Instructors’ Support of Student Autonomy in an Introductory Physics Course

The role of autonomy in the student experience in a large-enrollment undergraduate introductory physics course was studied from a self-determination theory perspective. A correlational study investigated whether certain aspects of the student experience correlated with how autonomy supportive (versus controlling) students perceived their instructors to be. An autonomy-supportive instructor acknowledges students’ perspectives and feelings and provides students with information and opportunities for choice while minimizing external pressures (e.g., incentives or deadlines). It was found that the degree to which students perceived their instructors as autonomy supportive was positively correlated with student interest and enjoyment in learning physics ($\beta ={0.31}^{***}$) and negatively correlated with student anxiety about taking physics ($\beta =-{0.23}^{**}$). It was also positively correlated with how autonomous (versus controlled) students’ reasons for studying physics became over the duration of the course (i.e., studying physics more because they wanted to versus had to; $\beta ={0.24}^{***}$). This change in autonomous reasons for studying physics was in turn positively correlated with student performance in the course ($\beta ={0.17}^{*}$). Additionally, the degree to which students perceived their instructors as autonomy supportive was directly correlated with performance for those students entering the course with relatively autonomous reasons for studying physics ($\beta ={0.25}^{**}$). In summary, students who perceived their instructors as more autonomy supportive tended to have a more favorable motivational, affective, and performance experience in the course. The findings of the present study are consistent with experimental studies in other contexts that argue for autonomy-supportive instructor behaviors as the cause of a more favorable student experience.

Figure 1

Box plots for individual instructors comparing the level of instructor autonomy support as perceived by the students in their discussion/lab sections. Instructor 5 is included here for comparison only, and is not included elsewhere in this work. Box plots give the five-number summary: median (vertical line in the box), 25th and 75th percentile (edges of the box), lower and upper adjacent values (i.e, the lowest datum and highest datum within 1.5 interquartile range of the lower and upper quartile, respectively; ends of the whiskers), and values outside the adjacent values (dots). We see that instructor 4 has a lower IAS than Instructors 1, 2, 3, and 6, suggesting that student-perceived IAS is measuring an instructor effect.

Figure 2

Component-plus-residual plots for the models of Table 5 that had (a) Interest/Enjoyment, (b) Anxiety, and (c) relative autonomous reasons for studying physics at the end of the course (T2) as dependent variables, as these were the dependent variables in Table 5 that depended most significantly on instructor autonomy support as perceived by the students. The slope of the line in each plot is $B_7$, the best-fit coefficient of IAS from the multiple regression and thus shows the dependence of the dependent variable on IAS after controlling for the other variables in the model. It is also the best linear fit to the data points, which are the residuals of the full model plus the $B_0$ and $B_7\mathrm{IAS}$ components of the model. The plots show that students who perceived their instructors as more autonomy supportive tended to become significantly more interested in learning physics and less anxious about taking physics and came to study physics for more autonomous reasons (i.e., more because they wanted to versus had to).

Figure 3

Component-plus-residual plots for the two models of Table 6 that were for (a) the subset of students initially taking physics more because they had to [i.e., for relatively less autonomous reasons or $\mathrm{RAI}(\mathrm{T}1)<0$] and for (b) the subset initially taking physics more because they wanted to [i.e., for relatively more autonomous reasons or $\mathrm{RAI}(\mathrm{T}1)>0$]. The slope of the line in each plot is $B_3$, the best-fit coefficient of IAS from the multiple regression, and thus shows the dependence of Course Grade on IAS after controlling for incoming GPA, gender, and differences among instructors in student performance. It is also the best linear fit to the data points, which are the residuals of the full model plus the $B_0$ and $B_3\mathrm{IAS}$ components of the model. These plots show the significantly different correlation of Instructor Autonomy Support with performance depending on students’ initial relative autonomous reasons for studying physics. IAS was positively correlated with performance, only for students initially studying physics for relatively autonomous reasons.