Supporting Autonomy,Competence,and Relatedness in a Learning-to-Learn Course: College Students’ Insights Into Effective Instruction

Abstract

Autonomy, competence, and relatedness are psychological needs that may be particularly important for instructors to address in learning-to-learn courses, which are designed to support college students’ personal development and academic success. Guided by self-determination theory, in this qualitative study we focused on the learning-to-learn context to understand psychological need satisfaction from the perspectives of college students and in their own words. We analyzed end-of-semester evaluations in 10 sections of a learning-to-learn course offered through an educational psychology program at a large public university. The findings highlighted how instructional features, intellectual experiences, and teaching practices supported autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The 10 themes emerging from the analysis can be used to understand self-determination theory in practice and guide learner-centered instruction.

Keywords

college students teaching practices learning motivation evaluation of teaching

Instructors can promote students’ motivation for learning by supporting three basic psychological needs associated with self-determination theory: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Reeve, 2002, 2009). Quantitative evidence about satisfying students’ psychological needs is compelling (e.g., Church et al., 2012), and classroom observations provide some guidance as to how educators can support these needs (e.g., Stefanou et al., 2004). However, with regard to how college students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied, insights from students themselves are largely absent. To address this question, we used a qualitative approach to understand psychological need satisfaction in students’ own words. In addition, we focused on a learning-to-learn course, a context in which self-determination theory may be particularly relevant to understanding effective teaching practices. Rooted in educational psychology, learning-to-learn courses represent a specific teaching context that is focused on developing college students’ motivation for and engagement in learning (Hofer & Yu, 2003). Because of the developmental aims of learning-to-learn courses, the environment created by the instructor is crucial (Acee, 2009). Prior research suggests an association between psychological need satisfaction and students’ use of effective self-regulated learning strategies (de Bilde et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2014), the types of strategies taught in learning-to-learn courses. To build upon what is known about this association, we examined open-ended responses to an in-depth learning-to-learn course evaluation. In so doing, we sought to advance scholarly understanding of the role self-determination theory plays in supporting self-regulated learning while illuminating effective instructional practices in the learning-to-learn context.

Framework

Below, we review the relations between students’ basic psychological needs and important academic and non-academic outcomes. We also highlight the importance of understanding the behaviors instructors exhibit to support autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory has been widely used by researchers to explain human behavior in a variety of contexts (Reeve, 2002; Ryan et al., 1997). The premise of self-determination theory is that all humans possess three basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—and that individuals seek to satisfy these needs (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). When these needs are satisfied in academic contexts, students become intrinsically motivated and ultimately more likely to demonstrate “active personal commitment” to learning outcomes and tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 71).

To be optimally motivated, students have an innate need to make decisions based on their own interests and for their own reasons (Reeve, 2006). Autonomy refers to students’ perception of their ability to choose their own actions. When students’ need for autonomy is satisfied, they feel like they have control over their behavior. They eagerly engage in course activities and complete them in a self-directed manner (Reeve, 2002). When autonomy is not satisfied, students might disengage because of the perception they do not have control over their own outcomes.

As another aspect of their motivation, students seek to feel confident in the adequacy of their knowledge and skills (Ryan & Deci, 2008). Competence describes the perception of being capable. In an environment that supports competence, students confidently pursue learning tasks. They will not withdraw from challenging tasks but rather will demonstrate persistence and adaptability (Reeve, 2006). When students do not perceive support for their competence, they often will not feel confident in their abilities to succeed. These students are likely to refrain from trying (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

As the third basic need, students seek to experience an authentic connection to others (Reeve, 2006). Relatedness refers to students’ perceptions of connectedness. Students whose relatedness needs are satisfied feel that they are an important part of their classroom. They will more eagerly participate, help other students, or reach out for help (Marchand & Skinner, 2007). Students who do not experience relatedness, in contrast, will often feel they do not belong. Attendance, participation, and attention may all suffer (Furrer & Skinner, 2003).

Optimal learning environments foster conditions that support all three basic psychological needs (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Students experience a range of benefits when they perceive an environment as supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness. They tend to enjoy challenging educational experiences, attain deep comprehension, and experience a high sense of self-worth, competence, creativity, and internal control (Reeve, 2002, 2009). As such, understanding the conditions that support autonomy, competence, and relatedness is important to supporting active and engaged learning.

Educational Environments and Self-Determination Theory

Need satisfaction refers to a state in which students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met; this construct has strong positive relations with students’ personal and academic outcomes. In a cross-cultural study, Church et al. (2012) found that need satisfaction was linked to multiple aspects of well-being for college students across eight different cultures. In a survey-based study of Romanian college students, Sulea et al. (2015) found that need satisfaction supported high levels of well-being and engagement as well as low levels of boredom and burnout, even after controlling for personality traits. Through survey-based studies with Spanish college students, León and Núñez (2013) revealed that need satisfaction was associated with satisfaction with life, self-esteem, and engagement over the course of a semester. Moreover, in a synthesis of research on self-determination, Reeve (2002) highlighted robust connections of need satisfaction to academic achievement, positive emotions, creativity, understanding, and retention.

Research exploring how teachers promote need satisfaction in real classroom settings is insightful but scarce. Stefanou et al. (2004) used self-determination theory to guide their interpretation of themes in audio-recorded American mathematics classrooms. Their investigation suggested the most effective teachers provided organizational, procedural, and cognitive support, such as opportunities for students to have a say in how the course was organized, choose how to complete assignments, and make their own decisions. In a study using coded videos of American college classrooms, Reeve and Jang (2006) found that teachers supported autonomy by listening to students, providing independent work time, praising improvement, encouraging effort, offering process hints, and acknowledging students’ perspectives.

