Teori Penentuan Diri mengutarakan hal yang berkaitan dengan Sokongan Autonomi Guru (TAS) untuk menggalakkan motivasi pembelajaran dan meningkatkan hasil akademik. Namun terdapat kontroversi silang budaya berkaitan konstruk autonomi Teori Penentuan Diri sehingga menyebabkan timbulnya persoalan tentang aplikasi TAS dalam persekitaran bilik darjah di Asia. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji hubungan antara sokongan autonomi dalam motivasi pelajar Thai. Seramai 103 pelajar (56 perempuan dan 47 lelaki) Gred 6 dari sekolah awam di Thailand terlibat dalam kajian yang menggunakan kaedah eksperimen kuasi antara kelompok tidak setara. Pelajar dalam kelompok ujikaji ini menerima arahan daripada guru yang terlatih dalam pengajaran sokongan autonomi dalam tujuh (7) sesi (60 minit setiap sesi) di bilik darjah. Data dikumpulkan dan dilakukan prauji, ujian1 dan ujian2 menggunakan inventori motivasi instrinsik oleh Ryan (1982), soal selidik pengaturan sendiri oleh Ryan dan Connell (1989) dan soal selidik iklim pembelajaran oleh Black dan Deci (2000). Analisis menggunakan Multivariate Analysis of Variance di peringkat prauji menunjukkan tiada perbezaan hubungan di antara kumpulan yang dikaji dengan kumpulan kawalan bagi semua pemboleh ubah termasuk jantina. Walau bagaimanapun terdapat perbezaan min antara kumpulan tersebut berdasar: (i) antara kedua-dua kumpulan yang diuji pada pra ujian1, (ii) antara ujian1 dan ujian2 untuk kumpulan yang dikaji dengan kesan utama melibatkan semua pemboleh ubah dan (iii) min di antara ujian1 dan ujian2 yang dilakukan semula di antara kumpulan yang dikaji. Bagaimanapun, kesan utama yang dilihat hanyalah bagi pemboleh ubah usaha, hubungan dan sokongan autonomi teranggap. Sehubungan itu, didapati Teori Penentuan Diri telah menunjukkan bahawa autonomi bukanlah nilai yang terikat dengan budaya, bersesuaian dengan pelajar Thai dan memberi kesan dalam pendidikan dan polisi di Thailand.
satisfaction (g = 0.28) outcomes at follow-up, these e ﬀects emerged as signiﬁcant (due to reduced variation), and this was also the case for autonomous motivation (g = 0.22; see Table 2 ). All other e ﬀect sizes pertaining to changes in SDT constructs at follow-up were non-signiﬁcant.
Few intervention characteristics were signi ﬁcant moderators (see Table 3 ). Of the need suppor- tive techniques, studies that utilised the competence supportive technique ‘to be positive that the individual can succeed ’ generated larger increases in controlled motivation and larger reductions in amotivation, compared to studies that did not. Moreover, these studies achieved marginally larger increases in need support, autonomy satisfaction, and autonomous motivation, all of which became signi ﬁcant following the removal of outliers (need support: B = 1.09, SE = 0.38, t = 2.88, p = .01; autonomy satisfaction: B = 0.73, SE = 0.27, t = 2.73, p = .02; autonomous motiv- ation: B = 0.49, SE = 0.15, t = 2.78, p = .009). ‘Identifying barriers to change’ was associated with increases in autonomous motivation and ‘conveying a person is valued’ was associated with increases in autonomy satisfaction, reductions in amotivation, and marginal increases in related- ness satisfaction. Interventions delivered in community settings were more likely to enhance relatedness and reduce amotivation than interventions delivered elsewhere. There were no other intervention characteristics that signi ﬁcantly increased or decreased the magnitude of the e ﬀect sizes for autonomysupport, competence satisfaction, autonomy satisfaction, combined need satisfaction, autonomous motivation, or controlled motivation at conventional levels of sig- ni ﬁcance. The above moderator eﬀects were largely robust to the inﬂuence of outliers, with the exception of two additional e ﬀects emerging once outliers were removed: the technique to ‘provide a meaningful rationale’ was positively associated with larger eﬀect sizes for autonomy, B = .60, SE = .25, t = 2.40, p = .03, and combined need satisfaction, B = .49, SE = .19, t = 2.54, p = .02. Finally, two study quality characteristics signi ﬁcantly moderated eﬀects: adequate allo- cation concealment reduced e ﬀect sizes representing the eﬀect of the intervention on auton- omous motivation, while blinding the intervention provider increased the e ﬀect of the intervention on relatedness. Various BCTs were associated with increased e ﬀect sizes for various SDT constructs (see Table 4 ). The potential confounding roles of these BCTs are con- sidered in the Sensitivity Analyses section below.
