Educational Psychologist

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20

Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability,

benefits, and potential to improve educational
practice

Johnmarshall Reeve & Sung Hyeon Cheon

To cite this article: Johnmarshall Reeve & Sung Hyeon Cheon (2021) Autonomy-supportive
teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice, Educational
Psychologist, 56:1, 54-77, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657

Published online: 01 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6639

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hedp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST
2021, VOL. 56, NO. 1, 54–77
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657

Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to

improve educational practice
Johnmarshall Reevea and Sung Hyeon Cheonb
a
Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia; bDepartment of Physical Education, Korea
University, Seongbuk-gu, South Korea

ABSTRACT
Autonomy-supportive teaching is the adoption of a student-focused attitude and an understand-
ing interpersonal tone that enables the skillful enactment of seven autonomy-satisfying instruc-
tional behaviors to serve two purposes—support intrinsic motivation and support internalization.
Using self-determination theory principles and empirical findings, researchers have developed and
implemented numerous teacher-focused and methodologically-rigorous interventions to provide
teachers with the professional developmental experience they need to learn how to become more
autonomy supportive. The findings from 51 autonomy-supportive teaching interventions (includ-
ing 38 randomized control trials) collectively show that (1) teachers can learn how to become
more autonomy supportive during instruction (autonomy-supportive teaching is malleable) and,
once learned, (2) this greater autonomy-supportive teaching produces a wide range of education-
ally important student, teacher, and classroom climate benefits (autonomy-supportive teaching is
beneficial). Recognizing this, the article shows how the recent surge in autonomy-supportive inter-
vention research has advanced the conceptual understanding of the nature of autonomy-support-
ive teaching and clarified its potential to improve educational practice.

Students show initiative, learn new information, and help question asks whether acquired autonomy-supportive teach-
their classmates more in some classes than in others. These ing is beneficial. The recent intervention research has
manifestations of engagement, learning, and prosocial answered these two questions and, in doing so, has raised
behavior occur mostly in classrooms that afford students additional questions about the nature of autonomy-support-
recurring opportunities to experience motivational satisfac- ive teaching and its potential to improve educational prac-
tions. Many classroom factors explain the rise and fall of tice. Accordingly, the present paper aims to explain how this
students’ motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and learning intervention research has advanced educators’ understanding
(Hattie, 2009), but one of the most important is the teach- of the conceptualization, malleability, benefits, and potential
er’s motivating style—the most frequently studied of which of autonomy-supportive teaching. Here we explain what we
is autonomy support (Aelterman et al., 2019; Assor et al., mean by these four areas of advancement:
2002; Deci et al., 1981; Reeve, 2009).
Many recent literature reviews of autonomy-supportive teach-
Conceptualization
ing exist (Gustavsson et al., 2016; Lochbaum & Jean-Noel, 2016;
Patall, 2019; Teixeira et al., 2020; Van den Berghe et al., 2014; What is the essence of autonomy-supportive teaching? What
Vasconcellos et al., 2020). These reviews collectively established a are its “active ingredients” that support students’ motivation
positive correlation between autonomy-supportive teaching and so well? How is autonomy-supportive teaching best
educationally-important student outcomes and, in doing so, defined—both conceptually and operationally?
have catalyzed the recent surge in classroom-based intervention
research. These intervention studies have been designed to
Malleability
answer two key questions. First, can teachers learn how to
become more autonomy supportive toward students? Second, if Can interventions be designed and implemented to provide
so, do acquired gains in autonomy-supportive teaching then teachers with the professional developmental experience they
cause subsequent gains in educationally-important outcomes? need to learn how to become more autonomy supportive?
The first question asks if autonomy-supportive teaching What professional-developmental resources do teachers
is malleable, or learnable through guidance. The second acquire during a successful intervention experience that

CONTACT Johnmarshall Reeve or Sung Hyeon Cheon [email protected]; [email protected] Institute for Positive Psychology and
Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney Campus, 33 Berry Street, 9th floor, Sydney, NSW 2060, Australia; Department of Physical Education,
Korea University, Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea.
This article was accepted under the editorship of Kathryn Wentzel.
ß 2020 Division 15, American Psychological Association
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 55

enables this professional development to occur? Once The tendency became to define autonomy support by ref-
learned, does autonomy-supportive teaching endure? erence to its behavioral markers.
A second well-accepted example was as follows:
Benefits Autonomy support is clearly defined with respect to a behaviour
set that an individual may exhibit that holds implications for
Do intervention-enabled gains in autonomy-supportive the formation of self-determined regulations … , such as eliciting
teaching increase teachers’ causal capacity to produce and acknowledging perspectives, supporting self-initiative,
offering choice, providing relevant information, and minimizing
important educational benefits? Who benefits from greater pressure and control. (Rouse et al., 2011, p. 731)
autonomy-supportive teaching—students? teachers? the
classroom climate? Like others, the authors of the present article similarly
defined autonomy support via its unique behavioral markers
(Reeve, 2009, Table 1, p. 160). Defining autonomy support
Potential to improve educational practice via “a behavior set,” however, introduces three conceptual
problems. First, such a definition does not identify the con-
Are there limiting conditions to the intervention effect, such cept’s essential nature. Second, it fails to identify the under-
as the teacher’s personality or culture? Can autonomy-sup- lying source or origin of these behaviors. Third, it fails to
portive teaching be used to increase the effectiveness of explain why that particular teaching practice might be
classroom structure, teacher involvement, and culturally expected to produce its motivational effect. In the end, what
responsive teaching? Can autonomy-supportive teaching be was lacking was the identification of that which is respon-
done poorly? sible for the emergence of autonomy-supportive instruc-
tional behaviors in the first place.

Conceptualization of autonomy-supportive teaching

Origins of autonomy-supportive teaching
The theoretical basis of autonomy-supportive teaching is
self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017). SDT’s The essence of autonomy-supportive teaching appears in
central explanatory concept is the psychological need for Figure 1. Autonomy-supportive teaching is rooted in the teach-
autonomy, which is defined as the need for personal owner- er’s basic attitude vis-
a-vis students and in the teacher’s inter-
ship over one’s behavior. That is, autonomy is the psycho- personal tone during teacher-student interactions. Specifically,
logical need to experience volition and self-endorsement autonomy-supportive teaching emerges out of a student-
in the initiation and regulation of one’s behavior. When focused attitude and an understanding interpersonal tone.
students become the origins of their own behaviors and Together, a student focus and an understanding tone enable
pursuits and when students experience a wholehearted self- the teacher to take the students’ perspective during instruction,
endorsement of what they are doing, they experience which is the starting point to autonomy-supportive teaching.
autonomy “satisfaction” in the form of pleasurable subjective
feelings (e.g., enjoyment; Lee & Reeve, 2017). Once experi- Student-focused attitude
enced, autonomy satisfaction enables gains in students’ Basic attitude refers to how student- (rather than self-)
adaptive classroom functioning (e.g., engagement, learning) focused the teacher is during the delivery of instruction
and psychological well-being. (Vansteenkiste et al., 2019). Autonomy-supportive teachers
Given the benefits of autonomy satisfaction, SDT adopt a curious, open, and flexible attitude toward students,
researchers searched for the environmental conditions able
as these teachers take an interest in students’ emerging
to create the psychological experience of having one’s auton-
interests and preferences (Vansteenkiste et al., 2019). The
omy supported. In one of these pioneering articles, Deci
student-focused attitude is to be curious about what students
et al. (1994) used a laboratory procedure to experimentally
are thinking and wanting, open to students’ input and
manipulate the presence vs. absence of three interpersonal
conditions—namely, provide explanatory rationales, acknow- engagement signals, and flexible and willing to bend the les-
ledge negative feelings, and rely on non-controlling language. son to align more with students’ preferences. In one study
What followed were many additional experimental manipula- that illustrated that a student-focused attitude anticipated
tions of possible autonomy supports (e.g., choice; Assor autonomy-supportive teaching, elementary-grade students
et al., 2002). These experimental findings led to a list of indi- were given pre-lesson expectancies of how student-focused
vidual autonomy supportive conditions that came to serve as vs. balanced-focused (the teacher was focused equally on
the operational and conceptual definitions for autonomy sup- students’ and teachers’ concerns) a new teacher was going to
port. One such well-accepted definition was as follows: be, using the following experimental instructions (Gurland
& Evangelista, 2015, p. 391):
The concept of autonomy support means that an individual in a
position of authority (e.g., an instructor) takes the other’s Student-focused: “Ms [Name] is really interested in kid’s ideas,
(e.g., a student’s) perspective, acknowledges the other’s feelings, even more than her own ideas. She almost always lets kids
and provides the other with pertinent information and do things their own way and asks kids first how they want
opportunities for choice, while minimizing the use of pressures to do things. She tries to help them do it the way they want to
and demands. (Black & Deci, 2000, p. 742) do it.”
56 J. REEVE AND S. H. CHEON

Balanced-focused: “Ms [Name] is sometimes interested in kid’s communicate their understanding through vocal intonations
ideas, but sometimes uses her own ideas without asking kids. and nonverbal gestures (Zougkou et al., 2017).
She lets kids do some things their own way, but with other Together, a student-focused attitude and an interpersonal
things, she says the kids have to do it her way. She makes sure
they do it the way it is supposed to be done.”
tone of understanding set the stage for, foreshadow, and
enable the teacher’s forthcoming autonomy-supportive
Children who interacted with the student-focused teacher, instructional behaviors, as illustrated in Figure 1.
compared to children who interacted with the balanced- Collectively, the seven instructional behaviors shown in
focused teacher, perceived their teacher to be more auton- the figure represent the day-to-day practice of autonomy-
omy supportive. They also reported having a better rapport supportive teaching. These seven individual acts of autono-
with the teacher, higher feelings of emotional security, and my-supportive teaching typically co-occur and are all
an overall higher-quality relationship with the teacher (i.e., positively intercorrelated (Cheon et al., 2018), presumably
more closeness, less conflict and dependency). because they all share and emanate out of the same underly-
ing source (basic attitude, interpersonal tone) and can be
grouped by the two purposes they serve (i.e., support intrin-
Understanding interpersonal tone sic motivation, support volitional internalizations). When
When making an engagement request (e.g., “participate in these individual instructional behaviors co-occur, they
class”) and when reacting to students’ difficulties and prob- coalesce into a single coherent autonomy-supportive motivat-
ing style (Reeve, 2009). It is this gestalt autonomy-supportive
lems, understanding teachers implicitly and explicitly let
style (rather than the individual acts of instruction) that stu-
their students know that they care about how students are
dents perceive, respond to, and benefit from.
feeling, are paying attention to their concerns, are listening,
Autonomy-supportive teaching is the adoption of a stu-
are “on their side,” are working to understand why students
dent-focused attitude and an understanding interpersonal
are fussing, and are willing to make instructional adjust- tone that enables the skillful enactment of seven autonomy-
ments to better provide what students want and prefer satisfying instructional behaviors to serve two purposes—
(Reeve, 2016). By being understanding, the teacher avoids support intrinsic motivation and support internalization. As
“me vs. my students” interactions that try to force students’ illustrated in Figure 1, autonomy-supportive teaching begins
compliance or obedience. Instead, the effort is to understand with taking the students’ perspective, which itself originates
what students want, need, and prefer so that instruction can out of the teacher’s student focus and understanding tone.
be provided accordingly. Importantly, understanding does Perspective taking both readies and then enables the teacher
not mean giving in to students but, instead, means working to support students’ intrinsic motivation and internaliza-
with students to help them successfully accomplish import- tions. To support intrinsic motivation, teachers both encour-
ant classroom tasks. Teachers partly communicate their age students to pursue their personal interests and present
understanding through what they say, but they also learning activities in need-satisfying ways. To support

Basic Attitude: Interpersonal Tone:

Student Focus Understanding

Take the Students’

