Content-Type: text/html

Is it the grades or the goods?
Instructor and course ratings: A Self Determination Theory perspective







Vincent F. Filak
Ph.D. Candidate
University of Missouri-Columbia
School of Journalism
10A Neff Hall
Columbia, MO 65203
573-447-0513
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0209A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D1298977%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_9924895%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>


And

Kennon M. Sheldon
Assistant Professor
University of Missouri-Columbia
Department of Psychology


Paper submitted to the Scholastic Division for presentation at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication conference.
August, 2002

Abstract:

Two hundred and sixty eight undergraduates were asked to recall a course that was important to them and their goals (n=268). They were then asked to rate the instructor and the course as well as respond to several items the measured psychological needs. Sex, age, size of the class and grade received in the course were controlled for in hierarchical regressions. Consistent with Self Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), fulfilling the needs of autonomy competence and relatedness predicted instructor approval. Autonomy and competence also were shown to predict course approval. Implications for instructors and their courses are discussed as well.




Is it the grades or the goods?
Instructor and course ratings: A Self Determination Theory perspective

Instructors at all levels have struggled with the issue of how to provide a positive learning experience for their students. Should they be distant and professional or should they "buddy up" to the students? Should they attempt to fill their students with knowledge or should they just ease up on the work load? Do their students appreciate the information they have learned throughout a course or do they look at the bottom line only: the grade received?
A number of researchers have reviewed and tested a seemingly endless string of variables in an attempt to answer these questions. While some general ideas have been shown to surface in a number of studies, there remains little in the way of a consensus as to what will help students report positive assessments of their courses and their instructors. Knowledge, enthusiasm, organization, classroom management, fairness, openness and encouragement (Feldman, 1976) have been found to be positively correlated with students' views of good teaching.  The level of learning value, instructor enthusiasm, group interaction, individual rapport, clarity, coverage, grading, and workload (Marsh, 1987) also have been shown to be predictors of ratings of college teachers. A variety of other research (Best & Addison, 2000; Centra, 1973, 1977; Marlin & Niss, 1980; Marlin, 1987; Schmelkin, Spencer & Gellman, 1997) has found a variety of other results.
Given the vast array of contributing variables, we hoped to present an overarching model that would help focus the issue. We believe that the use of self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991, 2000), which applies psychological need satiation to human motivation, will provide that framework and act as a clearer guidebook for instructors. This theory posits that when an individual's need for autonomy, competence and relatedness is fulfilled, the individual will feel a greater sense of achievement, a higher level of motivation and a better overall attachment to the experience. SDT has shown to be effective in helping people to accept organizational change (Gagne, Koestner & Zuckerman, 2000), diminish stress (Kasser & Ryan, 1996) and learn better (Black & Deci, 2000; Connell & Wellborn, 1991).
Educational cynics, however, point the question students most often ask as the true measure of what students want in a class: "Do we have to know this for the test?" Rather than learning for learning sake (Ryan & Stiller, 1991), students are often seen as working for a grade. In other words, rather than finding themselves intrinsically motivated, they seek a reward-based acknowledgement of their achievement.
We hope to demonstrate that students in a collegiate environment are far more in tune with their basic educational and psychological needs. While we acknowledge that grades are a factor in how well a student rates an educational experience, we also believe that students who find their needs fulfilled will be more likely to enjoy a learning experience. To that end, we hope to expand upon our earlier work (Filak & Sheldon, 2002) by returning to SDT as a measure of students' feelings regarding their experience in a course, but hope to clearly demonstrate that the satiation of these needs, regardless of a grade, will also help predict course and instructor ratings.

