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

net/publication/14227960

The Effects of Autonomy on Motivation and Performance in the College

Classroom

Article  in  Contemporary Educational Psychology · November 1996

DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1996.0032 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
140 1,976

2 authors, including:

Teresa Duncan
Deacon Hill Research Associates LLC
19 PUBLICATIONS   6,011 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Teresa Duncan on 14 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Autonomy in the College Classroom
1

The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance in the college classroom

Teresa Garcia

University of Texas at Austin

and

Paul R. Pintrich

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Running Head: Autonomy in the College Classroom

 Autonomy in the College Classroom
2

Abstract

The goals of this study were to extend the literature about classroom autonomy in

several ways. First, since previous research on autonomy has tended to focus on younger

learners, we examined whether the positive effects of autonomy on motivation and

performance would be replicated in a college sample. Second, we tested to see whether the

well-established links between intrinsic motivation and autonomy would also be found

using motivational constructs that play key roles in learning (specifically, task value, self-

efficacy, and test anxiety). Third, we sought to trace the effect of autonomy on changes in

student motivation over the course of a semester. Finally, we examined the role of

autonomy on course performance. We found that experiences of classroom autonomy in

the college classroom were more closely related to motivational factors than to

performance. While the immediate experience of autonomy may not be directly facilitative

of high course grades, autonomy does seem to foster intrinsic goal orientation, task value,

and self-efficacy, all of which are critical components of "continuing motivation." The data

presented here lend further support for the benefits of fostering autonomy within academic

settings.
 Autonomy in the College Classroom
3

The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance in the college classroom

The positive motivational effects of autonomy have been well-documented,

especially with regard to students' intrinsic motivation to learn. The consistent findings

across different samples (e.g., elementary school children, learning disabled children)

indicate that intrinsic motivation is greater among children whose parents' and teachers'

styles of interaction are autonomy-supportive. That is, adults who were less controlling

and who encouraged children to choose and initiate activities seemed to help promote a

mastery rather than a performance orientation toward learning (Deci, Hodges, Pierson, &

Tomassone, 1992; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1984; Skinner

& Belmont, 1993). Other important motivational factors found to be related to the

experience of autonomy include perceived competence, perceptions of control, and

academic coping (Deci et al., 1992). Autonomy supportiveness on the part of adults has

also been shown to be related to children's engagement in school tasks, conceptual

understanding, and academic achievement (Deci et al., 1992; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987;

Grolnick et al., 1991; Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

The purpose of this study was to extend the literature on classroom autonomy in

four ways. First, by examining the effects of autonomy among college students. Since the

overwhelming majority of the literature about this topic has focused on elementary school

aged children, we turned our examination towards an equally significant group of students,

whose motivation, academic engagement, and achievement are also important to

understand. Given the weight of a college degree in today's economy, research that

focuses upon the factors affecting the motivation of college students becomes even more

critical (Pascarella, 1986; Pascarella, Smart, & Ethington, 1986).

Second, we sought to extend the line of inquiry regarding motivational factors

affected by autonomy to include value, efficacy, and anxiety. These three factors have

played a large role in models of self-regulated learning (e.g., Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).
 Autonomy in the College Classroom
4

Task value and self-efficacy have been found to contribute to the use of learning strategies,

to task selection, and to performance (Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Pintrich & De

Groot, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990); accordingly, if autonomy has positive

effects on intrinsic motivation, it may also have comparable effects on task value and self-

efficacy. Evaluation anxiety is also an important aspect of student motivation, and its

detrimental effects on perceived competence, cognitive engagement, and performance have

been noted (Naveh-Benjamin, McKeachie, & Lin, 1987; Tobias, 1985). We have included

test anxiety among our measures in order to discover whether the experience of classroom

autonomy helps to palliate students' distress about evaluation.

The third way in which we attempted to extend previous research was to shift the

measure of autonomy from indices of teacher or parent orientation to a measure of the

learner's own perceptions of autonomy. This tactic was taken in order to highlight the

phenomenological sense of autonomy; to place the individual's experiences at the forefront.