Perspective
ASIB #1

Support Intrinsic Motivation Support Internalization

Provide Explanatory Display Patience

Rationales
Invite Students Present Learning ASIB #7
to Pursue Activities in ASIB #4
their Interests Need-Satisfying Ways
ASIB #2 ASIB #3
Acknowledge Rely on Invitational
Negative Feelings Language
ASIB #5 ASIB #6
Figure 1. Seven autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors (in italics) organized by their origins (student-focused attitude, understanding interpersonal tone) and
purposes (support intrinsic motivation, support internalization). ASIB: Autonomy-Supportive Instructional Behavior.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 57

internalizations, autonomy-supportive teachers rely on a seek out novelty and challenges, to explore new environ-
cluster of four interrelated acts of instruction that help stu- ments, to take interest in activities and new adventures, and
dents work through the internalization process of taking in to stretch and extend one’s abilities (Ryan & Deci, 2017). It
and accepting external regulations as their own, including is a naturally-occurring motivation toward exploration,
provide explanatory rationales, acknowledge and accept spontaneous interest, activity engagement, and environmen-
negative feelings, use invitational language, and dis- tal mastery. A key source of intrinsic motivation is the need
play patience. for autonomy, so to support students’ intrinsic motivation
teachers can support students’ autonomy. Teachers may do
this in two primary ways—invite students to pursue their
Autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors
personal interests (ASIB #2) and present learning activities
The first autonomy-supportive instructional behavior (ASIB in need-satisfying ways (ASIB #3).
#1 in Figure 1) is to take the students’ perspective, which Interest is a powerful source of motivation (Renninger &
constitutes the “foundational activity” to autonomy-support- Hidi, 2016), including autonomy satisfaction (Tsai et al.,
ive teaching (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 443). Once the teacher 2008). Invite students to pursue their personal interests is a
has gathered the information needed to take the students’ highly autonomy-supportive act of instruction, because
perspective and adopt their frame of reference, the teacher interesting activities are themselves autonomy supports. The
becomes well positioned to be responsive to and supportive role that the teacher can play in this process is to provide
of students’ need for autonomy. students with interesting activities, introduce a learning
activity and ask students what they find to be most interest-
ing about that activity, suggest where students might find
Take the students’ perspective interesting things to explore and engage, and invite students
Perspective taking is the active consideration of others’ men- to pursue their personal interests. When teachers invite stu-
tal states and subjective experiences (Todd & Galinsky, dents to pursue their personal interests, students tend to (1)
2014). In the case of instruction, perspective taking is the feel like origins (rather than pawns), (2) feel that their
teacher seeing and experiencing classroom events as if he or behavior is self-authored, (3) experience volition, (4) experi-
she were the students (rather than the teacher). To prepare ence a sense of ownership over their behavior, and (5)
for perspective taking, the teacher first needs to de-prioritize engage in lessons with an authentic sense of wanting to do
his or her own perspective to attend more to the students’ them (i.e., with interest and intrinsic motivation; Jang et al.,
perspective and concerns (i.e., adopt a student-focused atti-
2016; Patall et al., 2013; Patall et al., 2017; Vansteenkiste
tude). By doing so, the teacher becomes both more willing
et al., 2004; Wallace et al., 2014).
(because of greater empathy) and more able (because of
To support students’ intrinsic motivation teacher may
greater perspective taking) to create classroom conditions to
also present learning activities in need-satisfying ways. The
support students’ autonomy. To then actually take the stu-
primary way that teachers can present a learning activity in
dents’ perspective, the teacher conducts formal and informal
an autonomy-satisfying way is to offer choice (Katz &
formative assessments to understand what students are
Assor, 2007; Patall, 2013; Patall et al., 2013). With choice,
thinking and wanting. Formally, the teacher may conduct
the teacher allows students to decide for themselves to
structured formative assessments, such as “teach in students’
engage in one activity rather than another, in one course of
preferred ways” (Jang et al., 2016) or “exit slips” in which
action rather than another, or to put themselves in one situ-
students take the last 2–3 minutes of class to submit (via
ation rather than another. The reason why choice is a path-
computer or sticky notes) their reactions to the day’s lesson
way to autonomy satisfaction is because, to make a choice,
and suggestions for future instruction. Informally (i.e., con-
students first need to look inside themselves to consider
versationally), the teacher may ask questions as to what stu-
their interests, goals, priorities, and preferences. When stu-
dents think of (and feel about) the learning material, solicit
dents’ behaviors and decision-making are guided by their
their input on the lesson, listen carefully to what students
interests, goals, and so forth, then students have the sense
want and prefer, invite question-asking, create opportunities
that their behaviors and decisions originate from within
for students to express their preferences, and initiate
themselves. When choice allows students to pursue their
teacher-student dialogues to appreciate students’ concerns
interests and personal goals, then “offer choice” becomes an
(Kaplan & Assor, 2012; Patall et al., 2013, 2018). Teachers
instructional pathway to autonomy satisfaction (Patall et al.,
can conduct such formative assessments before the lesson,
2013, 2018; Waterschoot et al., 2019). That said, there is
in the first moment of instruction, during the lesson, and at
considerable teaching skill involved in offering autonomy-
the end of the lesson. If the teacher prepares or delivers the
satisfying choices. Before choice can be expected to translate
lesson without taking the students’ perspective, the odds
into autonomy satisfaction, it needs to be accompanied by
increase dramatically that students’ need for autonomy will
the presence of additional autonomy-supportive acts of
be either neglected or frustrated.
instruction (e.g., take the students’ perspective), it needs to
be meaningful (i.e., an authentic opportunity to explore an
Support intrinsic motivation interest, pursue a personal goal, or express an identity), and
Intrinsic motivation is the motivation to engage in an activ- students need to feel competent and informed enough to
ity out of interest and enjoyment. It is the inherent desire to make that choice (Patall et al., 2021).
58 J. REEVE AND S. H. CHEON

Support internalization we have practiced this same skill many times before, haven’t
Internalization is the process of taking in values, beliefs, and we?”). By acknowledging and accepting the negative feelings,
behavioral regulations from societal sources (e.g., teachers) the teacher gains an internalization-enabling opportunity to
and transforming them into one’s own (Ryan & Deci, 2000). work collaboratively with the students to dissipate the nega-
It is an experience of discovering the value and personal tive feelings and transform or restructure the activity into
utility within an activity or way of behaving. Teachers often something the students volitionally want to do (e.g., “Okay,
consider facilitating students’ internalization to be among so what might we do differently so that you won’t feel
their most difficult teaching challenges (Vasconcellos et al., this way?”).
2020), and this is largely because teachers are in the position When teachers make an engagement request and when
of asking student to do what they view as uninteresting, not teachers address students’ problematic behavior (e.g., behav-
worth the effort, or even a source of negative feelings. ioral misconduct, poor performance), both the content and
Teachers can help students work through the internalization tone of the teacher’s language are important. Anticipating
process by providing four autonomy supports—provide resistance and counter-arguments, teachers often resort to
explanatory rationales (ASIB #4), acknowledge negative feel- preemptive pressuring language and prosody laced with
ings (ASIB #5), rely on invitational language (ASIB #6), and autonomy-suppressive compliance hooks (i.e., “you must,”
display patience (ASIB #7). “you have to”) that are meant to change the student’s behav-
In the course of instruction, teachers often ask students ior in a teacher-prescribed way (Assor et al., 2005; Noels
to do things that students may perceive to be uninteresting et al., 1999). Contrariwise, when teachers rely on invitational
and unimportant (e.g., follow safety procedures, double- language, they encourage student initiative and behavior
check their work). When students do not understand or change by relying on volition-rich language (i.e., “You might
appreciate why the teacher is making a request of them, want to … ,” “You might consider … ”; Vansteenkiste et al.,
they tend to view the request as arbitrary or as meaningless 2005) paired with understanding voice prosody (i.e., higher
busywork. To provide explanatory rationales, the teacher pitch, slower speech rate, milder voice quality; Zougkou
reveals the “hidden value” and “personal relevance” within et al., 2017). Through invitational language, the teacher
the request (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). A rationale is a ver- helps students overcome problems of inertia (e.g., passivity,
bal explanation as to why putting forth effort during the procrastination). Invitational language also includes non-
activity might be personally useful (Reeve et al., 2002). It is controlling informational language (Su & Reeve, 2011). With
often communicated with a phrase such as, “Doing this informational language, the teacher asks the student if he or
activity has been shown to be useful” (Deci et al., 1994, p. she perceives that a problem exist (e.g., “Do you think it is
127), with the teacher then proceeding to explain that per- okay to talk to your classmates like that?”), what its underly-
sonal utility. Because most students value greater skill, better ing cause might be (“Why do you think that happened?”),
performance, deeper friendships, and an improved class- and may add new information to help the student better
room community, teachers can often explain that an activity diagnose, understand, and solve the problem he or she faces.
is worth doing because it fulfills one of these four purposes The idea is to address the problem while preserving the stu-
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2004, 2005). As explained by the situ- dent’s ownership over the behavior change and personal
ated expectancy value theory (SEVT; Wigfield & Eccles, agency for solving the problem.
2020), explaining utility value helps students develop an ini- Patience is the optimistic calmness a teacher shows as
tial sense of value and personal relevance for that task. students struggle to start, adjust, and change their behavior.
What self-determination theory adds to the SEVT frame- Display patience means giving students the time and space
work is the proposition that rationales rooted in and aligned they need to work at their own pace and in their own way,
with the students’ (rather than with the teacher’s) perspec- and allowing students’ thinking, answers, behaviors, per-
tive work best in terms of supporting the internalization formances, and internalization attempts to exist in an unfin-
process (Jang, 2008; Savard et al., 2013). ished state. Of course, circumstances make it easy to
Students sometimes complain, resist, and express negative understand why teachers are sometimes not patient (e.g.,
feelings about having to engage in uninteresting or difficult time constraints, high-stakes testing, cultural norms), but
tasks. When these experiences of anxiety, confusion, frustra- the reason to be patient (motivationally speaking) comes
tion, anger, resentment, boredom, and stress arise, they can from a deep valuing of the student’s autonomy and an
overwhelm students’ volitional motivation. Dissipating these understanding that meaningful gains in cognitive engage-
negative feelings therefore becomes a prerequisite to motiv- ment (e.g., elaborating, paraphrasing, critical thinking), con-
ationally readying students to engage in, benefit from, and ceptual learning (e.g., conceptual change, cognitive
eventually internalize the value of the lesson, and teachers accommodation, deep information processing), and behavior
can do this when they acknowledge and accept negative feel- change all take time and require multiple iterations and revi-
ings. To do so, the teacher first acknowledges that his or her sions. While being patient, the teacher nevertheless awaits a
request may conflict with and be at odds with the students’ student-generated signal that the teacher’s help and guidance
preferences (e.g., “I see that you are not very enthusiastic would be appreciated (Reeve & Jang, 2006). In contrast,
about today’s lesson.”), and second accepts the negative feel- teacher impatience would be intruding on students’ pre-
ings as a potentially valid and legitimate reaction, at least ferred pace of learning, usually by pushing and pressuring
from the students’ point of view (e.g., “Yes, you are right; for a faster pace, as by uttering verbal (e.g., “hurry up”) and
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 59

non-verbal (e.g., clap, clap the hands) communications Theoretically, what this means is that self-determination
(Assor et al., 2005). When impatient, teachers bring stu- theorists now endorse the “dual-process model” in which
dents’ thinking or working to a quick close by showing or autonomy-supportive teaching galvanizes the “brighter” side
telling the right answer or desired behavior (e.g., “Here, let of students’ motivation (e.g., autonomy satisfaction) and
me do this for you.”). functioning (e.g., engagement), while controlling teaching
galvanizes the “darker” side of students’ motivation (e.g.,
autonomy frustration) and functioning (e.g., antisocial
Controlling teaching behavior) (Bartholomew et al., 2011, 2018; Haerens et al.,
Controlling teaching is the adoption of a teacher-focused 2015; Jang et al., 2016; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013).
authoritarian attitude and an interpersonal tone of pressure Practically, what this means is that the effort to become
in which the teacher prescribes what students are to think, more autonomy supportive requires skill development in
feel, and do, irrespective of what students prefer (Aelterman two areas: (1) how to enact ASIBs; and (2) how to transform
et al., 2019; Reeve, 2009; Soenens et al., 2012). In practice, existing controlling instructional behaviors into replacement
when controlling, teachers first prescribe what students ASIBs (e.g., replace utter directives with provide explanatory
should think, feel, and do, and then second, apply an rationales; replace pressuring language with invita-
increasing amount of pressure until students forgo their tional language).
own needs, interests, preferences, and goals to instead think,
feel, and do as they are told. Malleability of autonomy-supportive teaching
Controlling instructional behaviors include those that are During the delivery of their instruction, teachers vary in
both externally controlling (i.e., behavioral control) and how autonomy supportive they are. Correlational research
internally controlling (i.e., psychological control) (Soenens & shows that the more autonomy supportive teachers are, the
Vansteenkiste, 2010). Behavioral control is the teacher’s more positive students’ classroom experiences tend to be
effort to gain control over students’ behaviors, as exempli- (Aelterman et al., 2019). Recognizing this, researchers devel-
fied by pressuring-inducing tactics such as yelling, scolding, oped SDT-based professional developmental experiences to
intimidating, commanding, bribing (i.e., offering contingent help teachers learn how to become more autonomy support-
rewards, including token economies and point systems), and ive. The question driving these teacher-focused interventions
various intrusive and manipulative socialization practices, was whether or not autonomy-supportive teaching was
such as punishing and denying rights (Assor et al., 2005). malleable—that is, learnable through modeling, guidance,
Psychological control is the teacher’s effort to gain control practice, and feedback.
over students’ thoughts and feelings so that students will Though different researchers offered different professional
pressure and coerce themselves into performing teacher- developmental experiences, the most common methodology
prescribed behaviors, as exemplified by various manifesta- was to deliver the intervention experience in three parts. Part
tions of positive conditional regard (i.e., giving attention and 1 has generally been information-based. Part 1 introduces
love following compliance), negative conditional regard autonomy-supportive teaching, provides empirical evidence
(withdrawing attention and love following noncompliance), of its benefits, and introduces recommended autonomy-sup-
personal attacks of the student’s sense of self, expressions of portive instructional behaviors. Part 2 has generally been
disappointment, guilt inductions, and shaming (Kaplan, skill-based. Part 2 offers teacher-participants the modeling,
2018; Roth et al., 2009; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). mentoring, training, and practice they need to enact auton-
In the paper that introduced autonomy-supportive teach- omy-supportive instructional behaviors in their own class-
ing, motivating style was conceptualized along a bipolar con- rooms with their own students. Part 3 has generally been a
tinuum that ranged from a highly autonomy-supportive style blend of group discussion and opportunities for personal
on one end to highly controlling style on the other (Deci reflection. Part 3 helps teachers work through the profes-
et al., 1981). The contemporary thinking, however, is that sional development processes of conceptual change, skill
these aspects of motivating style exist as two separate dimen- refinement, and integrating the individually-recommended
sions (Bartholomew et al., 2011, 2018; Haerens et al., 2015). acts of instruction into a coherent autonomy-supportive
Treating autonomy support and teacher control as largely motivating style.
independent (rather than opposite) dimensions is justified by Almost all of these intervention studies utilized an experi-
the following four findings: (1) the two styles are only mod- mental research design in which a sample of teachers was
estly negatively correlated; (2) a low level in one style does randomly assigned into either an intervention-based experi-
not imply a high level in the other; (3) autonomy support mental group or a no-intervention (“practice as usual”) con-
strongly predicts high autonomy satisfaction and adaptive trol group. To evaluate whether teachers in the experimental
functioning but only weakly predicts low autonomy frustra- group became significantly more autonomy supportive,
tion and maladaptive functioning; and (4) teacher control researchers assessed autonomy-supportive teaching through
strongly predicts high autonomy frustration and maladaptive students’ perceptions, classroom observers’ objective ratings,
functioning but only weakly predicts low autonomy satisfac- or teachers’ self-report.1
tion and adaptive functioning (Bartholomew et al., 2011,
2018; Cheon et al., 2016; De Meyer et al., 2014; Gunnell 1
To measure autonomy-supportive teaching, researchers use one or more of
et al., 2013; Haerens et al., 2015). the following assessments: (1) students’ perceived autonomy-supportive
60 J. REEVE AND S. H. CHEON