A second criterion for inclusion was that studies explicitly adopted a self-determinationperspective. We therefore content analyzed the method sections of intervention/experimental studies that manipulated individual components of autonomysupport (e.g., choice,
acknowledgement of perspective, rationale provision) or associated manipulations (e.g., basic needs support) and studies that measured perceived autonomysupport to ensure that the components were consistent with SDT. Research reporting the effects of choice on pertinent outcomes was checked to confirm that the choice provided was autonomous as controlled choice is likely to serve to undermine, rather than promote, autonomy (Moller, Deci, & Ryan, 2006; Patall et al., 2008; Ryan, 1982). Studies manipulating basic psychological need support, rather than conducting an independent manipulation of autonomysupport, were included. Similarly, those assessing need support rather than perceived autonomysupport only were included. However, because manipulations of need support and measures of perceived need support incorporated elements of autonomysupport alongside other manipulations or constructs, these studies were also included in a separate moderator group. Effect sizes for studies manipulating or assessing perceived autonomysupport alone were compared with those for studies that manipulated or assessed perceived autonomysupport in conjunction with other manipulations or variables. Although such studies did not allow the isolation of the effects of manipulated autonomysupport and perceived autonomysupport from other variables, they enabled the comparison of the effects of studies manipulating or assessing perceived autonomysupport exclusively with the effects of autonomysupport manipulations or perceived autonomysupport combined with other intervention components or variables, respectively.
One limitation of Study 4 was that our results suggested that motivation contagion effect is present only when the target exerciser is male. When the exerciser was female, we found that participants rated autonomysupport to be more effective when she was portrayed to be motivated for controlled reason. Our results suggest that motivation contagion effect may be moderated by other factors, such as gender. Apart from the gender effects we found, researchers have identified other possible factors, such as empathy (Hojat et al., 2002), that may lead to differential treatment, and hence may moderate motivationeffects. For instance, Pelletier et al. (2002) found, in an education setting, that apart from perceived motivation of students, teachers’ perception of constraints at work also influenced their self-determination to teach. Applied in a gym setting, instructors may also have perceptions of constraint or pressure from supervisors. Therefore, future research should include measures for perceived pressure from supervisors, and examine whether the perceived pressure from above (i.e., superordinates) or below (i.e., exerciser) may influence instructors’ motivation and their use of motivating behaviours. Other variables that may potentially affect the results, such as experience or causality orientations of instructors, may also be explored. Results from these studies may have implication for training programmes for future gym instructors, and also theoretical developments in the area of motivation contagion.
Fourth, although SDT suggests that students ’ motivation can best be supported by high levels of support in all three dimensions (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000b), our ﬁ ndings as well as ﬁ ndings from previous studies (e.g., Hornstra et al., 2015; Reeve, 2009) have indicated that, in practice, not all students are o ﬀ ered such an optimal teaching style. In particular, stu- dents for whom teachers held lower expectations were found to perceive less autonomysupport, structure, and involvement. Prior research has indicated that teacher expectation interventions can positively a ﬀ ect students ’ achievement (Rubie-Davies & Rosenthal, 2016). In addition, teacher interventions on need-supportive teaching have been found to be e ﬀ ective in terms of enhancing students ’ motivation (e.g., Su & Reeve, 2011). For future research, it may be interesting to examine if interventions that integrate these two research traditions, by focussing on enhancing teacher expectations as well as increas- ing teachers ’ need-supportive teaching, may be even more e ﬀ ective. Also, it may be worthwhile to examine whether such interventions would be especially bene ﬁ cial for low-expectation students, because these students are more likely to receive lower levels of need-supportive teaching according to the results of this study, and because these stu- dents are relatively often from stigmatised groups and have been found to be particularly vulnerable to teacher expectation e ﬀ ects (e.g., Jussim, Eccles, & Madon, 1996; Jussim & Harber, 2005).
