I give them choices until they make an acceptable decision.
Eight Give them something positive to do with the behavior, instead
of kicking something they could kick a ball.
Nine Redirection plays a major role in our center’s curriculum.
Redirection helps the children learn these are more choices
and they can learn to compromise with redirection. Self-control
is developed through the process of redirection.
Ten Talking with children about good choices and how choices
affect others in the end.

94
 With the goal of helping establish children establish and maintain self-control, teachers

stated they start with providing an orderly and well-functioning environment and then create

boundaries. Next, 4 of the 10 teachers offer various breathing techniques, one teacher

provides access to the safe house and one a stomping square, and two use redirection or

reminders. Ultimately all ten of the teachers stressed that they need to be respectful of the

children while they are learning self-control. Table 4.14 lists the opinions given from the

teachers interviewed.

Table 4.14: How Teachers Help Children Establish and Maintain Self-Control
Teacher How do you help children establish and maintain self-control?
One I ask them to breathe and calm their body.
Two I give them a choice to go to the safe house.
Three Deep breaths and other calm down techniques.
Four Encourage them to breathe and ask for advice.
Five Reassure them that they are doing well at staying calm and
telling them I like the way they are controlling their emotions.
Six Keep things in order and clean and provide a well-functioning
environment.
Seven Provide them with boundaries and encourage them to use the
stomping square as needed or provide other safe ways for
them to work through their emotions.
Eight Breathing techniques can be used. Having a teacher available
if children need extra help. Encourage children to use their
words when approaching a situation.
Nine Self-control is developed through the process of redirection
because in time they will be able to solve their own problems.
We have taught them the use of redirection, and they tend to
solve their situation and also become mediators for their peers.
Ten Respecting children and showing them limits and giving them
reminders as needed.

95
 Summary

In conclusion, when asked if they had anything else they wanted to add, teacher 8

observed that the “most important thing we can remember is that this is about children and

their needs, education and development-not ours- so giving them autonomy isn’t giving them

‘control’ or us ‘giving up control,’ it is essential to their learning.” Teacher 7 added, “I like to

encourage children to help each other rather than run right up to me unless I am absolutely

needed. I make sure I stand close and supervise, but only intervene when necessary.” Teacher

10 concluded “that choices are imperative to young learning because children need to know

their actions and voices matter and can create change and consequences, especially when

trying to foster a community of young learners who are self-sufficient and intrinsically

motivated. Children who are able to self-motivate and make good choices are better learners

and leaders in the future.”

Chapter Four presented details of the findings of this study. It began by introducing the

questions used in the individual teacher semi-structured interviews; followed by an overview of

the data collected, looking for similarities and differences. Thick, rich descriptions and direct

quotes were used to describe the participants’ views on autonomy. The ten teachers in this

study offered us a glimpse of what they perceived autonomy was and the various techniques

they use to promote autonomy among children in their classroom. Chapter Five follows and

will explain the findings and interpretations of this study.

96
 CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS

Chapter Five integrates and summarizes the data, describing relationships among the

categories exploring literature, theory and practice. The intent of this chapter is to present

findings, implications, and recommendations for subsequent leadership implementation and

actions, and to suggest studies for future research based on the results of the current study

(Creswell, 2004). The purpose of this study was to discover what perceptions pre-school

educators have of the concept of autonomy as it relates to early childhood education and in

what ways they perceive autonomy is promoted in their mixed-age classrooms. The study

sought to answer the research questions: First, “What perceptions do pre-school educators

have of the concept of autonomy as it relates to early childhood education?” Secondly, “In

what ways, if any, do pre-school educators perceive they promote autonomy in a multi-age

classroom?”

Creswell (2007) discussed the “spiral of analysis,” where he detailed the various

iterations of qualitative research. He began with the gathering of data, then moved into data

management, which is followed by the importance of writing, reading, reflecting, and memoing,

then on to the art of describing, classifying, interpreting, categorizing, and comparing, and

finally, to representing and visualizing the data. Figure 5.1 depicts this spiral graphically.

97
Figure 5.1: Spiral of Analysis

Major Findings

Five major themes were discovered after analyzing the data from the interviews and

data collection journal: the definition of autonomy according to the participants and the

researchers; the learning environment; classroom management techniques; intrinsic motivation

versus rewards and punishment; and offering children choices. This assisted in answering the

two research questions presented earlier in the clapper. All of these topics relate to fostering

autonomy in the classroom for pre-school children and the themes will be expanded on in the

sections to follow.

Discussion

Research Question Number One: “What perceptions do pre-school educators have of

the concept of autonomy as it relates to early childhood education?”

Definition of Autonomy. The participants in this study shared their own definitions of

autonomy within the context of the early childhood environment. Overall, every teacher

mentioned either the words “independence,” “freedom” or “choice.” Self-governance--

98
socially, morally and intellectually--in the context of relationships with others was not discussed

during the interviews. How the individual teachers perceive they promote autonomy will be

discussed throughout Chapter 5.

In Piaget’s (1965) theory, autonomy means the ability to think for oneself and to

decide between right and wrong in the moral realm, and between truth and untruth in the

intellectual realm, by taking relevant factors into account, independently of reward and

punishment. This use of the term “autonomy” is different from common usage, where it means

the right to make decisions. Autonomy in the Piagetian sense refers to the ability to govern

oneself. It is the opposite of heteronomy, which means governed by someone else (Kamii,

Clark, & Dominick, 1994). According to Kamii et al. (1994), autonomy is defined in the exact

same terms as Piaget, where it refers to having the ability to:

*Think for oneself

*Decide between right and wrong

*Decide between truth and untruth using one’s own experiences and knowledge

*Make decisions independently of rewards and punishments

Similarly, Grolnick and Seal (2007) described autonomy as “a sense of volition….the

opposite of feeling controlled by someone else” (p. 132). Deci and Ryan (1987) defined

autonomy as “action that is chosen; action for which one is responsible” (p. 1025). Autonomy

characteristics tend to promote, whereas heteronomy tends to retard, the child’s construction

of knowledge or morality. Autonomy, mutual respect and empowerment are the goals of the

constructivist classroom (Fosnot, 2005), and educators agree that autonomy promotes

children’s development and heteronomy obstructs it (DeVries & Zan, 1994). If adults do not

99
overuse their authority, children naturally evolve toward autonomous thinking. Although

young children are not yet developmentally or emotionally capable of being autonomous, this

does not invalidate supporting all children in the process of learning and developing the

attitudes and abilities they will need to become self-regulating as adults (Palmer & Wehmeyer,

2003).