Table 1 lists 51 autonomy-supportive teaching interven- Interestingly, the effects sizes for the rater-scored measures
tion empirical studies. These articles were located through were consistently larger than those for the student-perceived
an exhaustive search of electronic databases (e.g., Psyarticles, measures. Several studies also included a manipulation check
PsychINFO, ISI Web of Science, Medline), manual searches to test whether or not the intervention decreased controlling
of key journals, and the reference lists of SDT-based review teaching. Across these 21 manipulation checks (14 that used
articles and of the found articles themselves, conducted dur- students’ perceptions, 7 that used raters’ scores), the inter-
ing October 2020. Search terms used were “autonomy vention’s success rate was 100%. Collectively, these findings
support” OR “autonomy supportive” OR “autonomy- suggest that autonomy-supportive teaching is malleable (i.e.,
supportive” AND “intervention” OR “RCT” OR something that can be learned through modeling, guidance,
“randomized control trial” OR “training” OR “workshop.” and deliberate practice).
Studies were included if they presented a step-by-step plan
to manipulate autonomy-supportive teaching (e.g., an inter-
vention and not just an experimental manipulation) and Once learned, does autonomy-supportive
provided a statistical test as to whether or not the interven- teaching endure?
tion effect occurred (e.g., a manipulation check). During any autonomy-supportive intervention, teachers
The 51 intervention studies were divided into those 38 receive significant support from the research team. So, it
that featured an appropriate control group (a randomized would be understandable if teachers who became highly
control trial) and teachers as participants, as shown in the autonomy supportive during the intervention reverted back
upper part of the table, and those 13 additional investigations to their pre-intervention motivating style in the absence of
that did not feature a randomized control trial design (usually the intervention’s formal support system. After all, all of the
a single-group pretest-posttest research design) or teacher following commonplace teaching circumstances tend to
participants (usually coaches). The columns in Table 1 push teachers away from autonomy-supportive teaching:
provide information on the research design utilized, the accountability pressure to produce high test scores (Deci
nature of the intervention (its phases and duration), the par- et al., 1982; Flink et al., 1990); pressure to teach to the test
ticipants, and whether or not the intervention was effective. (Sun et al., 2013); high-stakes testing (Ryan & Brown, 2005);
The “Was the Intervention Effective?” column displays both time constraints, summative grading, and administrative
whether the statistical test of the intervention effect was stat- pressure to adopt prescribed teaching methods (Pelletier &
istically significant (yes or no) and its observed effect size Sharp, 2009; Taylor et al., 2009); work overload
(expressed in terms of Cohen’s d statistic). The rightmost (Bartholomew et al., 2014); years of teaching experience
column provides information of the intervention’s observed (Reeve et al., 2018); and students who appear to be unmoti-
benefits, which will be discussed in the “Benefits” section. vated, disengaged, or behaviorally disruptive (Fernet et al.,
The 38 experimental interventions produced a high suc- 2012; Jang et al., 2016; Pelletier et al., 2002).
cess rate showing that autonomy-supportive teaching was Only two empirical studies have addressed this question
malleable. Thirty-seven of these 38 investigations included a of the durability of the intervention effect over time. Both
student-based manipulation check. In these studies, the investigations revisited teachers who had participated in an
intervention’s success rate was 95% (35 “yes,” 2 “no”). intervention either one-year (Cheon & Reeve, 2013) or 15-
Twenty-one of these 38 investigations included a rater- months (Tilga et al., 2020) earlier to see if they were still
scored manipulation check. In these studies, the interven- utilizing autonomy-supportive teaching in their new classes
tion’s success rate was 100% (21 “yes,” 0 “no”). Too few with their new students. Both follow-up studies showed that
studies included a teacher-reported manipulation check to autonomy-supportive teaching, once learned during the ear-
provide a meaningful interpretation. (An analysis of the 13 lier professional developmental experience, endured. Though
additional interventions in the lower part of the table pro- more research needs to be conducted on the long-term stay-
duced similar statistics.) ing power of acquired autonomy-supportive teaching, the
In general, the observed effect sizes were universally large research conducted to date suggests that intervention-
[according to Cohen’s (1988) criteria in which a d of 0.10 enabled autonomy-supportive teaching does endure for at
corresponds to a small effect, 0.35 corresponds to a moder- least one year.
ate effect, and 0.50 corresponds to a large effect].

Why is autonomy-supportive teaching malleable?

teaching (e.g., Learning Climate Questionnaire; Williams & Deci, 1996); (2)
trained raters’ objective scoring of teachers’ in-class usage of ASIBs (e.g., Autonomy-supportive interventions are designed to provide
Behavior Rating Scale; Cheon et al., 2018); and (3) teachers’ self-reported
autonomy-supportive teaching (e.g., Situations in Schools questionnaire, teachers with a professional developmental opportunity to
Aelterman et al., 2019; Teaching Scenarios measure, Reeve & Cheon, 2016). To upgrade the quality of their classroom motivating style. A
measure controlling teaching, researchers use one or more of the following few intervention studies have looked inside this professional
assessment procedures: (1) students’ perceived controlling teaching (e.g.,
Psychologically Controlling Teaching questionnaire, Soenens et al., 2012; developmental process to ask what personal-professional
Controlling Teacher Questionnaire; Jang et al., 2009); (2) trained raters’ resources teachers develop during a successful intervention
objective scoring of teachers’ in-class usage of controlling behaviors (e.g., experience that allows them to become more autonomy sup-
Behavior Rating Scale; Cheon et al., 2018); and (3) teachers’ self-reported
controlling teaching (e.g., Situations in Schools questionnaire, Aelterman et al., portive (Aelterman et al., 2013; Cheon et al., 2018; Reeve &
2019; Teaching Scenarios measure, Reeve & Cheon, 2016). Cheon, 2016).
Table 1. Autonomy-supportive teaching interventions: 38 experimental (and 13 additional) interventions that tested for effectiveness and benefits.
Student and teacher benefits
Reference citation Research design Phases & duration of training Participants & nation (sample) Was the intervention effective? enabled by the intervention
38 Experimental (RCT) Interventions
Abula et al., 2020 (Study 2) RCT, 3 Sessions, 10 Chinese PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Pretest- 8 Hours + Teachers & their Students: d = 0.79
Autonomous Motivation
Posttest Follow-up, 258 University
16 Weeks Students
Aelterman et al., 2014 RCT, 3 Sessions, 39 Belgian PE Yes, AS increased: Teachers Increased:
Pretest- 6 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.34
Positive Beliefs about
Posttest 1 Day 669 Middle & Raters: d = 0.88 Autonomy-Supportive
High School Teaching
Students
Assor et al., 2018 Quasi- 44 Sessions, 24 Israeli No, AS unchanged: Students Increased:
Experimental, Twice Elementary Students: d = 0.15
Caring
Pretest- Monthly, Teachers Yes, TC decreased: Students Decreased:
Posttest 22 Months & their 1,007 Students: d = 0.61
Physical Violence
3rd through 6th
Grade Students
Barkoukis, et al., 2020 Experimental, 20 Sessions, 2 Greek PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Pretest- Twice Teachers & their Students: d = 1.06
Autonomous Motivation
Posttest Weekly for 256 Middle
10 Weeks School Students
Chatzisarantis & Hagger, 2009 Experimental, 3 Sessions, 10 UK PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 9 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 1.23
Autonomous Motivation
5 Weeks 215 Middle
Physical Activity Level
School Students
Cheon & Reeve, 2013 RCT, 3 Sessions, 17 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.44
Need Satisfaction
13 Weeks 953 Middle & Raters: d = 1.43
Autonomous Motivation
High School Yes, TC decreased:
Engagement
Students Students: d = 0.58
Perceived Skill Develop.

Future Intentions

Expected Course Grade
Students Decreased:

Amotivation
Cheon & Reeve, 2015 RCT, 3 Sessions, 16 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.70
Need Satisfaction
8 Weeks 598 Middle & Raters: d = 2.79
Engagement
High School Yes, TC decreased: Students Decreased:
Students Students: d = 0.33
Amotivation
Cheon et al., 2018 RCT, 3 Sessions, 91 Korean Yes, AS increased: Teachers Increased:
Longitudinal 6 Hours + 4th through 12th Teachers: d = 0.69
Need Satisfaction
Follow-up, Grade PE
Teaching Efficacy
18 Weeks Teachers
Intrinsic Instructional Goals
Cheon et al., 2019 RCT, 3 Sessions, 37 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 2.92
Need Satisfaction
6 Weeks 2,669 Middle Raters: d = 1.49
Autonomous Motivation
& High School Yes, TC decreased:
Engagement
Students Students: d = 1.91
Perceived Skill Develop.

Future Intentions

Expected Course Grade
Students Decreased:
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST

Amotivation
(continued)
61
Table 1. Continued. 62
Student and teacher benefits
Reference citation Research design Phases & duration of training Participants & nation (sample) Was the intervention effective? enabled by the intervention
Cheon et al., 2021a RCT, 3 Sessions, 49 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.91
Need Satisfaction
8 Weeks 1,487 Middle Raters: d = 3.03
Supportive Class Climate
& High School Yes, TC decreased:
Prosocial Behavior
Students Students: d = 1.42 Students Decreased:
Raters: d = 2.29
Need Frustration

Conflictual Class Climate

Antisocial Behavior
Cheon et al., 2021b RCT, 3 Sessions, 41 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
J. REEVE AND S. H. CHEON

Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers in 82 Students: d = 2.69
Need Satisfaction

8 Weeks Classrooms & Yes, TC decreased:
Supportive Class Climate
their 2,272 Students: d = 1.54
Positive Self-Concept
Middle & High
Prosocial Behavior
School Students Students Decreased:

Need Frustration

Conflictual Class Climate

Self-Reported Bullying

Teacher-Rated Bullying
Cheon et al., 2012 RCT, 3 Sessions, 21 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 9 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.41
Need Satisfaction
13 Weeks 1,158 Middle Raters: d = 2.26
Autonomous Motivation
& High School Yes, TC decreased:
Engagement
Students Students: d = 0.27
Perceived Skill Develop.
Raters: d = 1.49
Future Intentions

Expected Course Grade
Students Decreased:

Amotivation
Cheon et al., 2018 RCT, 3 Sessions, 33 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.99
Need Satisfaction
8 Weeks 1,824 Middle Raters: d = 2.26
Prosocial Behavior
& High School Yes, TC decreased: Students Decreased:
Students Students: d = 0.64
Need Frustration
Raters: d = 1.27
Antisocial Behavior

Accept Cheating
Cheon, Reeve, & Ntoumanis, 2019 RCT, 3 Sessions, 42 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 1.25
Need Satisfaction
8 Weeks 2,739 Middle Raters: d = 2.49
Expect Course Grade
& High School Yes, TC decreased:
Perceived Skill Dev.
Students Students: d = 0.63
Task-Involving Classroom
Raters: d = 1.43 Climate

Prosocial Behavior
Students Decreased:

Need Frustration

Ego-Involving Classroom
Climate

Antisocial Behavior
Cheon et al., 2016 RCT, 3 Sessions, 19 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.47
Need Satisfaction
12 Weeks 1,017 Middle Raters: d = 1.88
Engagement
& High School Yes, TC decreased: Students Decreased:
Students Students: d = 0.63
Need Frustration

Amotivation
(continued)
Table 1. Continued.
Student and teacher benefits
Reference citation Research design Phases & duration of training Participants & nation (sample) Was the intervention effective? enabled by the intervention
Cheon, Reeve, & Song, 2019 RCT, 3 Sessions, 32 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.67
Need Satisfaction
7 Weeks 2,131 Middle Yes, TC decreased:
Intrinsic Goals
& High School Students: d = 0.32
Perceived Skill Develop.
Students
Self-Concept
Students Decreased:

Need Frustration

Problematic Relations
Cheon et al., 2020 (Study 1) RCT, 3 Sessions, 33 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Teachers Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their 1,824 Students: d = 1.29
Teaching Efficacy
7 Weeks Elementary, Teachers, d = 2.00
Intrinsic Instructional Goals
Middle, & High
Job Satisfaction
School Students
Harmonious Passion

