MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209571999 · doi:10.1177/08295735211055355

Applying Self-Determination Theory to Education: Regulations Types, Psychological Needs, and Autonomy Supporting Behaviors

2021· article· en· W3209571999 on OpenAlexaff
Frédéric Guay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-determination theoryPsychologyAutonomyCompetence (human resources)Intrinsic motivationCognitive evaluation theoryGoal theoryAmotivationSocial psychologyIntervention (counseling)Self-determinationApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The self-determination theory (SDT) has been used to understand students’ motivation at school in general as well as in various school subjects. This literature review conducted on a number of SDT studies showed that (1) autonomous types of extrinsic motivation as well as intrinsic motivation leads to positive consequences for students; (2) the types of goals and the regulation behind them are also important to predict school outcomes; (3) when the psychological needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness are satisfied this leads to autonomous motivation or autonomous goals endorsement; (4) autonomy supportive practices by parents and teachers are important catalyzers of needs’ fulfillment; (5) intervention programs designed for teachers or parents focusing on these psychological needs usually lead to greater autonomous extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation and better adjustment outcomes. The implication of this theory for school psychologists is underscored as well as its implications for the practice of teaching.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations359
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207