The teachers appear to have an understanding of autonomy that aligns with current ECE

research, but not a robust one. A majority of the teachers did mention that children need to

have the opportunity to think for themselves and make choices; however, they did not mention

that the children also need to be able both to make the morally correct choice solely because of

their intrinsic desire to do so and be responsible for their actions. This brings up an interesting

argument: How can a child be expected to be autonomous if the teachers do not completely

understand the definition of autonomy themselves? Kohn (1993b) stated that even if,

“controlling structures do not literally remove options from teachers, they may create a climate

in which teachers do to children what is done to them” (p. 14). Research concurs that highly

controlling schools may leave teachers very few choices for themselves. Teacher preparation

should include knowledge and practical guidance on how to support student autonomy in the

pre-school classroom through offering choice, encouraging self-initiation, minimizing the use of

controls, providing relevance, and acknowledging others’ perspectives (Deci, Nezlek, &

Sheinman, 1981; Deci & Ryan, 1987; Grolnick, Deci & Ryan, 1997; Reeve & Jang, 2006; Reeve,

Jan, Carrell, Soohyun, & Barch, 2004; Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

100
 In summary, the data collected here are the results for the first research question

regarding the perceptions of pre-school educators’ concepts of autonomy and its relationship

to early childhood education. The participants agreed that the children in their classrooms are

building self-esteem, new skills and learning to differentiate right from wrong. Therefore, they

reported their overall definition of autonomy as offering the children independence, freedom

and choices in their mixed age pre-school classroom.

Research Question Number Two: “In what ways, if any, do pre-school educators

perceive they promote autonomy in a multi-age classroom?”

The learning environment in relationship to fostering autonomy. Collectively, the

participating pre-school teachers promoted an autonomy-supportive learning environment to

aid the students in developing the ability to decide between right and wrong. Kamii et al.

(1994) found that learning to be self-directed while taking into account how your actions affect

yourself and others is what all teachers should be striving for. Moreover, teachers’ use of

autonomy as a guide to help structure the rhythm of their classrooms and give direction to their

interactions with their students is research supported (DeVries & Zan, 1994; Fosnot, 2005;

Grolnick & Ryan, 1987b; Kamii, 1984).

The teachers interviewed unanimously agreed that the environment they provide is

crucial to promoting autonomy in the mixed-age pre-school classroom. The following ideas

were mentioned collectively throughout the semi-structured interviews and the data collection

journal. Additionally the suggestions are all encouraged in the book, Developmentally

Appropriate Practice (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). A safe environment allows the children to

101
have an opportunity to express their choices, feelings and actions. The room arrangement and

traffic flow allow children to move comfortably through the classroom and work without

interruption or distraction. The classroom is divided up into well-defined interest and learning

centers to encourage exploration, play, and active learning through individual, small, and large-

group activities. The equipment should be child-sized and materials and props should be

readily accessible so children can be self-sufficient, while the learning materials are changed

and periodically added to, based on children’s interests and needs. Children have opportunities

to decide how to use materials, how much time to spend in one area, and when to change

activities. Through her ECE classes, Teacher 6 discovered that “everything should be hands-on

to help them develop their minds.” Moreover, Bruner (1961) supported these findings stating

that, teachers should create an environment where students can experience success and failure

not as a reward or punishment, but as information. See Figure (5.2) below which lists the

participants’ thoughts on how to best provide an autonomy supportive environment.

Socially safe environment

Room arrangement to allow children to move comfortably and work without

interruption

Child-sized equipment

Interest centers that allow chldren to decide how much time they want to spend in
the areas that contain "hands-on" and "minds-on" activities

Developmentally appropriate materials available for child selection

Materials and curriculum relevant and meaningful to children

Figure 5.2: Participants Ways to Provide an Autonomy-Supportive Environment

102
 In an autonomous environment, children are encouraged to solve their own problems

before consulting an adult and are provided opportunities to express their choices, feelings,

and actions, which is an important component in promoting autonomy (Grolnick & Pomerantz,

2009). Adults ask open-ended questions to support children’s efforts, stimulate new ideas, and

encourage divergent thinking, while also encouraging them to test their hypotheses, evaluate

their own learning, express their ideas, and initiate new learning experiences. The pre-school

teachers in this study agree that when they act as a mediator, to respond to inevitable

interpersonal conflicts as part of the curriculum, they help children take ownership of problems

and find solutions. (“See Figure 5.3.”)

Teachers ask open-ended questions

Teachers help children initiate new learning experiences

Teachers act as a mediator to help children take ownership of problems and

solutions

Teachers encourage children to solve their own problems

Figure 5.3: How Participating Pre-school Teachers Support Autonomy With Their Interactions

Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, and Turner (2004) examined the personal and

structural supports that teacher’s implement in practice to facilitate student autonomy. The

researchers distinguished among three levels of autonomy support: organizational, procedural,

103
and cognitive. Organizational autonomy support allowed students some decision-making in

terms of classroom management issues such as choosing group members, choosing seating

arrangements, and participating in creating classroom rules. Procedural autonomy support

referred to the choices offered to students regarding procedures such as choosing what

materials to use or choosing the way work will be displayed. Cognitive autonomy support

afforded students the opportunities of discussing a variety of strategies to a single problem,

justifying solutions for the purpose of sharing expertise, and having ample time for decision

making.

In the late 1990s, the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) was

developed to assess the degree to which a particular classroom’s environment is consistent

with a constructivist epistemology (Taylor, Fraser, & Fisher, 1997). According to Fraser (2002),

constructivists view learning as a cognitive process in which students make sense of the world

in relation to the knowledge which they already have constructed. Examples of some of the

CLES survey items include, “I help the teacher to decide what activities I do,” and “Other

students ask me to explain my ideas” (Fraser, 2002). Every teacher interviewed seemed to

agree with this constructivist perspective in mentioning how they incorporate children’s

perspectives into their learning environment. As teacher 7 stated, “[B]y having a variety of

materials and activities readily available, I use the children’s discussions and interests to guide

the lessons and activities.” Researchers have revealed that autonomy-supportive environments

encourage students to talk, question, and think in the classroom (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009;

DeVries & Zan, 1994; Kamii et al., 1994). These environments emphasize students’ thinking,

reasoning, decision making, and problem solving as suggested by the National Association for

104
the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP)

guidelines for best practice in the care and education of young children (Copple & Bredekamp,

2009).

The optimal environment for students is one that tends to be both structured and non-

controlling (Reeve & Assor, 2011). Teacher 9 remarked, “I provide an environment where

children can be self-sufficient by giving them choices. I provide them with at least two choices

so they are not forced to do something they have no interest in. This has changed from when I

was a young child; we were not given ‘freedom of choices.’ We were made to do what the

teacher had for us and that was it.” Teachers tend to agree that supporting autonomy in the

pre-school classroom should include providing structure alongside supporting choice-making

and other autonomy-supportive practices while providing predictable daily routines for the

children. The teachers gave children limits without undermining their sense of autonomy or

motivation. This helped the children feel safe to make decisions, change their mind, and learn

from their mistakes, all of which the literature agrees promotes autonomy.