Researchers have also used anonymous course evaluations to identify trends in students’ perceptions of effective instructional practices. Filak and Sheldon (2003, 2008) conducted regression and path analyses to examine connections between survey and evaluation responses submitted by American college students in journalism and psychology courses. Students who reported their psychological needs were satisfied provided higher evaluations of the instructor and course (i.e., “course/instructor was excellent” and “I would recommend the course/instructor to a friend”). Khalkhali (2014) reported similar results for Iranian college students who completed the university’s standard instructor evaluation sheet. These studies indicate that college students associate psychological need satisfaction with quality teaching.

The Learning-to-Learn Context

Educational psychologists Claire Ellen Weinstein and Bill McKeachie introduced learning-to-learn as an approach to help college students of all backgrounds become strategic and self-regulated learners (Acee, 2009). Learning-to-learn involves teaching students underlying theory and practical strategies for learning and motivation (Hofer & Yu, 2003; Wolters & Hoops, 2015). Metacognition—that is, students’ thinking about their thinking and bringing awareness to their learning processes (Seraphin et al., 2012; Tanner, 2012)—is an important component of learning-to-learn. However, learning-to-learn is a broader approach; guided by models of self-regulated learning, learning-to-learn helps students bring awareness to and regulate the cognitive, contextual, motivational, and behavioral components of learning (Dinsmore et al., 2008). Learning-to-learn thus emphasizes both skill (i.e., strategies for learning) and will (i.e., motivation for learning; Zusho et al., 2003). For a summary and model of learning-to-learn, see Hofer and Yu (2003) and Weinstein et al. (2000).

Offering direct instruction in learning-to-learn is on the rise in postsecondary education. National survey results of learning center administrators indicated that 82% of institutions offered some form of learning-to-learn courses or workshops (Toms, 2014). Learning-to-learn content can also be embedded into specific subject-area courses (e.g., Zusho et al., 2003). This second approach involves “teach[ing] how to learn as well as what to learn” and can be integrated into the metacurriculum of virtually any course (Weinstein & Stone, 1993, p. 37). Self-determination theory, with its premise that psychological need satisfaction can lead students to internalize motivation for learning, may illuminate effective learning-to-learn pedagogy. Inquiry into support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the learning-to-learn environment can inform teaching practice not only within intact learning-to-learn courses but also within other course contexts that weave learning-to-learn into the metacurriculum.

Present Study

In summary, existing research establishes that students who satisfy their need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness experience positive personal and academic outcomes (e.g., Church et al., 2012). Much of this research relies on self-report survey-based research or the use of defined observational protocols to measure relations among these variables, which may confirm existing hypotheses rather than revealing new features. Several classroom-based studies provide more nuanced insights through researchers’ observation of instruction; however, this research is limited in scope through its primary emphasis on how instructors support autonomy (i.e., rather than competence and relatedness). The use of evaluations to understand psychological need satisfaction is promising, but existing studies do not capture the experience of effective instruction in students’ own words. Finally, no known research framed by self-determination theory has investigated an area where supporting learning and engagement may be particularly important: the learning-to-learn context.

To build upon this prior research, the present study aims to identify instructional practices that support autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the learning-to-learn context. We use a qualitative methodology to illuminate what is not yet known about need satisfaction in practice, as existing research has primarily used closed-ended measures or, in the case of classroom observations, examined one rather than all three psychological needs. The instructor role has been identified as a major contributor to the effectiveness of learning-to-learn courses (Acee, 2009; Hoops & Kutrybala, 2015), but no known study has used a theoretical framework to investigate what makes learning-to-learn instructors effective. The present study contributes this insight.

The study is informed by Ryan and Niemiec’s (2009) assertion that self-determination theory “is allied with qualitative…theories in understanding the situational nature of learning and motivation, and the importance of the individual’s frame of reference in shaping meanings and the behaviors that follow from them” (p. 268). We aim to put the student voice at the forefront to imbue formal constructs with a human element that can guide future research and practice. Using the constructs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness as interpretive lenses, the purpose of the present study is to contribute to existing research on psychological need satisfaction and its connection with effective instructional practices. The research question that guided the study was: How are the psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfied in the learning-to-learn context, as revealed by students’ perspectives of valuable instructional practices?

Method

We used thematic analysis to examine psychological need support in the collegiate learning-to-learn context. In thematic analysis, researchers identify, analyze, and report patterns within a qualitative data set and may use both theoretically driven and data-driven approaches to interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The phases of thematic analysis include reading through the data multiple times, taking notes on impressions and insights, applying codes to the data, developing themes that encompass related codes, reviewing the fit between themes and their underlying data, clarifying the names and nature of each theme, and creating a written description that combines examples with interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Data were collected through 10 open-ended course evaluation questions that gathered students’ perspectives on various instructional practices (see Table 1). The use of open-ended questions allowed students to provide a range of responses in their own words (Fink, 2003). Following Angelo and Cross (1993) and Wolfer and Johnson (2003), the questions were written to identify specific practices that students valued as well as to elicit suggestions for improvement.

Table 1.

Open-Ended Questions From the Learning-to-Learn Course Evaluation.

Question
1. What aspects of the instructional materials (e.g., assigned books, readings, videos) supported your learning?
2. What aspects of the instructional materials (e.g., assigned books, readings, videos) did you not like? What might improve this situation?
3. Which assignments, or types of assignments, did you find most valuable? Why? (Please be specific.)
4. Which assignments, or types of assignments, did you not find valuable? Why? (Please be specific.)
5. What were your instructor’s strengths? What did your instructor do particularly well?
6. What specific advice would you give to your instructor to enhance his or her teaching in the future?
7. What did you appreciate most about your [course name] experience?
8. What recommendations would you give your instructor to improve your [course name] experience?
9. In one or two sentences, please describe the most valuable insight or skill you gained from this course.
10. If you have any final comments you’d like to share, please add them below.

