A SDT Perspective on Danish Educational Debate (Jake-Pcs modstridende kopi 2016-05-12)

UDDANNELSESVIDENSKAB

A Self-Determination Perspective on Current Topics in Danish Education

Eksamen Modul 12 Bacheloropgave

Jake Inlove

201308639

Sommereksamen 2016

71.780 tegn.


Jake Inlove 201308639

Side 1 af 41

Contents

1. Introduction 2

1.2 Research Question 3

1.3 Methodology 3

2. The Basics of Self-Determination Theory 4

2.1 An Organismic Dialectical Perspective 4

2.2 Basic Psychological Needs 5

3. Analyzing Current Topics in Danish Education with Self-Determination Theory

13

3.1 The Psychological Need for Autonomy and the Danish Debate about Introducing Qualifying Grades to Upper Secondary School

13

3.2 The Psychological Need for Competence and the Danish Debate about Student Plans

18

3.3 The Psychological Need for Relatedness and the Danish Debate about Inclusion

23

4. Educational Reforms and SDT 28

5. Summary and Conclusions 29

6. References 31

7. Petitum 37



Side 2 af 41

1. Introduction

Intrinsic motivation, which in Self-Determination Theory (here forth SDT) refers to doing something

because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 55), has in SDT research been linked

to positive academic performance, positive emotions in the classroom, enjoyment of academic work,

satisfaction with school (Deci et al., 1991, p. 331), and outcomes such as creativity (Amabile et al., 1987, p.

9), cognitive flexibility, and self-esteem (Deci et al., 1991, p. 342).

Intrinsic motivation, therefore, seems like a relevant factor to understand in the realms of learning and

sequentially education. According to SDT, intrinsic motivation is a matter of engaging in activities that allow

need satisfaction of three fundamental psychological needs inherent in the adaptive human design (Deci et

al., 2000, p. 230-231).

SDT claims that a need for autonomy, a need for competence, and a need for relatedness is built into

the human design (Deci et al., 1991, p. 327). Autonomy refers to the freedom to initiate one’s own action

and regulating one’s own behavior; competence refers to an understanding of how to attain various

internal and external outcomes and being efficacious in performing necessary actions; while relatedness

refers to being able to develop satisfying connections to other people (Deci et al., 1991, p. 327).

It is these 3 needs that SDT postulates are essential to understanding why people do what they do when

they are intrinsically motivated (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 230-231). Simply put, SDT claims that it feels good to

act autonomously, be competent, and connect satisfactorily with other people because these are natural

inclinations of the human organism:

“SDT suggests that it is part of the adaptive design of the human organism to engage in interesting activities,

to exercise capacities, to pursue connectedness in social groups, and to integrate intrapsychic and interpersonal

experiences into a relative unity.” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 229)

In this sense, educational settings that hinder satisfaction of the fundamental psychological needs for

autonomy, competence, and relatedness by nonfavorable conditions—such as controlling, over-

challenging, and rejecting conditions in the context—work against the design of the human organism,

thwart intrinsic motivation, and supplement natural inclinations with alternative defensive self-

protective processes, like compartmentalizing, withdrawal, and antisocial behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000,

p. 229).



Side 3 af 41

With that in mind, the fundamental psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and

relatedness, therefore, seem interesting to investigate with respect to learning and education. These

meditations bring me to this research question:

1.2 Research Question

How can a Self-Determination Theory perspective contribute to our understanding of three current topics

in Danish education, namely qualifying grades, student plans, and inclusion?

1.3 Methodology

To answer the research question, I will begin with an introduction to the basic elements of SDT and the

underlying assumptions of the theory in the form of its organismic dialectic perspective. Hereafter I will

clarify how basic psychological needs are to be understood and unfold each of the above-mentioned basic

psychological needs.

Once the theory is clarified, the analysis will follow in three sections. In the first section, the

psychological need for autonomy will be analyzed and discussed with respect to the Danish debate about

introducing qualifying grades to upper secondary school (adgangsgivende karakterer til gymnasiet). In the

second section, the psychological need for competence will be analyzed and discussed with respect to the

Danish debate about student plans (elevplaner). Finally, in the third section of the analysis, the

psychological need for relatedness will be analyzed and discussed with respect to the Danish debate about

inclusion (inklusion).

The analysis will be wrapped up with a discussion of educational reforms and how SDT can contribute to

understanding them and their consequences. The paper will end with a summary of the results of the

analysis and the discussion.



Side 4 af 41

2. The Basics of Self-Determination Theory

Self-Determination theory (SDT) is a longstanding, empirically based psychological theory about human

motivation, initially developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan (selfdeterminationtheory.org).

2.1 An Organismic Dialectical Perspective

SDT has joined two seemingly discrepant viewpoints of: 1) humanistic, psychoanalytical, and development

theories that assume inner psychological needs; and 2) behavioral, cognitive, post-modern theories that do

not (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 5). Thus, SDT recognizes that there is compelling evidence in favor of conditioned

responses, as well as inner human tendencies toward active engagement and development—and SDT

unites this evidence in a theory that integrates both phenomena within one perspective (Ryan & Deci,

2002, p. 5).

The way SDT unites both inner human tendencies toward growth and development and conditioned

responses is by assuming that humans have a twofold integrative tendency, which consists of: 1) a

tendency toward integrating their psychic elements into a unified sense of self; and 2) a tendency toward

integrating themselves into their surrounding social structures (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 229).

SDT assumes that this integrative tendency is a fundamental aspect of human experience, but also that

it cannot be taken for granted—because healthy development is a result of the complementary functioning

of the two abovementioned aspects of the integrative tendency (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 5).

In this sense, SDT has a dialectical view that concern the interaction between an active, integrating

human organism and social contexts that either nourish or thwart the organism’s active nature (Ryan &

Deci, 2002, p. 6). Moreover, SDT holds the view that social environments can enable and facilitate optimal

development or disrupt optimal development and results in impaired development—like natural

environments can have the right conditions for plants to flourish or not have the right conditions, so the

plants grow deformities or wither (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 229).

Healthy psychological growth and social development—a healthy functioning of the human tendency for

integration—is, according to SDT, a process that must have conditions of nourishment for basic

psychological needs or else the psychological growth and social development become maladaptive,

resulting in deform ways of integration (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 6). So to be able to understand the

integrative tendency better, we need to understand the basic psychological needs that have to be satisfied

for the integrative process to be functioning optimally.



