Drawing together the findings of the three studies within the current

research as the basis for the informed evolution of the proposed SDT-informed motivational pathways model

The current research collected evidence which, further to analysis, has led to insights that have been utilised, herafter, to suggest a solution to the afore-mentioned puzzle regarding a motivational pathway illustrating the potential interplay between the three SDT needs and their cumulative impact upon students’ engagement. Ryan and Deci (2009) acknowledge that “both the social-contextual and personal motivation variables central to SDT have been found to predict engagement, performance and well-being” (p. 181) and assert that relatedness, autonomy and competence have salient motivational influences upon an individual’s self- determined motivation to engage with learning activities. However, they and numerous other SDT researchers have not, within their writing, specified if one SDT construct is central to the positive psychosocial development of the other two when applied to students’ motivated engagement in the classroom (see section 2.9). The evidence within the MER and main study

175

differ, in the evidence suggests that each of the three SDT basic psychological needs has hierarchical influences upon the other two. These, in turn, appear to have an impact upon students’ motivation to engage with learning activities. These potential influences and impact led to the consideration of the extent to which autonomous motivation is an outcome within SDT rather than a basic need (see Section 5.5). For example, Sneddon (2013) argues that the greater the awareness of one’s competence, the more autonomous an individual is likely to be motivated to be. For example, where an individual’s self-concept is positively enhanced, one may more reliably predict the enhancement of motivation and an increased likelihood of such intentions being translated into engagement behaviours (p. 50). Within the current research, where there are positive perceptions of the teacher-student interpersonal relationship, there are corresponding positive perceptions of competence and autonomy, and, in turn, upon a student’s motivation for and actual engagement with learning. It may be that students’ perceived competence enhances (when viewed positively) or undermines (when viewed negatively) their receptiveness to a teacher’s autonomy-supportive behaviours, both prior to and during learning activities, and that perceived competence mediates and is predictive of the quality of students’ manifested autonomy during learning activities. The extent to which the student has a positive or a negative perspective of competence and autonomy also appears to be predictive of the student’s perceived quality of the teacher-student relationship (De Naeghel et al., 2012; Mouratidis et al., 2008; Painter, 2011; Ryan et al., 1994).

Perceived competence is a ‘feeling of competence’, in that the student believes that they have the competence, and self-efficacy, in place to be able to complete tasks successfully (Bandura, 1977; Brophy, 2004; Fredricks et al., 2004; Jimerson et al., 2003; NRC, 2004). It may be that a teacher can be autonomy supportive during an activity where students exercise their autonomy and autonomy supportive through the impact of teachers’ behaviours and methods upon students’ perceived competence and subsequent positive impact upon students’ motivation to be autonomous. It is suggested that teachers, therefore, should be both autonomy-supportive during an activity where students actively exercise their autonomy and before autonomy-rich activities by means of the cumulative influences of teachers’ relatedness and competence-based behaviours and methods having a positive impact upon students’ autonomous motivation. Within Figure 5.1 (below), two motivational pathways to engagement are proposed which may function simultaneously. Alternatively, the student may not have the opportunity during a lesson to satisfy their desire for autonomy based upon the cumulative impact of teacher-student relationship quality and perceived competence. Therefore, the pathway from competence motivation to self-determined

176

motivation is more likely to be influential upon engagement. These relationships between the different forms of motivation informing engagement with learning are illustrated in Figure 5.2. The development of these are based upon the evidence informing the Figure 5.1 pathway.

Such findings and theory-informed conclusions, from the intuitive perspective of teachers, may be regarded as ‘common sense’, in that the findings will appeal to the intuitive experience of teachers, as it did with me. Two objectives of the current research have been achieved: the first was to outline key common behaviours and characteristics of teachers that students regard as being most influential upon their engagement with learning activities. The second was to present the findings obtained in such a way that they can be applied by

teachers within their own classrooms as a means of improving and developing both their evidence-informed professional practice and further in-school research. Therefore, the findings of the current research help to highlight areas that teachers may wish to focus their energies upon: that is, enhancing the quality of the teacher-student relationship and the students’ perceived competence through, for example, a focus upon feedback. As an

experienced teacher, such conclusions make intuitive common sense in that students are more likely to feel autonomously motivated to engage in the self-regulation of their own learning when they perceive that they have both the competence to achieve success within a learning activity and the support of a teacher that will help make such success more likely. With each learning activity, such perceived competence would need to be in place if a student was to fully exercise their desire for autonomy, with further autonomy support being provided by the teacher during the activity through feedback and guidance. This, in turn, is more likely to result in sustained engagement. By being autonomy-supportive prior to learning activities within which students are afforded opportunities to exercise their autonomy, the cumulative impact of the teacher-student relationship and perceived competence are more likely to motivate students to make the most of such opportunities (Boud, 1988; Higgs, 1988). For example, within the main study, positive performance feedback given to students was