Taking into account the abovementioned trends in students’ reading and writing motivation, we can conclude that the end of elementary grades and the beginning of secondary grades are crucial phases for students to engage in autonomously motivating literacy activities since their autonomous motivation to read and write, both in and beyond school, seriously drops. Based on previous research on students’ declining academic intrinsic motivation, different reasons for this decline can be put forward ( Gnambs and Hanfstingl, 2016 ). Next to developmental changes, such as identity formation ( Faye and Sharpe, 2008 ), and neuropsychological changes, such as students’ still developing brain structures ( Blakemore et al., 2007 ), SDT-related research puts forward a need-driven explanation ( Gnambs and Hanfstingl, 2016 ). More specifically, SDT points to the importance of fostering autonomous motivation by nurturing students’ inherent psychological need for autonomy (i.e., feeling psychologically free), competence (i.e., feeling confident and effective), and relatedness (i.e., feeling related to significant others) ( Ryan and Deci, 2000b, 2020 ). In this respect, the longitudinal cohort study of Gnambs and Hanfstingl (2016) demonstrated that students’ intrinsic motivation remains fairly stable during adolescence when students experience an adequate satisfaction of these three basic psychological needs in school. To ensure the facilitation of these needs, teachers can adopt a qualitatively supportive teaching style, characterized by autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teacher behavior ( Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2005 ). In the context of reading and writing instruction, some experimental studies aiming at fostering students’ autonomous reading or writing motivation already exist (e.g., De Naeghel et al., 2016 ; De Smedt et al., 2018a, 2020 ), but remain rather scarce. Therefore, more research is needed to identify and test instructional reading and writing
Starting with the effect of extrinsic incentives in promoting altruistic behaviours such as charitable donations, there is evidence to suggest that the undermining effect is not as widespread as Titmuss (1970) had predicted. Mellström and Johannesson (2008), for example, conducted a field experiment to assess the effect of monetary payments on blood donations, and found the motivation crowding out effect to be limited to female rather than male donors - potentially due to women being more sensitive to the implicit social expectation of performing altruistic acts in the absence of external incentives (e.g. Croson and Gneezy, 2009). What is more, any negative consequences from the provision of monetary incentives were found to be offset through the simple act of allowing participants to donate their payment to charity (Mellström and Johannesson, 2008) - implying that financial rewards can, under certain circumstances, support prosocial motivation. Similar conclusions are reported in research studies examining other types of prosocial behaviour, including contributions towards environmental conservation and public service co- production. An experimental study by d’Adda (2011), for example, showed that external interventions designed to prime individuals towards environmental protection had differential effects on civic engagement, depending on individuals’ civic values prior to the intervention. Specifically, while external incentives were found to crowd out contributions of civically-engaged participants, they helped increase altruistic choices of selfish individuals. More recently, Voorberg et al (2018) found that while financial rewards are not an effective mechanism for stimulating co-production of public services (assessed through a sample of Dutch students’ willingness to teach language courses to refugees), they do not necessarily crowd out prosocial motivation either, indicating, once more, that the undermining effects of extrinsic rewards are not as pervasive as initially understood.
SDT proposes that contexts (as well as individual differences listed above) support the satisfaction of psychological needs and wellbeing (Gagne, 2003; Gagne, Ryan, & Bargmann, 2003) Therefore, according to SDT all people have the capacity to pursue growth and development, but whether they succeed or not, can depend on the features of the context within which they seek these opportunities. Within the workplace, motivation and wellbeing are likely to be satisfied within a workplace environment that supports one’s selfdetermination, and this is termed autonomy supportive (Ryan & Deci, 2008; Sprietzer et. al., 2005). Deci et al. (1989) showed that training managers to maximize subordinates’ opportunities to take initiative, provide informational feedback (non-controlling), and acknowledge the subordinates’ perspectives, improved subordinates’ attitudes and trust in the corporation and the display of other positive work-related attitudes. The researchers found that the level of managers’ autonomysupport increased in the intervention sites relative to the control group sites and, even more importantly, that these changes crossed over to their subordinates, who reported increases in perceptions of the quality of supervision, trust in the organization, and job-related satisfaction.