Side 5 af 41

2.2 Basic Psychological Needs

SDT operates with basic psychological needs. These needs are essential for understanding the dynamic

interactive process between people and their social environments. SDT define needs:

“As in the Hullian tradition, we define needs as innate, organismic necessities rather than acquired motives,

and as in the Murray tradition, we define needs at the psychological rather than physiological level. Thus, in

SDT, needs specify innate psychological nutriments that are essential for ongoing psychological growth,

integrity, and well-being.” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 229)

This means that if needs are satisfied, people will function optimally psychologically and if they are not,

nonoptimal psychological outcomes will emerge (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 229-230). People do not necessarily,

according to SDT, act consciously to satisfy basic psychological needs, but the needs are essential to

understanding why people feel pleasure and enjoyment doing—intrinsic motivation—some things, but not

other things. This is because if needs are not met in an activity, nothing energizes it and people get no

inherent pleasure from engaging in it—and therefore will not unless they are moved by external

contingencies (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 229-230).

The concept of basic psychological needs arose from empirical research on intrinsic motivation because

researchers could not come up with a psychologically meaningful interpretation of diverse research results

without this concept (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 232). The notion of needs gave meaning to why some activities

were intrinsic motivating and why others were not—activities aren’t just intrinsically motivating per se,

they are intrinsically motivating because they satisfy basic psychological needs. Behaviors such as curiosity

based exploration, playing, dinner parties, and mountain climbing suddenly made sense, once they could

be interpreted as satisfying basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 231). Behaviors that had no

apparent contingency could now be interpreted as energized by basic psychological needs.

SDT researchers were able to find 3 needs that made a meaningful interpretation of their findings. At

least one of these needs must be satisfied in an activity, for it to be able to give people pleasure and

enjoyment (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 231). These needs are innate nutriments, rather than acquired motives—

in this way the needs are to be understood as universal and expected to be evident across all cultures and

all ages (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 7). Evidence so far has also supported this hypothesis that the 3 basic

psychological needs are indeed evident across cultures and ages examined thus far (Chen et al., 2015, p.

233)



Side 6 af 41

The three basic psychological needs conceptualized in SDT are: 1) autonomy, 2) competence, and 3)

relatedness (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004, p. 25). Each of these will be unfolded in the three sections below.

We begin with the need for autonomy.

2.2.1 A Psychological Need for Autonomy

SDT theorizes the need for autonomy as self-governance or self-regulation. This means that there is an

innate organismic urge toward being one’s own regulator and governor and that when the individual act

autonomously he/she experiences joy. Thus autonomy, for SDT researchers, refers to being the perceived

source of one’s own behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2006, p. 1562). Autonomy’s opposite, heteronomy, is theorized

as behavioral regulation controlled by factors or contingencies external to the self; or inner regulation that

does not have self-endorsement (Ryan & Deci, 2006, p. 1557).

SDT distinguishes autonomy from independence, acknowledging that one can choose to be dependent

(be dependent autonomously) and one can be forced to be independent (be independent

heteronomously)—actually, SDT researchers have found, paradoxically, that people tend to depend on

others who support their autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2006, p. 1562-1563).

SDT theorizes autonomy as a matter of degree; behavior can range from fully autonomous (self-

determined) to fully heteronomous (nonself-determined). SDT classifies the spectrum in between

autonomy and heteronomy in a continuum of relative autonomy, like in the model below.



Side 7 af 41

Figure 1.

TYPE OF

MOTIVATION

Amotivation

Extrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic

Motivation

TYPE OF

REGULATION

Non-

regulation

External

Regulation

Introjected

Regulation

Identified

Regulation

Integrated

Regulation

Intrinsic

Regulation

QUALITY OF

BEHAVIOR

Nonself-

determined

Self-

determined

PERCEIVED

LOCUS OF

CAUSALITY

Impersonal External Somewhat

External

Somewhat

Internal

Internal Internal

The model above is from: (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 16) with the added ‘perceived locus of causality’ from

(Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 61).

At the left end of the continuum is amotivation, which refers to the state of no intention to act.

Amotivation is a result of either feeling: 1) unable to achieve outcomes, because of a lack of contingency; 2)

unable to achieve outcomes, because of lack of perceived competence; and 3) not valuing the activity nor

its outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 17). Amotivation is in this way, theorized as neither external nor

internal motivation, but rather a state of learned helplessness, apathy, and indifference (Vallerand et al.,

1992, p. 1007). Therefore is amotivation’s perceived locus of causality impersonal.

Apart from amotivation, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation refers to classifications of motivated behavior.

Intrinsic motivation, at the right end of the continuum, represents the archetype of autonomous or self-

determined behavior—being a state of doing an activity out of inherent satisfaction and interest (Ryan &

Deci, 2002, p. 17). The individual is neither forced nor influenced to act, but rather does so because it feels

good.

When it comes to extrinsic motivation there are different kinds of extrinsic motivation, varying in their

relative integration in the person, where external regulation represent the least integrated and



Side 8 af 41

autonomous regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 17). External regulation is classic motivation scheme of

incentives, where one is motivated by obtaining rewards or avoiding punishments (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p.

17). External regulation is experienced as controlled and alien by the individual because the perceived locus

of causality is on the external regulation. External regulation is operant theorists’ motivation per excellence

and it was, therefore, the kind of motivation typically sat in opposition to intrinsic motivation in early lab

studies (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 61-62).

Introjected regulation is the next extrinsic motivation in the continuum and refers to an external

regulation internalized, but in a shallow sense, where it is not accepted as one’s own. In that sense, it is

internalized in the person, but not integrated into the self. It is conceptualized as a largely controlling

regulation and introjection-based behaviors are performed to: 1) avoid shame and/or guilt; or 2) to attain

ego enhancements and feelings of worth (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 17). In the light of that, people who are

motivated by introjection act because they feel pressured to do so, or they would lose face if they did not.

By that token Introjection refers to a form of extrinsic motivation that regulates by contingency to self-

esteem and pride—therefore introjection is experienced as somewhat external perceived locus of causality

(Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 62).

Identified regulation is a more autonomous form of external motivation than introjection because it is

based on accepting and/or valuing a behavior or behavioral outcome as personally important. Therefore,

the person has accepted the regulation of it as his/her own (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 62). A girl who

memorizes the scientific names of animals because she sees it as relevant to understanding the animal

kingdom, evolution, and nature, which she values as a life goal, has identified with the value of this learning

activity.

Integrated regulation is the last form of extrinsic motivation and the most self-determined. Integration

is when identified regulations are fully assimilated into the sense of self. Integrated regulation is when

extrinsic motivation becomes autonomous because they are aligned with the self (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.

62). Integrated regulation has many of the same benefits as intrinsic motivation because it is both self-

determined and unconflicted with the self, it is, however, still extrinsic, because it is behaviors done for

their instrumental value with respect to outcomes, rather than for inner satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.

62).

Each classification along the continuum of self-determination or autonomy can be understood as a

category of satisfaction of the need for autonomy. The left side of the spectrum has regulations that thwart

the need for autonomy, resulting in less than optimal well-being and performance. Whereas the right side



Side 9 af 41

of the spectrum is associated with more autonomy supportive regulations, resulting in more optimal

performance and well-being, with integrated regulation and intrinsic regulation being the prototypes of

optimal regulations (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 61-62).