Teacher 10 noted, “I make tasks the children are expected to do independently

accessible to children at all times. The environment is friendly and supportive of tasks by

encouraging children to want to complete tasks on their own. Everything says, ‘you can do

this.’” The autonomy-supportive classroom is not one where there is complete freedom, but

rather one in which there is appropriate structure. The determining factor in autonomy-

supportive versus autonomy-suppressive classrooms is not whether there are rules and

directives, but rather, the ways in which these structures are imposed and the extent to which

choices and autonomy are encouraged (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987b).

105
 Despite the teachers’ best efforts in the classroom, the home environment also affects

children’s behaviors. Teacher 8 observed that she struggled with this: “I’ve had some children

who are used to having an adult want to do everything for them, which makes it harder for the

teachers trying to help the children succeed in becoming independent and developing

autonomy.” This was also problematic for teacher 9, as she mentioned, “Sometimes it can be

hard to ensure this happens due to time constraints, attendance and the continuity of the

parents. This results in not having a huge amount of time to spend on building upon their

knowledge, experiences and interests.” Even though some of the teachers interviewed stated

they know allowing the children time to problem solve is best practice, they fail to consistently

provide children with this opportunity. Some teachers admitted it is often easier to do things

themselves when in a time crunch, even though they realize giving children the opportunity to

problem solve is best practice. Overall teachers try to help all children in their classrooms

develop autonomy by encouraging students to make decisions, helping students learn to

enforce their own rules, fostering intrinsic motivation, and encouraging children to exchange

viewpoints with others (Kamii et al., 1994).

Classroom management techniques to foster autonomy. Researchers have shown that

teacher-provided structure and teacher-provided autonomy both contribute constructively to

positive student outcomes as well as greater student engagement (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010).

Although a controlling style of teaching is most prevalent in today’s classrooms, the participants

in this study recognized the need to not overuse their authority so as to not impede children’s

natural evolution towards autonomous thinking (Reeve, 2009). Grolnick and Seal (2007)

concluded children could feel autonomous even when someone else is in charge and

106
recognized that some teachers may see this as contradictory. Teacher 8 elaborated on this idea

by stating how a calm and non-authoritative demeanor is advantageous:

Tell the child what it is you want them to do. It’s okay to be firm, but calm. Make sure
to give one direction at a time when telling them what to do. Offer choices to the
children and only two at a time. Make sure they are positive and developmentally
appropriate for the children. Be calm, there are some things they will need help with so
offer support so they can come to you for help when needed.

Current literature supports Teacher 8’s emphasis on maintaining a positive attitude and

environment, as this facilitates effective types of classroom management.

Indeed, in this study, participants agreed with the literature as they believe the most

effective types of classroom management are redirection, Conscious Discipline and Project

Construct. The Conscious Discipline Program teaches adults how to perceive daily conflict as

an opportunity for children to learn social and educational skills as opposed to viewing children

as a disruption to the educational process. Conscious Discipline educates teachers in how to

transform resistance into cooperation through the use of seven basic skills (Bailey, 2001), which

include Composure, Encouragement, Assertiveness, Choices, Empathy, Positive Intent and

Consequences.

The primary aim of the Project Construct approach is to help teachers foster the

development of each child as an autonomous individual. As children learn to make choices,

collaborate, and exchange ideas and feelings in a context of mutual respect in constructivist

classrooms, they expand and clarify their thinking. While improving their abilities to solve

problems, they learn to regulate their own behavior and ideas and, in the process, develop the

lifelong skill of autonomy. Teacher 9 stated, “I help the children ‘comply’ through routine and

107
repetition. Through repetition children learn classroom agreements, or rules, by which in turn

they begin to learn how the classroom is run. The children learn to make decisions through

their freedom of choice. Giving them the opportunity to make their own decisions is building

on their autonomy.” When children are a part of coming up with agreed upon classroom rules,

it leads to children taking ownership of their behavior and choices. Teacher 10 echoed these

thoughts by noting that she uses songs, redirection, attention getters (clapping), consistency

and reminders, as well as giving choices, explaining and discussing consequences and asking

what might happen “if.” Facilitating critical thinking and trial and error conversations with the

children are also a useful tools she uses to help children comply in the classroom.

The least effective types of classroom management according to the participants appear

to be “negative discipline.” Teachers found this demeaning and harmful to the self-worth of

children. Examples were saying “no,” placing a child in time out, getting upset, yelling,

threatening, removal of choices, changes in routines, and telling them what to do without

guiding them. Teacher 10 reiterated these thoughts while adding that “[N]ot honoring an

agreed consequence or resolution (is one of) the least effective types of discipline.” Although

participants admitted they learned in class that best practice is making positive specific

statements and always positively stating what the child should do, they still find themselves

saying “no” and what should not be done. For example, they might tell a child, “don’t run”

instead of “walk,” and “stop yelling” instead of saying “inside voices.” They declared some

habits are difficult to break, especially during busy times of the day and when overseeing

multiple children. Teacher 3 admitted, “Sometimes I cannot think in the moment and that

causes me to over react or react incorrectly.”

108
 It appears that certain habits are hard to break for teachers. Even though they have

been taught the “best practice” to use through their ECE classes, they are still struggling with

application in the classroom. Another explanation for the classroom management difficulties

teachers experience may be insufficient training during pre-service teacher education

(Caldarella, Page, & Gunter, 2012). McCann and colleagues (2005) surveyed 111 universities

and found that only 30% of teacher education programs offered courses specifically addressing

classroom management. Martin (2004) pointed out the need for more research on many of the

alternative approaches to classroom management using social and emotional learning.

Research offering direction and understanding in effective classroom management training for

teachers would have important implications for teacher retention (Smart & Igo, 2010) and

student learning, since classroom environments play such a fundamental role in children’s

learning (Stronge, Ward, Tucker, & Hindman, 2007).

Intrinsic motivation versus rewards and punishment to foster autonomy. Researchers

have identified specific teacher behaviors that provide autonomy support for young students

(Grolnick & Ryan, 1987a; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Soohyun, & Barch, 2004; Skinner & Belmont,

1993). These autonomy-supportive teacher behaviors included providing choice, encouraging

self-initiation, minimizing the use of controls, acknowledging others’ perspectives and feelings,

and clarifying the relevance of an activity. Autonomy-supportive teachers identify and nurture

students’ needs, interests, and preferences by creating classroom opportunities where students

can be self-determined in their learning (Deci & Ryan, 1987). Teacher 2 agreed, stating, “When

children get excited, I get excited. If a child builds something they worked hard on, I will give

them a hug, high-five, and show I’m excited too. When they are trying a new task I will say you

109
can do it, I believe in you, and talk them through how to do the task if necessary.” Grolnick and

Seal (2007) stated teachers who display autonomy-supportive behaviors are more likely to have

students who are more intrinsically motivated than students whose autonomy is suppressed.