nurtured by other people. In educational settings, the concept of motivating style deals with the teacher’s interpersonal style toward the learners and it exists on a continuum, ranging from a highly controlling style to a highly autonomy-supportive style. Within the framework of self-determinationtheory, motivational style is affected by the factors in the social environment that affect self-perceptions of competence and autonomy. In educational settings, the teacher appears to be the key person who affects these perceptions. Therefore, the teachers’ communicative styles are associated with the learners’ autonomous motivation (Reeve, 2006, Rahmanpanah, 2017). Elsewhere, Reeve (2012) states that when teacher-learners interactions go well, teachers function both as a guide to structure learners’ learning opportunities, as well as support system to nurture learners’ interests and to enable learners to internalize new values, develop important skills, and develop social responsibility. In this supportive condition, learners’ classroom activity is consistent with their needs, interests and preferences as learners show strong motivation, active engagement and meaningful learning (Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1991& Reeve, 2006; Reeve & Jang, 2006; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan). As Deci (2000) points out, autonomy-supportive teachers facilitate congruence by identifying and nurturing the learners’ needs, interests, and preferences, and by creating classroom opportunities for learners to guide their behavior. Nevertheless, controlling teachers interfere with learners’ self-determination because they as learners are to adapt themselves to the teacher-constructed instructional regulations. In other words, autonomy-supportive learning environments involve and nurture the learners’ psychological needs, personal interests, and integrated values. Autonomy-supportive learning environment is the one that the teacher acknowledges the learners’ perspective, allow opportunities and choice for self-initiation, apply non-controlling language, and provide timely positive feedback (Reeve & Jang, 2006; Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999). Moreover, some added concepts were introduced into the definitions of autonomy-support, including offering choices (Williams, Cox, Kouides, & Deci, 1999), nurturing inner motivational resources (Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, & 2004), and acknowledging perspective and feelings (Edmunds, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2008).
In a departure from the focus on individuals with developmental disabilities, Hill and Sibthorp (2006) took a self-determinationtheory approach to TR at a diabetes camp. Whereas their main goal was to create an autonomy supportive environment, they
fostered competence and relatedness needs as well. They found autonomysupport in the camp to enhance perceptions of relatedness for the campers (2006). Carruthers, Platz and Busser (2006) looked at an entirely different portion of the theory when looking into gambling motivations. They characterized participant motivation toward gambling as amotivation, extrinsic motivation, or intrinsic motivation. Sklar, Anderson and Autry’s 2007 study on a wilderness intervention and positive youth development contributed another perspective. They discussed the importance of autonomy and competence, but not relatedness, as part of a motivational framework in their literature review yet do not connect it to the results in the discussion. Lastly, Heo, Lee, Lundberg, McCormick and Chun (2008) investigated development of self-determination through participation in adaptive sports by measuring satisfaction of all three needs. They found that participants with higher levels of self-determination also scored high on serious leisure, as
Over the last forty years, a rich body of theoretical and experimental work on the nature of motivation and its implication in students’ academic and social functioning has developed (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Wentzel, 2007). While there are many definitions of motivation, this concept is often understood as the state of wanting to perform a specific activity in a given situation, and is often defined as either intrinsic or extrinsic (Schiefele, 2009). Motivation is central to understanding adolescents’ success (or lack of success) in school because it refers to the energy they bring to the tasks, beliefs, values and goals that determine which activities they devote themselves to, their persistence in achieving them, and the standards they set to determine when a task is completed (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009). While earlier research focused on individual characteristics (e.g., goals, standards for performance, values, interest), more recent studies included frameworks specifying developmental, ecological and socialization factors (e.g., parent, peer and teacher influences on student motivation) (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009). The interest is now about mixing those two perspectives on human motivation. One theory that explores the important interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is self-determinationtheory (SDT).
that would create a harsh, coercive environment that would undermine students'
development of both needs. The first indicator, “negative affect,” represented irritability, anger, and aggression between teacher and students. Six focus group participants felt this indicator best described an environment of rejection that would undermine students' sense of relatedness, while two participants felt this indicator represented a coercive style that would undermine students' sense of autonomy. This split in opinion continued to the next indicator, “punitive control,” which represents an environment in which a teacher yells or makes threats to establish control over the classroom. Five participants felt this typified a coercive environment that would undermine students' autonomy, while three argued that this again demonstrated an environment of high rejection that would undermine students' relatedness. The next indicator, “sarcasm/disrespect,” which described an environment where there is little respect between teacher and students, also seemed to represent both types of need support: seven participants felt this best aligned with an environment that would hinder relatedness, while two felt it most aligned with the autonomy dimension. The same was found for the final indicator, “severe negativity,” which measured the presence of bullying and victimization in a class. Upon discussion of these ratings, the group agreed that both perspectives were theoretically valid, and it was determined that this dimension represented a mix of rejection and coercion that would undermine students' sense of both relatedness and autonomy.