Sample and Data Source

Participants were 176 undergraduates in 10 sections of a learning-to-learn course offered through the educational psychology program at a large, 4-year, public university in the Midwestern U.S. All participants in the purposeful sample (Patton, 2002) completed the three-credit elective course in spring 2018. Enrollment in the course was: 70% male and 30% female; 25% first-year, 34% second-year, 24% third-year, and 16% fourth-year; and 49% White, 17% Black, 10% Asian-American, 8% international, 7% Hispanic, 6% bi- or multiracial, and 3% undisclosed.

The overall goal of the class was to help students understand and develop the mindset and skills necessary for college success. Main topics of the course included self-regulated learning, goal-setting, time management, motivation, concentration, memory, reading strategies, note-taking strategies, and study strategies. The course took place over a 14-week semester and met for 80 minutes twice per week. Class sessions included a mix of lectures, videos, discussions, and activities. All sections of the course included the same syllabus, textbook, course calendar, assignments, and topics. Requirements of students included reading portions of the assigned textbook before each class and submitting a weekly textbook-related assignment. In addition, students completed a semester-long course project in which they selected a book related to their personal development, documented how they used ideas from the book in their lives, and discussed experiences with classmates during three check-ins. To accommodate the range of student backgrounds, students chose from three options for each weekly textbook assignment and, for the course project, selected a supplemental book from more than a dozen options. (see Appendix for details.)

All participants submitted a comprehensive, anonymous course evaluation at the end of the semester. In line with the study’s research question and qualitative methodology, the purpose of administering the evaluation at this timepoint was to allow students to provide feedback on meaningful aspects of their overall experience in the learning-to-learn course (Alhija & Fresko, 2009). The lenses of autonomy, competence, and relatedness were used to interpret effective instructional practices as revealed in the open-ended responses. The research team received IRB approval for a waiver of consent to examine responses to the evaluation to advance knowledge of effective instructional practices. To promote forthrightness, the instructions stated:

This survey is an opportunity for you to reflect on your experience and to tell us what you think about the course and your instructor. Your responses will be anonymous and will not impact your grade for this course. Taking this survey provides a chance for you to have your say about what we teach and how we teach it. We will also use this information to make improvements for future students.

Students’ responses to the set of 10 open-ended evaluation questions comprised the data for this study.

Analysis

The qualitative analysis involved multiple researchers; the development of a codebook; and multiple rounds of coding, review, discussion, and refinement in order to provide trustworthiness to the analysis (Patton, 2002). The research team included the course coordinator, two current instructors, and one former instructor with academic backgrounds in higher education, educational psychology, and counselor education. We created, assigned, and reviewed the application of codes using Dedoose (2018), computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software designed to facilitate and add rigor to the analysis of textual data (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2012). Analysis followed a deductive-inductive coding procedure. We first deductively assigned data to the categories of autonomy, competence, and relatedness based on the constructs’ existing definitions (i.e., first-order coding; Roller & Lavrakas, 2015; Saldaña, 2013). We then inductively developed and applied a larger set of more specific codes to label the core ideas present in the data (i.e., second-order coding; Roller & Lavrakas, 2015; Saldaña, 2013).

For the first-order deductive coding, we met to discuss the purpose of the study and reach a shared understanding of the constructs that would guide the initial coding. Self-determination theory’s autonomy, competence, and relatedness constructs informed this “provisional ‘start list’ of codes” (Miles et al., 2014, p. 81). All four researchers engaged in the coding; for each major construct (i.e., autonomy, competence, or relatedness), the full set of responses was coded independently by two different researchers. Statements were coded as autonomy when students described aspects of the course experience that provided a sense of being in control, self-directed, self-motivated, or able to make choices. Statements were coded as competence when students described aspects of the course experience that helped them learn, develop, or gain confidence in their knowledge or skills. Statements were coded as relatedness when students described aspects of the course experience that made them feel valued, supported, or connected.

Following the completion of first-order coding, we reviewed all data categorized under autonomy, competence, or relatedness and developed a set of second-order inductive codes to name and define emergent conceptions based on the data. The second-order codes were applied independently by two different researchers, who met one-quarter of the way through the process to compare approaches and further clarify definitions and coding determinations. Inter-rater reliability was calculated on a subset of 50 participants using the code application test in Dedoose qualitative analysis software (Dedoose, 2018). Summarizing rater agreement across multiple codes (De Vries et al., 2008), the Pooled Cohen’s Kappa was 0.86, reflecting excellent agreement (Cicchetti, 1994). To provide a shared understanding and support consistency when applying codes, we took notes as we coded the data and regularly referred to a codebook that contained a definition and examples of each code (Hruschka et al., 2004).

After the full data set had been coded, the research team met to review the content assigned to each code and discuss overall themes. All four researchers contributed to developing the written description of the themes. To support the trustworthiness of the interpretation, this process involved regularly debriefing with the other members of the research team to check for consistency and coherence (Miles et al., 2014).

Results

The findings highlighted how instructional features, intellectual experiences, and teaching practices supported students’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Table 2 provides a count of how many times each theme was mentioned throughout the course evaluation. Below, we describe the major themes that exemplified effective instruction in the learning-to-learn context.

Table 2.

Appearance of Themes Throughout the Course Evaluation.

