Encouraging Active Learning in Higher Education: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective

Abstract

Based on the work of Self-Determination Theory, this article suggests how to implement Self- Determination Theory based principle in a learner- centered perspective. Higher education has traditionally rested on learning methods that render passive students. Societal changes require self- regulatory skills and an active motivational set. However, lack of theoretical, empirical and practical driven theory in implementation of learner-centered education has lead to a philosophical debate. It is argued for a holistic model for implementing principles derived from Self-Determination Theory (SDT) in a learner- centered paradigm. SDT makes specific prediction for nurturing vs. neglecting learning environments, and thus highly appropriate framework. An important differentiation between types of motivations that differs in relative autonomy, and social climates that may be perceived as amotivating, controlling, and informational is necessary for understanding learning and educational practices. Finally, practical recommendations for teachers in higher education to put into practice. It is argued for a system in which all levels of education supports motivation to support student motivation. Both the institutional- level and teacher culture must have a learner- centered perspective, further, pre-during-post class preparations are important for high quality learning.

Full text

Encouraging Active Learning in Higher Education: A Self-Determination
Theory Perspective
Lucas M. Jeno
bioCEED – Centre of Excellence in Biology Education
Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Norway
Abstract
Based on the work of Self-Determination
Theory, this article suggests how to implement Self-
Determination Theory based principle in a learner-
centered perspective. Higher education has
traditionally rested on learning methods that render
passive students. Societal changes require self-
regulatory skills and an active motivational set.
However, lack of theoretical, empirical and
practical driven theory in implementation of
learner-centered education has lead to a
philosophical debate. It is argued for a holistic
model for implementing principles derived from
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) in a learner-
centered paradigm. SDT makes specific prediction
for nurturing vs. neglecting learning environments,
and thus highly appropriate framework. An
important differentiation between types of
motivations that differs in relative autonomy, and
social climates that may be perceived as
amotivating, controlling, and informational is
necessary for understanding learning and
educational practices. Finally, practical
recommendations for teachers in higher education
to put into practice. It is argued for a system in
which all levels of education supports motivation to
support student motivation. Both the institutional-
level and teacher culture must have a learner-
centered perspective, further, pre-during-post class
preparations are important for high quality
learning.
1. Introduction
Transformation from industry-based society to
knowledge-based society demands the need for
skills such as critical thinking, explorative abilities,
creative thinking, and transferable skills. Skills such
as automatic and rudimentary knowledge may be
unproductive and undesirable in the future. A child
born this year enters the labor force in 26 years if
he graduates with a master degree, as many
students do, at least in Scandinavia. Do they
possess the necessary skills to meet new challenges
and create sustainable solutions? How are we
preparing the students?
Students have a natural inclination to learn and
actively integrate knowledge into a coherent
knowledge base. Specifically in higher education,
students may choose a subject or major based on
interest or curiosity, personal goals, or ambitions.
Hence, the possibilities for learning and teaching
students, based around their own interest are
present. However, some students may find
themselves at their university or college learning
passively without passion and meaning. They lack
agency and authenticity, and are often alienated or
helpless learners. What motivational and
psychological functions prompt such processes?
How could teachers inspire students to reach their
highest potential for human functioning?
Learning may be defined differently and implies
several aspects. The spectrum of learning
perspectives ranges from socially constructed to
biological embedded. For example, Wren and Wren
[1] asserts that learning is not dependent on
teaching, while the opposite is true. Furthermore,
education may be historically, cultural, and context
dependent. This shows the complexity of learning
in an educational context. One way to contrast
learning is on active and passive learning [2]. While
the latter refers to passively receiving information,
the former require the learner to interact with the
material, either analyzing, comparing, making
inferences, or evaluating critically. Though the
active/passive dichotomy can be paralleled with
learner-centered and teacher-centered education,
the former may be a consequence of learner-
centered vs. teacher-centered education. Learner-
centered education, as opposed to teacher-centered
education, has previously characterized as a
perspective on learning where the main focus is on
the learner and learning process not on the teacher,
where students take responsibility, and finally
where formative assessment is implemented for
learning and not as means for teaching for tests [3-
5]. Barr and Tagg [3] argue for a paradigm shift,
from instruction to learning. The authors list a
number of measures to be taken in order to shift
from the instruction paradigm to learning paradigm
(e.g. improve instruction vs. improve learning).
Similarly, Gibbs [4] highlights the importance of
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE) , Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2015
Copyright © 2015, Infonomics Society
716

shifting the main focus from teaching to learning;
from the classroom to learning environment; from
the individual teachers to focus on leadership and
teams, amongst other. Most importantly, there
should be a shift from an atheoretical focus to
conceptualized and theorized focus [4]. Albeit,
learner-centered education has been investigated
within the constructivist paradigm of learning, a
lack of theoretical framework has been missing for
both testing and implementation.
The motivational theory Self-Determination
Theory (SDT) has through decades of
investigations endeavored such issues [6, 7].
Research guided by SDT has addressed which
factors affects motivation, and which effect this has
on learning (social climate  motivation 
consequences). Can active learner-centered
education be explained from a SDT point of view?
And how can we implement learner-centered
education in a Self-Determination Theory
perspective?
In higher education, a traditional large-group
lecture is often the chosen learning method when
introducing a subject or teaching students in higher
education [8]. Contradictory to research, the
argument rest on assumptions of effective
transmitting knowledge, lower economical costs,
and previous tradition and expectations from both
teachers and students [8]. A traditional lecture
depends on both attention and interest from the
students. Why should students in higher education
be active? Do students´ learning benefit from a
learner-centered education?
This article will address these abovementioned
questions in turn. Firstly, Self-Determination
Theory is presented as a theoretical framework in
order to systemize learner-centered education as a
learning perspective. Secondly, a string of argument
will be presented as to why higher education should
encourage active learner-centered education. Lastly,
practical pedagogical implications will be
presented. This last point has been lacking in many
discussions on implementing learner-centered
education.
2. Self-Determination Theory
Self-Determination (SDT) is an organismic
dialectic theory on motivation that assumes
satisfaction of three basic universal psychological
needs for psychological well-being [6, 7].
Specifically, autonomy refers to feeling volition,
choice in one´s behavior while having an internal
perceived locus of causality. Competence refers to
feeling efficacious in the interaction with the
environment. Lastly, relatedness is the feeling of
being cared for, belonging, and cared for by others.
Satisfaction of the basic needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness are necessary for
intrinsic motivation and growth. Thwarting of the
needs is associated to hinder growth and foster
psychological ill-being. A student that is
performing a learning activity out of choice and
interest, fully endorsed, receiving effectance
relevant feedback, from a supportive teacher is
theorized to satisfy his/her psychological needs.
In higher education however, not all learning
activities, subjects or classes may be intrinsically
motivated. According to SDT, the degree of self-
determined motivation is important for the quality
of that learning activity. SDT distinguishes between
three classes of motivation in terms of how
internalized the behavior is, and how self-
determined it is (Figure 1) [9]. Controlled
motivation is the least self-determined class of
motivation, and consists of external regulation and
introjected regulation. Controlled motivation refers
to behaviors that are performed in order to obtain a
reward or avoid a punishment (external regulation),
or performed to avoid guilt or attain self-worth
(introjected regulation. Controlled motivation is
associated with pressure, coercion, and tension and
is assumed to be negative related to well-being,
performance, and satisfaction.
Autonomous motivation, on the contrary, is a
self-determined type of motivation and is associated
with high quality functioning, performance, and
well-being. Autonomous motivated students
endorse and value the behavior or goal because is
personally important (identified regulation), or has
full internalized it into congruence with the self and
value system (integrated regulation). Intrinsic
motivation is the prototype of self-determined
motivation and refers to doing a behavior out of the
inherent interest and fun of the activity. It is
important to note that the internalization process is
not stepwise or age-  
motivation may fluctuate from intrinsic motivation
to external regulation without going through the
integrated, identified, and introjected. Similarly,
initial disinterest in a subject may become highly
autonomously motivated under the right conditions.
Several investigations have found support for
s basic tenets in a pedagogical context. In a
study by Jeno and Diseth [10] the authors found in
a study among upper-secondary support for a SDT-
based path-analysis. Specifically, students that
where autonomous motivated for learning and
perceived themselves as competent to learn, had a
positive relation with perceived school
performance, conversely, controlled motivated
students had a negative relation to perceived school
performance. These relations have been found both
in correlational and experimental studies, across all
school ages [6, 11].
2.1. Social climate
Learning in higher education is not solely
     