Relationship Satisfaction
with Students
Cheon et al., 2020 (Study 2) RCT, 3 Sessions, 46 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.90
Need Satisfaction
7 Weeks 3,123 Middle Raters: d = 1.68
Engagement
& High School
Perceived Skill Develop.
Students
Intentions to Continue

Anticipated Course Grade
Cheon et al., 2014 RCT, 3 Sessions, 27 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their 1,229 Students: d = 0.45
Need Satisfaction
12 Weeks Elementary, Raters: d = 1.98 Students Decreased:
Middle & High Yes, TC decreased:
Need Frustration
School Students Students: d = 0.42 Teachers Increased:

Need Satisfaction

Autonomous Motivation

Teaching Efficacy

Intrinsic Instructional Goals

Job Satisfaction

Vitality
Teachers Decreased:

Emotional Exhaustion
deCharms, 1972, 1976 RCT, 4 Sessions, 60 USA Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 12 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.55
Origin Motivation
6 Weeks 7th & 8th Grade Raters: d = 0.88
Academic Achievement
Students
Escriva-Boulley et al., 2018 RCT, 4 Sessions, 15 French PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 12 Hours + Teachers & their Students: d = 0.73
Physical Activity Level
Follow-up, 293 Elementary
1 Year School Students
Fin et al., 2019 Experimental, 40 Hours of Training 2 Brazilian Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Pretest- Teachers & their 61 Students: d = 0.62
Need Satisfaction
Posttest Middle Raters: 94%
Autonomous Motivation
School Students Yes, TC decreased: Students Decreased:
Students: d = 0.83
Controlled Motivation
Raters: 2%
Flunger et al., 2019 Experimental, 1 Session, 17 German Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Cross-Sectional 1 Hour + Physics Students: d = 0.53
Need Satisfaction
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST

Follow-up Teachers & their Raters: d = 5.89
Positive Emotions

345 9th Grade
Self-Regulated Learning
Students Students Decreased:
63

Negative Emotions
(continued)
Table 1. Continued. 64
Student and teacher benefits
Reference citation Research design Phases & duration of training Participants & nation (sample) Was the intervention effective? enabled by the intervention
Huescar et al., 2019 Quasi- 60 Sessions, 2 Spanish PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Experimental, 20 Hours, Teachers & their 62 5th & Students: d = 0.98
Need Satisfaction
Pretest- 20 Weeks 6th Yes, TC decreased:
Physical Activity Level
Posttest Grade Students Students: d = 1.65 Students Decreased:

External Regulation
Lonsdale et al., 2013 RCT, 1 Session, 16 Australian Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Pretest- 20 Minutes PE Teachers Students: d = 0.72
Physical Activity Level
Posttest & their 288 Raters: d = 2.07 Students Decreased:
Middle School
Sedentary Level
J. REEVE AND S. H. CHEON

Students
McLachlan & Hagger, 2010 Experimental, 2 20-minute 9 University Yes, AS increased:
3-wave Training Tutors in the Students: d = 1.73
Prospective Sessions United Kingdom Raters: Various
Manninen et al., 2020 Experimental, Not enough information 1 USA PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Cross- Teacher & his Students: d = 0.71
Intrinsic Motivation
sectional 59 University Raters: d = 2.75
Skilled Performance
Students
Meng & Wang, 2016 Experimental, 3 Sessions, 8 Singaporean Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Pretest- 8 Hours, PE Teachers Students: d = 0.23
Need Satisfaction
Posttest 1 Week & their 648
Autonomous Motivation
Middle & High
Engagement
School Students
Physical Activity Level
Niemiec & Muñoz, 2019 Experimental, 3 Sessions, 14 Columbian Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Cross- 10.5 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.32
Need Satisfaction
sectional 3 Weeks 167 Elementary,
Autonomous Motivation
Middle, & High
School Students
Perlman, 2011, 2015 Experimental, Online 28 USA Yes, AS increased:
Pretest- Delivery, Preservice Students: d = 0.41
Posttest 2 Weeks Teachers & their Raters: d = 1.09
659 9th Grade No, AS unchanged:
Students Teachers: d = 0.18
Yes, TC decreased:
Raters: d = 0.79
Reeve & Cheon, 2016 RCT, 3 Sessions, 42 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Teachers Increased:
Pretest- 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 1.52
Positive Beliefs about
Posttest 12 Weeks 2,380 Middle Teachers: d = 1.08 Autonomy-Supportive Teaching
& High School Yes, TC decreased:
Future Intentions
Students Students: d = 0.63
Reeve et al., 2020 RCT, 3 Sessions, 33 Korean PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.43
Need Satisfaction
7 Weeks 1,422 Middle
Agentic Engagement
& High School Students Decreased:
Students
Need Dissatisfaction

Agentic Disengagement
Reeve et al., 2004 RCT, 1 Session, 20 USA Teachers & their 480 Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Pretest- 1 Hour + High School Raters: d = 1.94
Engagement
Posttest Follow-up, Students
4 Weeks
Sanchez-Oliva et al., 2017 RCT, 3 Sessions, 21 Spanish Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 15 Hours, PE Teachers Students: d = 0.42
Autonomous Motivation
4 Weeks & their 836
Middle School
Students
(continued)
Table 1. Continued.
Student and teacher benefits
Reference citation Research design Phases & duration of training Participants & nation (sample) Was the intervention effective? enabled by the intervention
Schneider et al., 2020 RCT, 6 Sessions, 29 Finnish PE Yes, AS increased:
Longitudinal 12 Hours Teachers & their Students: d = 0.18
370 Middle No, AS unchanged:
School Students Teachers: d = 0.42
No, TC unchanged:
Teachers: d = 0.49
Tilga et al., 2019 RCT, Online 28 Estonian PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Pretest- Delivery, Teachers & their Students: various
Need Satisfaction
Posttest 4 Hours, 190 Middle Yes, TC decreased:
Intrinsic Motivation
4 Weeks School Students Students: Various Students Decreased:

Need Frustration
Ulstad et al., 2018 RCT, 3 Sessions, 18 Norwegian Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Pretest- 8 Hours, Teachers & their Students: d = 0.23
Absorption
Posttest 12 Weeks 390 8th Grade
Effort Regulation
Students
Self-Reported
Course Grade
Zhang et al., 2020 Quasi- 3 Sessions, 1 Chinese No, AS unchanged: Students Increased:
Experimental, 6 Hours, Physics Teacher Students: d = 0.27
Need Satisfaction
Longitudinal 1 Week and her 4 classes Yes, AS increased:
of 107 8th Grade Raters: various
Students
13 Additional Interventions
Aelterman et al., 2013 Professional 3 Sessions, 35 Belgian Yes, Teachers Teachers Increased:
Development 3 Hours, Middle & High Valued the AS
Psychological Needs
Training 1 Day School PE Training, Found It
Teachers Useful, and
Intended to
Implement It
Aelterman et al., 2016 Single Group, 3 Sessions, 80 Belgian Yes, AS increased: Teachers Increased:
Pretest- 6 Hours, Middle & High Teachers: d = 0.37
Positive Beliefs about
Posttest 1 Day School PE Autonomy-Supportive
Teachers Teaching
Cheon et al., 2015 RCT, 3 Sessions, 33 Korean Yes, AS increased: Athletes Increased:
Longitudinal 6 Hours + Paralympic Athletes: d = 0.87
Self-Reported Engagement
One-on-one Coaches & their Raters: d = 1.47
Coach-Rated Engagement
Follow-up, 64 Adult Yes, TC decreased:
Olympic Medals Won
7 Weeks Athletes Athletes: d = 0.98 Coaches Increased:

Need Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction
Edmunds et al., 2008 Quasi- Not enough information 2 UK Exercise Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Experimental, Instructors & their 61 Students: d = 0.87
Psychological Needs
Longitudinal University Students Raters: d = 0.61
Hardre & Reeve, 2009 Experimental, 2 Sessions, 20 USA Yes, AS increased: Employees Increased:
Pretest- 5 Hours + Workplace Raters: d = 1.55
Engagement
Posttest Follow-up Managers & Employees Decreased:
their 169 Adult
Amotivation
Employees
Kaplan & Assor, 2012 Single Group, 36 Sessions, 18 Israeli Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Pretest- 54 Hours, Teachers Students: d = 0.20
Positive Emotions
Posttest 2 Years & their Students Decreased:
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST

420 7th Grade
Negative Emotions

Students
Classroom Violence
(continued)
65
Table 1. Continued. 66
Student and teacher benefits
Reference citation Research design Phases & duration of training Participants & nation (sample) Was the intervention effective? enabled by the intervention
Langan et al., 2015 RCT, 2 Sessions, 10 Australian Yes, AS increased: Students Decreased:
Longitudinal 2 Hours + Coaches & Raters: d = 0.38
Burnout
Follow-up, their 76 Yes, TC decreased:
2 Weeks Adolescent Raters: d = 0.47
Athletes
Langdon et al., 2017 Single Group, 2 Sessions, 12 USA Yes, AS increased:
Pretest- 4 Hours + Teaching Students: d = 0.27
Posttest Follow-up Assistants Teachers: d = 1.92
3 Weeks & their Yes, TC decreased:
J. REEVE AND S. H. CHEON

828 University Teachers: d = 1.56

Students
Mahoney et al., 2016 Quasi- 2 2-hour 18 United No, AS unchanged:
Experimental, Workshops Kingdom Students: d = 0.16
Longitudinal + Follow-up Coaches & their Raters: d = 0.25
61 Adolescent No, TC unchanged:
Athletes Students: d = 0.08
Reeve et al., 2018 Single Group, 3 Sessions, 42 Korean Yes, AS increased:
Pretest- 7.5 Hours, Teachers & their Teachers: d = 0.85
Posttest 4 Weeks 663 Elementary Yes, TC decreased:
Grade Students Teachers: d = 0.37
Reynders et al., 2019 RCT, 4 Sessions, 43 Belgian Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Longitudinal 10.5 Hours, Coaches & their Athletes: d = 0.56
Autonomous Motivation
9 Weeks 326 Adolescent Coaches: d = 1.61
Engagement
Athletes No, TC unchanged:
Athletes: d = 0.36
Yes, TC decreased:
Coaches: d = 2.45
Tessier et al., 2008 Experimental, Not enough 5 French PE Yes, AS increased:
Pretest- information Teachers & their Raters: d = 0.89
Posttest 96 8th to 12th No, TC unchanged:
Grade Students Raters: d = 0.52
Tessier et al., 2010 Single Group, 1 Session, 3 French PE Yes, AS increased: Students Increased:
Pretest-Posttest 4 Hours + Teachers & their Raters: various
Engagement
Follow-up 185 9th to 11th Students Decreased:
Grade Students
Amotivation
RCT: randomized control trial; PE: physical education; AS: autonomy support; TC: teacher control; d: effect size statistic (Cohen’s d); UK: United Kingdom; USA: United States of America; Develop.: development.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 67