Intrinsically motivated students also tend to be persistent and feel more competent (Grolnick &

Seal, 2007).

Piaget (1965) believed that adults reinforce children’s natural heteronomy when they

use rewards and punishments, thereby hindering the development of autonomy. By refraining

from using rewards and punishments, and by exchanging points of view with children instead,

adults can foster the development of autonomy. In acknowledging their hard work and

achievements with specific feedback, Teacher 7 aids children in building their intrinsic

motivation. Furthermore, Piaget’s research discovered how essential a warm human

relationship of mutual respect and affection between a child and adult is in developing moral

autonomy. Teacher 1 empowers children by providing support as needed. Many of the

teachers stated they give high fives, hugs and verbal encouragement after children complete a

task, much like Teacher 2. Teacher 8 provides activities to help them build their self-esteem,

while consistently letting them know both that they are important and accepted and that they

have people they can trust. Teacher 10 takes a similar approach by first teaching self-help skills

and then allowing children the time to practice these skills. She noted that this method “helps

children to achieve a sense of accomplishment each time they learn a new skill.” Although

controlling strategies are prevalent in classrooms today, there are autonomy-supporting

practices that teachers can learn to help develop autonomy in children, including allowing

110
students to make decisions, helping students learn to enforce their own rules, fostering intrinsic

motivation, and encouraging children to exchange viewpoints with others (Kamii et al., 1994).

One-hundred percent of the teachers interviewed agreed that ways of promoting

intrinsic motivation include understanding students’ perspectives in developing more

interesting curricular activities, providing choice, and ensuring that tasks are developmentally

challenging (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987a). Additionally, they believed that the opposite would be

punishment, which typically leads to calculation of risk, blind obedience and revolt. Along this

line, rewards instead of punishments are not any better at helping children become

autonomous individuals. The child who completes a task only to get a sticker or money is

governed by others just as much as the child who obeys only to avoid punishment (Kami, 1991).

Grolnick and Ryan (1987b) stated, “Supporting autonomy is not antithetical to limits; rather, it

implies a particular manner in which limits are conveyed” (p. 220). It has been argued that the

same set of limits could be communicated in either a controlling or non-controlling manner and

the limits expressed in a controlling manner would undermine intrinsic motivation, whereas the

latter would maintain or enhance it (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984). Teachers foster

the development of autonomy when they exchange viewpoints with the children, such as

teacher 2 who stated, “I try and talk them through the situation, asking things like ‘what do you

think will happen?’ and ‘how do you think that will work or help?’” Teacher 10 discussed

enabling children to take and consider other people’s feelings and rights into account, while

facilitating thinking with the children.

111
 Eight of the ten teachers interviewed agreed that promoting intrinsic motivation is

beneficial over rewards and punishments. Teacher 4 stated, “I like [the rewards and

punishment system], but recently I have noticed that it can make it harder for children to be

intrinsically motivated if they are always rewarded for their actions.” Based on this statement,

it sounds as though she is moving towards current research and away from using rewards and

punishments to motivate.

Following current research, Teacher 6 believes, “rewards and punishments are okay if

done in balance. I believe intrinsic motivation is better because it comes from within; it is

striving to be competent and rewarding oneself inwardly. Children learn to be more self-

disciplined.” Alternatively, teacher 5 still relies on older methods as she remarked, “Rewarding

them usually motivates them to do better.”

Teachers who have been in the field for a long time may continue to rely on “old school”

beliefs and instruction. The use of a constructivist framework to guide teaching practices in the

classroom requires teachers to move in directions that are contrary to how they were taught

(Gieryn, 1999). Unfortunately some new teachers model these seasoned professionals instead

of the new research.

Fostering autonomy by offering children choices. The importance of allowing children

to make their own choices was reported by all 10 teachers to encourage autonomy over

maintaining a restrictive environment. Offering choices appeared to be the overall common

theme that emerged through the data collection process. According to the information

collected in the data journal and the semi-structured interviews, participants concurred that

112
offering two positive choices resulted in pre-school children, improving their behavior, taking

ownership of the classroom, and being accountable for their actions. This correlated with

previous research stating that the goal of offering choices is to promote autonomy in the

individual (Bambara, 2004).

Making choices is a fundamental right that most people take for granted (Brown, Belz,

Corsi, & Wenig, 1993). In addition, opportunities for choice making can have beneficial

behavioral effects. These benefits include an increased engagement level (Datillo & Rusch,

1985; Parsons, Reid, Reynolds, & Bumgarner, 1990) and improved behavior (Jolivette, Wehby,

Canale, & Massey, 2001; Kern, Mantegna, Vorndran, Brailin, & Hilt, 2001). Teacher 8 drew a

similar conclusion, stating having choices “will also help in promoting decision making skills

when offered choices and thinking skills will also be developed.”

According to Kamii et al. (1994), if teachers want children to be able to make their own

decisions, they should allow students to begin making decisions from an early age. Children will

often devise the same rules a teacher would make but they are more willing to respect the

decision if they can play a part in helping to make it on their own. Teacher 3 agrees and offers

her children choices by providing two different ways to do the designed task(s). Teacher 4

replied, “I give two positive choices for them to choose from. I feel it is important to offer

children choices because it allows them to have a say in what is going to happen.”

Bailey (2001) teaches the concept of two positive choices. Young children still

developing a sense of their own autonomy often need to assert themselves when they hear an

adult command. Instead of giving an assertive command, a teacher can offer children two

113
acceptable choices. These choices allow children to comply with the teacher’s wishes while still

having the last word. By offering children two positive choices, teachers help them do the

following:

 Attend to the task deemed important

 Comply with wishes

 Learn decision-making skills

 Feel empowered, thereby reducing power struggles

 Redirect their behavior and learn impulse control

 Establish and maintain self-control

Teacher 9 agrees with Bailey and stated, “I feel it is essential for children today, this generation

seems to be more ‘hands-on type’ learners and needs different choices to strengthen their

current knowledge. Choices give them the opportunity to decide on their own, which will help

them develop self-worth, ownership, and accomplishment. This provides a chance for them to

feel they are a part of the decision making process.” Kohn (2006) stated, “students learn how

to make good choices by making choices, not by following directions…we teach reading, writing

and math by having students do them, but we teach democracy by lecture” (p. 85). Teacher 1

applies this concept by “reminding them of what they should be doing and talking about

making good choices.” We cannot expect children to accept the values and truths given to

them by adults all the way through school and then suddenly be able to make choices in

adulthood (Kamii, 1991).