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE) , Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2015
Copyright © 2015, Infonomics Society
717

also to the extent that the teachers able to support or
hinder learning and motivation. In some instances,
an unmotivated student may be inspired and
encouraged by a teacher or lesson. Similarly, an
uninspiring teacher or lesson may discourage a
student toward learning.
According to SDT´s dialectical framework,
      
context and climate. Hence, a classroom situation
or learning activity may be perceived differently by
the students and thus have different functional
significance, informational, controlling or
amotivating, respectively [9, 12]. An informational
aspect conveys autonomy support, that is, it
provides the student with feeling of autonomy,
enhances competence, and encourages self-
determined motivation. A functional significance is
controlling when the event pressures the students
and controls toward a specific learning activity.
Lastly, an amotivational functional significance
conveys incompetence and helplessness with lack
of autonomy and relatedness. In examples, an
informational teacher would facilitate the learning
process by providing the students with choice,
provide the students with positive effectance
relevant feedback that is directed towards their
personal goals, while trying to understand student
internal frame of reference.
Both experimental studies and correlational
studies have found support for supporting
autonomy in an informational aspect, while the
opposite is true for the controlling aspect. In a study
with a college sample, students who perceived their
instructor as informative and autonomy supportive
not only became more adjusted in that course and
performed at a higher level, they became more
autonomous motivated across the course [13].
Similar results have been found for secondary
students, upper secondary students, and college
students [10, 14, 15].
In sum then, students benefits when in an
informative and autonomy supportive environment.
    
needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness,
leads the students to become autonomously
motivated, and finally, perform better at school and
have higher well-being.
Figure 1. Internalization process
3. Discussion
The main goal of the current discussion is to
highlight the importance of having a clear
theoretical stand when implementing pedagogical
practices. Specifically, when implementing learner-
centered education, previous suggesting has lacked
a theoretical empirical drivel framework. Learning
in higher education encompasses an array of
processes. Different scholars have argued for a shift
from passive instruction teaching, to active learner
education. However, a lack of theoretical
positioning implies an un-coherent methodology on
how to facilitate such active learning. Based on the
abovementioned theoretical framework, SDT offers
clear theoretical and empirical assumptions for
learning. SDT´s organismic perspective assumes
that students are active and intrinsically curious and
explorative individuals. Students that are
intrinsically motivated for learning in a course or
subject are guided by their intrinsic motivations.
A second aim of the present article is why
higher education should encourage active learners.
As mentioned at the beginning, it might a myth that
traditional methods are more effective and
economical effective. For example, Benware and
Deci [16] found in an experimental study that
students who where told to learn a material to teach
other student (active learning) did not differ
significantly in rote learning compared to students
who learned to perform at a high standard (passive
learning), however the active-condition performed
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE) , Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2015
Copyright © 2015, Infonomics Society
718

better than the passive-condition in conceptual
learning and rated higher intrinsic motivation.
Prince [17] performed a study investigating the
efficiency of active learning. The results shows
that the introduction of active learning in class not
only leads to retaining and understanding
knowledge, it increased engagement for learning. In
a similar vein, collaborative learning, which could
be characterized as active learning, show strong
effect sizes (0.44-0.70) compared to learning
individually [17]. According to Prince [17], active
learning may be as simple as comparing notes
during class with peers. Mostrom and Blumberg [5]
argues that, though learner-centered education may
increase achievement compared to teacher-centered
education, it is important to distinguish between
higher performance mean due to inflation and due
to gaining knowledge. The latter is a desirable for
learning and education.
Active learning may be beneficial because they
are engaged with the material and more involved
with the learning process. Autonomous and
intrinsic motivated students are guided by interest,
seeking optimal challenges, enjoyment, and
importantly, choice. When the behavior is regulated
by the Self, the student has internalized the
behavior and made it a part of their own value
system and regulation from teachers is not needed.
This is an important point for future student that are
required to think creatively, critically, and outside-
the-box. SDT´s dialectical perspective argues that
     