The need for autonomy is supported under conditions where people experience an internal perceived

locus of causality, volition, and perceived choice. The internal perceived locus of causality (I-PLOC) concerns

people feeling like they are the initiators of their own behavior (e.g. I drew this giraffe because I wanted

to). When people feel volitional, people feel free and unpressured by external forces (e.g. while reading I

felt a relaxed sense of personal freedom). Volitional behavior is opposed to nonvolitional behavior (e.g.

while reading I felt pressured, forced, and pushed). Perceived choice is when people experience that they

have opportunities to choose what to do (e.g. I could choose whether I wanted to read or draw) (Reeve,

2002, p. 197-198).

2.2.2 A Psychological Need for Competence

SDT theorizes the need for competence as an innate organismic urge to effect and master one’s

environment—a concept based on White’s effectance motivation theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 31). Elliot et

al. (2002) go as far as positing that effectance motivation and the need for competence may be viewed as

essentially equivalent because they are used interchangeably in SDT (p. 361).

The need for competence is conceptualized on the basis that it is inherently enjoyable to engage

effectively with one’s social and physical environment and that there is joy in being a cause of change in

one’s surroundings (Elliot et al., 2002, p. 362). Therefore, the need for competence is a part of intrinsic

motivation—satisfying the need for competence is one of the elements that makes something intrinsically

motivating. White describes satisfaction of effectance motivation—the need for competence—

experientially as ‘a feeling of efficacy’, which is a pleasurable affective experience (Elliot et al., 2002, p.

362).

The infant’s natural joy in shaking a rattle to make noise can be viewed as the need for competence or

effectance motivation in effect—the infant enjoys being the cause of something; in this case noise (Elliot et

al., 2002, p. 363). The need for competence is what drives people to investigate, manipulate, and master

their environments. The child’s curiosity and exploratory play are motivated by the need for competence,

the organismic urge to effect and master the surrounding world (Elliot et al., 2002, p. 362-363).



Side 10 af 41

Research in this area has shown that infants detect and enjoy acting on contingent interactions and that

they are distressed and frustrated faced with noncontingency (Skinner & Edge, 2002, p. 301).

Noncontingency has been demonstrated to be stressful and weaken the immune system—as an example of

the importance for the satisfaction of the need for competence, the sense that one can effectively effect

one’s environment. This is for example theorized by Seligman’s learned helplessness (Skinner & Edge, 2002,

p. 301).

Therefore, the concept of perceived locus of causality (what in SDT is called PLOC) is very central to

understanding the need for competence. If people do not feel that they can effect change in their

environments, they become amotivated (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 17). The PLOC concept is closely linked to

White’s concept of ‘sense of competence’, which is not a person’s actual abilities and skills, but rather their

perceived competence—understood as their cognitive map representing their confidence in their skills and

abilities (Elliot et al., 2002, p. 363). One’s perceived locus of causality concerns both the need for autonomy

(one’s self-regulation) and the need for competence (one’s mastering of environment)—you cannot have

an internal PLOC without being both self-determining and confident in your ability to affect your physical

and social environment.

The psychological need for competence is thought to have evolutional function of being a factor that

helps those mammals who have it (humans amongst others) adapt to their surroundings by developing

skills and abilities (Elliot et al., 2002, p. 362). In this regard, it is important to note that behavior motivated

by the need for competence is engaged, not because it results in evolutionary beneficial outcomes

(adaption), but rather because of the immediate joy of being a cause (Elliot et al., 2002, p. 362). This can be

likened to the motivation for sex; sexual behavior is engaged, because of pleasure that accompanies the

activity itself and not the resulting reproduction.

The need for competence is conceptualized as an evolving entity. The infant seeks to effect change of

general sort (making noise and getting a response); where the more mature child seeks to effect change of

the more specific sort (throwing the ball through the hoop) (Elliot et al., 2002, p. 363).

The need for competence is supported under conditions that enhance people’s perceived competence.

This has been exemplified in various studies and in different settings. In educational settings competence

supporting features include: receiving task oriented feedback, teachers emphasizing activities interesting

aspects or importance, teachers giving helpful hints, and allocated time for independent work (Reeve,

2002, p. 187-188). In game learning settings competence support included encouraging positive

expectancies and a learning orientation (Sheldon & Filak, 2008, p. 272).



Side 11 af 41

2.2.3 A Psychological Need for Relatedness

SDT theorizes relatedness as feeling connected to others, having a sense of belongingness, and feeling

caring and cared for (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 7). Relatedness is a reflection of the organismic integrative

tendency to be in harmony with one’s social world—a psychological need to feel secure in one’s relations

to others (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 7).

SDT suggest that the need for relatedness plays a more distal role for intrinsic motivation than the need

for autonomy and the need for competence does. This is because people can maintain high intrinsic

motivation in many solitary activities without relating to others while doing them. Of course in some

interpersonal activities satisfaction of the need for relatedness is necessary to maintain intrinsic motivation

(Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 14).

It seems that a secure relational base provides the needed setting—a distal support—for intrinsic

motivation that makes the innate growth tendency’s unfolding more likely and robust (Deci & Ryan, 2000,

p. 235). This has been evident in experiments with infants, where a secure attachment to a caregiver has

been an indicator of how much exploratory behavior the infant displayed (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 14).

The need for relatedness can be understood as people feeling an inherent pleasure in being connected

to others and a desire to interact with social partners (Skinner et al., 2002, p. 301). Simply stated, the need

for relatedness is that it feels good to experience oneself as connected to others.

In a review of social activities that might contribute to a general sense of relatedness, Reis et al. (2000)

found seven types of behaviors:

1. communicating about personally relevant matters,

2. participating in shared activities,

3. having a group of friends with whom one can spend informal social time,

4. feeling understood and appreciated,

5. participating in pleasant or otherwise enjoyable activities,

6. avoiding arguments and conflicts that create distance and feelings of disengagement with

significant others, and

7. avoiding self-conscious or insecure feelings that direct attention toward self and away from

others.

(The list above is taken from Reis et al., 2000, p. 422)



Side 12 af 41

The above-listed behaviors represent some of the factors that can contribute to the satisfaction of the

need of relatedness. Thus, the need for relatedness is theorized to be satisfied when, for example, social

interactions give people the feeling that they are understood and appreciated. Oppositely the need for

relatedness is theorized to be thwarted if social interactions give people the feeling that they are neither

understood nor appreciated.

Research suggest that if people perceive their social contact as supportive, this allows people to act

more self-determined, actively, and perseverant in the face of obstacles (Furrer & Skinner, 2003, p. 148-

149). This suggests that satisfaction of the need for relatedness is essential to development and coping.