Literature Review

Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan 1985, 1991, 2000; Also see Ryan & Deci, 2000) argues that three components comprise the basic motivational and psychological needs of the individual: autonomy, competence and relatedness.  In terms of education, the research shows that by fulfilling these three needs, students will be more open to learning and will rate the experience higher than those students whose needs go unmet.
These needs are additive in nature, meaning that while one or two needs will allow students to grow and improve, the compilation of all three needs will allow students to fully realize their potential and thereby, feel effective in their education. Ryan (1995) uses the analogy of a plant that needs soil, water and sunlight to grow properly. While one of these needs, for example water, might be the most important of the three, it is clear that if the plant is to flourish, it will require the presence of the other two elements. Therefore, unlike previous research in this area (Black & Deci, 2000; Deci, Nezlek & Sheinman, 1981), we are looking beyond the importance of autonomy support and viewing the needs as a collective in this study. We posit that the student who will rate the course and the instructor highest will be the student who feels that each of these needs has been satisfied.


Hypothesis 1: Autonomy, competence and relatedness will positively predict course ratings when controlling for age, sex, grade received and size of class.

Hypothesis 2: Autonomy, competence and relatedness will positively predict instructor ratings when controlling for age, sex, grade received and size of class.

Autonomy, defined by Deci and Ryan (1985) as when a person "feels free from pressures, such as rewards or contingencies" (p. 29), has been the focal point of many pieces of motivation research. This can also be demonstrated in an educational setting as interactive learning, rather than a controlled learning environment (Black & Deci, 2000). A number of other researchers (Glasser, 1998; Passe, 1995; Zimmerman, 1989) have discussed the benefits of allowing students to choose the content. In some cases, the students may have a role in how they are being taught; In other cases, the student might have a choice in the curriculum itself. In each case, however, the students are offered a chance to make their feelings on the material known. Glasser (1998) calls it "choice theory," in which students are allowed to engage in selection within the classroom in everything from assignments to class rules.  Passe (1996) argues that instructors who fail to take student input into account are bound
 to end up with students who find the work boring and irrelevant. For this reason, he argues, students must have some autonomy in order for them to engage the material. Ryan and Connell (1989) found that students who reported feeling controlled in the learning environment were less likely to enjoy school, while those with relatively more autonomy in the classroom were more likely to report enjoying the learning experience. Benware and Deci (1984) found that college students who learned information that they planned to apply were more likely to be intrinsically motivated than students who learned the material to be tested on it.  Deci, Nezlek, and Sheinman (1981) looked at a group of students in fourth through sixth grade and examined how autonomy support for the teacher could effect the students. In that study, the authors found that teachers who used controlling methods had students who were less intrinsically motivated than students who had teachers who used informational methods. These and other studies illustrate clearly that if students are to succeed in internalizing the values that they are learning, they must be given some sort of autonomy. By internalizing and engaging the material, students begin to feel more connected to the material and thereby often enjoy the experience more than those who work for external rewards, such as grades.
Autonomy support has been found to be attained in three ways: offering choices wherever possible, explaining why choice isn't possible and trying to take the subordinate's perspective(Deci, Eghrari, Patrick & Leone, 1994; Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith & Deci, 1978). Choice offering is a practice that allows the students to learn the skills needed to succeed while still giving them input as to what they must learn. The instructor draws up the parameters of the assignment and the student is allowed freedom within those parameters. This can be as simple as an instructor allowing a class vote to see when an assignment is due or providing a list of acceptable paper topics, instead of just offering one topic.
The explanation of why choice isn't possible can also allow students to feel supported. It is not always possible to pass all the students, eliminate all the tests or do away with grades. Therefore, it becomes of paramount importance to have a solid explanation for each action that is taken. As Ryan, Kuhl and Deci (1997) explain, autonomy is not independence or total freedom, but rather a unification of all parts into an organization by which each part is allowed to take action. In simpler terms, it is not about a person doing what ever he wants, but rather the ability to function in a way in which he sees fit within the confines of a set of values and the ability to see how his function is key within the larger whole.
Taking the subordinate's perspective also helps the instructors shape foster a sense of camaraderie with the students and improve an active and open dialogue within the classroom (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick & Leone, 1994). As the student asks why, the teacher can intelligently answer the question, not only for the student, but for him or herself. This will allow greater understanding of the issue between the authority figure and subordinate. Understanding by the questioner and the respondent can help reach a consensus of reason (Heider, 1958) and can also help strengthen the bond between the interactants. If both people are "on the same page," not only will the feelings of a connection grow, but feelings that there is an absence of hierarchy. As shown in previous studies, when there is a controlling, authoritarian situation, the intrinsic motivation is severely impaired (Flink, Boggiano & Barrett, 1990)