	Count by Question										Count Across Dataset
Themes	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	By Unique Students	In All Questions	In Questions 2, 4, 6, and 8 (Critical/Constructive)
AUT: Self-knowledge	11	0	22	3	2	0	19	1	25	2	63	85	4
AUT: Personalization	14	9	23	8	2	0	30	3	3	3	70	95	20
AUT: Inclusion of individual thought	3	0	14	1	9	2	9	0	0	2	30	40	3
COM: Instructor scaffolding	17	4	0	3	54	17	3	5	2	0	76	106	29
COM: Required effort and analysis	11	18	33	21	0	5	3	4	1	1	70	98	48
COM: Layers of meaning	8	2	48	4	2	1	9	6	1	0	65	81	13
REL: Open classroom culture	1	0	0	0	34	4	15	2	0	3	50	59	6
REL: Bonds with peers	1	0	2	1	5	4	18	5	2	5	35	43	10
REL: Warmth and enthusiasm	1	0	0	0	68	2	5	1	2	5	78	84	3
REL: Approachability and practical support	1	0	0	0	46	3	8	2	0	4	55	64	5

Note. AUT = autonomy; COM = competence; REL = relatedness.

Autonomy

Instructional experiences supported autonomy by promoting self-knowledge, personalization, and inclusion of individual thought. The themes suggested that students satisfied their need for autonomy by gaining control over their lives through greater self-awareness, pursuing self-selected goals, and feeling that their individuality and opinions were welcome.

Self-knowledge

Students developed a sense of autonomy through self-knowledge, which involved attaining understanding, awareness of, and insight into their own tendencies, preferences, strengths, and weaknesses. Students referred to self-knowledge as helping them become more autonomous in the pursuit of self-improvement. In their responses to the evaluation, students highlighted the self-assessment opportunities through which they could both identify what areas of their lives they wanted to work on and track their progress. As one student described:

I thought the self-assessments at the start and end of the semester were really valuable. Setting and keeping track of our self-improvement goals and discussing them in class also helped add a lot of motivation when it otherwise would have been easy to save that kind of stuff for when life is “easier.”

Students also developed self-knowledge through opportunities for assessment and reflection embedded into assignments. For example, a student noted that the weekly assignments based on the readings “were most valuable, because they really forced me to assess my abilities and try to apply [what I was learning].”

Students made informed changes in their lives as self-assessment and accompanying reflection brought about greater knowledge of themselves and their tendencies. As a result, they found themselves able to “change my outlook on life for the better” and “motivate myself to become a better student.” Ultimately, self-knowledge was a linchpin in autonomy because it served as a tool for providing students a sense of control over their lives. Many students expressed that the insights they gained through self-reflection were “crucial for growth,” “making changes,” and “creating a brand new me.” Seeing themselves as able to attain self-knowledge helped students commit to informed progress. In the words of a student who summarized this connection, “the most valuable skill that I gained from this class was self-reflection. I can now look at myself with honesty and make changes for the better.”

Personalization

Another way that students met their need for autonomy was through assignments that allowed them to exercise choice. Having options promoted a sense of personalization in the course as students focused on self-selected goals that were meaningful for their learning and growth. Students emphasized the importance of being able to customize their experience in the course. The choices they made regarding their self-selected book, goals, and assignment completion options allowed “everyone to personalize the course” and experience a sense of ownership in being able to “tailor it to your own goals” and “choose what I want to work on [in my life].” Many students highlighted their ability to choose books or set goals as important to their success in the class; this feature supported students in “making [the course] my own” and “find[ing] the best system for me.”

For students, personalizing their engagement in the course provided a heightened sense of the usefulness of learning. As instructional efforts stimulated personal relevance, students experienced a sense of choice over directing aspects of their lives both inside and outside of the classroom. Some students highlighted the value of the course project because they chose “a book that related to our own lives [that] helped [us] develop methods to achieve success.” Other students highlighted the value of in-class activities, as “they were useful in helping me connect that day’s lecture material to my personal life.” Another example of personal relevance was found in how instructors not only explained concepts but also helped students “to connect that material to our own lives in a fashion that will have a long-term positive impact.”

Inclusion of individual thought

The inclusive environment of the classroom was critical to students’ ability to explore content on their own and make sense of things for themselves. The open environment created by instructors welcomed students to share their opinions, reactions, and experiences. Students appreciated that their instructors were “open to every comment, opinion, and elaboration that students inserted into discussions” and that “class discussions…had people sharing their own experiences beyond boilerplate statements.” Participating in class was thus an avenue to “share what matters to you” and “help you be your best,” promoting students’ development on an individual level.

Instructors also created “an atmosphere that promotes individual success” by acknowledging that the path to success could look different for each student. As one student expressed, “[Instructor] was absolutely wonderful in understanding each individual on a different level than surface. She made sure to include everyone and give us time and/or space if discussing a difficult topic.” The inclusive environment showed each student that their choices mattered, that their individuality was welcome, and that their voice was important.

Competence

Competence was supported in three primary ways: instructor scaffolding, required effort and analysis, and layers of meaning. The themes revealed the importance of flexibility, clarity, variety, level of challenge, incentives for learning, and understanding through application, reflection, and collective insights.

Instructor scaffolding

An overall practice that supported students’ feelings of competence was adjusting pace, depth, or format based on student feedback. As one student explained, “My instructor adapted to our class environment and what we deemed necessary for our class to understand concepts better.” Students also indicated that clarity was key, whether in explanations, instructions, expectations, feedback, or examples. One student noted that the instructor supported learning and growth by “ask[ing] questions and incorporat[ing] lessons that made me think deeply about myself and the ways I utilize my time. This allowed me to make the necessary adjustments.”

Further, students indicated that their instructors’ use of multiple formats or examples to demonstrate a particular skill helped them to grasp it more effectively. Students also valued the integration of different perspectives, which taught them new ways of considering and applying the course content. “Books, videos, and assigned [readings] were really helpful in understanding the content being taught as they presented different views on the same topic,” explained one student. “When combined together, these instructional materials were very useful and supported my learning,” elaborated another.