This was also exemplified by the above-mentioned study with the exploring infants.

Educational research has shown this effect in school. Here satisfaction of the need for relatedness was

tapped by measures of quality student-teacher relationships, classroom climate, as well as feelings of

acceptance, belonging, inclusion, importance, and interpersonal support. These measures have been linked

to academic outcomes such as effort, engagement, interest in school, self-efficacy, success expectations,

achievement values, positive affect, task goal orientation, and school marks (Furrer & Skinner, 2003, p.

149).

So supportive conditions for the need for relatedness, like the needs for autonomy and competence

play an important role in intrinsic motivation, development, performance, and coping.



Side 13 af 41

3. Analyzing Current Topics in Danish Education with Self-

Determination Theory

There have been various Danish debates about different parts of the Danish educational system. In this

analysis, I will dive into a few contemporary debates and investigate how SDT can be used to see how these

various issues could affect educational activities, outcomes, and students.

The first debate I will investigate is the debate about qualifying grades in upper secondary school and it

will be examined with respect to the need for autonomy.

3.1 The Psychological Need for Autonomy and the Danish Debate about

Introducing Qualifying Grades to Upper Secondary School

Grades seem to take a special place in various educational systems, here amongst the Danish. This is

probably also why grades are so often debated in the realms of education. One of the current Danish

debates regarding grades is about having certain qualifying grades to upper secondary school

(adgangsgivende karakterer til gymnasiet) (b.dk; altinget.dk; nyheder.tv2.dk). Qualifying grades is not a new

idea in the Danish educational system and higher education in Denmark has had qualifying grades and

certificates as admission requirements for a long time. The new thing about having certain grades as

admission requirements for upper secondary school is that it increases the consequence of students’

performance and grades in lower secondary school (folkeskolen). This means that lower secondary school

examination (folkeskolens afgangseksamen) becomes a high-stakes test for the students. So how would this

affect the students’ need for autonomy in lower secondary school?

According to Reeve, the need for autonomy is nurtured by volition, perceived choice, and internal locus

of causality (Reeve, 2002, p. 198). So let us investigate how each of these would be affected by an

increased consequence of performance and grades in lower secondary school.

3.1.1 Qualifying Grades and Their Effect on Students’ Volition

Volition refers to feeling willing or non-pressured by social-contextual factors to engage in an activity

(Reeve, 2002, p. 197). If grades were to determine student’s future opportunities, then this would increase

their consequences for the student—making lower secondary school examination a high-stakes test.



Side 14 af 41

Increasing consequence of grades would increase the pressure the students feel to perform well in school

(Ryan & Weinstein, 2009). This would be especially true for students, who perceive themselves as weak in

school.

Since everything from telling students that their performance will be evaluated to having competitive

features decreases volition (Reeve, 2002, p. 197), it would mean that the volition part of autonomy would

be thwarted by introducing qualifying grades to upper secondary school.

The students would feel a higher pressure to participate in educational activities. This would mean that

students participate in educational activities more because they feel they have to, than because they feel

like educational activities are important or interesting—which would undermine intrinsic motivation. This

would generate unfavorable motivational orientations toward education, since more intrinsic forms of

motivations (e.g. students engaging because of interest and importance) are linked to better learning

outcomes, better adaption, and more positive emotions in the classroom, than more extrinsic forms of

motivations (e.g. students engaging because of external regulations and feeling pressured to do so) (Deci et

al., 1991).

Introducing qualifying grades to upper secondary school (high-stakes testing) can thus lead to

associating learning with pressure, rather than interest and enjoyment—more extrinsic forms of motivation

and even amotivation. The more extrinsic forms of motivations are linked to higher school dropout rates,

more anxiety, poorer coping with failure, and lower self-esteem (Deci et al., 1991, p. 332).

Conditions in which one’s reputation or self-worth are contingent on one’s performance can be referred

to as ego-involving and ego involvement is associated with controlled forms of motivation (e.g. extrinsic

and introjected) (Ryan & Weinstein, 2009, p. 227). Grades can foster “ego involvement”, rather than a

“task involvement” because they concern the students with what is beyond the task—the grading,

evaluation, and its consequences for the student—rather than the task itself. This is because tests can be

experienced as events with high controlling functional significance, when there are sanctions and rewards

involved (Ryan & Weinstein, 2009, p. 226), such as qualification to upper secondary school. In addition, ego

involvement tends to foster more superficial forms of learning and is associated with people exerting the

least required effort to gain rewards or avoid sanctions. Furthermore, ego involvement enhances anxiety,

undermines intrinsic motivation, and leads to more impoverished learning (Ryan & Weinstein, 2009, p. 226-

227). Also, if students experience high-stakes tests—such as the examination of lower secondary school

(folkeskolens afgangseksamen) would be if qualifying grades are introduced to upper secondary school—to

be too challenging or if they receive highly negative feedback, this tends to discourage further effort and

thereby has an amotivating effect on them (Ryan & Weinstein, 2009, p. 226).



Side 15 af 41

In a survey from the Danish Institute of Public Well-being (Statens Institut for Folkesundhed) 31 percent

of the 70.000 surveyed students from upper secondary school stated that grades were very important to

them (at karakterer har en meget stor betydning for dem) (Weirsøe, 2015, p. 6). This finding suggests that

many students are ego involved because of grades.

This also relates to where the reason and meaning of the educational activities are derived, which can

be from personal values and interest (e.g. “this is interesting and important to me”) or external factors,

such as grades (e.g. “this is important to get a good grade”). Where interest and importance turns the

student toward task involvement and deep conceptual learning, grades can turn the student toward being

tested, which has been correlated with poorer conceptual understanding and lower interest (Deci et al.,

1991, p. 332).

3.1.2 Qualifying Grades and Their Effect on Students’ Perceived Choice

Perceived choice means that students are afforded decision-making flexibility and opportunities to choose

what to do (Reeve, 2002, p. 197). Students are not offered much choice, if the only way to get admission to

an upper secondary school would be to receive a certain level of grades. Also, their future decision-making

flexibility and opportunities are now dependent on their performance because if they do not make the

grade, they can be left with more limited choices in the future—this, of course, furthers the feeling of

pressure on the students and their performance.

Since many positions in society today can only be obtained by having graduated upper secondary

school, it means that if students want to have the possibilities to take these positions, they have to perform

well enough to get good enough grades to get admission to upper secondary school. This could leave the

students feeling like pawns controlled by external factors in the education system, rather than

themselves—forced to engage in educational activities and perform at a certain level. This refers to the

internal perceived locus of causality—another part of autonomy.