Competence, which Deci and Ryan define as "a need for having an effect, for being effective in one's interactions with the environment," has also been examined by numerous researchers under numerous terms.  White (1959) argued that people have an inner need to feel as though they can effectively control situations in which they find themselves. The need, he wrote, is internal and is a driving force. deCharms (1968) wrote that people have a distinct need to perceive themselves as the locus of causality if they are to feel competence in their interactions with others. Deci and Ryan (1985) argue that "the need for competence provides the energy for ... learning." (p. 27) Paris and Byrnes (1989) note that "a central feature of children's educational experience is understanding their own academic abilities."
The struggle to attain competence begins at an early age with rote activities. The child learns how to move, then how to crawl and then how to walk. Every activity from tying his shoes to reading her book is a function of competence. Children repeat these activities until they have mastered them and then continue the process in order to demonstrate their mastery. This gives them a sense of satisfaction until the activity is no longer considered a challenge. At that point, they look toward new challenges (Stipek, 1988). Blumenfeld, Pintrich and Hamilton (1986) found that by the time students reached sixth grade, they felt competent or incompetent based on their grades.  McCombs (1989) argues that a great deal of how a student feels about him or herself comes from extrinsic forces. Failure to attain the "proper" level of achievement in academic or social settings as determined by the group the individual wishes to be judged by can result in diminished self esteem and a lack of feeling competent. In testing students with above-average intelligence, Miserandino (1996) found that students who perceived themselves to lack competence were less likely to do well and were more likely to have negative affect in describing their school experience. Other researchers (Phillips, 1984, for one) have found similar results with regard to perceived incompetence.
To aid competence, researchers have suggested that leaders give subordinates positive feedback regarding performance. Deci, Cascio and Krusell (1975) found that intrinsic motivation in college-age men increased when positive feed back was given. Conversely, they found that negative feedback inhibited intrinsic motivation and created a sense of dislike of the activity and the instructor. The feedback reinforces mastery of a task and thereby allows the students to feel competent (Blanck, Reis & Jackson, 1984; Ryan, 1982). Rewarding the student in a way that shows mastery, such as praise for a good job, can create that intrinsic motivation. (Lepper, 1981) Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier and Ryan (1991) argue that positive feedback, directly tied to a self-initiated and intrinsically motivated task, can promote intrinsic motivation and spur on the desire to learn.  However, praising them for what they have been told to do or what they are expected to do can lower the intrinsic motivation b
y reinforcing non-autonomous behavior. Lepper and others also caution that the reward should not be tangible (money for grades) but should rather be symbolic of the action. In other words, the reward must not be controlling, such as the instructor who promises to let all the students go early if they get As on today's quiz. The reward also must be tied directly to the performance to reinforce the value of the action. If the reward doesn't coincide with the desired action, it is unlikely to be reinforced.
The third and final piece of self-determination theory is relatedness, in which a need to feel a connection to others feeds into the motivation. Ryan and Deci (2000) explain that when a feeling of security is present, such as that between a mother and child, intrinsic motivation is far more likely to occur than if there is no connection, such as when a child would be in the presence of a stranger who is showing no interest in the child. Others have described it as the need to feel connected and worthy of benefits afforded to them by others (Connell & Wellborn, 1991). While these and other researchers explain that intrinsic motivation can occur in isolation, if the presence of others is injected, a feeling of relatedness can aid intrinsic motivation. In the Flink, Boggiano and Barrett (1990) study, teachers were pressured to get students to perform. This led to not only controlling actions, but a sense of separation. Teachers dictated behavior, students were to follow. There was no
 interaction along the lines of relatedness. In the non-pressure group, learning was shown to improve, as teachers who weren't under the gun to have students achieve high scores were more likely to relate better to students. Relatedness develops from the interest in communicating and interacting with others on a level playing field (Ryan & Deci 2000; Miserandino, 1996). Rather than finding themselves in a hierarchical learning environment, students who feel a sense of relatedness will be more likely to interact with the teacher, giving both parties a chance to connect as individuals. This kind of individual connection can improve the enjoyment of a task or lesson (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
In sum, the work in the area of Self Determination Theory has demonstrated that if individuals are to engage in a learning environment and feel positive toward the activity in which they are participating, an instructor must satiate their basic psychological needs. By fulfilling the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness, the instructor can not only improve the student's liking of the course but help the student reach a level of intrinsic motivation that will allow students to learn for learning's sake.