Required effort and analysis

Requiring a certain level of cognitive engagement supported the development of competence. Students appreciated assignments that asked them to regularly engage in course material. Through consistent engagement with course readings in weekly assignments, students gained competence not only in course content but also in the specific thinking skills required by assignments (e.g., analysis). Students admitted that the incentive of a weekly assignment grade based on the textbook pushed them to read for understanding, and they ultimately viewed this requirement in a positive light. They described the weekly assignments as “help[ing] with consistency” and “forc[ing] me to read the chapters and learn a lot to become more effective.”

Students also noted that the level of effort or amount of work required by the course was key to their competence. They appreciated being challenged at an appropriate level and identified certain types of required thinking as supporting their competence. Students appreciated going beyond summary and rote memorization by having assignments that “ma[d]e you open your head up and think.” When assignments required thinking beyond the surface level, students attained a more robust and lasting understanding of the course concepts. One student, for example, described how the assignments “helped me understand and see the connection between all the different factors that affect education.”

Layers of meaning

Reflecting on course material, applying material outside of the classroom, and learning from others’ experiences prompted a deeper understanding. To feel competent in the content and skills of the course, self-reflection and introspection were essential. Students reported that this type of thinking was “therapeutic” and that, prior to this course, they “never really took the time to analyze [themselves].” The insights produced by self-reflective thought helped students see room for growth and understand course material through the lens of their lives.

Direct application—and the modeling of application by the instructor—also fostered competence as students came to recognize connections between course content and their past, current, or future experiences. The ability to transfer strategies from the learning-to-learn context to other courses was gratifying. One student recalled, “I enjoyed learning about the study strategies the most because I put them into practice as soon as I read the chapter and got a 100% on one of midterms because of it.” Another student expressed appreciated for real-world application, stating, “I really liked how [Instructor] was able to effectively communicate with the class about the ideas she had in mind and giving some very practical tips which we could incorporate moving forward with BOTH academics and life in general.” With support for application, students felt more competent with the course material.

Students noted that hearing perspectives from other students helped them develop richer understanding of themselves and course topics. Other students brought different perspectives or examples into the classroom, which helped the class consider topics from multiple angles and resist simple explanations or generalizations. Students appreciated the opportunity to “share experiences with other students” through in-class discussions in particular. The exchange of ideas in an interactive environment provided opportunities to “learn from different people in the classroom” and “learn what everyone else in the classroom was learning” through their unique perspectives and experiences.

Relatedness

Instructional practices supported relatedness through an open classroom culture, bonds with peers, warmth and enthusiasm, and approachability and practical support. These themes demonstrated the importance of psychological safety, connection, meaningful relationships, and instructor caring.

Open classroom culture

The classroom culture created by instructors facilitated students’ feelings of relatedness. Students highlighted the importance of having an “open space for all” and an instructor who “value[d] everyone’s input.” Further, they noted that instructors were welcoming of differences in a manner that was “open and understanding.” Students not only noticed the affirming classroom environment but also recognized the instructor’s role in creating it. Instructor self-disclosure was pivotal to creating this environment; as one student elaborated, the instructor “made the class feel like a safe place to share our struggles because he shared his own.”

Bonds with peers

The connections fostered among students also supported relatedness. Students experienced a supportive environment in the sense that students, although they had struggled academically in the past, were “all in this together.” In commenting about how much they appreciated having a close-knit class, students stated “we all felt very close to each other and didn’t mind sharing about our own lives” and “I love how close the class got, and there was a great sense of belonging.” A few students even disclosed that their peers in the learning-to-learn course were the best classmates they had had in any class during their college career. As one student shared, “Many classes are quiet and you feel isolated. My classmates in this class feel like they’re my friends now.”

Warmth and enthusiasm

Instructors’ affective and interpersonal characteristics contributed to meaningful student-teacher relationships. Students spoke of their affinity toward instructors by highlighting personality, using descriptors such as “friendly,” “kind,” and “personable.” Students especially appreciated their instructors’ passion and enthusiasm for teaching. As one student said, “My teacher’s passion for this class was mesmerizing. I am thankful to have had her as a teacher.” It made a difference to have instructors who “genuinely cared” and “brought to class enthusiasm and a strong will to teach every single day.” These characteristics influenced students’ interest in the subject matter and motivated them to work toward their goals.

Approachability and practical support

Support was an important component of students’ connections with their instructors. Students described their instructors as approachable, particularly when it came to asking questions or seeking help. As one student wrote, “In college, I feel like it can be very intimidating to go up and talk to your professors, but [Instructor] made me feel very comfortable in class and I wasn’t worried about doing this if I had any concerns.” Approachability did not mean that instructors were overly permissive; rather, it served to convey expectations and promote student engagement. As one student summarized, “[My instructor] was very approachable but held us to a certain standard as to not allow us to slack without consequence.” Students also valued instructor relatability. When instructors shared their own experiences and made personal connections to course concepts, students felt their instructors understood their lives and wanted them to succeed. Further, students revealed that instructors “put thought into personal feedback” and “were there for anyone that needed help.” Instructors’ willingness to give support was a key aspect of students’ perceptions of relatedness.

Areas for Improvement

Students’ responses to the evaluation also indicated aspects of the course that could be improved. The most common critical or constructive feedback related to the themes of required effort and analysis, instructor scaffolding, and personalization. We discuss each in turn below.