114
 The findings just described reflect the results of the second research question, which

sought to discover the ways in which pre-school educators perceive their own promotions of

autonomy in multi-age classrooms. According to the participants they promote autonomy in

children by fostering intrinsic motivation. They support intrinsic motivation by providing the

children two positive choices through the environment they establish and their classroom

management techniques used.

Conclusions/Recommendations For Practice

Early childhood education programs need to thoroughly explain the complete definition

of autonomy to all students in the field of education. Childcare administrators can help

classroom teachers develop a more encompassing understanding of autonomy by allowing

teachers autonomy in their own classrooms. Some ideas to help pre-school educators improve

classroom techniques are implementing self–reflections and self-evaluations. Self-reflections

should be done every day; teachers could look at what went well and what could be improved.

They could implement their new ideas the following day and evaluate their effectiveness.

Faced with the challenge of trying to learn more positive habits, teachers need

assistance. Correct, timely feedback from the supervisor can be advantageous so the teacher

realizes in the moment exactly how they are handling a situation and receives suggestions on

how they could improve. Even though the teacher may know the right choice to make, gentle

reminders are also beneficial, the same as for children. Pre-school educators could be provided

greater opportunities for hands-on and minds-on application. Some examples are practicum

hours, completing activities at the lab school, doing case studies on children, or watching videos

115
of various situations and discussing them as a group. Quality continuing education classes

would also be beneficial. Teacher 9 stated, “To be honest, I remember learning about theorists

and what we were supposed to follow from the theorists. I believe a teacher cannot get a true

experience with the classroom, until you are actually in the ECE classroom. I have applied more

of the teachings and examples learned from the Project Construct and Conscious Discipline

trainings than anything I learned from my ECE college classes.” As pre-school teachers

encounter new complicated situations in the classrooms, they could continue to learn new skills

and the latest research in the early childhood education field so they may continue to grow and

improve (see Table 5.1.) Seasoned teachers need to be required to attend training along with

new teachers so everyone can learn what the current research says best practice is in the pre-

school field. The trainings need to be effective, including hands-on activities and relevant

scenarios to practice as current ECE classes might not be reflecting the best approach to

Table 5.1: Best Practices for Promoting Autonomy in ECE for Teachers

Ways to demonstrate individual learning to college students

Through observations of play-based learning curriculum

Hands-on experiences with children

Collaborative projects in the higher education classroom

Having students read articles about innovative teaching practices

Posing food-for-thought questions

Taking students outside of their comfort zone through classroom experiences

Service learning projects within the local community

116
 A quality environment is a crucial first step in providing autonomy for children. Overall

autonomy-supportive pre-school classrooms should contain child-sized equipment and

materials available for child self-selection to encourage self- initiation. The environment should

be welcoming and supportive where students needs and interests can be nurtured. The

teachers should be available to support the children academically and socially as needed, and

predictable, so the children know what to expect during their time in their pre-school

classroom.

In considering the goal of promoting autonomy in young children, fostering intrinsic

motivation seemed to be the central theme. The learning environment and classroom

management sections pointed to the relevance and importance of choices for children. The

pre-school teachers main perceived strength in the classroom was allowing the children to have

choice. This reportedly led to improved children’s behavior and children taking accountability

for their actions. The number one method teachers reported they practice to provide an

autonomy-supportive environment is offering children choices. They feel this empowers

children to have a say in the decision making process, instead of always being told what to do.

All 10 interviewees agreed that offering children choices was important, while 50 percent of

those teachers said that offering children choices is how they help children comply. One-

hundred percent of the teachers reported that they use simple choices to help children learn

decision making skills. Valuing choice-making for young children supports the development of

intrinsic motivation (see figure 5.4).

117
 Foster Intrinsic
Motivation

By Providing Choices

Through the
Environment and
Classroom
Management

Figure 5.4: Teachers Perceptions of How They Promote Autonomy

Recommendations/Implications For Further Research

Because children need practice on learning how to manage their behavior and social

skills, further in-depth training on the benefits of allowing children the time to learn how to

problem solve on their own and providing opportunities to make choices and live with the

consequences would be beneficial for pre-school teachers. No one expects pre-school children

to learn math and reading in one day; therefore, the same extended learning process should be

allowed and expected for the development of autonomy in children. Further research should

be done on the effects of offering children choices in the pre-school setting to investigate how

giving children some autonomy affects their behavior and compliance.

 How much impact does offering choices have on pre-school children’s behavior

in a classroom setting?

118
  Is there a correlation between administrators giving teachers autonomy in the

workplace and teachers promoting autonomy with children in the classroom?

 Are ECE students being provided the appropriate amount of autonomy in the

college classroom by their instructors?

Summary

Chapter Five presented the findings, implications and recommendations for future

research based on the results of this study. Previous researchers indicated the importance of

autonomy-supportive classrooms through the learning environment, positive behavior

management, offering children choices, and promoting intrinsic motivation (Bailey, 2001;

Bambara, 2004; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987a; Jolivette, Wehby, Canale, & Massey, 2001; Kern et al.,

2001; Reeve et al., 2004; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). The participants in this study reflected

much of the previous research regarding autonomy and autonomy-supportive practices. Their

perceptions validate that the previous research and finding on the importance of autonomy

support in elementary age classrooms is applicable in the mixed-age preschool classroom.

119
 APPENDIX A

Questions For Teacher Interviews

1. What is your definition of autonomy?

2. How do you promote autonomy in the classroom?

c. Struggles?
d. Successes/Strengths?

3. How do you provide an environment to be autonomy supportive?

4. How do you feel about offering choices to children?

c. What types of choices do you offer?
d. When do you offer children choices?

5. How do you feel about rewards/punishment instead of intrinsic motivation?

6. What type of classroom management do you use?

c. What seems to be the most effective?
d. What seems to be the least effective?