Methods

The survey was administered to 273 students in an undergraduate class during the beginning of Winter Semester 2002. Five students returned the instrument with missing data and they were excluded, leaving 268 students to be analyzed (n=268). Students were asked to think back on a class they took in the previous semester that was most important to their goals and ambitions. Those students who did not take classes the previous semester were asked to think back to the last class they took that fit these parameters. The students were then asked to rate their sense of agreement with several statements regarding that class and its instructor.
The survey instrument was based on the Basic Psychological Needs Scale (Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993). While the language of the questions was adapted to fit a classroom setting, the core issues and intent of the questions were preserved.  These items had also shown promise in our earlier work (Filak & Sheldon, 2002) and an attempt to replicate those findings also influenced our decision regarding these items. Five-point Likert scales were used for each statement. The autonomy items were:  "I feel like I had a lot of input in deciding how to learn in this class," "I was free to express my opinions in this class," and "The teacher took my perspective into consideration in this class" (alpha = .83).  The competence items were:  "I enjoyed the challenges this class has provided," and "Most days I felt a sense of accomplishment from doing work in this class," and "I do not think the tasks I did in this class were very stimulating" (reversed; alpha = .81).  The relatedness items
 were:  "The teacher cared about me and my progress," "The teacher was pretty friendly towards me," and "I don't feel the teacher understood me" (reversed; alpha = .77).
 As dependent measures, we asked students to rate the excellence of the course and teacher and whether they would recommend each to a friend.  Four items were used:  "Overall, this teacher was excellent" and "I would recommend this teacher to a friend," and also "Overall, this was an excellent class" and "I would recommend this class to a friend."  These questions are the same as those asked on the "official" teacher evaluation form that students are asked to complete each semester and measured on a similar scale. Composite teacher approval and Class approval variables were created by averaging the two items for each (alphas = .92 and .92, respectively).
Students were also asked to recall approximately how many people were enrolled in the course, what grade they received in the course and what scholastic area the course was in.