Students found the amount of effort required by the course to be excessive at times. The weekly reading assignments became “repetitive” and “tedious.” Students “did not find it useful to spend so much time doing them” and sometimes characterized them as “busy work.” For the textbook readings, students’ main concern was that they were time-consuming without offering commensurate value; that is, they “were a little longer than they were useful.” Interestingly, students did not dislike the textbook as a whole so much as they disliked certain topics and the overall high reading load. As one student explained, “I thought the textbook chapters were very hit or miss. I found a few of them to be extremely helpful and others to be a complete frustrating waste of time.” Perceiving assignments or readings to be a poor use of time diminished students’ sense of control and choice.

As a second critique, students sought additional instructor scaffolding for some assignments and class activities. Students recommended that instructors be “slightly more clear in guidelines/directions for various assignments” as well as “how to do them correctly.” A lack of clarity or specificity, particularly for students who may have been taking the learning-to-learn class after previously struggling in college, was a barrier to confidently completing assignments. A lack of clarity could also be problematic when it came to class time. As one student explained, “some explanations were difficult for people to follow. I would understand what was being said while others still wouldn’t.” Classroom management was also an area where students sought more structure. Involving all students was key. Students suggested their instructors “try and get the class to participate more” and place more emphasis on “involving those who don’t participate that often.” Not seeing students held accountable for tardiness or lack of preparation was frustrating for students who were putting forth the effort to engage. One student suggested “to be a little more strict with some students. It was difficult to have meaningful discussions with some students because they didn’t care and there was nothing being done about it.” Although students praised instructor flexibility and kindness in many instances, they sought a firmer hand when it came to helping all students meet expectations.

The third major critique concerned how students used the provision of choice. These comments almost exclusively involved students’ choosing a book for the course project that proved to be a poor fit for their goals. Students commented “it didn’t apply to me as much as I thought it would when I read the summary” and “I did not find the book report as valuable, but that was because I had picked a book that was not dedicated to my main struggle.” One student explained, “I chose my book and did not really enjoy it all that much and then I felt like I was stuck with the book for the rest of the semester.” Feeling stuck with a book that was not personally relevant created a situation where the motivational benefits of autonomy were thwarted. Autonomy without adequate autonomy support limited how valuable it was for students to personalize aspects of their course experience.

Discussion

In the present study, we highlight how learning-to-learn instructional contexts can support college students’ psychological needs. Perceiving the classroom environment as inclusive and welcoming appears to be critical to students’ feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. It thus is of particular importance to create a classroom culture that embraces differences in students and ideas. In her foundational article about the concepts of mattering and marginality in higher education, Schlossberg (1989) raised the question, “Can a campus community be created that allows all students to find a place of involvement and importance?” (p. 6). The present study reveals that the learning-to-learn context has potential to model this sort of environment. At its best, this classroom context involves validation of individuality, responsiveness to student needs, and support for participation. It encourages authenticity, emphasizes co-constructing knowledge, and fosters idea-sharing. The connection to peers becomes a platform through which students can grow individually and gain confidence.

The vital role of instructors in supporting college students is widely acknowledged (Trammell & Aldrich, 2016). The present findings affirm the importance of instructor caring (Acee, 2009; Hoops & Kutrybala, 2015) and demonstrate that students perceive instructor caring as key to their learning and growth. Students notice when instructors include them and care about their preferences, reactions, and struggles. Students’ responses demonstrate that instructor caring involves approachability, openness, and non-judgment. These aspects resonate with the social-psychological perspective on mattering: perceiving others to be interested in, concerned about, or reliant on you motivates action (Elliott et al., 2004). Although this finding is applicable in any college course, it may be especially relevant in learning-to-learn contexts, where the primary objective is to motivate students in and beyond the classroom.

Caring about students and their learning involves carefully conveying—rather than lowering—expectations. There are motivational benefits to an open classroom environment but also the potential for some students not to engage. In the present study, we find examples of how instructors can signal to students what is expected and accepted within the classroom space. In this regard, the guidance provided by Grolnick and Ryan (1987) a generation ago remains relevant to the learning to-learn classroom today: “autonomy support can include firmness and structure along with a willingness to support choice and independence” (p. 220). In the learning-to-learn context, students thrive when there is reinforcement for a certain level of thinking and required effort, along with support for individual decision-making and inclusion in the classroom. When these latter aspects are present, students may come to reflect positively on being “forced, “required,” or “made” to engage in activities that bolster their understanding. The key appears to be for the constraints of course requirements and accountability to occur in an authoritative learning environment that offers both structure and support—rather than in an authoritarian or permissive environment that preferences either structure or support over the other (Walker, 2009). Classwork can be more than a simple transactional model where requirements are completed for the sake of a grade. Students seem to respond particularly well when instructors require intellectual activity (e.g., application, reflection, analysis) while also emphasizing learning from others and being open about attempts and failures.

Teacher characteristics that communicate both high expectations and high support do more than simply make the classroom a welcoming environment. They challenge students to grow while providing the conditions that support this growth (Kuh et al., 2005). The blend of challenge and support may be particularly important for learning-to-learn, where the focus is on helping students develop skills and attitudes to help them succeed in the broader context of college and lifelong learning. The critiques shared in the course evaluation suggest opportunities to bring challenge and support into balance. Possibilities for improvement include the following: allowing students to choose from among a subset of assignments to prevent becoming overwhelmed by the workload or numb to the value of an assignment; limiting assigned textbook content to the most relevant pages, supplementing as needed with videos or online materials; and scaffolding how students undertake a self-defined course project by sharing feedback from prior students and emphasizing that students can modify their initial choices.

Overall, the course evaluations reveal that the learning-to-learn context helps students make knowledge their own. Students develop confidence and excitement for learning as they come to view themselves and peers as sources of knowledge and knowing. Such cognitive development is often heralded as an important outcome of postsecondary education overall (Cruce et al., 2006). To detect it so readily in the present study is a reminder that the learning-to-learn context is not a remedial environment but rather an essential foundation for helping students meet the demand of independent and interdependent thinking in college and beyond.