7. What are your more challenging times of the day and why (in regards to promoting
autonomy in children)?

8. Any differences in what you actually do versus what you learned in class?

9. How do you help children:

a. Attend to a task
b. Comply
c. Learn decision making skills
d. Feel empowered
e. Redirect their behavior and learn impulse control
f. Establish and maintain self-control

10. Anything else you would like to add?

120
 APPENDIX B

Saint Louis University

Recruitment Statement for Research Participation

1. Suzette Hechst, the primary investigator, is inviting you to participate in this research
study.
2. The title of this study is Promoting Autonomy in Children. The purpose of this case
study is research what teachers believe autonomy is and how they promote autonomy
in the classroom. Teacher’s responses will be recorded and written down.
3. Your participation in this study will involve you participating in an interview. What you
say will be written down. You will have the option to verify your responses.
4. The risks to you as a participant are minimal.
5. The results of this study may be published in scientific research journals or presented at
professional conferences. However, your name and identity will not be revealed and
your record will remain confidential. No names will be used. Teachers will be referred
to by numbers, teacher 1 and teacher 2.
6. Participation in this study will not benefit you directly. Your participation may benefit
others by learning different ways to interact with children in a classroom setting.
7. You can choose not to participate. If you decide not to participate, there will not be a
penalty to you or loss of any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may
withdraw from this study at any time.
8. If you have questions about this research study, you can call Suzette Hechst at
618.222.5579. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you can
call the Saint Louis University Institutional Review Board at 314.977.7744 and reference
IRB# 26151

121
APPENDIX C

IRB Approval

122
 REFERENCES

Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. (2003). Shared Care. Establishing a balance between home and child

care settings. Child Development, 74, 1044-1049.

Anderson, S. (2008). Child Development. Canada: Thompson Delmar Learning.

Antler, J. (1987). Lucy Sprague Mitchell: The making of a modern woman. New Haven:

Yale University Press.

Arcavi, A., & Isoda, M. (2007). Learning to listen: From historical sources to classroom

practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(2), 111-129.

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:

Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviors predicting students'

engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2),

261.

Bailey, B. A. (1994). There’s got to be a better way: Discipline that works. Oviedo, FL:

Loving Guidance.

Bailey. B. A. (2001). Conscious Discipline: 7 basic skills for brain smart classroom

management. Oviedo, FL: Loving Guidance.

Bambara, L. (2004). Fostering choice-making skills: We’ve come a long way but still have a

long way to go. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, 169-171.

Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. R. (2004). The basics of communication research. New York:

Wadsworth/Thomson.

Bear, G. G. (2005). Developing self-discipline and preventing and correcting

misbehavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

123
Bear, G. G. (2011). Positive psychology and school discipline: Positive is not simply the opposite

of Punitive. National association of school psychologists, 39(5), 8-10.

Bear, G. G., Cavalier, A. R., Manning, M. A. (2002). Best practices in school discipline. In A.

Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 977-991).

Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Bettelheim, B. (1976). The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy

tales. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Benware, C., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive

motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-765.

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, 740-756.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to

theory and methods (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boggiano, A., Barrett, M., Weiher, A. W., McClelland, G. H., & Luck, C. M. (1987). Use

of the maximal-operant principle to motivate children’s intrinsic interest. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(5), 866-879.

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, 319-336.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early

childhood programs. Washington, D. C.: NAEYC.

124
Breyfogle, M. L., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2004). Focusing on students’

mathematical thinking. Mathematics Teachers, 97(4), 244-247.

Brophy, J. (1999). Perspectives of classroom management: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In

H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism: Changing the classroom management

paradigm (pp. 43-56). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students’ appreciation for what is taught. Educational

Psychologist, 43(3), 132-141.

Brown, F. (1991). Creative daily scheduling: A nonintrusive approach to challenging behaviors

in community residents. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe handicaps,

16, 75-84.

Brown, F., Belz, P., Corsi, L., & Wenig, B. (1993). Choice diversity for people with severe

disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 318-326.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.

Cakmak, M. (2008). Concerns about teaching process: Student teachers’ perspective.

Educational Research Quarterly, 31(3), 57-77.

Caldarella, P., Page, N., Gunter, L.., (2012). Early Childhood Educators' Perceptions of

Conscious Discipline Education, 132(3), 589-599.

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (2002). Assertive discipline: Positive behavior management for today’s

classroom. Seal Beach, CA: Canter and Associates.

Carey, K. T. (1997). Preschool interventions. In A. P. Goldstein & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), School

violence intervention: A practical handbook (pp. 93-106). New York: The Guilford Press.

125
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

Chanoff, D. (1981). Democratic schooling: Means or end? High School Journal, 64(4),

170-175.

Cipani, E. (1998). Three behavioral functions of classroom noncompliance: Diagnostic and

treatment implications. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13,

66-77.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). (Eds.). Developmentally appropriate practice in

early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. (3rd ed).

Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions \

(2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating

Quantitative Research, Boston: Pearson.

D’Amico, J. (1980). Reviving student participation. Educational Leadership, 38(1),

44-46.

deCharms, R. (1977). Students need not be pawns. Theory into Practice, 16(4), 296-302.

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effect of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal

126
 of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115.

Deci, E. L. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New

York: Putnam.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). The pervasive negative effects on intrinsic

motivation. Educational Research, 71(1), 43-51.

Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of the rewarder and

intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 40(1), 1-10.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1994). Promoting self-determined education. Scandinavian

Journal of Educational Research, 38(1), 3-14.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-

being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23.

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, (1981). An instrument to assess adults orientations

toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and

perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642-650.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and Education:

The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 &4), 325-346.

DeVries, R., & Zan, B. (1994). Moral classrooms, moral children: Creating a constructivist

atmosphere in early education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

DeVries, R., & Zan, B. (2003). When children make rules. Educational Leadership,

127
 61(1), 64-67.

Dewey, J. (1896). Pedagogy as a university discipline. University Record, 1(25), 353- 355.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of

education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Durkheim, E. (2002). Moral education. Mineola, NY, Dover.

Dyer, K., Dunlap, G., & Winterling, V. (1990). Effects of choice-making on the serious problem

behaviors of students with severe handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23,

515-524.

Edwards, C. (1994). Learning and control in the classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology,

21, 340-346.

Egger, E. L., & Angold, A. (2006). Common emotional and behavioral disorders in preschool

children: Presentation, nososolgy, and epidemiology. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 47, 313-337.

Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2005). A Look at student action in the science classroom.

Science Education International, 17(2), 101-113.

Erwin, J., (2004). The classroom of choice: Giving students what they need and getting what you

want. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Fields, M. V., & Fields, D. (2006). Constructive guidance and discipline: Preschool and

primary education (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot

(Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8-38). New York,

128
 NY: Teachers College Press.

Fraser, B. J. (2002). Learning environments research: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

S. C. Goh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational learning environments:

An international perspective (pp. 1-24). Singapore: World Scientific.

Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D. L., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996, April). Development, validation,

and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, New York.

Fraser, B. J., Welch, W. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1986). Using secondary analysis of

national assessment data to identify predictors of junior high school students’

outcomes. Alberta Journal of Education Research, 32, 37-50.

Freud, S. (1917). Eine Schwierigkeit der Psychoanalyse. Gesammelte Werke Band.

(Vol. 12, pp. 11). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag.

Froiland, J. M. (2010). A developmental, educational, and school psychologist: How the

late Jere Brophy’s integrative approach to children’s motivation to learn can inform

school-based practice. The School Psychologist, 64(3), 22-26.

Froiland, J. M. (2011a). Parental autonomy support and student learning goals: A

preliminary examination of an intrinsic motivation intervention. Child and Youth Care

Forum, 40(2), 135-149.

Froiland, J. M., Oros, E., Smith, L., & Hirchert, T. (2012). Intrinsic motivation to learn:

The nexus between psychological health and academic success. Contemporary School

Psychology, 16, 91-100.

129
Froiland, J. M., Smith, L., & Peterson, A. (2012). How can children be happier and more

intrinsically motivated while receiving their compulsory education. In A. Columbus (Ed),

Advances in Psychology Research: Vol. 87 (pp. 85-112). Hauppauge, NY:Nova Science.

Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Glasser, W. (2001). Choice theory in the classroom. New York: Harper.

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. Boston: Pearson.

Goffin, S. G., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). Curriculum models and early childhood education:

Appraising the relationship (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The

Qualitative Report, 8(4), December 2003, 597-607.

Gonzalez-Mena, J., & Eyer, D. (2015). Infants, Toddlers, and Caregivers. New York: McGraw Hill.

Goodman, J. (2006). Students’ choices and moral growth. Ethics and Education, 1(2), 103-115).

Gottfried, A.E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school

children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525-538.

Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial Fire? Motivational

synergy in predicting persistence, performance and productivity. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93(1), 48-58.

Groenewald, T. (2008). Memos and Memoing (Vol 2:pp. 505-6). In Given, L.M. (Ed) 2008. The

SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles, Thousand Oaks, Calif.:

SAGE publications.

Grolnick, W. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2009). Issues and challenges in studying parental control:

130
 Toward a new conceptualization. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 165-170.

Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The

self-determination perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting

and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp.

135-161). New York, NY: Wiley.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987a). Autonomy in children’s learning: An

experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 52, 890-898.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987b). Autonomy support in education: Creating the

facilitating environment. In N. Hastings & J. Schwieso (Eds.), New directions in

educational psychology: Behavior and motivation (pp. 213-232). Philadelphia,

PA: The Falmer Press.

Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school

achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 508-518.

Grolnick, W. S., & Seal, K. (2007). Pressured parents, stressed-out kids: Dealing with

competition while raising a successful child. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.

Guess, D., Benson, H. A., & Siegel-Causey, E. (1985). Concepts and issues related to

choice-making and autonomy among persons with severe disabilities. Journal of the

Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10, 79-86.

Hardman, C. A., Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (2011). Effects of rewards, peer modeling and

pedometer Targets on children’s physical activity: A school-based interventions study.

131
 Psychology & Health, 26(1), 3-21.

Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students’ intentions to persist in,

versus drop out of high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95. 347-356.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53. 87-97

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, New York,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Herbal-Eisenmann, B. A., & Breyfogle, M. L. (2005). Questioning out patterns of questioning.

Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10(9), 484-489.

Hertzog, H. S. (2002). “When, how, and who do I ask for help?” Novices’ perceptions of

problems and assistance. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29, 25-41.

Hoffman, L., Hutchinson, C., & Reiss, E. (2005). Training Teachers in Classroom

Management: Evidence of Positive Effects on the Behavior of Difficult Children. The

Journal of the Southeastern Regional Association of Teacher Educators, (14)1, 36-43.

Hoffman, L., Hutchinson, C., & Reiss, E. (2009). On improving school climate: Reducing reliance

on rewards and punishment. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 5(1), 13-24.

Hsueh, Y., & Barton, B. (2006). A cultural perspective on professional beliefs of

childcare teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(3), 179-186.

Issacs, M. L., Elliot, E., McConney, A.,Wachholz, P., Greene, M. (2007). Evaluating “Quality”

methods of filing the “Teacher Gap”: Results of a pilot study with early career teachers.

Journal of the National Association for Alternative Certification, 2.

Jacobsen, D. A., Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (1999). Methods for teaching: Promoting

student learning. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

132
James, M., & McCormick, R. (2009). Teachers learning how to learn. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 25(7), 973-82.

Jang, Reeve, & Deci (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It’s not autonomy

support or structure, but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 102, 588-600.

Jensen, E. (2009). Different Brains, Different Learners (revised ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Johnson, M. (1996). Organic education: Teaching without failure. Fairhope, AL: Marietta

Johnson Museum of Organic Education.

Jolivette, K., Wehby, J. H., Canale, J., & Massey, N. G. (2001). Effects of choice making

on the behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral

Disorders, 26, 131-145.

Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Houlfort, N. (2004). Introducing uninteresting

tasks to children: A comparison of the effects of rewards and autonomy support.

Journal of Personality, 72(1), 139-166.

Kamii, C. (1991). Toward autonomy: The importance of critical thinking and choice

making. School Psychology Review, 20(3), 382-9.

Kamii, C. (2000). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget’s theory

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Kamii, C., Clark, F., & Dominick, A. (1994). The six national goals a road to

disappointment. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 672-677.

Kamii, C., & DeVries, R. (1993). Physical knowledge in preschool education:

133
 Implications of Piaget’s theory. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (Original

work published in 1978)

Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational

Psychology Review, 19(4), 429-442.

Katz, I., & Chard, S. C. (2000). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Keilty, B., & Freund, M. (2004). Mastery motivation: A framework for considering the “how” of

infant and toddler learning. Young Exceptional Children, 8(8), 2-10.

Koegel, R.l., Dyer, K., & Bell, L.K. (1987). The influence of child-preferred activities on autistic

children’s social behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 243-252.

Kohn, A. (1993a). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans,

A’s, praise, and other bribes. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Kohn, A. (1993b).

Kohn, A. (1993b). Choices for children: Why and how to let students decide. Phi Delta Kappan,

75(1), 8-19.

Kohn, A. (1996). What to look for in a classroom. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 54-56.

Kohn, A. (2006). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community (2nd ed.).

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lepper, E. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic

interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the over justification hypothesis. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-173.

Lindlof, Thomas R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

134
Lohrmann, S., & Telerico, J. (2004). Anchor the boat: A classwide intervention to reduce

problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention, 6(2), 113-120.

Maccoby, E., & Lewis, C. (2003). Less day care or different day care? Child Development, 74,

1069-1075.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research (4 th ed.). London: Sage.

Martin, L. A., Chiodo, J. J., & Chang, L. (2001). First year teachers: Looking back after three

years. Action in Teacher Education, 23(1), 55-63.

