Support or Control

This term’s newsletters have followed a clear them: classroom learning motivation and regulation are superior when students feel autonomy-support in the learning environment.

Today, two lists that show in the most practical way what supportive and controlling behaviours look like.

Here are ten controlling behaviours, outlined in a 2006 paper by Johnmarshall Reeve and Hyungshim Jang where teachers were asked to teach a student how to solve a puzzle (in an experimental room). 

Think about what you would do. You’re shown into a room with a large rectangular table with two seats positioned side by side. On one side of the large table there is a three-dimensional manipulative puzzle, called Happy Cubes, that could be shaped into a number of interesting and complex patterns. Next to this side of the large table there is a smaller table that held the seven possible three-dimensional puzzle patterns. How do you set up the room? How do you help the student learn how the puzzle works and try to solve some or all of its solutions?

Teachers were observed for the following:

10 Controlling Instructional Behaviours

Time teacher talking 

Cumulative number of seconds the teacher talked.

Time holding/monopolizing learning materials 

Cumulative number of seconds the teacher physically held or possessed the puzzle.

Exhibiting solutions/answers 

Number of puzzle solutions the teacher physically displayed or exhibited before the student had the opportunity to discover the solution for himself or herself.

Uttering solutions/answers 

Frequency of statements revealing a puzzle solution before the student had the opportunity to discover it for himself or herself, such as “The cube’s done this way – like this.”

Uttering directives/commands 

Frequency of commands such as do, move, put, turn, or place, such as “Do it like this,” “Flip it over,” or “Put it on its side.”

Making should/ought to statements 

Frequency of statements that the student should, must, has to, got to, or ought to do something, such as “You should keep doing that” and “You ought to . . .”

Asking controlling questions 

Frequency of directives posed as a question and voiced with the intonation of a question, such as “Can you move it like I showed you?” and “Why don’t you go ahead and show me?”

Deadline statements 

Frequency of statements communicating a shortage of time, such as “A couple of minutes left” and “We only have a few minutes left.”

Praise as contingent reward 

Frequency of verbal approvals of the student or the student’s compliance with the teacher’s directions, such as “You’re smart” or “You are really good at playing with blocks.”

Criticising the student 

Frequency of verbal disapprovals of the student or the student’s lack of compliance with the teacher’s directions, such as “No, no, no, you shouldn’t do that.”

Teachers were also assessed on how often they engaged in autonomy-supportive behaviours:

10 Autonomy-Supportive Instructional Behaviours

Time listening 

Cumulative number of seconds the teacher carefully and fully attended to the student’s speech, as evidenced by verbal or nonverbal signals of active, contingent, and responsive information processing.

Asking what student wants 

Frequency of questions asking specifically about what the student wanted or desired, such as “Which pattern do you want to start with?”

Time allowing student to work in own way 

Cumulative number of seconds the teacher invited or allowed the student to work independently and to solve the puzzle in his or her own way.

Time student talking 

Cumulative number of seconds the student talked.

Seating arrangements 

Whether or not the teacher invited the student to sit in the chair nearest to the learning materials.

Providing rationales 

Frequency of explanatory statements as to why a particular course of action might be useful, such as “How about we try the cube, because it is the easiest one.”

Offering encouragements 

Frequency of statements to boost or sustain the student’s engagement, such as “Almost,” “You’re close,” and “You can do it.”

Offering hints 

Frequency of suggestions about how to make progress when the student seemed to be stuck, such as “Holding the puzzle in your hands seems to work better than laying it on the table” and “It might be easier to work on the base first.”

Being responsive to student-generated questions 

Frequency of contingent replies to a student-generated comment or question, such as “Yes, you have a good point” and “Yes, right, that was the second one.”

Communicating perspective-taking statements 

Frequency of empathic statements to acknowledge the student’s perspective or experience, such as “Yes, this one is difficult” and “I know it is a sort of difficult one.”

And the outcome?

Autonomy-supportive instructional behaviours were positively correlated with perceived autonomy, interest and enjoyment, engagement, and performance.

Two caveats: this is a contrived short-term experimental setup, and it’s correlational data. Nevertheless, two decades of additional research since this study continues to add to the evidence. Controlling behaviours are costly. Supportive behaviours get results.

1. Read back through the ten controlling behaviours. Which ones made you uncomfortable — not because they seem foreign, but because they feel familiar? What’s one you’re willing to put down?

2. Think about the puzzle experiment. The teacher who monopolised the materials, showed the solutions, and issued commands probably thought they were being helpful. Are there moments in your classroom where your helpfulness might actually be getting in the way?

3. If a researcher sat in your classroom tomorrow and tallied up your controlling and autonomy-supportive behaviours, which list would be longer — and are you okay with that answer?