A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships Among Teachers' Autonomy Relevant Practice and Student Outcomes

• In Event: Facilitating Student and Teacher Outcomes by Supporting Autonomy: Innovations and Implementation in the Field

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this investigation was to comprehensively synthesize existing research on the role of teachers’ autonomy support and control in students’ motivation, engagement, achievement, and well-being.

Theoretical Framework
Teachers play a critical role in stoking the flames of students’ motivation, engagement, and academic success, or alternatively, putting them out (e.g., Reeve, 2009). In particular, hundreds of studies have examined the relationships between teachers’ practice of supporting or thwarting (i.e., control) students’ need for autonomy and students’ academic motivation, engagement, learning, achievement, and well-being. However, this extensive research literature has yet to be synthesized, making it difficult to ascertain the range, magnitude, and boundaries of the correlates and effects.

Methods
A comprehensive search for research focused on the relationship between teacher autonomy support (or control) and students’ educational outcomes was conducted using electronic database searches, citation searches, reference section review, requests to relevant professional organizations, and direct emails to productive scholars. Over 7,000 reports were examined for inclusion. Two trained coders retrieved information from relevant reports (93-97% agreement). Bivariate correlations (r) were retrieved from correlational studies and standardized mean differences corrected for small-sample bias (Hedges’ g) were retrieved from intervention studies. Inverse-variance weighting procedures and random effects meta-regression using robust-variance estimation were used to pool effects across studies and examine moderators.

Results
The literature search yielded 181 correlational studies (2208 effect sizes) and 23 interventions (302 effect sizes). Results revealed the following key findings.

First, teacher autonomy support most strongly predicts students’ adaptive functioning (across adaptive outcomes [e.g., autonomous motivation, need satisfaction, engagement, performance, well-being]: r=.36 for correlational studies and d=.98 for interventions) and less strongly predicts suboptimal functioning (across suboptimal outcomes [e.g., amotivation, controlled motivation, disengagement]: r=-.12 and d=-.32). Teacher control most strongly predicts suboptimal functioning (r=.34) and less strongly predicts adaptive functioning (r=-.15).

Second, various autonomy supportive practices relate to adaptive functioning (r=.21-.39). But, providing choices (r=.21) predicts adaptive outcomes more weakly than multidimensional support (r=.37).

Third, teacher autonomy support relates to adaptive outcomes more strongly during early-mid-adolescence (r =.37-.44) than during childhood (r=.25) or emerging adulthood (r=.33).

Forth, there is little variation in the relationship between autonomy support or control and adaptive functioning depending on race, gender, or educational context.

Fifth, the strongest relationships between teacher practice and students’ adaptive functioning emerge when students report on classroom experiences (r=.36 for support; r=-.19 for control) or outcomes (r=.37 for support; r=-.18 for control), relative to teacher and observer reports of classroom practice (r=.20 for support; r=.003 for control) or student outcomes (r=.19 for support; r=-.04 for control).

Discussion and Scholarly Significance
This meta-analysis highlights the benefits of teachers’ autonomy support for promoting desirable student outcomes. Interventions are likely to reveal the greatest benefits by: focusing on both increasing multidimensional support and reducing control, targeting adolescents, and including student perspectives to evaluate effectiveness. Scalable interventions tailored to those historically most vulnerable to poor motivation and achievement and most likely to experience poor motivational climates (e.g., students of color, low-income students, girls in science and math, adolescents) are needed.

Authors

• Erika Alisha Patall, University of Southern California

• Sophia Hooper

• Joanna Mendoza, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center