Given this importance, how can learning-to-learn be taught more broadly? To reach more students, especially those who may not need the full support of a standalone course, learning-to-learn can be made part of the metacurriculum of other courses (Weinstein et al., 2011). The metacurriculum refers to teaching strategies for self-regulated learning in concert with strategies for learning course content. For example, a psychology (or biology, or English, or history, etc.) instructor would teach not only the content of that discipline but also how to be a planful, motivated, and effective learner in that discipline (Acee, 2009). The integration of how to learn with what to learn can be accomplished through “small teaching, an approach that seeks to spark positive change in higher education through small but powerful modifications to our course design and teaching practices” (Lang, 2016, p. 5, emphasis in original). Instructors might describe how they create outlines and pace their writing, guide students through a note-taking exercise related to the day’s content, or provide students practice with study methods such as generating and answering their own questions. Instructors can invite students to meet with them if they are uncertain about their study skills, share their own experiences and struggles developing time management skills, and speak positively about academic support resources such as the learning center or tutoring services (Gabriel, 2008). Another approach is to teach students about study skills in a workshop-style class session following the first exam to prompt reflection on their approaches to learning (McGuire, 2015).

Limitations and Future Research

The present study has some limitations that future research may address. The evaluation was created to provide feedback to instructors about their teaching, including classroom experiences, instructional materials, and assignments. Had the evaluation directly asked students about autonomy, competence and relatedness, it may also have revealed further details about how learning-to-learn instructors support these psychological needs. Future research should consider the use of evaluation questions that directly map onto self-determination theory. In addition, the use of written questions may have limited the depth of student responses. It could be beneficial for future research to use methods such as interviews and focus groups to gain detail and clarity through follow-up questions that dynamically emerge while engaging with participants (Glesne, 2005).

The written responses examined in the study were, by design, self-report data that revealed students’ perspectives. The evaluation instructions encouraged honest responses by emphasizing that results would be used to improve instruction (Angelo & Cross, 1993). However, self-report data are necessarily subjective (Bowman, 2010). Future research could triangulate self-report data with behavioral data acquired through observations of learning-to-learn classroom instruction using a structured protocol. Such a protocol could be adapted from existing self-determination theory observational work (e.g., Stefanou et al., 2004) and informed by the themes identified in the present study.

In the present study, we examined moderately small classrooms in a traditional face-to-face setting. It is possible that findings about effective instruction might differ in other settings. Future research should explore other models of learning-to-learn instruction, such as large lectures combined with smaller recitation sections (Hofer & Yu, 2003), to identity similarities and differences with the themes identified in the present study. Given the growing prevalence of online instruction, future research should consider how learning-to-learn might be taught effectively without the traditional affordances of face-to-face teacher presence and classroom community. It seems likely that some themes found in the present study—such as promoting self-knowledge, requiring effort and analysis, and demonstrating warmth and enthusiasm—are not bound by class size and can also be incorporated into online pedagogy. Future research should compare different instructional modalities to understand further nuance in how learning-to-learn supports autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Conclusion

Using the framework of self-determination theory, we used qualitative thematic analysis to understand psychological need satisfaction in the learning-to-learn context. The analysis of open-ended responses to course evaluations emphasized the student voice and highlighted the insights of those who had directly engaged learning-to-learn coursework. The findings reveal how college students perceive support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness and offer suggestions for both teaching and research. As Reeve (2002) noted based on extensive research on the topic, “any teacher interested in learning how to be autonomy supportive with students can do so” (p. 190). The present study reveals practices that can guide autonomy supportive instruction, and we close with an additional call to action: any instructor interested in learning how to support students’ learning can do so.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Acee

T. W.

(2009). Strategic learning and college readiness: An interview with Claire Ellen Weinstein. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(1), 20–26.

Alhija

F. N. A.

Fresko

(2009). Student evaluation of instruction: What can be learned from students’ written comments? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.01.002

Angelo

T. A.

Cross

K. P.

(1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Bowman

N. A.

(2010). Can 1st-year college students accurately report their learning and development? American Educational Research Journal, 47, 466–496. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209353595

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Church

A. T.

Katigbak

M. S.

Locke

K. D.

Zhang

Shen

Vargas-Flores

J. d. J.

Ibáñez-Reyes

Tanaka-Matsumi

Curtis

G. J.

Cabrera

H. F.

Mastor

K. A.

Alvarez

J. M.

Ortiz

F. A.

Simon

J.-Y. R.

Ching

C. M.

(2012). Need satisfaction and well-being: Testing self-determination theory in eight cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 507–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112466590

Cicchetti

D. V.

(1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284

Cruce

T. M.

Wolniak

G. C.

Seifert

T. A.

Pascarella

E. T.

(2006). Impacts of good practices on cognitive development, learning orientations, and graduate degree plans during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0042

de Bilde

Vansteenkiste

Lens

(2011). Understanding the association between future time perspective and self-regulated learning through the lens of self-determination theory. Learning and Instruction, 21, 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.002

10.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychologist, 49(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14

11.

Dedoose. (2018). Dedoose version 8.0.35, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. SocioCultural Research Consultants.

12.

De Vries

Elliott

M. N.

Kanouse

D. E.

Teleki

S. S.

(2008). Using pooled kappa to summarize interrater agreement across many items. Field Methods, 20(3), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08317166

13.

Dinsmore

D. L.

Alexander

P. A.

Loughlin

S. M.

(2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6

14.

Elliott

Kao

Grant

(2004). Mattering: Empirical validation of a social-psychological concept. Self and Identity, 3, 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000119

15.