Results

After running initial data cleaning procedures to check for missing data and outliers, the data were screened a second time for normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. The data fit the requirements for parametric data analysis and, therefore, we commenced further analyses. Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics of the variables used in this study.
A hierarchical regression was used to control for sex, age, class size and grades. The composite variables created by combining the questions that measured autonomy, competence and relatedness were added in a second block. Each of these variable sets were run in separate regressions against the two dependent variables: rating of teacher and rating of class.
Hypothesis 1 stated that autonomy, competence and relatedness would predict positive course ratings when controlling for grades, size of the lecture, sex and age. The regression measuring the rating of the class (adj. R-square = .110) demonstrated that neither age nor sex nor course size was a significant predictor. The grade received in the course, however, did significantly predict the overall rating of the course (beta = .309, p < .0001). Adding autonomy, competence and relatedness to the second block, however, produced a much stronger regression (adj. R-square = .581). Grades remained a significant predictor (p < .05) but its impact on the regression strongly diminished (beta = .092). The size of class became a significant predictor in this regression as well (beta = .135, p < .01), with larger classes faring better than smaller ones.
Of the three SDT variables, competence was the strongest predictor (beta = .569, p < .0001), followed by autonomy (beta = .213, p < .0001; See also TABLE 2). Relatedness, however, did not prove to be a significant factor in course approval. This stands to reason, as relatedness measures connection between individuals and we have measured it as such. As we found in our previous study, relatedness does not predict the positive rating of the course itself. Therefore, hypothesis one is partially supported.
Hypothesis two stated that autonomy, competence and relatedness would predict positive instructor evaluations, when controlling for age, sex, the grade received and the size of the course. We again used a hierarchical regression to assess the validity of this hypothesis. The initial regression demonstrated  that sex, age and course size were not significant predictors of instructor ratings. The grade in the course again demonstrated significant predictive power (beta = .333, p < .0001). As was the case with the earlier regression, adding autonomy, competence and relatedness to the regression in the second block created a stronger model (adj. R-square = .503). Grades remained a significant predictor of instructor ratings (beta = .118, p < .05), but again the beta weights had diminished by more than half. The size of class variable was also significant in this model (beta = .172, p < .01)
Again, competence was the strongest predictor of the three SDT variables and the strongest predictor in the entire model (See Table 3). Autonomy and relatedness also were significant and strong predictors, holding the second and third highest beta weights, respectively. Based on this analysis, hypothesis two was supported.

Conclusion

This study builds significantly on previous research (Black & Deci 2000; McCombs, 1989; Zimmerman, 1989) in a number of ways. First, the elements of Self-Determination Theory were shown to positively predict instructor and course ratings, demonstrating that instructors who hope to reach their students need to consider these needs during instruction. It is also one of the few times that these needs were measured at the collegiate level and as a set. Many previous studies examine autonomy support (Black & Deci, 2000; Ryan & Stiller, 1991) without regard to either of the remaining needs. This study clearly demonstrates that all three needs play a role in educational communication and contact. Second, it clarifies a good deal of the work done in educational research regarding what makes for a good educational experience. By applying SDT to education, we are able to demonstrate a clear pattern of need satisfaction and how those needs helped predict course and instructor ratings. Given
SDT's succinctness and its history of demonstrating need satisfaction (Reis, Sheldon, Ryan, Gable, & Roscoe, 2000; Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2000) as a prerequisite to the positive rating of an experience, these well-defined needs might be better and clearer way of explaining what students need from a course and from an instructor. Finally, we demonstrate that teachers can look beyond course size and grading policies to find the true measure of their teaching effectiveness. Students, regardless of how much they might obsess over their grade-point average, feel a need to learn and a need to be effective in their environment. In many cases, students enter courses primed to learn and grow, hoping to gain a sense of competence in their environment. This study shows that by allowing students to learn in their own way, by providing them with the tools to succeed and by removing authoritarian barriers, instructors will have given their students an education experience that the students will appreciate.
This study has several limitations. First, we did not attempt to measure learning or intrinsic motivation. According to SDT, by satiating the three basic psychological needs, students will begin to learn for learning's sake. They will work from intrinsic motivation and learning will become a part of their lives. While this study did not measure intrinsic motivation or learning, it is clear the this study has lain the groundwork for future research in that area.
Second, while we did control for several variables, it is unclear if all confounds have been unearthed in this study. Granted, the largest discussion in education literature pertains to how well course evaluations measure the instructor. While some have argued that students will gladly rate instructors well for the promise of a higher grade, others have maintained that students know what makes for a good educational experience and will rate it accordingly. We believe that by controlling for grade and class size, we have adequately demonstrated that the needs outlined in SDT are worthy predictors of course and instructor ratings. Still, we remain open to the possibility that other variables might surface through other research.
Despite these limitations, we believe this study clearly demonstrates the importance of addressing the basic psychological needs outlined in SDT when undertaking an educational experience. By fulfilling these needs for a student, an instructor allows him or her to become a lifelong learner, which is an obvious goal for all great educators.