Previous studies have used teacher or parent reports to assess support for autonomy on a

continuum ranging from controlling to autonomous (e.g., Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, &

Ryan, 1981; Green & Foster, 1986; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Here we used students'

perceptions of autonomy, going by the premise that student motivation and performance

should be tied more closely to the students' experiences and perceptions, rather than to

teachers' (or parents') responses to hypothetical scenarios (cf. Deci et al., 1992; Grolnick

et al., 1991).

We have also chosen to operationalize autonomy in terms of the degree to which the

student perceives he or she shares in the decision-making regarding course policies. This

differs from other measures of perceived autonomy by changing the focus of our inquiry to

how much input the student believes she has, rather than the degree to which the

instructor's feedback is interpreted as controlling (e.g., Ryan, 1982). Again, this places

the learner's subjective experiences to the foreground, and helps to better differentiate

perceived autonomy from perceived control, a closely-allied construct. That is, the sense
 Autonomy in the College Classroom
5

of sharing in course decision-making is distinguishable from one's reports of an internal

locus of control, as the second construct focuses on sole responsibility, whereas the first

construct emphasizes collaborative decision-making. By focusing on joint decision-

making, we have also avoided equating autonomy with anarchy: here, both the instructor

and the student are sharing in determining the course policies -- autonomy is not defined as

the degree to which the instructor reports acceding to the students' whims. Indeed,

empowering students by giving them a say in course decisions accentuates choice instead

of compliance, and in this manner is thought to lead to flexible problem solving, efficient

knowledge acquisition, and self-worth (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991).

Finally, we sought to trace motivation over the course of time, concurrently

addressing the role of perceived autonomy in the ebb and flow of student motivation. The

quasi-experimental design of this study afforded us the opportunity to examine baseline

levels of motivation and to make inferences regarding how a sense of self-determination

factors into one's motivational outlook and into one's achievement.

Accordingly, the research questions to be addressed in this paper are as follows.

First, are the beneficial effects of autonomy found among children replicated in this college

sample? Second, does autonomy affect task value, self-efficacy, and anxiety in the same

positive manner as intrinsic motivation? Third, what is the role of perceived autonomy in

enhancing motivation over the course of a semester? Finally, what is the role of perceived

autonomy in one's course performance?

Method

Subjects

Participants in this study were 365 college students in ten classrooms: three

biology classes (N=162), three English classes (N=79) and four social science classes

(N=124). These courses were sampled from four midwestern institutions: a community

college; a small private four-year college; and two large public four-year universities. The
 Autonomy in the College Classroom
6

gender breakdown was 151 males (41.4%) and 214 females (58.6%). No differences

were found in gender distribution by discipline.

These data were collected on a volunteer basis during the Winter 1987 term. The

classes were visited twice, once within the first two weeks of the semester (Time 1) and

again towards the last two weeks of the semester (Time 2). The Motivated Strategies for

Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, McKeachie, Smith, Doljanac, Lin, Naveh-Benjamin,

Crooks & Karabenick, 1987) was administered at each visit.

Measures

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) is a self-report,

Likert-scaled (1=not true of me, to 7=very true of me) instrument designed to measure

student motivational beliefs and strategy use. Four of the MSLQ motivation subscales

were used in this study: intrinsic goal orientation, task value, self-efficacy, and test

anxiety. Intrinsic goal orientation is a measure of the degree to which the individual

perceives herself to be participating in a task for reasons such as challenge, curiosity, or

mastery, as opposed to participating in a task for reasons such as grades, rewards, or

evaluation by others (e.g., "Even when I do poorly on an exam I try to learn from my

mistakes"). Task value differs from intrinsic goal orientation in that task value refers to the

student's evaluation of how interesting, how important, and how useful the task itself is

(e.g., "Understanding the subject matter of this course is important to me."). Self-efficacy

is an evaluation of one's ability to master a task (e.g., "I'm certain I can understand the

ideas and concepts taught in this course."). The last motivational subscale used was test

anxiety, which is an index of worry and concern students report about examinations (e.g.,

"I worry a great deal about tests.").