3.1.3 Qualifying Grades and Their Effect on Students’ Perceived Locus of Causality

Internal perceived locus of causality refers to students feeling that their behavior is initiated and regulated

by themselves and not external forces (Reeve, 2002, p. 197). If students experience an external locus of

causality it means that they feel that they are more an effect than a cause, it means that they feel like

pawns controlled by external factors in the educational system.



Side 16 af 41

Grades can represent such an external factor in the educational system. This is because grades can

foster participation in educational activities from the student, but it is likely that the students feel they

ought to participate (introjection) because of the consequences it could have for their future, rather than

leading to students participating because of sheer interest (intrinsic) or participating would be important

(identified or integrated) to their personal goals.

Even if good grades become a personal goal for a student, it is an extrinsic goal, focusing on an extrinsic

outcome, rather than an intrinsic experience. Deci and Ryan (2000) found that autonomous reasons (e.g.

“math is interesting” or “being good at math is important to me”), relative to heteronomous reasons (e.g.

“getting a good grade in math is important), for students’ educational pursuits were correlated with

conceptual understanding, personal adjustment, behavioral persistence, and positive coping (p. 240).

Therefore, if grades influence students to be extrinsic regulated and set extrinsic goals, it not only affects

their motivation and performance, but it could also affect their causality orientations (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p.

241).

Students’ causality orientations relate to how they regulate their behavior and the more they regulate

their behavior by controls and directives of how they should behave, the more control oriented their

causality orientation will be (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 241). Control orientation is associated with more public

self-consciousness, more feeling pressured, and poorer well-being than autonomy orientation (Deci &

Ryan, 2000, p. 241). The more students’ causality orientation moves toward being controlled orientation,

the more the need for autonomy can be assumed to be thwarted. A controlled orientation means that

students are moved more by outer forces than inner forces (e.g. moved by social demands and directives,

rather than personal interests and values).

Furthermore, grades can for some students foster an external locus of causality. Because, even though a

student can determine their own effort, they are not graded by their effort, but by their performance,

which can be influenced by various factors, such as anxiety, nervousness, and confidence—things that

sometimes lie outside the student’s perceived control. This means that some students may feel that

matters beyond their control determine their grades.

In addition, the student’s aptitude for a certain subject matter, like math or Danish, may vary, and

students can end up feeling helpless when it comes to improving their grades because no matter how hard

they try, they always seem to receive the same grade. This can occur because the Danish grading system is

not graded from a student’s relative development (e.g. receive grades according to improvement or decline

of one’s performance), the Danish grading system is graded by absolute grading (e.g. all students are

graded according to their fulfilment of standardized goals) (pub.uvm.dk). This means that each student has



Side 17 af 41

to live up to the same standards as everyone else, which favor students who have natural aptitudes for the

subject matter over students who do not and also favors students who come from academic and

resourceful homes over students who do not. In that way, grades are to some extent influenced by factors

lying outside the student’s control.

Many students, thereby, experience grades as something lying somewhat outside their control. This

effect could be hypothesized to be increased by the systems revolving around grading. Many examinations

use randomized assignments, with little or no aids from books, technology and such, and overly rely on

memorization. This means that there are many factors in the examination process that lies beyond the

students’ control, which can further a perceived external locus of control in students.

3.1.4 Summary

So to sum up, students’ need for autonomy is thwarted by introducing qualifying grades to upper secondary

school because grades decrease students experienced volition, perceived choice, and internal perceived

locus of control.

The thwarting effects of grades can be somewhat remedied though by autonomy supportive teachers

that explain why material is interesting and important to learn beyond their application in an examination

(Reeve, 2002, p. 199). Making school work more engaging by having assignments and materials that are

worthwhile and interesting (e.g. that are personally relevant to students, lets them exercise their personal

influence, and provides opportunities for them to choose) can also help foster task involvement, rather

than ego involvement, which can also help diffuse the experienced pressure of examination and being

graded (Reeve, 2002, p. 199). Of course, remedying the effects of grading on the need for autonomy will

make grading less autonomy-thwarting, but qualifying grades will still as a phenomena be autonomy-

thwarting because it decreases students’ experienced volition, perceived choice, and internal perceived

locus of control. To quote Ryan & Weinstein (2009) on the subject:

“From an SDT perspective it is not tests, per se, that are the problem, but rather the stakes contingently

attached to them. Assessments can have informational value, especially when used along with other

performance indicators. […] For students, they can help identify gaps in fundamental knowledge, or lack of

progress in specific competencies. However, when high stakes are attached to tests, their informational value

becomes corrupted. HST [high-stakes testing] policies do ‘re-form’ educational practices by placing excessive

emphasis on outcomes, and a corresponding inattention to the optimal processes and best practice methods of

educating our young.” (p. 230)



Side 18 af 41

3.2 The Psychological Need for Competence and the Danish Debate about Student

Plans

Student plans (elevplaner) have been a much-debated part of the Danish public school since 2006, when

they were introduced as a tool to strengthen continuous evaluation of students’ learning outcomes, help

teachers practice differentiated teaching, and improve the cooperation between parents and school (EVA,

2007, p. 11). The student plans must include a description of the student’s learning outcomes of different

classes, as well as ways in which teachers, students, and parents can help improve these outcomes through

agreements on future-oriented goals and follow-up sessions (EVA, 2007, p. 11).

The laws about student plans have been discussed and been suggested to be revised a number of times,

most recently in 2014, where the conditions for the student plans—now digital—was decided

(Retsinformation.dk A).

Much of the debate regarding student plans has been about their functionality, how they are used, who

they are for, the students inclusion in the student plans, and the resources required for teachers to able to

use them optimally, so they don’t just become tedious documentation with no actual effect on what

happens in the classroom (Kvalitets- og Tilsynsstyrelsen, 2013).

In this section, I will investigate what an SDT perspective with the need for competence can contribute

to how we can understand student plans.

To investigate how student plans would affect the students’ need for competence, we need to

investigate how they affect the contextual element in school that nurtures students’ need for competence,

namely structures (Reeve, 2002, p. 195). Structure refers to a certain part of the teacher’s instructional

style concerning providing clear expectations, adequate information, and ways to achieve the desired result

(Jang et al., 2010, p. 589). The opposite of structure would be if the teacher were confusing and

contradictory, didn’t communicate clear directions and expectations, and asked for outcomes without

providing ways to attain them.

Within classroom management literature teacher-provided structure has been studied as establishing

order, introducing procedures, communicating policies about how to get things done, and minimizing

misbehavior while encouraging engagement and achievement (Jang et al., 2010, p. 589). Teacher-provided

structure helps students develop perceived control over their school outcomes. This means that it helps



Side 19 af 41

students develop an internal locus of causality (I-PLOC), perceived competence, mastery motivation, self-

efficacy, and an optimistic attributional style (Jang et al., 2010, p. 589).

Student plans have the potential to influence structure in a few ways. First, we will examine and discuss

the intended use of student plans and how this would influence structure. Second, we will examine and

discuss the actual use of student plans and how this influences structure.

3.2.1 Intended Use of Student Plans

The intended use of student plans is understood as threefold: 1) as a reflection tool for the teacher, 2) as a

way to make students feel more responsible for their own learning, and 3) as a way to improve the

cooperation between parents and school (Kvalitets- og Tilsynsstyrelsen, 2013, p. 9).

Student plans can be a positive aid, as a reflection tool, in helping the teacher differentiate their

teaching and assignments, so they can provide students’ with more optimal challenging material and

assignments. Optimal challenging material and assignments would be more favorable to the students’ need

for competence, than over-challenging or under-challenging material that would either result in lowering

students’ perceived competence or boredom and disengagement from school (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009, p.

141).

Furthermore, student plans can help teachers give students appropriate feedback on their academic

progress in a way that furthers the students’ feelings of efficacy and promotes success (Niemiec & Ryan,

2009, p. 139). Student plans can help teachers achieve this, when they are used as an informational record

that track progress and show students how their abilities and skills have improved. Of course, this would

mean that teachers had to downplay the measuring aspect of student plans, where students are compared

to their progress on the common goals—Fælles forenklede mål (UVM.dk)—which don’t necessarily

promote feelings of progress and efficacy.

The student plans are intended to be somewhat the students’ plans, which means that it is intended

that the students are included in the process of making the student plan. This means that students in

collaboration with teachers decide goals and approaches to achieve them (Kvalitets- og Tilsynsstyrelsen,

2013, p. 21). This is often not realized in practice and the student plan ends up being a plan for the student,

instead of the student’s plan (Kvalitets- og Tilsynsstyrelsen, 2013, p. 21).

Still, according to SDT including students in the process of making the student plan could have positive

outcomes. According to Niemiec and Ryan (2009): “[…] students who feel competent, but not autonomous,



Side 20 af 41

will not maintain intrinsic motivation for learning:” (p. 135). In light of this, supporting students’ need for

autonomy, by giving them some influence on their goals in school, can help maintain students’ intrinsic

motivation for school activities. In addition to that, it would also have positive effects on the students’

perceived competence because it promotes an internal locus of causality (I-PLOC), which means that the

students feel they have an effectance on their school life. This can be likened to Deci et al.’s (1991) claim

that congratulating students’ performance on a self-initiated activity is likely to promote feelings of

competence and intrinsic motivation, whereas praising them on what they have been “told to do” is likely

to lead students to feeling controlled and promote a more external locus of causality (E-PLOC) (p. 333-334).

With this in mind, including students in the process of making student plans is from a SDT perspective a

good idea—it is from this perspective better to make plans with the students, than plans for the students.

The third part of the intended use of student plans is to improve cooperation between parents and

teachers in helping students learn. According to Vallerand & Ratelle (2002), parents represent a global

motivational factor because their effect on children during upbringing extends across several life domains,

for example school (p. 48). This means that parents affect their children’s overall motivational attitudes to a

very large degree. Since children’s overall motivational attitude also affects their contextual motivational

attitude toward school, parents have an impact on children’s school motivation and attitude. Also, Grolnick

et al. (1997) concluded that parents’ involvement in their children’s schooling were associated with

children’s school success (p. 538), which would mean that better cooperation between school and parents

would probably affect students’ need for competence positively. Parent involvement measures have

included reading at home, attendance at school events, and helping with homework, but according to

Grolnick et al. (1997), parent involvement should be defined “as dedication of resources by the parent to

the child within a given domain” (p. 538), in our case school. Grolnick et al. (1997) defines three categories

of parent involvement (p. 538), which I will use to analyze how student plans can involve parents in their

children’s schooling.

The first category of parent involvement concerns parents’ behavior, meaning attending teacher-parent

conferences and other school activities (Grolnick et al, 1997, p. 538). The student plan has been described

as a tool that qualifies the teacher-parent conferences because it helps teachers and parents prepare for it,

so they are ready for a specific dialog and know about the issues to be discussed (Kvalitets- og

Tilsynsstyrelsen, 2013, p. 10). In that way, student plans could positively affect parents’ behavioral

involvement in their children’s schooling.

The second category of parent involvement concerns parents’ cognitive-intellectual involvement, which

could be taking the child to the library, talking about current events, or other intellectually stimulating



Side 21 af 41

activities (Grolnick et al., 1997, p. 538). The student plans can help teachers discuss this intellectual

stimulation with the parents’ through issues raised in the study plans. Furthermore, the parents’ can get an

idea of which kind of stimulations they favorably could provide for their child through the student plan (e.g.

working with evolution in school, parents could take their child to the museum of natural history).

The third category of parent involvement Grolnick et al. (1997) discuss is personal involvement, which

refers to knowing about and keeping up to date with what goes on in the child in school (p. 538). Student

plans could be a good tool to encourage this kind of personal involvement from parents’, since the student

plans includes a description of exactly this. Student plans could thereby help parents inquire children about

their school experience and maybe ask questions they would not be able to if it had not been for the

student plan.

In the above-described ways, the student plan can help parents get a more nuanced picture of their

children’s school life and help them become more involved behaviorally, cognitive-intellectually, and

personally.

From the intended use of the student plans, it sounds like they are a great initiative that can positively

affect the students’ need for competence, but in their actual use, they also have some problematic aspects,

which we will now investigate.

3.2.2 Actual Use of Student Plans

The actual use of the student plans gives a different picture than the intended use and would have a

different effect on the students’ need for competence. The student plans have been criticized for taking

time away from the teachers’ preparation time and time with students (Kristeligt-folkeblad.dk). This

critique has been substantiated by evaluations of teachers’ use of student plans, where their actual use has

turned out to be far from the political intentions (Kvalitets- og Tilsynsstyrelsen, 2013; EVA, 2007; SOPHIA-

tt.org). If the actual use of student plans were that they are a waste of teachers’ time and that they take

time away from teachers’ work in the classroom, then this would have unfavorable effects on the student’s

need for competence.

Since structure is the nurturing contextual element in school for students’ need for competence (Reeve,

2002, p. 195), then having teachers documenting information that does not help them prepare classes or

differentiate their instructions, would take valuable time away from their preparations for class. This would

probably affect the quality of the structure in their teaching for the worse, which would affect the students’



Side 22 af 41

need for competence negatively because students’ would experience less contingency in class. This is along

the lines of teachers’ claim that the student plan documentation takes time and energy that could be used

better in preparation and with students (Kristeligt-folkeblad.dk).