Filak

V. F.

Sheldon

K. M.

(2003). Student psychological need satisfaction and college teacher-course evaluations. Educational Psychology, 23, 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000060084

16.

Filak

V. F.

Sheldon

K. M.

(2008). Teacher support, student motivation, student need satisfaction, and college teacher course evaluations: Testing a sequential path model. Educational Psychology, 28, 711–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802337794

17.

Fink

(2003). How to ask survey questions (2nd ed.). Sage.

18.

Furrer

Skinner

(2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148

19.

Gabriel

K. F.

(2008). Teaching unprepared students: Strategies for promoting success and retention in higher education. Stylus.

20.

Glesne

(2005). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

21.

Grolnick

W. S.

Ryan

R. M.

(1987). Autonomy support in education: Creating the facilitating environment. In Hastings

Schwieso

(Eds.), New directions in educational psychology: Behavior and motivation in the classroom (pp. 213–231). Falmer.

22.

Hofer

B. K.

S. L.

(2003). Teaching self-regulated learning through a “learning to learn” course. Teaching of Psychology, 30(1), 30–33. https://doi.org/10.1207%2FS15328023TOP3001_05

23.

Hoops

L. D.

Kutrybala

(2015). The impact of a summer bridge program on nontraditional student development: Teacher care matters. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.933456

24.

Hruschka

D. J.

Schwartz

St. John

D. C.

Picone-Decaro

Jenkins

R. A.

Carey

J. W.

(2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X04266540

25.

Khalkhali

(2014). Students’ evaluation of teachers: Through the lens of self-determination theory. International Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation, 6(6), 43–52.

26.

Kuh

G. D.

Kinzie

Schuh

J. H.

Whitt

E. J.

(2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass.

27.

Lang

J. M.

(2016). Small teaching: Everyday lessons from the science of learning. Jossey-Bass.

28.

León

Núñez

J. L.

(2013). Causal ordering of basic psychological needs and well-being. Social Indicators Research, 114(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0143-4

29.

Liu

W. C.

Wang

C. K. J.

Kee

Y. H.

Koh

Lim

B. S. C.

Chua

(2014). College students’ motivation and learning strategies profiles and academic achievement: A self-determination theory approach. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785067

30.

Marchand

Skinner

E. A.

(2007). Motivational dynamics of children’s academic help-seeking and concealment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.65

31.

McGuire

S. Y.

(2015). Teach students how to learn. Stylus.

32.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldana

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.

33.

Niemiec

C. P.

Ryan

R. M.

(2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318

34.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Leech

N. L.

Collins

K. M. T.

(2012). Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, 17(56), 1–28.

35.

Patton

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

36.

Reeve

(2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 183–203). University of Rochester Press.

37.

Reeve

(2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1086/501484

38.

Reeve

(2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44, 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990

39.

Reeve

Jang

(2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209

40.

Roller

Lavrakas

(2015). Applied qualitative research design: A total quality framework approach. Guilford Press.

41.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

42.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2008). Self-determination theory and the role of basic psychological needs in personality and the organization of behavior. In John

O. P.

Robbins

R. W.

Pervin

L. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 654–678). Guilford Press.

43.

Ryan

R. M.

Kuhl

Deci

E. L.

(1997). Nature and autonomy: An organizational view of social and neurobiological aspects of self-regulation in behavior and development. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 701–728.

44.

Ryan

R. M.

Niemiec

C. P.

(2009). Self-determination theory in schools of education: Can an empirically supported framework also be critical and liberating? Theory and Research in Education, 7, 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104331

45.

Saldaña

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.

46.

Schlossberg

N. K.

(1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. Designing Campus Activities to Foster a Sense of Community, 48, 5–15.

47.

Seraphin

K. D.

Philippoff

Kaupp

Vallin

L. M.

(2012). Metacognition as means to increase the effectiveness of inquiry-based science education. Science Education International, 23, 366–382.

48.

Stefanou

C. R.

Perecevich

K. C.

DiCintio

Turner

J. C.

(2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_2

49.

Sulea

van Beek

Sarbescu

Virga

Schaufeli

(2015). Engagement, boredom, and burnout among students: Basic need satisfaction matters more than personality traits. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.018

50.

Tanner

K. D.

(2012). Promoting student metacognition. Life Sciences Education, 11(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033

51.

Toms

(2014). National college learning center association 2014 survey report. Learning Assistance Review, 21(1), 9–18.

52.

Trammell

Aldrich

(2016). Undergraduate students’ perspectives of essential instructor qualities. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i1.19178

53.

Walker

J. M. T.

(2009). Authoritative classroom management: How control and nurturance work together. Theory into Practice, 48(2), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840902776392

54.

Weinstein

C. E.

Acee

T. W.

Jung

(2011). Self-regulation and learning strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.443

55.

Weinstein

C. E.

Husman

Dierking

D. R.

(2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In Boekaerts

Pintrich

P. R.

Zeidner

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 727–747). Academic Press.

56.

Weinstein

C. E.

Stone

G. V. M.

(1993). Broadening our conception of general education: The self-regulated learner. New Directions for Community Colleges, 81, 31–39.

57.

Wolfer

T. A.

Johnson

M. M.

(2003). Re-evaluating student evaluation of teaching: The teaching evaluation form. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(1), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2003.10779122

58.

Wolters

C. A.

Hoops

L. D.

(2015). Self-regulated learning interventions for motivationally disengaged students. In Cleary

(Ed.), Self-regulated learning interventions with at-risk youth: Enhancing adaptability, performance, and well-being (pp. 67–88). APA Books.

59.

Zusho

Pintrich

P. R.

Coppola

(2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1081–1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052207