References

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Benware, C. & Deci, E. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-765.

Best, J. & Addison, W. (2000). A preliminary study of perceived warmth of professor and student evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 1, 60-62

Black, A. & Deci, E. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A Self-Determination Theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756.

Blanck, P, Reis, H., & Jackson, L. (1984). The effects of verbal reinforcement on intrinsic motivation for sex-linked tasks. Sex Roles, 10, 369-387.

Blumenfeld, P., Pintrich, P., & Hamilton, V. (1986). Children's concepts of ability effort, and conduct. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 95-104.

Centra, J. (1973). Effectiveness of student feedback in modifying college instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 395-401.

Centra, J. (1977). Student Ratings of Instruction and their relationship to student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 1, 17-24.

Centra, J. (1996). Identifying exemplary teachers: Evidence from colleagues, administrators and alumni.  New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 65, 51-56.

Connell, J. & Wellborn, J. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In Eds. M. Gunnar & L. Sroufe, Minnesota Symposium of Child Psychology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. (1971) The effects of externally mediate rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115.

Deci, E., Cascio, W., & Krusell, J. (1975) Cognitive evaluation theory and some comments on the Calder and Staw critique. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 31, 81-85.

Deci, E., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,  1-10.

Deci, E., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B.,  & Leone, D. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.

Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In Eds. R. Dienstbier, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 38: Perspectives on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the Self-Determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 4, 227-268.

Deci, E., Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., & Ryan, R. (1991). Motivation and education: The Self-Determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 3 & 4, 325-346.

Filak, V. & Sheldon, K. (2002). Student psychological need satisfaction and college-teacher course evaluations. Paper accepted for publication at the International Communication Association Conference. Seoul, Korea.

Flink, C., Boggiano, A., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies: Undermining children's self-determination and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 916-924.

Gagne, M., Koestner, R. & Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating acceptance of organizational change: The importance of self-determination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 9, 1843-1852.

Glasser, W. (1986, 1998) Choice Theory in the Classroom. New York: Harper Collins.

Grolnick, W. & Ryan, R. (1987).  Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 977-1077.

Harackiewicz, J., Manderlink, G., & Sansone, C. (1984). Rewarding pinball wizardry: The effects of evaluation on intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 287-300.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1789-1805.

Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of behavior research. New York,: Holt Reinhart and Winston.

Lepper, M. (1981). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in children: Detrimental effects of superfluous social controls. In eds. Collins, A. Aspects of the Development of Competence: the Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, 14, 155-214.

Lepper, M., Greene, D, & Nisbett, R. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the overjustification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.

Marlin, J. (1987). Student perception of End-of-course evaluations. Journal of Higher Education, 58, 6, 704-716.


Marlin, J. & Niss, J. (1980). End-of-course evaluations as indicators of student learning and instructor effectiveness. Journal of Economic Education, 11, 16-27.

Marsh, H. (1987). Student's evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues and directions for future research, Journal of Education Research, 11, 253-388.

McCombs, B. L. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: a phenomenological view. In eds. Zimmerman, B., and Schunk, D.  Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Miserandino, M., (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual difference in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 2, 203-214.

Paris, S. & Byrnes, J. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In eds. Zimmerman, B., and Schunk, D.  Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Passe, J. (1996). When students choose content: A guide to increasing motivation, autonomy and achievement. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage.

Pemberton, W. A. (1963). Abilities, Values and College Achievement. University of Delaware-Newark, J.H. Furst Co.

Phillips, D. (1984). The illusion of incompetence among academically competent children. Child Development, 55, 2000-2016.

Pintrich, P. & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Reis, H., Sheldon, K., Gable, S., Roscoe, J. Ryan, R. (2000). Daily well-being: the role of Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 4, 419-435.

Ryan, R. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461.