Greater teaching skill Student benefits

Autonomy-supportive interventions help teachers develop
What teachers learn during an autonomy-supportive interven-
the skill they need to enact autonomy-enhancing instruc-
tion is how to provide instruction in autonomy-satisfying
tional behaviors in their own classrooms with their own stu-
ways. As shown in the rightmost column in Table 1, auton-
dents. As shown in Table 1, 29 autonomy-supportive
omy-supportive teaching interventions have been highly suc-
intervention studies included classroom observers’ rating of cessful in increasing students’ classroom experiences of
teachers’ enactment of autonomy-supportive instructional autonomy need satisfaction (e.g., Cheon & Reeve, 2013,
behaviors. In 28 of these studies (97%), raters observed a 2015). These same interventions have also been consistently
“greater teaching skill” effect. successful in decreasing students’ experiences of autonomy
frustration (e.g., Cheon et al., 2019; Tilga et al., 2019) and
Greater teaching efficacy autonomy dissatisfaction (e.g., Cheon et al., 2019; Reeve et al.,
When teachers successfully put their newly acquired auton- 2020). Further, because teachers learn specific teaching
practices to support students’ intrinsic motivation and intern-
omy-supportive teaching skill into classroom practice, they
alization of external regulations (recall Figure 1), autonomy-
gain confidence in their capacity both to enact ASIBs and to
supportive teaching interventions have been shown to
produce desired outcomes for their students, which increases
produce student gains in both intrinsic motivation and (inter-
their teaching efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
nalized) identified regulation, though most studies refer to
2001). These intervention-enabled gains in teaching efficacy this dependent measure as “autonomous motivation” (Abula
then predict how autonomy supportive teachers become et al., 2020; Fin et al., 2019). Finally, autonomy-supportive
post-intervention (Cheon et al., 2018). teaching interventions have been shown to decrease students’
classroom experiences of amotivation (Cheon et al., 2016;
Stronger beliefs about autonomy-supportive teaching Cheon & Reeve, 2015) and controlled motivation (e.g., intro-
During an intervention, participating teachers come to jected regulation, external regulation; Cheon & Reeve, 2013;
Fin et al., 2019; Huescar et al., 2019).
believe that autonomy-supportive teaching is both effective
These intervention-enabled gains in students’ autonomy
(“This approach to teaching is effective in terms of motivat-
satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and internalization (i.e.,
ing and engaging students”) and easy to implement [“This
identified regulation) are important in their own right, but
approach to teaching is easy and simple (not hard and diffi-
they are further important because they in turn increase all
cult) to do”].2 As these beliefs strengthen, teachers tend to of the following indicators of students’ adaptive academic
become increasing autonomy supportive toward their stu- and personal functioning (see rightmost column in Table 1):
dents (Reeve et al., 2014; Reeve & Cheon, 2016). classroom engagement (Cheon et al., 2016; Cheon, Reeve,
Lee, et al., 2019; Cheon & Reeve, 2013, 2015), agency and
Greater reliance on intrinsic instructional goals initiative (Reeve et al., 2020), self-regulated learning
Instructional goals are the priorities or sought-after out- (Flunger et al., 2019); task absorption (Ulstad et al., 2018);
comes that teachers build into their lesson plans (Jang, course-specific skill development (Cheon et al., 2012, 2020;
Manninen et al., 2020); academic achievement (Cheon et al.,
2019). Instructional goals can be intrinsic (need-satisfying)
2012, 2020; Cheon & Reeve, 2013; deCharms, 1976); course
or extrinsic (need-neglecting) in nature. Participation in an
grades (Cheon, Reeve, & Ntoumanis, 2019; Ulstad et al.,
autonomy-supportive intervention leads teachers to a greater
2018); positive emotions (Kaplan & Assor, 2012); vitality
reliance on intrinsic instructional goals, and the extent to
and well-being (Niemiec & Mu~ noz, 2019); and a positive
which teachers adopt and pursue intrinsic instructional goals self-concept (Cheon, Reeve, & Song, 2019).
then predicts how autonomy-supportive they become post- Similarly, these intervention-enabled declines in students’
intervention (Cheon et al., 2018; Jang & Reeve, 2021). autonomy frustration, autonomy dissatisfaction, and amoti-
vation are important in their own right, but they are further
Benefits from autonomy-supportive teaching important because they in turn decrease all of the following
indicators of students’ maladaptive academic and personal
The fundamental purpose at the heart of an autonomy-sup- functioning (see rightmost column in Table 1): classroom
portive intervention is to help teachers produce student ben- disengagement (Cheon et al., 2019); passivity (Reeve et al.,
efits. As shown in the rightmost column in Table 1, teacher 2020); sedentary level (Lonsdale et al., 2013); negative feel-
participation in an autonomy-supportive intervention has ings (Flunger et al., 2019; Kaplan & Assor, 2012); problem-
been shown to produce numerous student benefits (e.g., atic peer relationships (Cheon et al., 2019, 2020); burnout
greater engagement). Subsequent intervention research (Langan et al., 2015); and acceptance of cheating as okay
showed that teacher participation in the intervention further (Cheon et al., 2018).
produced teacher (Cheon et al., 2014) and classroom climate
(Cheon et al., 2021a, 2021b) benefits. Classroom climate benefits
2
Questionnaire items are from the Teaching Scenarios measure (Reeve & The classroom climate represents the norms, expectations,
Cheon, 2016). values, group dynamics, and patterns of communication that
68 J. REEVE AND S. H. CHEON

prevail in a given classroom to guide peer-to-peer (student- Teacher benefits

to-student) interactions and relationships (Hodge &
During the early intervention studies, some teachers voiced
Gucciardi, 2015). A supportive climate is characterized by
the following sentiment: “Students get all the benefits. What
interpersonal inclusion, cooperation, rich interpersonal ties,
about us—do we benefit in any way?” None of the early
egalitarian relationships, verbal encouragement, a focus on
intervention studies assessed for teacher benefits, but a pio-
task mastery, and working together (Ntoumanis & Vazou,
neering study of peer-to-peer friendships showed that the
2005). A conflictual climate, on the other hand, is character-
person giving autonomy support experienced the same bene-
ized by a focus on social status, proving one’s worth (e.g.,
fits (in terms of psychological well-being) as did the person
ego-involvement), hierarchical relationships, social compari-
receiving it (Deci et al., 2006). This finding led to the
son, social dominance, interpersonal conflict, normative abil-
hypothesis that teachers might benefit from giving auton-
ity hierarchies, and interpersonal competition (Ntoumanis &
omy support as much as their students benefited from
Vazou, 2005). What intervention-enabled increases in auton-
receiving it.
omy-supportive teaching do is allow the teacher to bend or This “giving autonomy support produces benefits”
skew the developmental trajectory of students’ in-class inter- hypothesis was based on three processes. First, once teachers
actions toward egalitarian relationships and interpersonal become more autonomy supportive, they gain a greater cap-
support and away from social hierarchy and interpersonal acity to enhance their students’ motivation and classroom
conflict (Assor et al., 2018; Cheon, Reeve, & functioning. Gaining such teaching skill tends to promote
Ntoumanis, 2019). one’s sense of competence, teaching efficacy, and job satis-
To affect a constructive change in the classroom cli- faction. Second, gaining and implementing such teaching
mate, teachers (1) learn how to enact each autonomy-sup- skill allows teachers to change the classroom dynamics for
portive act of instruction not only at the individual the better (e.g., greater classroom engagement, more pro-
student level but also at the level of the whole class (e.g., social behavior), which might be expected to enable a more
take the perspective of the whole class) and (2) initiate positive relationship with one’s students. Third, correlational
teacher-to-whole-class dialogues in which the teacher studies showed that autonomy-supportive teachers reported
invites students collectively to say how they feel, how they relatively high levels of their own need satisfaction, autono-
perceive issues that concern them, and what they might mous motivation for teaching, and well-being (Roth et al.,
want to improve and change about the class (Assor et al., 2007; Stebbings et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2008), which sug-
2018; Kaplan & Assor, 2012). In both cases, the unit of gested that there may be motivational and well-being bene-
analysis becomes the classroom (not the individual stu- fits to autonomy-supportive teaching.
dent), as teachers focus on class-wide rules, expectations, Intervention-based research confirmed that teachers ran-
and norms (not just students’ individual motivational domly assigned to participate in the intervention showed
states). In the language of hierarchical level modeling, numerous teacher benefits, compared to teachers in a con-
supporting students’ autonomy occurs (and produces ben- trol group, including gains in their own need satisfaction
efits) at both the individual (Level 1) and classroom during teaching (Aelterman et al., 2013; Cheon et al., 2018),
(Level 2) levels. What is particularly interesting about autonomous motivation to teach (Cheon et al., 2014), pas-
these studies is that sophisticated statistical methodologies sion for teaching (i.e., harmonious passion; Cheon et al.,
(e.g., doubly latent multilevel structural equation modeling; 2020), job satisfaction and vitality while teaching (Cheon
Marsh et al., 2011; Morin et al., 2014) allow researchers et al., 2014), and teacher-student relationship satisfaction
to assess classroom climate effects as classroom-level (L2) (Cheon et al., 2020), as well as declines in their emotional-
effects that are statistically independent of students’ indi- physical exhaustion from teaching (Cheon et al., 2020). In
vidually-experienced motivational states (L1 effects, such addition, as discussed earlier, teacher participation in an
as autonomy satisfaction and autonomy frustration). autonomy-supportive intervention has been shown to enable
Because teachers who participate in an autonomy-sup- gains in teaching efficacy, intrinsic instructional goals adop-
portive intervention learn how to affect a constructive tion, and positive beliefs about autonomy-supportive teach-
change in the classroom climate (more supportive, less ing (Aelterman et al., 2013, 2016; Cheon et al., 2014, 2018,
conflictual; Cheon et al., 2021a, 2021b), these teachers are 2020; Reeve & Cheon, 2016). Overall, these findings give
able to promote students’ adaptive social functioning and credence to the old dictum that “it is better to give than
to diminish students’ maladaptive social functioning. That to receive.”
is, autonomy-supportive teaching interventions have been
shown to produce student gains in caring (Assor et al.,
Potential of autonomy-supportive teaching to
2018) and prosocial behavior (Cheon et al., 2018, 2019,
improve educational practice
2021a, 2021b), as well as student declines in problematic
relationships (Cheon et al., 2019), antisocial behavior Autonomy-supportive teaching holds much promise as an
(Cheon et al., 2018; Cheon, Reeve, & Ntoumanis, 2019; approach to instruction. Much of this promise can be seen
Cheon et al., 2021a), classroom violence (Assor et al., in its malleability and capacity to produce student, class-
2018; Kaplan & Assor, 2012), self-rated bullying (Cheon room climate, and teacher benefits. However, before auton-
et al., 2021b), and teacher-rated bullying (Cheon omy-supportive teaching can realize its potential to improve
et al., 2021b). educational practice, it first needs to resolve the question as
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 69

to whether all teachers (or only a subset of teachers) can authorities, legitimize hierarchies, and communicate what is
learn and benefit from greater autonomy-support- desirable and acceptable. Through these processes, the cul-
ive teaching. ture in which the teacher lives and works can affect what
acts of instruction represent “best practices” (Oyserman &
Lee, 2008). For instance, teachers in hierarchical cultures
Can all teachers learn how to become more
tend to prioritize group needs and submission to authority
autonomy supportive?
over individual needs and personal agency. In doing so,
Most teachers who participate in an autonomy-supportive these teachers tend toward controlling teaching practices as
intervention cognitively assimilate its autonomy-supportive an effective pathway to cultural priorities such as students’
message, respond favorably to the recommended instruc- discipline, duty, academic achievement, and entrance to
tional behaviors, and display objective evidence that they prestigious schools (Ng et al., 2014; Pan et al., 2013; Reeve
have become more autonomy supportive toward students et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2018). Teachers in egalitarian cultures
during their classroom instruction (about 90% of teacher- (e.g., a Montessori educational system), on the other hand,
participants, according to data supplied by Reeve & Cheon, tend to prioritize individual needs and student agency over
2021). Still, some teachers react to the intervention experi- group needs and submission to authority. In doing so, these
ence with cognitive resistance and subsequently demonstrate teachers tend to embrace autonomy-supportive teaching
little or no change in their post-intervention autonomy-sup- practices as an effective pathway to personal priorities such
portive teaching (Reeve, 1998). Recognizing this, researchers as students’ interests, agency, and self-determination
investigated why teachers report wide differences in their (Lillard, 2019).
pre-intervention tendency toward autonomy-supportive Because cultures vary in their priorities, cultural member-
teaching and whether two possible conditions might limit ship can affect one’s baseline motivating styles. But the effect
the intervention effect (and hence the malleability of auton- of culture (or nationality) is mostly to orient teachers
omy-supportive teaching)—personality and culture. toward controlling teaching rather than away from auton-
omy-supportive teaching. In one investigation that assessed
the motivating styles of teachers in eight different nations,
Personality as a possible limiting condition nationality explained 8.4% of the between-nation variance in
Agreeableness, openness to experience, an autonomy causal- controlling teaching but only 3.1% in autonomy-supportive
ity orientation, and the personal growth initiative all predict teaching (Reeve et al., 2014). In addition, neither nationality
which teachers are most likely to harbor a high, rather than
nor a collectivistic cultural orientation affected (moderated)
low, pre-intervention (baseline) autonomy-supportive moti-
teachers’ beliefs about how effective and how easy-to-do
vating style (Reeve et al., 2018). Authoritarianism and a con-
autonomy-supportive teaching was. These findings help
trol causality orientation, on the other hand, predict which
explain why students in practically any global classroom
teachers are most likely to harbor a controlling pre-interven-
benefit from autonomy-supportive teaching (Chirkov &
tion motivating style (Reeve, 1998; Reeve et al., 2018; Van
Ryan, 2001; Downie et al., 2004; Nalipay et al., 2020; Roth
den Berghe et al., 2013, 2015). Authoritarianism is the belief
et al., 2009; Taylor & Lonsdale, 2010; Zhou et al., 2009).
that subordinates should submit to and obey authority fig-
Thus, while culture may substantially affect a teacher’s pre-
ures (Altemeyer, 1996). Out of this belief, authoritarian
intervention baseline motivating style, culture appears to be
teachers emphasize conformity to prevailing social norms,
only a weak limiting condition to the intervention effect.
submission to legitimate authority, and the necessity of
After all, the studies listed in Table 1 (see column 4) provide
using coercion to ensure conformity (Altemeyer, 1998). A
evidence of successfully conducted autonomy-supportive
control causality orientation tends teachers toward believing
interventions across 17 different nations, including
that external incentives and attractive rewards, social expect-
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, Columbia, Estonia,
ations and pressures, and external controls (rather than
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Korea, Norway,
internal causalities) are the reliable and effective sources of
Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the
student motivation. In terms of the malleability of auton-
United States.
omy-supportive teaching, the control causality orientation
That said, nations vary widely in how strongly their
has emerged as the most prevalent personality-based limit-
teachers desire, seek out, and respond favorably to opportu-
ing condition to the intervention effect (Reeve et al., 2018).
nities for professional development. Teachers in China,
This is because teachers who embrace a relatively high con-
Singapore, and Korea, for instance, are generally passionate
trol causality orientation have difficulty seeing the connec-
about professional development (Tan, 2013), while teachers
tion between autonomy-supportive teaching and gains in
in some other nations take a less enthusiastic attitude
students’ classroom motivation and engagement (Van den
toward these same opportunities. The question as to whether
Berghe et al., 2015).
a teacher’s desire for professional development might mod-
erate the intervention effect has not yet been put to empir-
Culture as a possible limiting condition ical test, but we suspect that if culture moderates the
Cultures vary in their values, priorities, ideals, and defini- intervention effect, it will likely do so through this desire
tions of success, and cultures use these aspirations to set (vs. apathy) for professional development (such as the
expectations, establish norms, prescribe attitudes toward autonomy-supportive teaching intervention experience).
70 J. REEVE AND S. H. CHEON