The posttest administration of the MSLQ included 22 items geared toward

measuring students' classroom experiences. An exploratory factor analysis of these 22

items yielded five factors, one of which was interpretable as perceived classroom autonomy

(the other four factors were interpretable as "instructor quality", "course quality",
 Autonomy in the College Classroom
7

"collaboration with other students" and "fairness of assessment procedures").

Accordingly, autonomy, as operationalized here, is an index of the degree to which

students report being afforded the opportunity to participate in course decision-making.

The four items which comprised this factor were: "Students can negotiate with the

instructor over the nature of the course requirements"; "Students have some choice over

which reading assignments they are to read for class"; "Students are free to choose their

own paper topics in this class"; and "Students can negotiate with the instructor when they

will turn in required class work". Please note that these items are not stated in absolute

terms (e.g., "have some" "can negotiate") and are endorsed on the same 7-point scale as the

other items in the questionnaire. By having students respond to the classroom perception

items on a Likert scale, we were able to build in between- and within-classroom differences

in the subjective experience of autonomy.

The number of questions comprising these subscales ranged from four to nine (see

Table 1 for descriptive statistics and coefficient alphas). Subjects' responses to the

questions comprising each subscale were summed and mean scores computed. The

following analyses are based on mean subscale scores. Our measure of performance was

simply students' final course grades, measured on the conventional 0 - 4.0 scale.

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

Insert Table 1 about here

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

Results

Relationships between variables

Correlations between measures are presented in Table 2. The highest correlations

were naturally between pretest and posttest pairs of the same variable (rs ranged from .58

to .70). Aside from these autocorrelations, the strongest positive relationships were found

between intrinsic goal orientation, task value, and self-efficacy, with correlations ranging
 Autonomy in the College Classroom
8

from .35 to .44. Test anxiety was generally modestly related to the other variables, and in

the expected negative direction. Perceived classroom autonomy was modestly positively

related to all the other measures, and correlated most strongly with posttest intrinsic goal

orientation and task value. Higher levels of performance were most strongly related to

posttest intrinsic goal orientation, task value, and self-efficacy, whereas test anxiety was

negatively related to performance.

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

Insert Table 2 about here

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

Modeling the relationships between motivation, autonomy, and performance

The next set of analyses we performed were directed towards creating a model

depicting the relationships between motivation, perceived classroom autonomy, and

performance over the course of a semester. We used path analysis to accomplish this goal,

and the results are summarized in Table 3 and diagrammed in Figure 1. Since we had

pretest and posttest data, the following series of hierarchical regressions were done. First,

pretest motivation (Time 1 intrinsic goal orientation, task value, self-efficacy, and test

anxiety) were used to predict perceived classroom autonomy (which was measured at the

posttest). Second, pretest motivation and classroom autonomy were used to predict

posttest levels of motivation (Time 2 intrinsic goal orientation, task value, self-efficacy, and

test anxiety). Finally, pretest motivation, perceived classroom autonomy, and posttest

motivation were used to predict final course grade.

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

Insert Table 3 and Figure 1 about here

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

We were glad to see that none of the Time 1 motivational variables significantly

predicted perceptions of classroom autonomy. We interpreted this to mean that in a

 Autonomy in the College Classroom
9

multivariate analysis, students who differed in intrinsic goal orientation, in task value, in

self-efficacy, and in test anxiety, did not differ in their perceptions of classroom autonomy.

Accordingly, this finding helps us eliminate bias in perceptions of autonomy due to initial

differences in these motivational factors (of course, bias from other, unmeasured factors

cannot be ruled out).

Posttest intrinsic goal orientation was best predicted by pretest intrinsic goal
orientation (β = .48, p < .001), pretest task value (β = .16, p < .001), and perceived

classroom autonomy (β = .15, p < .001). Time 2 task value was predicted by Time 1 task

value (β = .64, p < .001) and by classroom autonomy (β = .16, p < .001). Similarly, the

only significant predictors of Time 2 self-efficacy were Time 1 self-efficacy (β = .57, p <

.001) and classroom autonomy (β = .09, p < .05). The only significant predictor of Time

2 test anxiety was Time 1 test anxiety (β = .70, p < .001), which suggests that test anxiety

may be more trait-like, and resistant to contextual factors such as classroom autonomy.

