TEACHING APPROACHES WHEN WORKING WITH STUDENTS WITH LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS: DO TEACHERS GIVE STUDENTS AUTONOMY TO LEARN?

Jūratė Česnavičienė, Agnė Brandišauskienė, Ramutė Teresė Bruzgelevičienė, Rasa Nedzinskaitė-Mačiūnienė

Abstract


As PISA 2018 results show (OECD, 2018, 2019), students with high SES achieve better results in all countries than their peers with low SES. The impact of personal background circumstances on student performance is partly mediated by other factors, e.g. students’ access to educational resources, differences in the opportunity to learn, and grade repetition and tracking. Meanwhile, Jensen (2009) claims that the major factor affecting the achievement of students living in unfavourable conditions is not their living environment, but rather the school and the teachers. Jensen (2013) notes that the best strategy to help students with low SES achieve success in learning is to provide such conditions that they are involved in the learning process. Therefore, the present article explores how teachers employ self-determination theory when working with students with low SES. The participants in the quantitative survey were selected from five schools of one District Municipality in Lithuania characterized by low SES. The sample consisted of 95 teachers and 183 students. The results concerning the teachers demonstrate that the teachers working with low-SES status students have the moderately autonomy-supportive style, yet they tend to employ the controlling motivating style alongside the autonomy-supportive one. In the students’ opinion, they have a fairly close relationship with their teachers and feel understood by them. The students also maintain that the teachers give them choices, encourage them to ask questions and express confidence in their abilities. However, it can be determined that the teachers rarely seek to empower children to learn independently.

 


Keywords


Self-determination theory; socio-economic status; student; teacher; teachers’ motivating style

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andersen, I.G., & Andersen, S.C. (2017). Student-centered instruction and academic achievement: linking mechanisms of educational inequality to schools’ instructional strategy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 533-550. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1093409

Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., & Furlong, M.J. (2008). Student Engagement with School: Critical Conceptual and Methodological Issues of the Construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386. DOI:10.1002/pits.20303

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. DOI: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3

Clark, R.E., Kirshner, P.A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting Students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 6-11. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ971752

Deci, E.L., Schwartz, A., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R.M. (1981). An Instrument to Assess Adult’s Orientations toward Control versus Autonomy in Children: Reflections on Intrinsic Motivation and Perceived Competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642-650. DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642

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. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137

DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications: Theory and Application. Thousand Okas, CA: Sage.

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2012). Whatever happened to process theories of learning? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 45-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.002

Gagne, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. DOI: 10.1002/job.322

Gunnell, K., Crocker, P.R.E., Wilson, P.M., Mack, D.E., & Zumbo, B.D. (2013). Psychological Need Satisfaction and Thwarting: A Test of Basic Psychological Needs Theory in Physical Activity Contexts. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(5), 599-607. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.03.007

Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do Perceived Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling Teaching Relate to Physical Education Students’ Motivational Experiences through Unique Pathways? Distinguishing between the Bright and Dark Side of Motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16(3), 26-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013

Hair, N.L., Hanson, J.L., Wolfe, B.L., & Pollak, S.D. (2015). Association of Child Poverty, Brain Development, and Academic Achievement. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(9), 822-829. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1475

Hein, V., Koka, A., & Hagger, M.S. (2015). Relationships between Perceived Teachers’ Controlling Behaviour, Psychological Need Thwarting, Anger and Bullying Behaviour in High-School Students. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 103-114. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.003

Hornstra, L., Mansfield, C., Van der Veen, I., Peetsma, Th., & Volman, M. (2015). Motivational teacher strategies: the role of beliefs and contextual factors. Learning Environments Research, 18, 363-392. DOI: 10.1007/s10984-015-9189-y

Jang, H., Kim, E.J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why Students become more engaged or more Disengaged during the Semester: A Self-Determination Theory Dual-Process Model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002

Jensen, E. (2009). Engaging students with poverty in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jensen, E. (2013). How poverty affects classroom engagement. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 24-30. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may13/vol70/num08/How-Poverty-Affects-Classroom-Engagement.aspx

Lietuva. Švietimas šalyje ir regionuose 2016. Mokinių pasiekimai (2016). [In Lithuanian language] Retrieved from: https://www.smm.lt/web/lt/teisesaktai/tyrimai-ir-analizes/svietimo-ir-mokslo-bukles-apzvalgos

Lietuva. Švietimas šalyje ir regionuose 2017. Mokytojas (2017). [In Lithuanian language] Retrieved from: https://www.smm.lt/web/lt/teisesaktai/tyrimai-ir-analizes/svietimo-ir-mokslo-bukles-apzvalgos

Niemiec, Ch., & Ryan, M.R. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom. Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144. DOI: 10.1177/1477878509104318

OECD (2017). Education in Lithuania. Reviews of national policies for education. OECD publishing, Paris. DOI: 10.1787/9789264281486-en.

OECD (2018). Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: 10.1787/9789264073234-en

OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: 10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en

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. DOI: 10.1080/00461520903028990

Reeve, J. (2012). A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Student Engagement. In: Sandra L. Christenson, Amy L. Reschly, Cathy Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 149-172).

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. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209

Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 537-548. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.537

Reeve, J., Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2018). Selfdetermination theory: A dialectical framework for understanding the sociocultural influences on student motivation. In D.M.McInerney & G.A.D.Liem (Eds.) Big theories revisited 2: Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (pp. 15-40). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Rodriguez, V. (2013). The Potential of Systems Thinking in Teacher Reform as Theorized for the Teaching Brain Framework. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(2), 77-85. Retrieved from:https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/vanessarodriguez/files/potentialofsystemsthinking_publishedmbe_6-1-13.pdf

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, L.E. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: An Introduction and Overview. In Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, developmentm and wellness (pp. 3-29). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Shewbridge, C., Godfrey, K., Hermann, Z., & Nusche, D. (2016). OECD Reviews of School Resources: Lithuania 2016. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: 10.1787/9789264252547-en

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review 9, 65-87. DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.003

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2015). Need supportive teaching in practice: a narrative analysis in schools with contrasting educational approaches. Social Psychology of Education, 18, 585-613. DOI: 10.1007/s11218-015-9290-1

The Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development (2016). The Impact of Poverty on a Child‘s Academic Performance. Retrieved from: http://www.institutepa.org/pdf/indicators/2016/povertyandacademicperformce.pdf

Van Nuland, H.J.C., Taris, T.W., Boekaerts, M., & Martens, R.L. (2012). Testing the hierarchical SDT model: the case of performance-oriented classrooms. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27, 467-482. DOI: 10.1007/s10212-011-0089-y




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol3.4884

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.