Another critique concerns the way student plans have been implemented as an external controlling

demand to teachers (SOPHIA-tt.org). This could lead to teachers feeling more pressured. According to

Niemiec and Ryan (2009), one of the major reasons teachers are controlling with students is because of

external pressure (p. 140). This means that pressuring the teachers will make them act more controlling

with students, which would affect the students’ perceived locus of causality toward the more external (E-

PLOC). External locus of causality are associated with lower perceived competence and extrinsic forms of

motivation (figure 1). Niemiec and Ryan (2009) describes it this way:

“Thus, to the extent that administrators and policy makers fail to consider the motivation of both teachers and

students alike, and instead rely on controlling contingencies to produce ‘accountability’, the more all those

involved in the learning process will suffer decrements in motivation and learning outcomes.” (p. 140)

This description sound like the think-tank SOPHIA’s critique of student plans, which describes student plans

as a New Public Management ‘accountability’ initiative with contractual relations between national

institutions and citizens (SOPHIA-tt.org). The student plans are to some extent viewed as a control

instrument for school leaders and administration to evaluate and control their teachers (Kvalitets- og

Tilsynsstyrelsen, 2013, p. 11), which substantiates the think-tank SOPHIA’s claim that student plans are a

form of ‘accountability policy’ (SOPHIA-tt.org).

In addition to this, student plans are in actual use more concerned with the child’s current academic

status in a class, rather than goals, record of progress, and approaches to developing skills and abilities

(Kvalitets- og Tilsynsstyrelsen, 2013, p. 5 & 13). This means that student plans often end up being used as a

form of evaluation of the student abilities compared to common goals (Fælles mål) of class. This form

evaluation could likely decrease some students’ perceived competence, since it is concerned with

comparing students to goals, rather than tracking their progress. In this way the student plan can end up

emphasizing deficiencies and lack, rather than progress and improvement. The students could perceive this

as negative feedback. Negative feedback has been in SDT studies found to decrease intrinsic motivation by

decreasing perceived competence, which can leave people feeling amotivated and helpless (Deci et al.,

1991, p. 334).

Therefore, the actual use of student plans are in many ways very different from their intended use and

this has different effects on the students’ need for competence.



Side 23 af 41

3.2.3 Summary

To sum up, even though the intended use of student plans could have many favorable effects on students

need for competence, their actual use often negates these effects and come with many unfavorable effects

instead. For example, the intended student inclusion in the making of student plans could help students

generate an internal perceived locus of causality, but in the actual use of student plans, students are rarely

included. Also, since student plans have been implemented in a controlling fashion on the teachers, this

could lead teachers to be more controlling with their students, which would affect students’ need for

competence unfavorably.

3.3 The Psychological Need for Relatedness and the Danish Debate about Inclusion

Inclusion (inklusion) in the Danish public school (grade 0-9th) has been a political reality since 2012, when it

was decided that the Danish public school should include 96% of all children in school (lovændring om

inklusion, 2012). Inclusion means that children with special needs—who previously went to special classes

or special schools—have to be included in regular school classes, so that children with diagnoses and

children without all are in the same classroom. The children who are included can have diagnostics such as

ADHD, Asperger Syndrome, or other psychological difficulties or handicaps, or they can suffer from physical

handicaps, or just be maladjusted in general (DR.dk A).

Much of the inclusion debate has been about regular schools and teachers having the adequate

resources to make the classrooms work with children with special needs included (Dr.dk B). Also, a great

deal of the debate has been about segregation of children with special needs from other children and

society (DR.dk A).

In this section, I will investigate what an SDT perspective with the need for relatedness can contribute to

how we can understand inclusion.

To investigate the need for relatedness, we need to investigate the students’ different relationships with

social partners in the classroom, namely teachers and peers. The approach to investigate relatedness in the

classroom by examining students’ relationships with teachers and peers is inspired by Furrer and Skinner

(2003). Since, inclusion has consequences for two set of students, that is newly included students with

special needs and regular students, we will examine each of their relationships with teachers and peers.

Let’s start by examining students with special needs relationships with their teachers.



Side 24 af 41

3.3.1 Special Needs Students’ Relationships with Teachers

Special needs students’ relationships with their teachers are often characterized by the fact that they have

special needs. That is, the teacher has to give them extra attention or take other extra precautions to help

them function and thrive in the classroom. They might have ADHD and need to be stimulated more by the

teacher than regular students or they might have Asperger Syndrome and need special attention when it

comes to relating to the other children in the classroom. Depending on the special need, these students

need different degrees of extra precautions from the teacher to experience their relationship to them as

supportive.

A major issue in the Danish inclusion debate has been about teachers not being equipped to deal with

these needs satisfactorily (DR.dk B). Without adequate education to know how to deal with ADHD,

Asperger Syndrome or other special needs, teachers can easily end up neglecting these students leaving

them feeling alienated and disengaged from schoolwork. These students’ need for relatedness would be

satisfied more in the classroom if these students feel understood and appreciated by their teachers. But if

teachers do not understand the nature of their special need and do not know how to deal effectively with

it, chances are high that they end up feeling misunderstood and rejected by their teachers—feelings

associated with a thwarted need for relatedness, which are related to poorer academic engagement (Furrer

& Skinner, 2003, p. 158).

Glaring examples include violence in classroom with attacks on the teacher and peers from children with

special needs, heavily suggests that the concerning students feel neglected and rejected (DR.dk B).

Furthermore, a report from the National Association of Autism (Landsforeningen Autisme) found that 6 out

of 10 students with autism had stayed at home in short or long periods because of school refusal

(skoleforbi) (DR.dk C). Another example that suggests that some of the special needs students’ need for

relatedness (feeling understood, appreciated, and important) has been thwarted in the regular classroom.

Often lack of resources are also mentioned as a huge part of the problem with inclusion—resources in

the form of extra personnel, time, and facilities (DR.dk B). This means that even if teachers have adequate

knowledge to deal effectively with a student’s special need, they might not have time to actually do it,

which does not help nurturing special needs students’ need for relatedness.

According to Furrer and Skinner (2003), the teacher-student relationship is very important to the

student’s sense of belonging, engagement and performance (p. 150). If children do not feel cared for and

close to their teachers it can be predicted that they have lower positive coping, engagement and relative

autonomy (Furrer & Skinner, 2003, p. 150). Special needs students’ are, in the current inclusion situation,



Side 25 af 41

likely to get their need for relatedness thwarted in their relationship to their teachers. So what about their

relationship to their peers?

3.3.2 Special Needs Students’ Relationship with Peers

Special needs students and their relationships with their ‘regular’ peers can often be problematic because

the nature of the special needs can be difficult to understand by their regular peers. Often children with

special needs also have social problems, which makes them vulnerable to bullying and teasing by other

children. Special needs students are also at risk to be ostracized by their peers because of their differences

(Tonsberg, 2013, p. 19).

Special needs children have just as much a need for relatedness—understood as positive social

interaction and participating in social and class activities—as other children, but they can sometimes be

hindered in doing so by how the teachers deal with their special needs.