Finally, 30% of the variance in final course grade was attributable to the effects of Time 2
self-efficacy (β = .55, p < .001) and Time 2 anxiety (β = -.16, p < .001). Although

autonomy did not have a direct effect on performance, it did exercise a weak positive

indirect effect upon performance through its direct effect on posttest self-efficacy

(multiplying the unstandardized regression coefficients for these paths together (.072 x

.493), we obtain a value of .04).

Discussion

The data presented in this paper provide reasonable evidence for the benefits of self-

determination. College students' motivation, like that of the elementary school students

discussed previously, was positively affected by the experience of autonomy. The college

students here who perceived their instructors to be supportive of autonomy by allowing

students to participate in course policy-making, reported greater levels of motivation at the

end of the semester, even after partialling out the effects of pretest motivation. Perceptions
 Autonomy in the College Classroom
10

of autonomy had positive effects not only on intrinsic motivation, but also upon task value

and self-efficacy.

As a whole, the pattern of results reported here indicate that experiences of

classroom autonomy in the college classroom are more closely related to motivational

factors than to performance. While the immediate experience of autonomy may not be

directly facilitative of high course grades, autonomy does seem to modestly foster intrinsic

goal orientation, task value, and self-efficacy, all of which are critical components of

"continuing motivation" (Maehr, 1976). By promoting autonomy and self-determination in

the college classroom, instructors may not see clear, immediate improvements in

performance. Instead, what we may find might include: students electing additional

courses in the subject area; greater student interest in the material; and greater persistence in

the face of difficulty. These are not insubstantial consequences, and we should not neglect

factors that promote these positive motivational beliefs in a single-minded search for factors

related to higher grades and better performance.

Cultivating a sense of autonomy among the college students need not mean a

submission to anarchy, or to complete student control. Nor does fostering self-

determination require a tremendous upheaval in course structure. Our measure of

classroom autonomy here consisted of a simple series of questions asking students about

the degree of choice they had over selecting paper topics and of readings, and about the

degree to which students were able to negotiate course policies with the instructor. These

procedures are not difficult to implement, and seem worth the effort, given the positive

motivational consequences that follow. The data reported here show that baseline levels of

motivation are the strongest predictors of end-of-term motivation, indicating that a great

deal of student motivation is established a priori of course enrollment. Nevertheless,

perceptions of autonomy did predict late semester motivation, above and beyond the

effects of baseline levels of motivation, suggesting that what happens in the college

classroom does impact upon motivation. Indeed, creating a sense of autonomy and self-
 Autonomy in the College Classroom
11

determination in a college classroom may be a small positive step toward offsetting the

anomie and cynicism often found among college students in large lecture classes. An

instructor responsible for dozens, even hundreds of students is often unable to cultivate the

one-to-one relationships that help foster motivation; however, by allowing students input

into the decision-making process, he or she can create an environment within which

students sense that even if the teacher does not know the student personally, the instructor

does care about what students have to contribute to the course.

Previous research has documented the positive effects of autonomy and self-

determination on school children and on differentially abled learners (e.g., Deci et al., 1992

Green & Foster, 1986; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). The data presented here lend further

support for the benefits of fostering autonomy within academic settings.

 Autonomy in the College Classroom
12

References

Deci, E.L., Hodges, R., Pierson, L., & Tomassone, J. (1992). Autonomy and

competence as motivational factors in students with learning disabilities and emotional

handicaps. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 457-471.

Deci, E.L., Schwartz, A.J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R.M. (1981). An instrument to

assess adults' orientation toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections

on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology,

73, 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, 325-

346.

Green, L., & Foster, D. (1986). Classroom intrinsic motivation: Effects of scholastic

level, teacher orientation, and gender. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 34-39.

Grolnick, W.S., & Ryan, R.M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An

experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52, 890-898.

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, 508-517.

Maehr, M.L. (1976). Continuing motivation: An analysis of a seldom considered

educational outcome. Review of Educational Research, 46, 443-462.

Meece, J.L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its

influence on young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and performance in

mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60-70.

Naveh-Benjamin, M., McKeachie, W.J., & Lin, Y.G. (1987). Two types of test-anxious

students: Support for an information processing model. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 79, 131-136.