Ryan, R. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes.  Journal of Personality, 63, 397-427.


Ryan, R. & Connell, J. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.

Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Ryan, R., Kuhl, J. & Deci, E. (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.

Ryan, R., & Stiller, J. (1991). The social contexts of internalization: Parent and teacher influences on autonomy, motivation and learning. In P.R. Pintrich & M.L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 7. Goals and self-regulatory processes (pp. 115-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Schmelkin, L., Spencer, K. & Gellman, E. (1997). Faculty perspectives on course and teacher evaluations. Research in Higher Education, 38, 5, 575-592.

Sheldon, K.M., Elliot, A.J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001).  What's satisfying about satisfying events?  Comparing ten candidate psychological needs.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325-339.

Stipek, D. (1988). Motivation to Learn: From theory to practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.  In eds. Worchel, S. and Austin, G.  The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monter, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.  In eds. Worchel, S. and Austin, G. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

Turner, J. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-34.

Vallerand, R. (2000). Deci and Ryan's Self-Determination Theory: A view from the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 4, 312-318.

White, R. (1959) Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

Zimmerman, B. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and achievement. In Zimmerman, B. and Schunk, D. Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 443-446.


Table 1: Descriptive statistics for instructor ratings, course ratings and need satisfaction variables.

Statistics




Teacher rating
Course rating
Auto
Comp
Relate
Size of class
Grade received
 N

Valid
268
268
268
268
268
268
268


Missing
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 Mean


4.0317
3.9963
3.4706
3.6141
3.9714
3.59
4.19
 Std. Deviation


1.1359
1.1075
1.1083
1.0438
.9098
1.32
.88
 Skewness


-1.151
-1.080
-.507
-.645
-.764
-.187
-1.138
 Std. Error of Skewness


.149
.149
.149
.149
.149
.149
.149
 Kurtosis


.450
.392
-.520
-.316
-.067
-1.545
1.274
 Std. Error of Kurtosis

.297
.297
.297
.297
.297
.297
.297


Table 2: Coefficients for regressions predicting instructor ratings




Unstand. Coefficients

Standard Coefficients
t
Sig.
 Model

B
Std. Error
Beta


 1
(Constant)

2.919
.815

3.580
.000

Gender

-9.889E-03
.134
-.004
-.074
.941

Age

-3.065E-02
.031
-.059
-.996
.320

Size of class

-1.677E-02
.052
-.019
-.323
.747

Grade received

.430
.077
.333
5.558
.000

Autonomy







Competence







Relatedness







 2
(Constant)

.154
.659

.233
.816

Gender

-.190
.101
-.083
-1.885
.061

Age

-2.070E-02
.023
-.040
-.892
.373

Size of class

.148
.042
.172
3.506
.001

Grade received

.152
.061
.118
2.485
.014

Autonomy

.228
.067
.223
3.425
.001

Competence

.452
.058
.415
7.745
.000

Relatedness

.250
.081
.200
3.096
.002


Table 3: Coefficients for regressions predicting instructor ratings





Unstandard. Coefficients

Standard. Coefficients
t
Sig.
 Model

B
Std. Error
Beta


 1
(Constant)

2.723
.793

3.435
.001

Gender

.208
.130
.094
1.595
.112

Age

-2.942E-02
.030
-.058
-.983
.327

Size of class

-2.510E-02
.051
-.030
-.497
.620

Grade received

.389
.075
.309
5.175
.000

Autonomy







Competence







Relatedness






 2
(Constant)

.375
.590

.636
.526

Gender

3.295E-02
.090
.015
.365
.715

Age

-2.960E-02
.021
-.059
-1.424
.156

Size of class

.113
.038
.135
3.001
.003

Grade received

.116
.055
.092
2.105
.036

Autonomy

.213
.060
.213
3.571
.000

Competence

.604
.052
.569
11.561
.000

Relatedness

8.752E-02
.072
.072
1.212
.227


20
                                                                                             Instructor Ratings and SDT