perception of motivators. As mentioned earlier,
according to SDT and environment could either be
informative, controlling, or amotivating. In which
case, SDT propose different outcomes in terms of
learning and behavioral consequences. According
to Ryan and Deci [9], teachers support may prompt
and sustain the internalization process. This is
because teacher can relate to students at a personal
and affectionate level.
4. Practical implications for higher
education
The last goal of the article is to offer practical
implications for implementing active learner-
centered education. Based on the theoretical
framework and research presented, this section will
provide practical implication for educators in higher
education and how to facilitate learning and support
motivation at different levels (Figure 2).
Institutional-level: Ryan and Weinstein [12]
asserts that different ambitions of outcomes in
regard to teaching and learning may have different
motivational consequences. In example, a
University may receive more or less funding
depending on test-scores and examination rates.
       -
     
academic achievements and psychological well-
being [12, 18]. Several explanations are put forth.
Firstly, rewarding or punishing competence
pressures both students and teachers, and thus
thwarts the need for autonomy and competence.
Secondly, never reaching standard, while
continually being punished may lead to a
amotivation functional significant aspect and in the
long run higher dropout rates.
It is important that leaders at the institutional-
level have an informative aspect on teaching and
education. According to Pelletier and Sharp [19],
teachers autonomous motivation for teaching may
be influenced by leaders relative provision of
autonomy support or neglect. Both time constraints
and curriculum constrains may be perceived as
controlling and thus not supporting of autonomy.
The may in turn inhibit teachers autonomy and
finally autonomous motivation for teaching.
Pelletier and Sharp [19] asserts that autonomous
 
own autonomous motivation for learning.
Teacher-culture: What type of educational
perspective do you as a teacher have? What are
your views on cognition, motivation,
developmental and social factors, and individual
differences [20]? Is your view on intelligence,
motivation, and learning as fixed, mechanic and
could direct by external contingencies? Or is your
perspective on intelligence, motivation, and
learning, as a natural and an inherent propensity
towards growth and integrating that needs support
and nutriment for healthy functioning. If your
perspective is on the latter, an organismic or liberal
perspective on education, you are likely to view
learning as an active process that may be fostered
by a learner-centered education. Another important
point for teacher culture is on fellow teacher
     
autonomy, competence, and relatedness is
important for a structural organizational change
along with leaders support.
Pre-lesson: What are your goals for this
particular lesson is it part of a long term goal or
philosophy of education? Teachers may identify
students      
around their interest in order to support their
intrinsic motivation. For controlled motivated
students, teachers are encouraged to reflect on how
the lesson could be more valuable for the students.
How those this subject relate to their education and
aims for their degree and education?
During the lesson: There are several measures
that can be taken to increase autonomous
motivation [6, 9]. For example, teachers can
provide students with moderately challenging tasks.
When facing uninteresting tasks or over/under
challenging activities, teacher are recommended to
acknowledge students negative affects and provide
them with an informative rational as to why the task
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE) , Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2015
Copyright © 2015, Infonomics Society
719