 Autonomy in the College Classroom
13

Pascarella, E.T., (1986). A program for research and policy development on student

persistence at the institutional level. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 100-

107.

Pascarella, E.T., Smart, J.C., & Ethington, C.A. (1986). Long-term persistence of two-

year college students. Research in Higher Education, 24, 47-71.

Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning

components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,

82, 33-40.

Pintrich, P.R., McKeachie, W.J., Smith, D.A.F., Doljanac, R., Lin, Y.G., Naveh-

Benjamin, M., Crooks, T., & Karabenick, S. (1987). The motivated strategies for

learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National

Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Rosenholtz, S.J., & Simpson, C. (1984). Classroom organization and student

stratification. Elementary School Journal, 85, 21-37.

Ryan, R.M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of

cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-

461.

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.

Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, defective skills, and cognitive capacity.

Educational Psychologist, 20, 135-142.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated

learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.

 Autonomy in the College Classroom
14

Table 1

Descriptive statistics

Measure (number of items) Mean SD Alpha

Time 1 Measures
Intrinsic Goal Orientation (4) 5.45 .86 .57
Task Value (9) 5.82 .98 .92
Self-Efficacy (5) 5.01 .91 .74
Test Anxiety (8) 3.81 1.49 .92

Time 2 Measures
Autonomy (4) 3.63 1.36 .64
Intrinsic Goal Orientation (4) 5.52 .88 .67
Task Value (9) 5.61 1.15 .94
Self-Efficacy (5) 4.99 1.05 .88
Test Anxiety (8) 3.66 1.52 .93

Performance
Final Course Grade 2.81 .95 --

Note: The motivation and autonomy measures were rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7; final
course grade is measured on the traditional 0.0 to 4.0 scale.

Table 2

Correlations among variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Intrinsic Goal Orientation (T1) --
2. Task Value (T1) .37 --
3. Self-Efficacy (T1) .36 .31 --
4. Test Anxiety (T1) -.05 .10 -.14 --
5. Autonomy .10 .09 .00 .10 --
6. Intrinsic Goal Orientation (T2) .58 .37 .28 -.03 .21 --
7. Task Value (T2) .28 .67 .28 .01 .21 .49 --
8. Self-Efficacy (T2) .24 .27 .60 -.10 .09 .35 .44 --
9. Test Anxiety (T2) -.04 .04 -.17 .70 .07 -.05 -.02 -.25 --
10. Final Course Grade .11 .07 .24 -.12 .02 .17 .21 .52 -.25 --

Note: Variables measured at the pretest are denoted as T1; variables measured at the posttest are denoted as
T2. The minimum pairwise n for this table is 339; with a minimum n of 339, correlations whose
absolute values are greater than or equal to .12 are significant at alpha = .05.
 Autonomy in the College Classroom
15

Table 3
Path analysis results

Dependent Variables
Perceived Intrinsic Task Self- Test Final
Classroom Goal Value Efficacy Anxiety Course
Autonomy Orientation Grade
Predictors (T2) (T2) (T2) (T2) (T2)

Intrinsic Goal Orientation (T1) .10 .48*** -.01 -.01 .03 .05
Task Value (T1) .05 .16*** .64*** .09 -.02 -.09
Self-Efficacy (T1) -.04 .05 .08 .57*** -.07 -.11
Test Anxiety (T1) .10 -.04 -.07 -.04 .70*** .05
Perceived Classroom Autonomy (T2) .15*** .16*** .09* -.01 -.03
Intrinsic Goal Orientation (T2) -.02
Task Value (T2) .06
Self-Efficacy (T2) .55***
Test Anxiety (T2) -.16*
R2 .02 .39*** .48*** .38*** .50*** .30***

Note: Variables measured at the pretest are denoted as T1; variables measured at the posttest are denoted as T2.
Standardized regression coefficients are reported above. Significance levels are denoted as * p < .05; ** p < .01;
*** p < .001.
 Autonomy in the College Classroom
16

Figure 1

Path model depicting the relationships between motivation, perceived classroom autonomy,
and course performance

View publication stats