Understanding what malleable factors influence teachers to remain in the teaching
profession is of great interest to educators and policymakers given international teacher shortages and high attrition rates, especially in the areas of mathematics and science and among teachers working in high-poverty schools (Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stuckey, 2014; the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011). To understand what factors influence teachers to choose and persist in teaching, a burgeoning area of research has examined their motivation for teaching (Hoy, 2008; Kitching, Morgan, & O’Leary, 2009; Low, Ng, Hui, & Cai, 2017; Watt & Richardson, 2007). To conduct this work, researchers have adapted motivation theories to explore the contextual and personal factors affecting teachers’ motivation (Watt & Richardson, 2007). Research that combines theories of motivation in educational psychology with theory and practice in teacher education, however, remains scarce (Richardson & Watt, 2010). Moreover, little work has been devoted to examining the effects of contextual factors salient in the current school-work environments on teachers’ motivation for teaching. These significant contextual factors include but are not limited to the emphasis of high-stakes testing, institutional autonomy, and instructional support systems. Contextual factors such as these may have a significant impact on teachers’ approaches to instruction and their motivation for teaching (e.g., Hornstra, Mansfield, van der Veen, Peetsma, & Volman, 2015).
autonomy-supportive teachers by their score on the Problems In School Questionnaire and correlated that score with a set of hypothesized autonomy-supportive behaviors. Reeve and Jang (2006) measured perceived autonomy in students and correlated that with a set of hypothesized autonomy-supportive behaviors of their teachers. When taken together, these studies show that autonomy-supportive teachers (a) are less directly controlling students behavior (they use less directives and commands; use less should, must, or have to statements; ask less controlling questions; and seem less demanding and controlling), (b) stimulate independent thinking in students (they give less solutions, allow more time for independent work, hold instructional materials less, listen more, and are more responsive to student-generated questions), (c) are interpersonally supportive (they criticize less, use more encouragements, use more emphatic-perspective taking statements, and give more self-disclosure statements), (d) provide students with organizational and procedural control (by asking more questions of what the student wants), and (e) support intrinsic motivation and internalization. Although not all behaviors reached significance in all studies, and there were some conflicting findings regarding the use of hints and praise, the convergence of these three studies is impressive and imply that these behaviors are strongly supported.
Research undertaken by Rattelle et al. (2005) investigated the association of parental autonomous support on persistence in science subjects. The findings showed that students who perceived their parents to be autonomously supportive persisted in their education and showed higher levels of competence and autonomy (Rattelle et al., 2005). Although this study was conducted specifically between parents and students of the science curriculum it further supports previous studies (Chirkov and Ryan, 2001; Gonzalez-DeHass et al., 2005; Katz et al., 2011), which emphasise the need for parental autonomous support on student achievement. As shown by Chirkov and Ryan (2001) teacher’s support is also imperative in aiding students to be autonomously motivated. Many studies have investigated the role of teacher’s on student motivation (Assor et al., 2002; Taylor and Ntoumanis, 2007). As previously discussed, Black and Deci (2000) conducted some of the main research surrounding self-determinationtheory. A significant study by Black and Deci (2000) investigated student motivation as they transitioned into university. Results
In academic, Zimmerman (2000) proposed a model of developmental levels of regulatory skill based on perspective of social cognitive theory. This conceptual analysis emphasizes persistence and extensive social guidance at the beginning level of learning. Students learn new knowledge and skills by watching and observing the performance from models in their surroundings. Students attempt to perform the learned knowledge and skills at emulation level of self-regulatory, but not imitate exactly the actions and behaviour of models (Rosenthal, Zimmerman, & Durning, 1970). Students are in self-controlled level of self-regulatory skills when they master the use of knowledge and skills without the presence of the models. Final level, that is self-regulated level, is achieved when students can systematically adapt their behaviour and perform them in inconsistent environments. Students’ performance can be improved as immediate feedback and social support is given to them. Zimmerman (2000) described that “level 4 functioning (self-regulatory skill) continue to depends on social resources on a self-elective basis… because self- regulatory skill is context dependent, new performance problems can uncover limitations in existing strategies and require additional social learning experiences.” (p.31)
Autonomy-supportive settings have leaders and facilitators that utilise strategies and communication which focuses on the internal motivations of individuals, are flexible within the language they use, and demonstrate patience with consumers . Controlling strategies use external motives, be restrictive in the language and be strict with the amount of time they provide people to complete a task . Autonomy-support and control are at distal ends of the social context spectrum, yet are orthogonal [51, 52]. Reference  states that autonomy supportive environments increase satisfaction, engagement, enhance psychological outcomes and performance, whilst increasing understanding and persistence. Contrary to autonomy supportive environments are controlled environments that are more likely to create a culture of participation in return of a reward. Furthermore, controlling environments can negatively influence self-determination and a variety of positive outcomes .