or activity is important. Students may then
internalize and integrate the behavior in their value
system and move from controlled to autonomous
motivation.
Post-lesson: What did you do during your
teaching lesson? Can you imagine how your
students perceived your lesson? Reflection
afterwards a lesson is highly important in order to
evaluate and critically assess which parts of the
lesson went well and which parts could be
improved. A possible solution to receive feedback
is to use electronic student polls and ask them to
assess on a scale if they learned during the lesson.
Furthermore, you could ask control question from
reading assignments and from the lesson in order to
assess if the students have understood the lecture.
Figure 2. Practical framework for active students
5. Conclusion
In sum then, learner-centered higher education
is recommended for active students. Active
students, as opposed to passive students, are more
engaged and interested in their learning. As
mentioned above, a learner-centered education is an
important step towards increasing active student.
This change should be driven by a holistic-
dialectical, empirical driven theory. Self-
Determination Theory offers an organismic and
dialectical perspective on human motivation and
personality with testable hypothesis that makes
clear prediction of antecedents of motivation and
learning, and outcomes and consequences of
different types of motivation. Teachers are
recommended to support autonomy, competence
and relatedness for students to develop an
autonomous motivation for learning. However, all
aspects of learning and education must be
considered for effective change.
6. References
[1] Wren, C. and Wren, T. (2003) ´The Capacity to
Learn, in A Companion to the Philosophy of Education´,
in R. Curren, Editor., Blackwell Publishing Ltd: Oxford.
p. 246-259.
[2] Ferguson, K.J., (2010) ´Facilitating Student Learning,
in An Introduction to Medical Learning´, in W.B. Jeffries
and K.N. Hugget, Editors., Springer: New York. p. 1-10.
[3] Barr, R.B. and Tagg, J. (1995) ´From teaching to
learning - A new paradigm for undergraduate education´.
Change,. 27(6), p. 12-26.
[4] Gibbs, G., (2009) ´Developing students as learners -
varied phenomena, varied contexts and a developmental
trajectory
for the whole endeavour´. Journal of Learning
Development in Higher Education (1), p. 1-12.
[5] Mostrom, A.M. and Blumberg, P. (2012) ´Does
Learning-Centered Teaching Promote Grade
Improvement?´ Innovative Higher Education, 37(5), p.
397-405.
[6] Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) ´Intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions´. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25(1), p. 54-67.
[7] Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) ´Intrinsic
Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior´.
Plenum Press, New York.
[8] Jeffries, W.B. (2010) ´Teaching Large Groups´, in An
Introduction to Medical Teaching, W.B. Jeffries and K.N.
Hugget, Editors., Springer: New York.
[9] Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2002) ´An Overview of
Self-Determination Theory: An Organismic-Dialectical
Perspective´, in Handbook of Self-Determination
Research, E.L. Deci and Ryan, R.M. Editors., The
University of Rochester Press: New York. p. 3-36.
[10] Jeno, L.M. and Diseth, Å. (2014) ´A self-
determination theory perspective on autonomy support,
autonomous self-regulation, and perceived school
performance´. Reflecting Education, 2014. 9(1), p. 1-20.
[11] Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R.M. (2001)
´Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education:
Reconsidered once again´. Review of Educational
Research. 71(1), p. 1-27.
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE) , Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2015
Copyright © 2015, Infonomics Society
720

[12] Ryan, R.M. and Weinstein, N. (2009) ´Undermining
quality teaching and learning. A self-determination
theory perspective on high-stake testing´. Theory and
Research in Education. 7(2), p. 224-233.
[13] Black, A.E. and Deci, E.L. (2000) ´The Effects of
Instructors' Autonomy Support and Students'
Autonomous Motivation on Learning Organic Chemistry:
A Self-Determination Theory Perspective´. Science
Education. 84, p. 740-756.
[14] Ntoumanis, N., (2005) ´A Prospective Study of
Participation in Optional School Physical Education
Using a Self-Determination Theory Framework´. Journal
of Educational Psychology. 97(3), p. 444-453.
 , M.s. and Vohra-Gupta, S. (2007) ´First
Generation College Students: Motivation, Integration,
and Academic Achievement´. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice. 31(12), p. 963-975.
[16] Benware, C.A. and Deci, E.L. (1984) ´Quality of
Learning With an Active Vesus Passive Motivational
Set´. American Educational Research Journal. 21(4), p.
755-765.
[17] Prince, M., (2004) ´Does Active Learning Work?´ A
Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering
Education. 93(3), p. 223-231.
[18] Ryan, R.M. and Brown, K.W. (2005) ´Legislating
Competence. High-Stake Testing Policies and Their
Relations with Psychological Theories and Research´, in
Handbook of Competence and Motivation, A.J. Elliot and
Dweck, C.S. Editors. 2005, The Guilford Press: New
York. p. 354-372.
[19] Pelletier, L.G. and Sharp, E.C. (2009)
´Administrative pressures and teachers' interpersonal
behaviour in the classroom´. Theory and Research in
Education. 7(2), p. 174-183.
[20] Lambert, N.M. and McCombs, B.L. (1998)
´Introduction: Learner-Centered Schools and Classrooms
as a Direction for School Reform´, in How students learn:
Reforming schools through learner-centered education,
N.M. Lambert and McCombs, B.L. Editors, American
Psychological Association: Washington, DC. p. 1-22.
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE) , Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2015
Copyright © 2015, Infonomics Society
721