Running head: CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE

Connecting Theory to Practice: Self-Determination Theory in the Classroom

Brooke H. Welburn
McGill University

CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE

For my third field experience, I have been placed in an English and French nondenominational high school in Montreal, QC. The context of the classrooms I teach consists of
students from various backgrounds in Grade 10 and 11 English Language Arts. Each of my
classrooms is multicultural and comprised of 35 students predominantly from a middle-class
socio-economic background. In total, I have four groups of students that I teach. There is no
doubt that every class I teach has a large variety of diverse learners. For instance, my classrooms
contains international students, enriched ELA students, as well as students with Individual
Education Plans (IEPs). Due to this wide variety, it can be difficult to motivate all students to
participate in classroom lessons and activities.
One particular teaching experience that I continuously reflect upon is the grade 10 ELA
class in which I implemented Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as a means to rectify a previous
lesson that absolutely flopped resulting in one of my most glorious failures as a student teacher. I
did not realize it was this theory I implemented at the time, however, after reading Reeve and
Halusics article, How K-12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles into practice,
I have come to this conclusion.
The day of my glorious failure, I began the class with a small introduction of myself and
then proceeded to inform the students what I expected of them. I instructed the students to read
the first short story of the term and informed them that we would regroup afterward to discuss. I
had thought that these instructions would be clear enough. This was not the case. Disaster
ensued. With these extremely vague instructions, the students took over the class and did what
they thought was best. This included playing music on phones, talking about the weekend, and
walking around. I was dumbfounded. I had asked them to do something and they completely
ignored me. Toward the end of class, we could not continue with a discussion because no one

CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE

had completed the short story. The bell rang and I felt like a complete failure. I decided that I
needed to get into their shoes and create a lesson that would be interesting to them. This was the
only way I was going to relate to them and have them relate to me.
The next class, I opened up the floor for conversation. I asked the students what they
thought went well/poorly with the previous class. The majority of the students agreed that they
were simply bored with the story. I treated all comments as valid ones. I then proceeded to
rationally frame the lesson in regards to the final exam at the end of the year. I informed the
students that analyzing a short story would be of great use to them during their final exam. I had
a hunch that the students thought the story was boring so I came prepared with three separate
texts for this class. After going over them briefly, I gave the students an option to choose the text
they wanted to read. I also gave the class a choice in regards to how we should get through the
reading: small group reading, silent reading, or taking it home. The students asked to read in
small groups. They then separated into reading circles and each group managed to get through
their short stories. When class ended, I had students approach me and tell me how much they
enjoyed their stories.
Looking back on this experience, I realize that I implemented SDT as a means to pacify
my students apathy and spark their extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The ultimate goal of my
re-evaluated teaching style was to have a conversation with students and show them that I was
there to help them achieve individual excellence in a way that was interesting. The result of this
transition to student autonomy was a happy group of students eager to learn.
According to Reeve and Halusic (2009), SDT, or autonomy support, represents acts of
instruction to identify, nurture, and develop students inner motivational resources, such as their
interests, preferences, goals, and psychological needs (Assor et al., as qtd. in Reeve & Halusic,

CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE

p. 146). In my opinion, SDT can be reduced to a simple premise that I believe to be universally
accepted: you will work harder and produce better quality work when you are engaging with
notions and ideas that are interesting and important to you.
Despite this fact, many teachers worry that having a classroom revolve around student
autonomy will lead to a lack of structure and ultimately permissiveness. Reeve and Halusic
(2009) address this fear stating that compared to their more controlling counterparts, autonomysupportive teachers actually provide more, not less, classroom structure (p. 148). This statement
rings true to my personal experience. Without structure and guidance, leaving the students to
their own devices led to anarchy in the classroom. It was only after I provided a structure for
students to follow and allowed students to express their autonomy by selecting their work that I
observed a difference in the overall classroom climate.
Reeve and Halusic (2009) further stress the importance of taking the students perspective
stating that supporting autonomy begins with a deeply rooted willingness and capacity to take
and prioritize the students perspective (p. 148). In doing so, the teacher shifts from a
controlling entity to one that wishes to promote and guide students motivation. Shortly after my
glorious failure, I began shifting my perspective from teacher to student in order to understand
what went terribly wrong. If I were to have received vague instructions and was then told to
work together with my friends, I would also take the opportunity to socialize. Thus, I wanted to
create a structured lesson that would guide students learning and also allow them to fulfill their
psychological desire of socializing with their peers.
In order to further this notion of taking on the students perspective, Reeve and Halusic
(2009) highlight the importance of embracing negative comments: when teachers welcome
expressions of negative effect, they communicate an understanding of the students perspectives

CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE

(p. 150). These negative emotions can then be used constructively in creating a lesson that is
interesting and motivating. (Reeve & Halusic, 2009) Thus, by embracing my students negative
outlook and comments, I was able to constructively change the lesson plan. Furthermore, after
having a conversation with the students regarding the reasons why they did not enjoy the
previous class, students were much more open to the suggestions and options I presented to
them.
In addition to taking on the students perspective, Reeve and Halusic also suggest using
explanatory rationales and framing lessons within the context of intrinsic motivation in order to
transform an uninteresting activity into a personal useful thing to do (Brophy, 2008 as qtd. in
Reeve and Halusic, 2009, p. 149). I unknowingly used an explanatory rational when I informed
my students that analyzing a short story would be useful to them in their final exam. This caught
the students attention and I immediately noticed them taking the assignment much more
seriously. With respect to Reeve and Halusic, I could have further motivated my students by
intrinsically framing the assignment stating that it would aid the students in becoming better
interpreters of literature overall.
An aspect of SDT that I believe would be appealing to my fellow colleagues is that it
does not require differentiated instruction for every student (Reeve and Halusic, 2009, p.
147). The authors state that motivational resources are universal and can be applied generally to
a classroom of students (Reeve & Halusic, 2009). As an aspiring teacher, I can absolutely
sympathize with restrictions placed on time. This theory and its relationship with universality
will ultimately aid in the creation of a community of learners while at the same time maintaining
a sympathetic relationship with the clock.

CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE

One particular limitation of SDT is the confounding of intrinsic motivation to improve

oneself and extrinsic motivation to complete an activity that is interesting. The line between the
desire for achieving a certain standard of excellence and a love for an activity remain ambiguous
in Reeve and Halusics explanation of SDT. Although both driving forces of motivation are
important, the theory is lacking in regards to which, if any, matters more and should be taken into
closer consideration during lesson planning.
Moreover, Reeve and Halusic (2009) suggest that motivational and behavioral problems
occur for the simple reason that classrooms have rules, requests, requirements, and agendas that
are sometimes at odds with students preferences and natural inclinations (p. 150). The authors
go on to state that it is understandable that students complain, resist, and express negative
effect under these conditions (Reeve & Halusic, 2009, p. 150). However, a classroom or lesson
plan will not always universally serve the interests of every single student and teachers will have
to deal with this. Reeve and Halusics article on SDT would be stronger if the authors provided a
means to deal with a situation such as this.
Despite these shortcomings, I will certainly continue to implement this theory in my
future teachings. The results I achieved astounded me. I believe that positive student-teacher
relationships will act as a catalyst toward SDT making it that much more effective in the
classroom. My goal is to further understand my students and their interests. I believe that this
will aid me in not only determining what is important to them but more ways in which to spark
their innate intrinsic motivation.

CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE

References
Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2009). How K-12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles
into practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 145-154.
doi:10.1177/1477878509104319