affirmed as enhancing their self-efficacy during science lessons. For example, where students were given regular positive feedback about their performance, including how they could correct and improve upon poor performance, there was a self-reported increase in their motivation to engage further in the learning activities (Brophy, 2004). This recognition of both effort and progress, as acknowledged through a teacher’s feedback, also helped to improve students’ perceptions of the quality of the teacher-student relationship through the students’ understanding of the role of the teacher in enhancing their perceived competence.

177

The emergent findings of the MER were represented diagrammatically as a potential motivational pathway. The objective of this pathway was to inform teachers’ understanding of the behaviours and methods that can have an optimum influence upon students’ motivation to engage with learning activities (see Figure 2.6). This was used as a conceptual framework for the main study (Chapters 3 and 4) in conjunction with the conceptual framework for the MER (see Figure 2.3). This pathway model has, in turn, evolved on the basis of the findings of the main study (see Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.1 A potential reciprocal motivational pathways model outlining the two proposed

forms of autonomy support by teachers

Teacher-student relationship quality (Relatedness) based upon students’ perceptions of teacher support during activities

Perceived competence support by the teacher through, for example, feedback and strategies for making further progress

Teacher impact upon perceived competence (academic self-concept and self-efficacy)

Autonomous motivation Competence motivation

Quality and persistence of engagement with learning

activity

Achievement, informing resultant impact upon perceived competence and self-efficacy Autonomy- supportive teacher’s impact prior to a learning activity Autonomy- supportive teacher’s impact during a learning activity Influence upon nature of motivational outcomes

178 5.10. Conclusion

From the evidence harvested across the four methods utilised within the current research, the common findings were that the engaging learning environment is based upon the development of positive teacher-student relationships through learning activities that enhance students’ perceived competence and self-efficacy in relation to applying their mastery and understanding of knowledge during learning activities. When students regard such learning activities as positive and challenging, they will exercise autonomy, having been motivated by the opportunity to pursue their own ideas and curiosity driven-interests in relation to content and subject (Darby, 2005; Engel, 2011; Hattie, 2009; Renninger et al, 2014) and perceived competence (Sneddon, 2013).

The confirmed impact of reciprocal influences between the teacher-afforded behaviours and methods upon which the teacher-student relationship quality is based and students’ perceived competence / self-efficacy inform the quality and persistence of autonomous motivation across the MER and main study has been encompassed within the final version of the proposed SDT-based motivational pathway (see Figure 5.3). For consideration and testing through further research, the puzzle remains as to whether

autonomous motivation and self-determined motivation are separate constructs or are indeed synonymous (see Section 6.4). In order to achieve a level of conceptual clarification with regards to the potential pathways between the different types of motivation that influence students’ engagement with learning, a pathway model was developed based upon the conclusions drawn from the MER (Figure 3.5). This was modified on the basis of the evidence from the main study (Figure 4.2) and the online survey (Figure 5.2) as a means of seeking to inform our understanding of the behaviours and methods that have an optimum influence upon students’ motivated engagement with learning activities (Figures 5.1 and 5.2). Within the proposed model, autonomous motivation has been posited as an outcome that is predicted by and predictive of the quality of intrinsic and self-determined motivation, both of which are predicted by competence motivation. The proposed model has been developed as a ‘net of causation’ with outcomes and their benefits being reliant upon conditional probability (Morrison, 2009, pp. 13, 45).

179

Figure 5.2 Proposed motivational pathway between the three SDT constructs, with autonomy / autonomous motivation as outcomes that are

dependent upon the perceived cumulative quality of relatedness and competence (Final Version based upon cumulative evidence)

Academic self-concept

Key: MRt – Mediates Receptiveness to TC – Teacher Care

MPo – Mediates Perceptions of PF – Performance Feedback (Positive / Negative) DCTB – Directly Controlling Teacher Behaviours

TS – Teacher Support

Either / or Teacher-Student Relationship Quality

(Relatedness) Intrinsic motivation Quality of ENGAGEMENT Teacher’s autonomy supportive behaviours DCTB Self-efficacy Enhancement of students’ Perceived Competence Autonomous Motivation Self-Determined Motivation

Positive perceptions of autonomy supportive behaviours

MPo

Perceived ability to exercise autonomy (to be autonomous) Competence Motivation MPo MPo MPo By means of TS, TC, PF and Affective Support MRt