Can autonomy-supportive teaching enhance structure 1984; Mouratidis et al., 2010; Trouilloud et al., 2006). This
and involvement? same effect has been found for teacher-provided involvement,
as any individual element of involvement provided in a neu-
According to self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017,
tral (Sparks et al., 2017) or controlling (Assor et al., 2004;
2020), all students possess three psychological needs, includ-
Pan et al., 2013; Roth et al., 2009) way tends to generate con-
ing those for autonomy—the need for personal ownership
trolling (i.e., autonomy suppressive) types of motivation (i.e.,
over one’s behavior and for experiences of volition and self-
guilt-inducing introjection, conditional regard) and therefore
endorsement during behavior, competence—the need for
only modest or no benefits.
optimal challenges and for experiences of effectance and
Two intervention studies have been explicitly designed to
mastery, and relatedness—the need for close relationships
compare three conditions: autonomy support only, autonomy
and for experiences of belongingness and feeling emotionally
support þ structure, and a no-intervention control (Cheon
connected to others. Intervention-enabled gains in auton-
et al., 2019; Meng & Wang, 2016). In both studies, students
omy-supportive teaching have been shown to increase all
experienced greater benefits when their teachers were in the
three of these psychological needs (Cheon et al., 2012;
autonomy support þ structure condition than when their
Cheon & Reeve, 2013; Zhang et al., 2020). Nevertheless,
teachers were in the autonomy support only condition. When
because students have three (not just one) psychological
combined with the earlier studies investigating the effects of
needs, it makes sense to consider the possibility of expand-
structure on student outcomes, these findings suggest that
ing an autonomy-supportive intervention into a needs-sup-
what students benefit from is not structure only but structure
portive intervention.
provided in an autonomy-supportive way. We therefore sug-
Interventions have been designed and implemented to
gest that instead of pursuing multicomponent needs-support-
help teachers learn autonomy support to satisfy autonomy,
ive interventions, researchers consider designing and
structure to satisfy competence, and involvement to satisfy
implementing future interventions as suggested in Figure 2.
relatedness (Edmunds et al., 2008; Franco & Coteron, 2017;
We suggest that what will be most effective, efficient, and
Langan et al., 2015; Leyton et al., 2017; Meng & Wang,
well-received is to have teachers first complete an autonomy-
2016; Sanchez-Oliva et al., 2017; Tessier et al., 2008, 2010).
supportive intervention. Once done, it would be an easy next
These studies often produced significant student benefits,
step to learn how to present any element of structure or
but many null results were also reported. The range of stu-
involvement in an autonomy-supportive way. When teachers
dent benefits observed in these multicomponent (i.e., needs-
have participated in interventions designed and implemented
supportive) interventions was also more limited than the
in this way, a wide range of student and teacher benefits have
range of student benefits observed in the single-component
been consistently observed (Assor et al., 2018; Cheon, Reeve,
autonomy-supportive interventions. The observed effect sizes
& Song, 2019; Cheon et al., 2020).
were also consistently lower. These modest results emerged
for one primary reason.3
While autonomy support by itself yields numerous bene- Culturally responsive teaching
fits, structure (i.e., competence support) and involvement
(i.e., relatedness support) by themselves sometimes do not. Culturally responsive teaching is an approach to instruction
When providing structure, the teacher communicates clear that recognizes the importance of including students’ cul-
expectations, provides guidance for how students can meet tural references in all aspects of learning (Ladson-Billings,
those expectations and attain desired outcomes, and provides 1994). When teachers work with students from a different
constructive feedback. But any of these individual elements of culture or socio-economic status, high-quality teacher prep-
classroom structure can be provided in either an autonomy- aration and professional development are crucial prerequi-
supportive way (e.g., with perspective taking, choice, and an sites (Yarrow et al., 1999). These teachers need a deep
understanding tone) or a controlling way (e.g., with pressure, appreciation and respect for their students’ values, goals,
demands, and a harsh tone). While structure (e.g., rules, perspective, worldview, obstacles, and preferred instructional
praise, feedback, assessment criteria) presented in an auton- methods. In practice, this means a great deal of teacher per-
omy-supportive way consistently generates numerous bene- spective taking, adaptation, and accommodation. For this
fits, structure presented in a controlling way actually reason, we suspect that teacher participation in an auton-
undermines motivation and generates few benefits (Assor omy-supportive intervention may be a helpful catalyst to
et al., 2018; Carpentier & Mageau, 2013, 2016; Curran et al., incorporate culturally-informed, responsive, sensitive, and
2013; Eckes et al., 2018; Haerens et al., 2018; Koestner et al., relevant teaching recommendations (Aronson & Laughter,
2016; Patall & Zambrano, 2019).
3
A second possible reason is that it is easier for teachers to learn the skill
within a single-component (autonomy support) rather than a multi-
component (autonomy support, structure, and involvement) intervention. An
Technology
intervention to help teachers simultaneously learn one set of instructional
strategies to support autonomy, another set to support competence, and still We suggest three ways that technology can be integrated
another set to support relatedness may simply be asking too much of into future autonomy-supportive intervention research to
teachers, given its demands on teachers’ time and resources. Multicomponent improve educational practice. First, because the “how to” of
interventions typically require teachers to participate in more phases of the
intervention, more hours and more weeks of participation, and more follow- autonomy-supportive teaching is known (e.g., Figure 1), a
up activities (as per column 3 in Table 1). smartphone app (application) could be programmed to
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 71

Students’ Adaptive
Need
Academic, Personal,
Satisfaction
& Social Functioning
Any Element of Classroom:

STRUCTURE 1 INVOLVEMENT 2

• Rule • Show If the teacher provides the classroom event

• Expectation Care in an autonomy-supportive way
•
(irrespective of what that event is)
• Goal Demonstrate
• Reward Awareness
• Standard • Task
• Requirement Support
• Reminder • Individualized
• Role Model Conversation
• Friendly If the teacher provides the classroom event
• Guidance
Communication in a controlling (autonomy-suppressive) way
• Scaffolding
• Cooperation (irrespective of what that event is)
• Feedback
• Suggestion & Teamwork
for Improvement
Students’ Maladaptive
Need
Academic, Personal
Frustration
& Social Functioning

Figure 2. Benefits of presenting any element of classroom structure or involvement in an autonomy-supportive way, and the costs of presenting any element of
classroom structure or involvement in a controlling (autonomy-suppressive) way.
1
Elements of structure are from Reeve (2015).
2
Elements of involvement are from Sparks et al. (2016).

recognize the presence vs. absence of autonomy-supportive is possible to miss-apply autonomy-supportive teaching as a
instructional behaviors during a teacher’s instruction. A laissez-faire style. Laissez-faire teaching is an approach to
teacher could then use the app to record his or her class- instruction in which students are left on their own to take
room instruction to produce autonomy-supportive teaching the initiative and responsibility for their own learning and
scores for that day’s speech prosody, speech content, and developing (Aelterman et al., 2019).
teaching practices. Such daily software-generated scores While autonomy support and laissez-faire do share a stu-
could be used both as a source of feedback and as a training dent focus, they differ in that autonomy support is a motiv-
tool to develop the skill of autonomy-supportive teaching. ationally supportive approach that energizes students’
Second, while practically all autonomy-supportive interven- autonomy satisfaction while laissez-faire is a demotivating
tions have been conducted using a face-to-face delivery, two approach that leads to students’ autonomy frustration
successful interventions have been delivered using an online (Aelterman et al., 2019). This difference can be seen most
or web-based format (Perlman, 2011; Tilga et al., 2019). By clearly on those occasions when students struggle and become
using an online delivery, the intervention experience could discouraged, as a teacher with a laissez-faire style would leave
become more personalized, self-paced, and include additional students to figure things out for themselves while a teacher
or supplemental materials, such as a video presentation of an with an autonomy-supportive style would approach students to
exemplary autonomy-supportive teacher who provides a take their perspective, acknowledge their negative feelings as
voice-over to explain what he or she was doing and why. understandable, ask for student input and problem diagnosis,
Third, recent international investigations of global teaching and provide the resources needed to overcome the problem
have collected video recordings of hundreds of teachers pro- and make progress. Not surprisingly, students of laissez-faire
viding classroom instruction across many different nations teachers tend to report high amotivation, show poor self-regu-
(e.g., see globalteachinginsights.org). Such a data base opens lation, and submit poor teaching evaluations (e.g., “I would not
up many new possibilities to study autonomy-supportive recommend this teacher to other students”) (Aelterman et al.,
teaching internationally and to facilitate cross-national collabo- 2019). Thus, if autonomy-supportive teaching is misunder-
rations to generate and discuss best practices. Such a data base stood or done poorly, the reason is because the teacher over-
also opens up new possibilities to study national membership
looked the “support” aspect of “autonomy support”.
as a potential moderator of both naturally-occurring auton-
omy-supportive teaching and the intervention effect (i.e., post-
Conclusion
intervention gains in autonomy-supportive teaching).
A review of 51 autonomy-supportive teaching interventions
supports two core conclusions: (1) researchers have used self-
Can autonomy-supportive teaching be done poorly?
determination theory principles and empirical findings to
Autonomy-supportive teaching is rooted in a student- develop teacher-focused professional developmental experien-
focused approach to instruction. Given this starting point, it ces (interventions) that are fully capable of helping teachers
72 J. REEVE AND S. H. CHEON

learn greater autonomy-supportive teaching and (2) after Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance
teachers use the intervention experience to become more is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teaching behav-
iors predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal
autonomy supportive they then become more able to produce of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1348/
a wide-range of educationally important student, classroom 000709902158883
climate, and teacher benefits. Because autonomy-supportive Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costs of
teaching is both malleable and beneficial, it offers meaningful parents’ conditional regard: A self-determination theory analysis.
potential to improve current and future educational practice. Journal of Personality, 72(1), 47–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-
3506.2004.00256.x
Barkoukis, V., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Hagger, M. S. (2020). Effects
Funding of a school-based intervention on motivation for out-of-school phys-
ical activity participation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport.
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2020.
of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF- 1751029
2018S1A5A2A03036395]. Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Cuevas, R., & Lonsdale, C. (2014).
Job pressure and ill-health in physical education teachers: The medi-
ating role of psychological need thwarting. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 37, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.10.006
ORCID Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Mouratidis, A., Katartzi, E.,
Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Vlachopoulos, S. (2018). Beware of
Johnmarshall Reeve http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6827-293X your teaching style: A school-year long investigation of controlling
Sung Hyeon Cheon http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4317-3895 teaching and student motivational experiences. Learning and
Instruction, 53, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.07.
006
References Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., &
Abula, K., Beckmann, J., He, Z., Cheong, C., Lu, F., & Gropel, P. Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011). Self-determination theory and
(2020). Autonomy support in physical education promotes autono- diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psy-
mous motivation towards leisure-time physical activity: Evidence chological need thwarting. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,
from a sample of Chinese college students. Health Promotion 37(11), 1459–1473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211413125
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy
International, 35(1), e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/day102
support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J., Haerens, L.,
chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education,
Delrue, J., & Reeve, J. (2019). Toward a fine-grained understanding
84(6), 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::
of the components of need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching:
AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
The merits of a gradual approach. Journal of Educational Psychology,
Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2013). When change-oriented feed-
111(3), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293
back enhances motivation, well-being, and performance: A look at
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., &
autonomy-supportive feedback in sport. Psychology of Sport
Haerens, L. (2014). Fostering a need-supportive teaching style:
and Exercise, 14(3), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.
Intervention effects on physical education teachers’ beliefs and
2013.01.003
teaching behaviors. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 36(6),
Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2016). Predicting sport experience
595–609. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0229 during training: The role of change-oriented feedback in athletes’
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., De Meyer, J., Van den
motivation, self-confidence and needs satisfaction fluctuations.
Berghe, L., & Haerens, L. (2013). Development and evaluation of a Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/
training on need-supportive teaching in physical education: 10.1123/jsep.2015-0210
Qualitative and quantitative findings. Teaching and Teacher Chatzisarantis, N. L., & Hagger, M. S. (2009). Effects of an intervention
Education, 29, 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.001 based on self-determination theory on self-reported leisure-time
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., & Haerens, L. (2016). physical activity participation. Psychology & Health, 24(1), 29–48.
Changing teachers’ beliefs regarding autonomy support and struc- https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440701809533
ture: The role of experienced psychological need satisfaction in Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2013). Do the benefits from autonomy-sup-
teacher training. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 23, 64–72. https:// portive PE teacher training programs endure?: A one-year follow-up
doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.10.007 investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(4), 508–518.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.02.002
Press. Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. Advances help teachers decrease students’ amotivation. Contemporary
in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Educational Psychology, 40, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ced-
S0065-2601(08)60382-2 psych.2014.06.004
Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of cultur- Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Lee, J., & Lee, Y. (2015). Giving and receiving
ally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. autonomy support in a high-stakes sport context: A field-based
Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163–206. https://doi.org/10. experiment during the 2012 London Paralympic Games. Psychology
3102/0034654315582066 of Sport and Exercise, 19, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.
Assor, A., Feinberg, O., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2018). 2015.02.007
Reducing violence in non-controlling ways: A change program based Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Lee, Y., & Lee, J.-W. (2018). Why autonomy-
on self-determination theory. The Journal of Experimental supportive interventions work: Explaining the professional develop-
Education, 86(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016. ment of teachers’ motivating styles. Teaching and Teacher
1277336 Education, 69, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.022
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Lee, Y., Ntoumanis, N., Gillet, N., Kim, B. R.,
controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and & Song, Y.-G. (2019). Expanding autonomy psychological need
engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. states from two (satisfaction, frustration) to three (dissatisfaction): A
Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. classroom-based intervention study. Journal of Educational
learninstruc.2005.07.008 Psychology, 111(4), 685–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000306
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 73

Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Marsh, H. (2021a). Autonomy-supportive behavior of controlling teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
teaching improves the classroom climate: An intervention-based multi- 74, 852–859. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.6.852
level randomized control trial. Manuscript submitted for publication. De Meyer, J., Tallir, I. B., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman,
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Marsh, H. (2021b). Classroom climate effects N., Van den Berghe, L., Speleers, L., & Haerens, L. (2014). Does
on prosocial and antisocial behavior: A multilevel randomized control observed controlling teaching behavior relate to students’ motivation
intervention to promote autonomy-supportive teaching. Manuscript in physical education? Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2),
submitted for publication. 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034399
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Moon, I. S. (2012). Experimentally based, Downie, M., Koestner, R., ElGeledi, S., & Cree, K. (2004). The impact
longitudinally designed, teacher-focused intervention to help phys- of cultural internalization and integration on well-being among tri-
ical education teachers be more autonomy supportive toward their cultural individuals. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3),
students. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(3), 365–396. 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261298
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.3.365 Eckes, A., Großmann, N., & Wilde, M. (2018). Studies on the effects of
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2018). A needs-supportive structure in the context of autonomy-supportive or controlling
intervention to help PE teachers enhance students’ prosocial behav- teacher behavior on students’ intrinsic motivation. Learning and
ior and diminish antisocial behavior. Psychology of Sport and Individual Differences, 62, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.
Exercise, 35, 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.11.010 2018.01.011
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2019). An intervention to Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. (2008). Testing a self-deter-
help teachers establish a prosocial peer climate in physical educa- mination theory-based teaching style intervention in the exercise
tion. Learning and Instruction, 64, 101223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(2), 375–388.
learninstruc.2019.101223 https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.463
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Song, Y.-G. (2016). A teacher-focused inter- Escriva-Boulley, G., Tessier, D., Ntoumanis, N., & Sarrazin, P. (2018).
vention to decrease PE students’ amotivation by increasing need sat- Need-supportive professional development in elementary school
isfaction and decreasing need frustration. Journal of Sport & Exercise physical education: Effects of a cluster-randomized control trial on
Psychology, 38(3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0236 teachers’ motivating style and student physical activity. Sport,
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Song, Y.-G. (2019). Recommending goals Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 7(2), 218–234. https://doi.org/
and supporting needs: An intervention to help physical education 10.1037/spy0000119
teachers communicate their expectations while supporting students’ Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senecal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intra-
psychological needs. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 41, 107–118. individual changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived school
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.008 environment and motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). When teachers Education, 28(4), 514–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013
learn how to provide classroom structure in an autonomy-support- Fin, G., Moreno-Murcia, J. A., Le on, J., Baretta, E., & Junior, R. J. N.
ive way: Benefits to teachers and their students. Teacher and (2019). Interpersonal autonomy support style and its consequences
Teaching Education, 90, Article 103004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. in physical education classes. PLoS One, 14(5), e0216609. https://doi.
2019.103004 org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216609
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Yu, T. H., & Jang, H.-R. (2014). The teacher Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching
benefits from giving autonomy support during physical education strategies: Undermining children’s self-determination and perform-
instruction. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 36(4), 331–346. ance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 916–924.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0231 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.916
Chirkov, V. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy Flunger, B., Mayer, A., & Umbach, N. (2019). Beneficial for some or
support in Russian and U.S. adolescents: Common effects on well- for everyone? Exploring the effects of an autonomy-supportive inter-
being and academic motivation. Journal of Cross-Cultural vention in the real-life classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology,
Psychology, 32(5), 618–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202210103 111(2), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000284
2005006 Franco, E., & Coteron, J. (2017). The effects of a physical education
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. intervention to support the satisfaction of basic psychological needs
Erlbaum. on the motivation and intentions to be physically active. Journal of
Curran, T., Hill, A., & Niemiec, C. (2013). A conditional process model Human Kinetics, 59, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2017-0143
of children’s behavioral engagement and behavioral disaffection in Gunnell, K., Crocker, P. R. E., Wilson, P. M., Mack, D. E., & Zumbo,
sport based on self-determination theory. Journal of Sport & B. D. (2013). Psychological need satisfaction and thwarting: A test
Exercise Psychology, 35(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.1.30 of basic psychological needs theory in physical activity contexts.
deCharms, R. (1972). Personal causation training in the schools. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(5), 599–607. https://doi.org/10.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2(2), 95–113. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.psychsport.2013.03.007
1111/j.1559-1816.1972.tb01266.x Gurland, S. T., & Evangelista, J. E. (2015). Teacher-student relationship
deCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the classroom. quality as a function of children’s expectancies. Journal of Social and
Irvington. Personal Relationships, 32(7), 879–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). 0265407514554511
Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspec- Gustavsson, P., Jirwe, M., Aurell, J., Miller, E., & Rudman, A. (2016).
tive. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. Autonomy-supportive interventions in schools: A review. Report num-
1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x ber B2016: B3. Karolinska Institute.
Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van
R. M. (2006). On the benefits of giving as well as receiving auton- Petegem, S. (2015). Do perceived autonomy-supportive and control-
omy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality & Social ling teaching relate to physical education students’ motivational
Psychology Bulletin, 32(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/ experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the
0146167205282148 bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An 16, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013
instrument to assess adult’s orientations toward control versus Haerens, L., Krijgsman, C., Mouratidis, A., Borghouts, L., Cardon, G.,
autonomy in children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and per- & Aelterman, N. (2018). How does knowledge about the criteria for
ceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), an upcoming test relate to adolescents’ situational motivation in
642–650. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642 physical education? A self-determination theory approach. European
Deci, E. L., Speigel, N. H., Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Kauffman, M. Physical Education Review, 16(2), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/
(1982). The effects of performance standards on teaching styles: The 1356336X18783983
74 J. REEVE AND S. H. CHEON

Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2009). Training corporate managers to adopt Leyton, M., Batista, M., Lobato, S., Aspano, M. I., & Jimenez, R.
a more autonomy-supportive motivating style toward employees: An (2017). Application of two intervention programs in order to opti-
intervention study. International Journal of Training and mize motivation and to improve eating habits in adult and elderly
Development, 13(3), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419. women. Journal of Human Kinetics, 59, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.
2009.00325.x 1515/hukin-2017-0153
Hattie, J. (2009). Visual learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses Lillard, A. S. (2019). Shunned and admired: Montessori, self-determin-
relating to achievement. Routledge. ation, and a case for radical school reform. Educational Psychology
Hodge, K., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2015). Antisocial and prosocial behavior Review, 31(4), 939–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09483-3
in sport: the role of motivational climate, basic psychological needs, Lochbaum, M., & Jean-Noel, J. (2016). Perceived autonomy-support
and moral disengagement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, instruction and student outcomes in physical education and leisure-
37(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2014-0225 time: A meta-analytic review of correlates. RICYDE. Revista
Huescar, E., Moreno-Murcia, J. A., Domenech, J. F., & Nunez, J. L. Internacional de Ciencias Del Deporte, 12(43), 29–47. https://doi.org/
(2019). Effects of an autonomy-supportive physical activity program 10.5232/ricyde2016.04302
for compensatory care students during recess time. Frontiers in Lonsdale, C., Rosenkranz, R. R., Sanders, T., Peralta, L. R., Bennie, A.,
Psychology, 10, 3091. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03091 Jackson, B., Taylor, I. M., & Lubans, D. R. (2013). A cluster
Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and randomized control trial of strategies to increase adolescents’ phys-
learning during an uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational ical activity and motivation in physical education: Results of the
Psychology, 100(4), 798–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012841 Motivating Active Learning in Physical Education (MALP) trial.
Jang, H., Kim, E.-J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more Preventive Medicine, 57(5), 696–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.
engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determin- 2013.09.003
ation theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, Mahoney, J. W., Ntoumanis, N., Gucciardi, D. F., Mallett, C. J., &
27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002 Stebbings, J. (2016). Implementing an autonomy-supportive inter-
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2016). A new autonomy-supportive vention to develop mental toughness in adolescent rowers. Journal
way of teaching that increases conceptual learning: Teaching in stu- of Applied Sport Psychology, 28(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/
dents’ preferred ways. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(4), 10413200.2015.1101030
686–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1083522 Manninen, M., Deng, Y., Hwang, Y., Waller, S., & Yli-Piipari, S.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determin- (2020). Psychological need-supportive instruction improves novel
ation theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learn- skill performance, intrinsic motivation, and enjoyment: A cluster-
ing experiences of collectivistically-oriented South Korean
randomized trial. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
adolescents? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 644–661.
Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014241
1612197X.2020.1826999
Jang, H.-R. (2019). Teachers’ intrinsic vs. extrinsic instructional goals
Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J. S., Parada, R. H., Craven,
predict their classroom motivating styles. Learning and Instruction,
R. G., & Hamilton, L. R. (2011). Construct validity of the multidi-
60(1), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.001
mensional structure of bullying and victimization: An application of
Jang, H.-R., & Reeve, J. (2021). What teachers strive to attain: Intrinsic
exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Educational
instructional goal adoption increases autonomy-supportive teaching.
Psychology, 103(3), 701–732. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024122
Learning and Instruction, 73, 101415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lear-
McLachlan, S., & Hagger, M. S. (2010). Effects of an autonomy-sup-
ninstruc.2020.101415
portive intervention on tutor behaviors in a higher education con-
Kaplan, H. (2018). Teachers’ autonomy support, autonomy suppression
and conditional negative regard as predictors of optimal learning text. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1204–1211. https://doi.
experience among high-achieving Bedouin students. Social org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.01.006
Psychology of Education, 21(1), 223–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Meng, H. Y., & Wang, J. W. C. (2016). The effectiveness of an auton-
s11218-017-9405-y omy-supportive teaching structure in physical education. RICYDE.
Kaplan, H., & Assor, A. (2012). Enhancing autonomy-supportive I- Revista Internacional de Ciencias Del Deporte, 12(43), 5–28. https://
Thou dialogue in schools: Conceptualization and socio-emotional doi.org/10.5232/ricyde2016.04301
effects of an intervention program. Social Psychology of Education, Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Scalas, L. F. (2014).
15(2), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9178-2 Doubly latent multilevel analyses of classroom climate: An illustra-
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does tion. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2), 143–167. https://
not. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 429–442. https://doi.org/ doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.769412
10.1007/s10648-006-9027-y Mouratidis, A., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). How you pro-
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits vide corrective feedback makes a difference: The motivating role of
on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus communicating in an autonomy-supporting way. Journal of Sport &
informational styles on children’s intrinsic motivation and creativity. Exercise Psychology, 32(5), 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.5.
Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 619
6494.1984.tb00879.x Nalipay, M. J. N., King, R., & Cai, Y. (2020). Autonomy is equally
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers. Jossey-Bass. important across East and West: Testing the cross-cultural universal-
Langan, E., Toner, J., Blake, C., & Lonsdale, C. (2015). Testing the ity of self-determination theory. Journal of Adolescence, 78, 67–72.
effects of a self-determined theory-based intervention with youth https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.12.009
Gaelic football coaches on athlete motivation and burnout. The Ng, F. F. Y., Pomerantz, E. M., & Deng, C. (2014). Why are Chinese
Sport Psychologist, 29(4), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2013- mothers more controlling than American mothers? “My child is my
0107 report card”. Child Development, 85(1), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.
Langdon, J. L., Schlote, R., Melton, B., & Tessier, D. (2017). 1111/cdev.12102
Effectiveness of a need supportive teaching training program on the Niemiec, C. P., & Mu~ noz, A. (2019). A need-supportive intervention
developmental change process of graduate teacher assistants’ created delivered to English language teachers in Colombia: A pilot investi-
motivational climate. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 28, 11–23. gation based on self-determination theory. Psychology, 10(07),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.09.008 1025–1042. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2019.107067
Lee, W., & Reeve, J. (2017). Identifying the neural substrates of intrin- Noels, K. A., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perception of
sic motivation during task performance. Cognitive, Affective & teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic
Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(5), 939–953. https://doi.org/10.3758/ motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 23–34. https://doi.
s13415-017-0524-x org/10.1111/0026-7902.00003
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 75