Martin, S. (2004). Finding balance: Impact of classroom management conceptions on

Developing teacher practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 406-422.

Marzano, R.J. & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management.

Educational Leadership, 61(1), 6-13.

Matheson, A. S., & Shriver, M. D. (2005). Training Teachers to give effective commands: Effects

on student compliance and academic behaviors. School Psychology Review, 34, 202-219.

McCann, T. M., Johannessen, L. R., & Ricca, B. (2005). Responding to new teachers’ concerns.

Educational Leadership, 62(8), 30-34.

McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L., (1992). Compliant cognition: The misalliance of management and

Instructional goals in current school reform. Educational Researcher, 21(3), 4-17.

McGraw, K., & McCullers, J. C. (1979). Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic incentives on

breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15(3), 285-294.

Meyer, l.H., & Evans, I.M. (1989). Nonaversive intervention for behavior problems: A manual

for home and community. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Meister, D. G., & Melnick, S. A. (2003). National new teacher study: Beginning teachers’

135
 concerns. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 87-94.

Montie, J. E., Xiang, Z., & Schweinhart, L. J. (2006). Preschool experience in 10 countries:

Cognitive and language performance at age 7. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

21(3), 313-331.

Morgan, P. L. (2006). Increasing task engagement using preference or choice-making: Some

behavioral and methodological factors affecting their efficiency as classroom

interventions. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 176-187.

Newby, T. J. (1991). Classroom motivation: Strategies of first-year teachers. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 83, 195-200.

Nicholls, J., & Hazzard, S. P. (1993). Education as adventure: Lessons from second

grade. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425

(2002).

Ornstein, R. (1991). Evolution of Consciousness. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Palmer, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2003). Promoting self-determination in early elementary

school. Remedial & Special Education, 24(2), 115.

Parsons, M. B., & Reid, D. H. (1990). Assessing food preferences among persons with

profound mental retardation: Providing opportunities to make Choices. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Analysis, 23, 183-195.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Perry, K. E., Donohue, K. M., & Weinstein, R. S. (2007). Teaching practices and the

136
 promotion of achievement and adjustment in first grade. Journal of School

Psychology, 45(3), 269-292.

Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher,

22(2), 23-29.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York, NY: Free Press.

Pickett, L., & Fraser, B. (2010). Creating and assessing positive classroom learning

environments. Childhood Education, 86(5), 321-326.

Pierrehumbert, B., Ramstein, T., Karmaniola, A., Miljkovitch, R., & Halfon, O. (2002).

Quality of child care in the preschool years: A comparison of the influence of home care

and day care characteristics on child outcome. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 26(5), 385-396.

Pratt, C. (Ed.). (1924). Experimental practice in the city and country school. New York,

NY: E.P. Dutton & Co.

Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and

why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225-236.

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.

Reeve, J., & Assor, A. (2011). Do social institutions necessarily suppress individuals’

need for autonomy? The possibility of schools as autonomy-promoting contexts

across the globe. In V. I. Chirkov, R. M. Ryan, & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Human

autonomy in cross-cultural contest: Perspectives on the psychology of agency,

137
 freedom, and well-being (pp.111-132). New York, NY: Springer.

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.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Soohyun, J., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing

students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and

Education, 28(2), 147-171.

Ritz, M., Noltemeyer, A., Davis, D., Green, J., (2014). Behavior management in preschool

classrooms: Insights revealed through systematic observation and interview. Psychology

in the Schools, 51(2), 181-197.

Roopnarine, J., & Johnson, J. (2005). Approaches to early childhood education (4th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Rose, L.C. & Gallup, A.M. (2003). The 35th annual Pi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the

public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 41-52.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining

Reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5),

749-761.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.

Salovery, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and

Personality, 9, 185-211.

Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism,

138
 hermeneutics, and social constructivism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook

of qualitative research. (2nd ed.), (pp. 189-213). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Searle, A. (1999), Introducing research and data in psychology: a guide to methods and

analysis. London, Routledge.

Shevin, M., & Klein, N. (1984). The importance of choice-making skills for students with severe

disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 159-166.

Smart, J., & Igo, L. (2010). A grounded theory of behavior management strategy selection,

Implementation, and perceived effectiveness reported by first-year elementary

teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 567-584.

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, 571-581.

Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences

and the development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for

Research in Child Development, 63, 2-3.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),

The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). (pp. 443-466). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stefanou, C., Perencevich, K., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. (2004). Supporting autonomy in

the classroom: Ways teachers encourage decision making and ownership.

Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110.

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., Tucker, P. D., & Hindman, J. L. (2007). What is the relationship

139
 Between quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of Personal

Evaluation in Education, 20, 165-184.

Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom

learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27,

293-302.

Thomas, R. M. (2005). Comparing theories of child development (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Thomson Wadworth.

Thompson, P. & Gunter, H. (2006) From ‘consulting pupils’ to ‘pupils as researchers’: a

situated case narrative, British Educational Research Journal, 32(6), 839-856.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2007). What Works

Clearinghouse Intervention Repost: Caring School Community, formerly The Child

Development Project.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (pp. 271-360).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic verses extrinsic goal contents in self-

Determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational

Psychologist, 41, 19-31.

van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227-269.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Walsh, D. J., Smith, M. E., Alexander, M., & Ellwein, M. C. (1993). The curriculum as

140
 mysterious and constraining: Teachers’ negotiations of the first year of a pilot

program for at-risk 4-year-olds. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25, 317-332.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Young, E. F. (1900). Isolation in the school. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

Google Books. Stanford University, California.

141
 VITA AUCTORIS

Suzette Hechst was born on August 21, 1973 in St. Louis, Missouri. She earned her BS

from Oklahoma Christian University in 1994, in Child Care Administration. Her Masters in Arts

in Teaching, focusing on Early Childhood Education from Webster University, was conferred

2008. She will be finalizing her PH.D in Curriculum and Instruction in Education from Saint Louis

University in the Spring of 2017.

Her teaching experience began in 2007 at Southwestern Illinois College in the Early

Childhood Department. She has taught the following classes:

 Introduction to Education
 Child Development
 Teaching Math to Children
 Literacy Education for Children
 Infant and Toddler Development
 Practicum
 Child, Family and Community

She is also an Illinois Gateways to Opportunities Trainer, presenting:

 Family and Community: Partners in Learning

 Off the Shelf and into Practice: Using Your Curriculum Every Day
 Developmentally Appropriate Practices
 Promoting Effective Language in the Classroom

In addition to teaching she has also been a child care director since 1997, with her most recent
experience at SWIC since January, 2017.

142