Using a sample of 6,946 eighth-grade students who participated in the TIMSS 2007 study in the United States, this study examined a structural motivation model for science achievement based on the integration of Deci and Ryan’s SelfDeterminationTheory (1985, 1991). The findings of the current study extend our knowledge in understanding the role of basic needs on students’ motivational and academic outcomes in science classrooms. The structural model (Figure 3), which adequately fit the sample data of this study, explained approximately 18% of the variance among students’ science achievement. This chapter first briefly discusses the current state of science education in the United States. Next, the associations among autonomysupport, perceived competence in science, intrinsic motivation, and science achievement are examined in light of the research questions and hypotheses. The final section includes implications of the study’s findings for future research, an acknowledgement of study limitations, and a brief conclusion.
The objective of the current study was to identify the supervisory practices that can facilitate satisfac- tion of three basic psychological needs as postulated in SDT. The study utilised the experience sam- pling method to collect qualitative data in real time to capture students’ psychological and experiential experience of supervision in a repeated manner. The findings revealed several effective supervisory practices, such as providing autonomy need satisfaction by respecting students’ research interest, en- couraging self-initiation and becoming amenable to changes in studies as suggested by the students. Doctoral students’ need for competence can be fulfilled by constructive, positive and timely feedback and by providing optimal challenges. Further, the need for relatedness can be satisfied by providing personal and professional development support for students and ensuring their emotional well-being. Although these are meaningful findings, we concede that the types of supportive motivating behav- iours for doctoral supervision is not limited to these findings. There are other complex issues that we are aware of may contribute the quality of motivation experienced by the doctoral students. For ex- ample, that at times, doctoral students sometimes also form a bond with their topic and this might be proven to be a strong sustaining motivation. Additionally, attaining the degree itself is a powerful motivation which will benefit them and their family and yet could be the source of damaging ten- sions. Moreover, the limited sample size and single-university context are limitations of this study, Nevertheless, we believe that since the needs in SDT are common across cultures, age and gender (Deci & Ryan 2000), the findings of this study would be applicable to varying extents in other coun- tries. In this regard, a future study could seek to extend this study’s findings by considering supervi- sion data from supervisors reporting on their relationship with their students and aspects of supervi- sion relationship from a student perspective. In addition, longitudinal studies could be conducted to ascertain other supportive motivating behaviours and also to chart changes in students’ comments over time.
Self-determinationtheory is a macro-theory of motivation which examines how interactions between a person‟s internal processes and social-contextual factors affect a persons‟ motivation and behavior. It was introduced by Deci and Ryan (1985) as an elaboration of the intrinsic/extrinsic paradigm (Dörnyei, 1998) and focuses not only on the level but also on different types, i.e. qualities of motivation. Autonomy, or self-determination, is a fundamental theoretical principle in SDT. According to SDT, autonomy is a form of volitional functioning that is affected by satisfaction of psychological needs and the social- contextual factors. Central to self-determinationtheory (SDT) is the belief that the satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the social context enhances the natural processes of autonomous motivation and, consequently, fosters high-quality learning. According to STD people have an innate need to be autonomous. The need for autonomy is of central importance for human development and well-being and refers to individuals‟ need to behave with a sense of volition, willingness, and congruence as one aspires to fully endorse and concur with the behavior one is engaged in (Deci & Ryan, 2012). Thus, to be autonomous or self-determined is not so much about being free from external factors but it refers to experiencing autonomy through internalizing the value and significance of certain behavior. In addition to the need for autonomy, people have a need of competence and a need of relatedness. When these three needs are supported in the classroom, students are more likely to internally value academic goals and tasks which increases high-quality motivation and voluntarily engagement. Accordingly, the quality of student motivation depends on the degree to which the teacher is able to meet students‟ needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Regarding types of motivation, SDT distinguishes between a lack of motivation referred to as amotivation, and different types of motivation depending on the degree of self-determination i.e. autonomy (Figure 1).