Ntoumanis, N., & Vazou, S. (2005). Peer motivational climate in youth Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2016). Teachers become more autonomy
sport: Measurement development and validation. Journal of Sport supportive after they believe it is easy to do. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 27(4), 432–455. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep. and Exercise, 22, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.
27.4.432 08.001
Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Sociocultural influences on teachers’
how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. reactions to an intervention to help them become more autonomy
Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- supportive. In G. A. D. Liem & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), Promoting
2909.134.2.311 motivation and learning in contexts: Sociocultural perspectives on
Pan, Y., Gauvain, M., & Schwartz, S. J. (2013). Do parents’ collectivistic educational interventions (pp. 13–36). Information Age Publishing.
tendency and attitudes toward filial piety facilitate autonomous Reeve, J., Cheon, S. H., & Yu, T. H. (2020). An autonomy-supportive
motivation among young Chinese adolescents? Motivation and intervention to develop students’ resilience by boosting agentic
Emotion, 37(4), 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9337-y engagement. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(4),
Patall, E. A. (2013). Constructing motivation through choice, interest, 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420911103
and interestingness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support stu-
522–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030307 dents’ autonomy during learning activities. Journal of Educational
Patall, E. A. (2019, May). Taking stock of teacher autonomy support Psychology, 98(1), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.
and control. Invited keynote given at the 7th International 209
Conference on Self-Determination Theory, Egmond aan Zee Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing
(Amsterdam), The Netherlands. high school students’ engagement by increasing their teachers’
Patall, E. A., Dent, A. L., Oyer, M., & Wynn, S. R. (2013). Student autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169. https://
autonomy and course value: The unique and cumulative roles of doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f
various teacher practices. Motivation and Emotion, 37(1), 14–32. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9305-6 rationale in an autonomy-supportive way as a motivational strategy
Patall, E. A., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Liu, P. P., Zambrano, J., & Yates, to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation and
N. (2021). Education practices that support adaptive motivation, Emotion, 26(3), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021711629417
engagement, and learning. In A. M. O’Donnell, N. Barnes, & J. Reeve, J., Jang, H.-R., & Jang, H. (2018). Personality-based antecedents
Reeve (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. Oxford of teachers’ autonomy-supportive and controlling motivating styles.
University Press. Learning and Individual Differences, 62, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.
Patall, E. A., Steingut, R. R., Vasquez, A. C., Trimble, S. S., Pituch, 1016/j.lindif.2018.01.001
Reeve, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Assor, A., Ahmad, I., Cheon, S. H., Jang,
K. A., & Freeman, J. L. (2018). Daily autonomy supporting or
H., Kaplan, H., Moss, J. D., Olaussen, B. S., & Wang, C. K. J.
thwarting and students’ motivation and engagement in the high
(2014). The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive and control-
school science classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2),
ling teaching: A multinational investigation. Motivation and
269–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000214
Emotion, 38(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9367-0
Patall, E. A., Vasquez, A. C., Steingut, R. R., Trimble, S. S., & Pituch,
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2016). The power of interest for motiv-
K. A. (2017). Supporting and thwarting autonomy in the high
ation and engagement. Routledge.
school science classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 35(4), 337–362.
Reynders, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Puyenbroeck, S., Aelterman, N.,
https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2017.1358722
De Backer, M., Delrue, J., De Muynck, G.-T., Fransen, K., Haerens,
Patall, E. A., & Zambrano, J. (2019). Facilitating student outcomes by
L., & Broek, G. V. (2019). Coaching the coach: Intervention effects
supporting autonomy: Implications for practice and policy. Policy
on need-supportive coaching behavior and athlete motivation and
Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(2), 115–122. engagement. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 43, 288–300. https://
https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219862572 doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.04.002
Pelletier, L., Seguin-Levesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007).
above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motiv- Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined
ation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of
94(1), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.186 Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Pelletier, L. G., & Sharp, E. C. (2009). Administrative pressures and 0022-0663.99.4.761
teachers’ interpersonal behaviour in the classroom. Theory and Roth, G., Assor, A., Niemiec, C. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2009).
Research in Education, 7(2), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/ The emotional and academic consequences of parental conditional
1477878509104322 regard: Comparing conditional positive regard, conditional negative
Perlman, D. (2011). The influence of an autonomy-supportive interven- regard, and autonomy support as parenting practices. Developmental
tion on preservice teacher instruction: A self-determined perspective. Psychology, 45(4), 1119–1142. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015272
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(11), 73–79. Rouse, P. C., Ntoumanis, N., Duda, J. L., Jolly, K., & Williams, G. C.
Perlman, D. (2015). Assisting preservice teachers toward more motiv- (2011). In the beginning: Role of autonomy support on the motiv-
ationally supportive instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical ation, mental health and intentions of participants entering an exer-
Education, 34(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0208 cise referral scheme. Psychology & Health, 26(6), 729–749. https://
Reeve, J. (1998). Autonomy support as an interpersonal motivating doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.492454
style: Is it teachable? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(3), Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2005). Legislating competence: The
312–330. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0975 motivational impact of high stakes testing as an educational reform.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style In A J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence (pp.
toward students and how they can become more autonomy support- 354–374). Guilford Press.
ive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the
00461520903028990 facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-
Reeve, J. (2015). Rewards. In E. T. Emmer & E. J. Sabornie’s (Eds.), being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Handbook of classroom management (2nd ed.; pp. 496–515). Taylor 0003-066X.55.1.68
& Francis. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psy-
Reeve, J. (2016). Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do chological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford
it. In J. C. K. Wang, W. C. Liu, & R. M. Ryan’s (Eds.), Motivation Press.
in educational research: Translating theory into classroom practice Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
(Chpt. 7, 129–152). Springer. from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory,
76 J. REEVE AND S. H. CHEON

practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational determination theory-based interventions in health contexts: An
Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020 expert consensus study. Motivation Science, 6(4), 438–455. https://
Sanchez-Oliva, D., Pulido-Gonzalez, J. J., Leo, F. M., Gonzalez-Ponce, doi.org/10.1037/mot0000172
I., & Garcia-Calvo, T. (2017). Effects of an intervention with teach- Tessier, D., Sarrazin, P., & Ntoumanis, N. (2008). The effects of an
ers in the physical education context: A Self-Determination Theory experimental programme to support students’ autonomy on the
approach. PLoS One, 12(12), e0189986. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour- overt behaviours of physical education teachers. European Journal of
nal.pone.0189986 Psychology of Education, 23(3), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Savard, A., Joussemet, M., Pelletier, L. G., & Mageau, G. A. (2013). The BF03172998
benefits of autonomy support for adolescents with severe emotional Tessier, D., Sarrazin, P., & Ntoumanis, N. (2010). The effect of an
and behavioral problems. Motivation and Emotion, 37(4), 688–700. intervention to improve newly qualified teachers’ interpersonal style,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9351-8 students’ motivation and psychological need satisfaction in sport-
Schneider, J., Polet, J., Hassandra, M., Lintunen, T., Laukkanen, A., based physical education. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
Hankonen, N., Hirvensalo, M., Tammelin, T. H., Tormakangas, T., 35(4), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.05.005
& Hagger, M. S. (2020). Testing a physical education-delivered Tilga, H., Hein, V., & Koka, A. (2019). Effects of a web-based interven-
autonomy supportive intervention to promote leisure-time physical tion for PE teachers on students’ perceptions of teacher behaviors,
activity in lower secondary school students: The PETALS trial. BMC psychological needs, and intrinsic motivation. Perceptual and Motor
Public Health, 20(1), 1438. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020- Skills, 126(3), 559–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512519840150
09518-3 Tilga, H., Kalajas-Tilga, H., Hein, V., Raudsepp, L., & Koka, A. (2020).
Soenens, B., Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., & Dochy, F. 15-month follow-up data on the web-based autonomy-supportive
(2012). Psychologically controlling teaching: Examining outcomes, intervention program for PE teachers. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
antecedents, and mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 127(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512519870914
104(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025742 Todd, A. R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). Perspective-taking as a strategy
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the for improving intergroup relations: Evidence, mechanisms, and qual-
concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights ifications. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 374–387.
on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12116
30(1), 74–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001 Trouilloud, D., Sarrazin, P., Bressoux, P., & Bois, J. (2006). Relations
Sparks, C., Dimmock, J. A., Lonsdale, C., & Jackson, B. (2016). between teachers’ early expectations and students’ later perceived
Modeling indicators and outcomes of students’ perceived teacher competence in physical education classes: Autonomy-supportive cli-
relatedness support in high school physical education. Psychology of mate as a moderator. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1),
Sport and Exercise, 26, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport. 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.75
2016.06.004 Tsai, Y.-M., Kunter, M., Ludtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Ryan, R. M.
Sparks, C., Lonsdale, C., Dimmock, J. A., & Jackson, B. (2017). An (2008). What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational
intervention to improve teachers’ interpersonally involving instruc- and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of
tional practices in high school physical education: Implications for Educational Psychology, 100(2), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/
student relatedness support and in-class experiences. Journal of 0022-0663.100.2.460
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 39(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy:
1123/jsep.2016-0198 Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education,
Stebbings, J., Taylor, I. M., Spray, C. M., & Ntoumanis, N. (2012). 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Antecedents of perceived coach interpersonal behaviors: The coach- Ulstad, S. O., Halvari, H., Sorebo, O., & Deci, E. L. (2018).
ing environment and coach psychological well- and ill-being. Motivational predictors of learning strategies, participation, exertion,
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(4), 481–502. https://doi. and performance in physical education: A randomized control trial.
org/10.1123/jsep.34.4.481 Motivation and Emotion, 42(4), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Su, Y., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of inter- s11031-018-9694-2
vention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Van den Berghe, L., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N.,
Psychology Review, 23(1), 159–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648- Cardon, G., Tallir, I., & Haerens, L. (2013). Observed need-support-
010-9142-7 ive and need-thwarting teaching behavior in physical education: Do
Sun, J., Dunne, M. P., Hou, W.-Y., & Xu, A.-Q. (2013). Educational teachers’ motivational orientations matter? Psychology of Sport
stress among Chinese adolescents: Individual, family, school and and Exercise, 14(5), 650–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.
peer influences. Educational Review, 65(3), 284–302. https://doi.org/ 2013.04.006
10.1080/00131911.2012.659657 Van den Berghe, L., Tallir, I., Cardon, G., Aelterman, N., & Haerens,
Tan, C. (2013). Learning from Shanghai: Lessons on achieving educa- L. (2015). Student (dis)engagement and need-supportive teaching
tional success. Springer Science. behavior: A multi-informant and multilevel approach. Journal of
Taylor, I. M., & Lonsdale, C. (2010). Cultural differences in the rela- Sport & Exercise Psychology, 37(4), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1123/
tionships among autonomy support, psychological need satisfaction, jsep.2014-0150
subjective vitality, and effort in British and Chinese physical educa- Van den Berghe, L., Vansteenkiste, M., Cardon, G., Kirk, D., &
tion. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32(5), 655–673. https:// Haerens, L. (2014). Research on self-determination in physical edu-
doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.5.655 cation: Key findings and proposals for future research. Physical
Taylor, I., Ntoumanis, N., & Smith, B. (2009). The social context as a Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(1), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.
determinant of teacher motivational strategies in physical education. 1080/17408989.2012.732563
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10. Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., De Muynck, G.-J., Haerens, L.,
1016/j.psychsport.2008.09.002 Patall, E., & Reeve, J. (2018). Fostering personal meaning and self-
Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2008). A self-determin- relevance: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization.
ation theory approach to understanding the antecedents of teachers’ The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/
motivational strategies in physical education. Journal of Sport & 10.1080/00220973.2017.1381067
Exercise Psychology, 30(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.1.75 Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Soenens, B. (2019).
Teixeira, P. J., Marques, M. M., Silva, M. N., Brunet, J., Duda, J. L., Seeking stability in stormy educational times: A need-based perspec-
Haerens, L., La Guardia, J., Lindwall, M., Lonsdale, C., Markland, tive on (de)motivating teaching grounded in self-determination the-
D., Michie, S., Moller, A. C., Ntoumanis, N., Patrick, H., Reeve, J., ory. In E. N. Gonida & M. S. Lemos (Eds.), Motivation in education
Ryan, R. M., Sebire, S. J., Standage, M., Vansteenkiste, M., … at a time of global change: Theory, research, and implications for
Hagger, M. S. (2020). Classification of techniques used in self- practice (Vol. 20, pp. 53–80). Emerald.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 77

Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2020). 35 years of research on students’
vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustra- subjective task values and motivation: A look back and a look for-
tion as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, ward. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 7,
23(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359 pp. 161–198). Academic Press.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial
(2004). Motivation learning, performance and persistence: The syn- values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory.
ergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779. https://
contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2),
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767
246–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. Yarrow, A., Ballantyne, R., Hansford, B., Herschell, P., & Millwater, J.
(2005). Examining the impact of extrinsic versus intrinsic goal fram- (1999). Teaching in rural and remote schools: A literature review.
ing and internally controlling versus autonomy-supportive commu- Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.
nication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child 1016/S0742-051X(98)00036-5
Development, 76(2), 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624. Yu, S., Chen, B., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2018).
2005.00858.x Chinese education examined via the lens of self-determination.
Vasconcellos, D., Parker, P. D., Hilland, T., Cinelli, R., Owen, K. B., Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 177–214. https://doi.org/10.
Kapsal, N., Lee, J., Antczak, D., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., & 1007/s10648-016-9395-x
Lonsdale, C. (2020). Self-determination theory applied in physical Zhang, D., Bobis, J., Wu, X., & Cui, Y. (2020). The effects of an auton-
education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of omy-supportive teaching intervention on Chinese physics students
Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1444–1469. https://doi.org/10.1037/ and their teacher. Research in Science Education, 50(2), 645–671.
edu0000420
https://doi.org/10.1017/s11165-018-9706-y
Wallace, T. L., Sung, H. C., & Williams, J. D. (2014). The defining fea-
Zhou, M., Ma, W. J., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The importance of auton-
tures of teacher talk within autonomy-supportive classroom manage-
omy for rural Chinese children’s motivation for learning. Learning
ment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 42, 34–46. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.TATE.2012.04.005 and Individual Differences, 19(4), 492–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Waterschoot, J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2019). The effects of lindif.2009.05.003
experimentally induced choice on elementary school children’s Zougkou, K., Weinstein, N., & Paulmann, S. (2017). ERP correlates of
intrinsic motivation: The moderating role of indecisiveness and motivating voices: Quality of motivation and time-course matters.
teacher-student relatedness. Journal of Experimental Child Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(10), 1687–1700.
Psychology, 188, 104692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104692 https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx064