Need-supportive teaching is associated with reading achievement via intrinsic motivation across eight cultures

Highlights

• NST's association with reading achievement generalized in 6 out of 8 cultures

• NST's association with reading achievement was negative or zero in 2 cultures.

• Intrinsic motivation’s association with achievement generalized in 8 cultures

• NST's indirect effect via intrinsic motivation generalized across eight cultures

• Variations in the effect sizes of the associations revealed cultural moderation.

Abstract

Self-determination theory (SDT) posits that need-supportive teaching, which includes support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness facilitates motivation and achievement across cultures. However, prior evidence of SDT's cross-cultural generalizability were drawn from a limited set of cultural contexts. Furthermore, prior work has mainly focused on autonomy-support. This study used data from the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (N = 578,168). Countries were grouped following Schwartz’ (2009) eight cultural clusters. Results found that need-supportive teaching predicted achievement via intrinsic motivation across the eight cultural groups. However, the magnitude of the associations among the variables varied across cultures. Findings also indicated a positive association between need-supportive teaching and achievement in six out of the eight cultural groups. However, a different pattern was observed in East-Central Europe (non-significant association) and Africa and the Middle East (negative association). This study offers broad, though not unanimous, support for SDT's cultural generalizability.

Introduction

For more than three decades, hundreds of studies on self-determination theory (SDT: Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000, Ryan and Deci, 2020) have been published that yielded important insights into student motivation, learning, and well-being (Howard et al., 2021; Stroet et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2018). A key finding of these studies is the positive influence of need-supportive teaching on students' academic achievement by facilitating intrinsic motivation. When teachers and contexts support students' basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, students flourish. SDT asserts that the association of need-supportive teaching with students' positive learning outcomes is cross-culturally generalizable (Reeve et al., 2018; Ryan & Deci, 2000). There is extensive empirical evidence that need-supportive teaching promotes student motivation and various positive learning outcomes across different socio-cultural contexts (e.g., Chen et al., 2015; Reeve et al., 2018; Ryan & Deci, 2020; Stroet et al., 2013).

However, many SDT cross-cultural studies only examined SDT tenets in a single non-Western country (e.g., Jang et al., 2012; Zhou et al., 2019) or compared groups of countries in terms of Western and Eastern cultures (e.g., Chirkov et al., 2003; Jiang et al., 2021; Nalipay et al., 2020). However, these studies usually operationalized culture in terms of country of origin or ethnicity which might be a somewhat simplistic operationalization of culture (e.g., Cohen & Varnum, 2016; King et al., 2018; King & McInerney, 2014). Schwartz (2006) proposed a cultural grouping based on value orientation. As of this current writing, there has been no research that tested SDT's cross-cultural generalizability using this lens. Furthermore existing research has mainly focused on autonomy support (e.g., Diseth & Samdal, 2014; Haerens et al., 2015; Kaplan, 2018; Patall et al., 2018). Relatively fewer studies have investigated teachers' support for other basic needs such as competence and relatedness (Stroet et al., 2013). Hence, there is a need for studies that examine the three need-supportive practices altogether with a more fine-grained cross-cultural testing.

The presence of large-scale international assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessments (PISA) affords researchers the means to investigate SDT's generalizability across a broader group of countries from different sociocultural contexts (e.g., Jiang et al., 2021; Lee, 2014). The present study aimed to investigate the role of need-supportive teaching in students' motivation and achievement across a wide range of cultures. We drew on data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), consisting of samples from 76 regions or societies. These regions were grouped into eight distinct cultural groups: Western Europe, Eastern Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, English speaking, Confucian, Southeast Asia, and Africa and the Middle East (Schwartz, 2006). We tested whether students' perceived need-supportive teaching would stimulate intrinsic motivation, which in turn would predict optimal achievement.

SDT presupposes that everyone has basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The satisfaction of these needs is dependent on the socio-contextual environment. Autonomy means having a sense of volition or self-regulation in one's behavior or subjective experience. Competence relates to having the feeling of being able to meet an optimal challenge. Relatedness is having the sense of being connected to an individual or group (Ryan and Deci, 2000, Ryan and Deci, 2017). Supporting and satisfying these psychological needs facilitates intrinsic and autonomous motivation, leading to positive cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes (Reeve, 2012). On the other hand, thwarting these needs leads to controlled motivation, maladaptive behaviors, and even amotivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

In the educational context, the teacher is the students' proximal social context who can either support or thwart their students' needs (Ahn et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2016). Hence, the quality of the teacher's support influences the students' quality of motivation, which in turn affects the student's engagement and other learning outcomes (Jang et al., 2016; Reeve, 2016; Y. Wang et al., 2021). Researchers have specified key teacher practices that could demonstrate autonomy support, competence support or structure, and relatedness support or involvement (Ahn et al., 2019; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Autonomy support allows students to be more self-directed. It comes in the form of explaining the rationale or importance of learning materials or activities, providing meaningful choices, acknowledging students' emotions, avoiding controlling language, and nurturing inner motivational resources (Ahn et al., 2019; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Reeve, 2016). Competence support involves creating a structure that fosters a conducive learning environment where students can focus and develop themselves to meet learning challenges. Teachers create structure by setting clear goals and expectations, offering tasks with moderate difficulty to expand students' academic capability, and offering feedback to promote a sense of efficacy and success (Ahn et al., 2019; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Reeve, 2016). Relatedness support involves making students feel they belong and are connected through the teachers' involvement (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Teachers show involvement by communicating interest, appreciation, and concern for students (Ahn et al., 2019; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).

Studies have shown that need-supportive teaching has beneficial effects on key student outcomes. Need-supportive teaching has been associated with higher resilience (Pitzer & Skinner, 2017), greater enjoyment, and lower fear of failure (Leptokaridou et al., 2016). Students become more engaged, learn more, and attain higher performance when taught in a need-supportive way (Jang et al., 2016; Reeve, 2013; Taylor et al., 2014; H. Wang et al., 2021). However, many of these studies have focused only on limited aspects of need-supportive teaching. For example, Jang et al. (2012) focused only on teachers' autonomy support and found it was associated with greater engagement among Korean students. Other researchers have focused on the effects of structure in supporting the need for competence (e.g., Eckes et al., 2018; Guay et al., 2017). Some other studies simultaneously examined autonomy and competence support on students' psychological outcomes (e.g., Hospel & Galand, 2016; Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2015; Olivier et al., 2020). A few studies also investigated the role of supporting relatedness and found its association with greater engagement and achievement (e.g., Furrer & Skinner, 2003; King, 2015). Taken altogether, these studies show that each of the dimensions of need-supportive teaching seems to be associated with optimal outcomes. However, research that simultaneously examines all three needs seem lacking, signifying a gap in the knowledge base (Stroet et al., 2013). The present study aims to address this gap by taking support for all three needs simultaneously.

Supporting the three basic psychological needs creates an environment that stimulates intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to the natural propensity to do an action because it is enjoyable and does not depend on external contingencies (Ryan & Deci, 2017). SDT links intrinsic motivation directly with optimal learning outcomes, as supported by various studies (Dickhäuser et al., 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2020; Taylor et al., 2014; Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). For example, studies have shown that intrinsically motivated students have higher academic achievement in different learning domains such as reading (Froiland & Oros, 2014; Hebbecker et al., 2019) and mathematics (Froiland & Davison, 2016; Garon-Carrier et al., 2016). In recent years, studies using large-scale assessments such as PISA also provided evidence linking intrinsic motivation with student achievement (Lee, 2014).

Past research has also shown that intrinsic motivation mediates the influence of need-supportive teaching on engagement and academic achievement (de Naeghel et al., 2014; Fan & Williams, 2018; Hofferber et al., 2016; Yildirim, 2012). For example, Hofferber et al.'s (2016) quasi-experimental study found support for the indirect association of need-supportive teaching on students' engagement in a biology class via greater intrinsic motivation. Moreover, Fan and Williams's (2018) study found that the perception of teacher-student relationships, which closely approximates relatedness support or involvement in class, influenced students' academic achievement in math and reading through intrinsic motivation. These studies demonstrate that need-supportive teaching stimulates intrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation, in turn, leads to better academic achievement (see also Ryan et al., 2019; E. Skinner, 1990; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020).

A fundamental assertion within SDT is that the three basic psychological needs are crucial for all individuals regardless of cultural background (Ryan and Deci, 2000, Ryan and Deci, 2017, Ryan and Deci, 2020). However, some cultural scholars have argued that SDT's basic propositions, especially concerning autonomy, are Western-centric (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000; Iyengar & DeVoe, 2003; Markus et al., 1996; Markus & Kitayama, 2003; Miller et al., 2017). For example, Miller et al. (2017) argued that SDT's universal claim does not consider cultural nuances and variability. Furthermore Markus and Kitayama (2003) suggested that freedom of choice might be more relevant to Western cultures but less so for collectivist cultures. For Eastern cultures, restricting choice does not always lead to negative effects if done by a trusted authority or figure (e.g., Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). Hence, the debate on autonomy vs. choice revolves around whether it applies to all cultures. Most SDT theorists address the debate by zeroing on the misinterpretation of autonomy as choice or independence. More importantly, they also clarified the misinterpretation of universality as mere uniformity (e.g., Reeve et al., 2018).

Scholars argue that there are two extreme positions in cross-cultural studies (King & McInerney, 2014; Pintrich, 2003;Shweder & Sullivan, 1993 ; Zusho & Clayton, 2011). On the one hand, there are absolutists who assume that there are motivational values and processes that are essentially culture free. On the other hand, there are the relativists who argue that motivational constructs should be studied in the local context and that everything is relative. In between these polarities are the universalists who see some basic processes that are universal but their expression differ across cultures (Zusho & Clayton, 2011). In line with the universalist view, SDT theorists recognize that the basic psychological needs support and satisfaction have cross-cultural significance while expecting cultural and individual variations in how they are expressed or valued (Reeve et al., 2018; Ryan et al., 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2019). Some SDT theorists use Shweder and Sullivan's (1993) term “universality without uniformity” or “moderate universality” to delineate it from absolutism (e.g., Soenens et al., 2015; van Assche et al., 2018; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). We adopt a universalist stance in this research in line with SDT theorizing and findings from motivation science (King & McInerney, 2014; Pintrich, 2003; Soenens et al., 2015; van Assche et al., 2018; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020; Zusho & Clayton, 2011).

Evidence from various studies has provided empirical support for SDT's cross-cultural universality. For example, Chirkov et al.'s (2003) study demonstrated that autonomy is a valid construct among non-Western students. They also showed that autonomy support was positively associated with students' well-being in Eastern cultures (i.e., Turkey and South Korea). Nalipay et al.'s (2020) investigated the 2009 PISA participating countries and demonstrated that autonomy is essential both for Eastern and Western countries. Researchers have also shown that need support facilitates positive outcomes among collectivist societies. Oga-Baldwin and Nakata (2015) found that need-supportive teaching is associated with sustained engagement over time among Japanese students. In another study, Zhang et al. (2020) demonstrated that Chinese students become more intrinsically motivated to study when their teachers shift to a need-supportive style.

Several studies have also examined the core aspects of SDT in other Asian contexts, such as the Philippines (Haw et al., 2021; Mendoza et al., 2022), Indonesia (Maulana et al., 2016), Thailand (Kaur et al., 2015), and South Korea (e.g., Reeve et al., 2004), among others. These studies demonstrate broad support for SDT's core postulates in non-Western cultures. Congruent to the moderate universality (Shweder & Sullivan, 1993; Zusho & Clayton, 2011), SDT research have reported significant findings across cultures and their variations (Deci et al., 2001; Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2016; Lam et al., 2016; Marbell-Pierre et al., 2019).

However, many of the studies above only focused on individual countries representing a specific cultural context. Moreover, SDT comparative studies tend to use a less nuanced definition of culture, such as the binary opposition of East and West. Such comparison is limiting because sociocultural contexts overlap with but are not entirely synonymous with nationality, ethnicity, or race (Cohen & Varnum, 2016; King et al., 2018; King & McInerney, 2014). These methodological limitations also limit empirical testing of SDT's cross-cultural generalizability hypothesis. There is a need to sift the more fine-grained aspects of culture that could explain similarities or differences in students' motivational dynamics and outcomes. One way to do this is to test SDT's claims across a broader range of cultural groups.

Schwartz’s (2006) cultural value orientation theory proposed that cultures can be distinguished by the values they espouse. These value preferences are based on three polarities: embeddedness vs. autonomy, hierarchy vs. egalitarianism, and mastery vs. harmony. These polarities simultaneously pull a cultural dynamic and create the direction of their values. We elucidate these dimensions below:

The first polarity of embeddedness vs. mastery pertains to the nature of the relationship between the person and the group. In cultures that emphasize embeddedness, people are viewed as embedded in the larger collective, with meaning in life derived primarily through social relationships. On the other hand, in cultures that emphasize autonomy, people are considered autonomous bounded entities and are encouraged to find meaning in their uniqueness. The second polarity of hierarchy vs. egalitarianism focuses on the issue of how people must behave toward one another to preserve the social fabric. Hierarchical cultures emphasize the importance of ascribed roles and responsibilities, with people taking the unequal distribution of power for granted. Social power, authority, humility, and wealth are considered primary. Egalitarian cultures, on the other hand, recognize people as equals who share a common interest. Cooperation and concern for everyone's welfare are emphasized. The third polarity of mastery vs. harmony focuses on how people should manage their relations to the natural and social worlds. Mastery cultures encourage active self-assertion and values ambition, success, and competence. On the other hand, harmony cultures emphasize fitting into the world and trying to understand and appreciate what is. World peace, unity with nature, and environmental protection are highly valued.

Using these three dimensions, Schwartz, 2006, Schwartz, 2009 analyzed samples from 76 countries, plotted them according to their cultural value orientation, and generated eight cultural regions. These eight groups are Western Europe, Eastern Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, English speaking, Confucian, Southeast Asia, and Africa and the Middle East. Fig. 1 shows these groupings plotted using their polar preferences.

Schwartz (2006) argued that each group is culturally distinct in emphasizing or de-emphasizing a value orientation. For example, Western Europe's (e.g., France and Germany) high emphasis on autonomy characterizes the culture as individualistic. However, its heightened focus on egalitarianism and harmony goes beyond “conventional views of individualism” (p. 55). Confucian and South Asian cultures emphasize hierarchy, yet they differ by emphasizing mastery and embeddedness, respectively.

Schwartz’s value orientations show the multi-dimensionality of culture, which goes beyond country, ethnicity, geographical location. It puts a fine-grained understanding of culture that challenges the typical broad cultural differentiations (i.e., West as individualistic vs. East as collectivist). Testing SDT's theoretical assumptions across Schwartz’s eight cultural groups, therefore, has critical implications for a stronger test of self-determination theory’s cross-cultural validity. As of this current writing, we are not aware of prior empirical studies that have tested the relations among need-supportive teaching, intrinsic motivation, and achievement among all eight cultural groups.

Studies have consistently documented that gender and socioeconomic status affect student motivation and reading achievement (e.g., Vecchione et al., 2014). For example, several studies have found that girls do better than boys in school overall though there are subject-specific differences (Guo et al., 2015; King, 2016; Voyer and Voyer, 2014). In terms of SES, several studies have found that students from advantaged families do better in school than their less advantaged counterparts. Motivational differences have also been documented, with children from higher SES families exhibiting more adaptive motivational outcomes (Benner et al., 2016; King & Trinidad, 2021; Sirin, 2005). Hence, we added gender and SES as covariates to control their possible confounding effects and ensure a more robust test of our core hypotheses.

The existing evidence base highlight the importance of need-supportive teaching and intrinsic motivation on student achievement. Given SDT's assertion on moderate universality, we aimed at examining these core tenets against Schwartz’s (2006) cultural value orientation grouping (i.e., Western Europe, Eastern Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, English speaking, Confucian, Southeast Asia, and Africa and the Middle East). Specifically, we investigated the following hypotheses across the eight groups:

H1

: Need-supportive teaching will positively predict student achievement.

H2

: Intrinsic motivation will positively predict student achievement.

H3

: Need-supportive teaching will indirectly predict reading achievement via reading intrinsic motivation.

Fig. 2 below shows the hypothesized conceptual model of the study.