There are examples of attempts at inclusion, where students with autism have been placed behind

blinds as concealment from noise in a corner of the regular classroom, which furthered a feeling of

exclusion rather than inclusion and left the students feeling alone and alienated (DR.dk D). In that way,

special needs students do not feel a sense of belonging because they have physically separated from the

rest of the class and not integrated into the social class community, which could provide a sense of

belonging if they were accepted. With this in mind, special needs students are likely to feel a higher sense

of belonging in special classes where they are a part of social class community of other special needs

children (Tonsberg, 2013, p. 18). Of course, the segregation would still be there, but it would be less felt by

the child because the child would feel have a sense of belonging to the special class, rather than a sense of

alienation to a regular class.

Socially, regular peers can have problems relating and understanding the special needs student, which

might result in exclusion of the special needs student from social activities in class, lunchbreaks, and

playtime—and in worst case scenario bullying (Tonsberg 2013, p. 18-21). Frustrating the need for

relatedness over time with bullying might result in episodes of violence and anger (DR.dk B) from the

special need student (depending on their diagnoses) or it might result in school refusal (DR.dk C).

If the special need student were constantly separated from the class by isolating precautions—such as

the noise concealing blinds—then the special need student is not really included and thus their need for

relatedness would be thwarted. But inclusion does not just affect the special needs students included, it



Side 26 af 41

also affects the regular students in the classes that include them. So let us investigate how these students

might be affected by inclusion.

3.3.3 Regular Students’ Relationship with Teachers

Regular students and their relationship with their teachers are also affected by inclusion. Inclusion often

requires that the teachers differentiate their instructions and assignments according to the different needs

of students. This means that students will be treated differently and often also that special needs children

are offered more attention from the teacher than other students. If teachers take special precautions

toward special needs students, but not regular students, it could lead to regular students feeling that they

are less important than special needs students to the teacher.

Since students’ need for relatedness is nurtured by students feeling important and understood (Furrer &

Skinner, 2003, p. 150), it would be unfortunate if students began to believe that they were not as important

to their teacher because they did not have a diagnosis. Also, inclusion is likely to decrease the time each

student has with the teacher because a degree of the teacher’s time goes to dealing with special needs

students. This would probably increase the number of students feeling neglected by their teacher and thus

result in poorer satisfaction of the students’ need for relatedness. Even more so, many special needs

students can clash with other students and create classroom problems, such as noise and arguments, which

also takes time to deal with from the teacher’s side. This can worsen the classroom climate, which can be

one of the elements that give students a sense of belonging (Furrer & Skinner, 2003, p. 149). The more

problems and tension there is in the classroom, the less likely it is that students are comfortable and

relaxed there, which also contributes to nurturing the need for relatedness. This, of course, also affects the

regular students’ relationships with their peers.

3.3.4 Regular Students’ Relationship with Peers

Regular students and their relationship with their peers are affected by inclusion to the degree the social

climate changes because of the newly included special needs students. This means that it is likely that

regular students’ relationship to their peers does not change at all, but it is also likely that changes in the

classroom climate will change peer-relationships.

Sometimes special needs students can bully other students and be violent (Tonsberg, 2013, p. 19),

which can result in bullied and beaten students feeling more anxious and uncomfortable in school. Bullying



Side 27 af 41

can result in a feeling of social rejection, which has been associated with academic dissatisfaction (Furrer &

Skinner, 2003, p. 150). A hostile classroom environment with many bullying and violent episodes is likely to

make students feel less secure, embraced, cared for, understood, and accepted in the class’ social climate,

which furthers a feeling of social rejection and thus a frustration of students’ need for relatedness.

This is very problematic, in the light of research findings. Studies have concluded that “peers are the

most potent influence on students’ day-to-day behaviors in school (e.g. how much time they spend on

homework, if they enjoy coming to school each day, how they behave in the classroom)” (Furrer & Skinner,

2003, p. 150). Other studies have found that students who reported higher degrees of felt security with

their peers showed higher degrees of identity integration and higher general self-esteem (Furrer & Skinner,

2003, p. 150). These findings suggest that peer relationships are very important and that a hostile

classroom climate can generate many unfavorable results both academically and personally for the

students.

With this in mind, it seems very important to consider possible classroom climate changes, when

considering including special needs students in regular classrooms.

3.3.5 Summary

So to sum up, both regular and special needs students’ need for relatedness is likely to be frustrated by

inclusion. This is because of possible changes in relationships amongst teachers, special needs students,

and regular students. First, special needs students are likely to feel neglected by their teachers because

teachers do not have the knowledge, time, or resources to deal effectively with them, so they feel

understood and appreciated. Second, the peers of special needs students are likely to have problems

relating to them and in worst cases end up bullying them, which also can generate feelings of isolation and

social rejection. Third, regular students are likely to feel neglected by their teacher because teachers must

take extra precautions with special needs students and this takes time away from the regular students.

Fourth, regular students might experience a more hostile classroom climate and have rough clashes with

special needs students, which could make them feel more unsecure, more anxious, and more rejected.

These things would frustrate the need for relatedness and are associated with many less than optimal

educational outcomes, such as higher disaffection with school, less positive emotions in the classroom, and

lower degrees of self-esteem (Furrer & Skinner, 2003).



Side 28 af 41

4. Educational Reforms and SDT

As shown in the analysis, SDT can contribute to how we understand educational reforms, such as

introducing qualifying grades to upper secondary school, implementing student plans and introducing

inclusion in public school. Furthermore, SDT can help us see possible motivational consequences of these

reforms.

According to Robinson (2013), the educational system has been under vast reformation in the last two

decades, but will face even greater reformation in the future, if not transformation (p. 61-62). Robinson

(2013) argues that due to major changes in technology, population, and civilization educational systems will

face different challenges in the future, which will demand new models of education (p. 63-91).

These new models will have motivational and learning consequences for the students and SDT can help

examine these. SDT can, for example, help us examine the possible detrimental consequences online

education could have on students’ need for relatedness and how these can be remedied. In addition, SDT

can help us build new models of education that nurtures the needs for autonomy, competence, and

relatedness—maybe even in higher degrees than our current models of education does. If the basic needs

of SDT highlights important features in human development and learning, then these can be used to sketch

models of education that not only will fit future demands better, but also nurture human psychological

needs better.

Unfortunately, it seems that current trends—New Public Management—in educational reforms, Danish

as well as global, go the opposite way, emphasizing high-stakes testing, competition, ranking, and

accountability, which all have negative motivational consequences (Ryan & Weinstein, 2009, p. 230). Even

so, SDT can help provide an understanding of the nutriments through which healthy development and

learning occurs, which might qualify future educational reforms.



Side 29 af 41

5. Summary and Conclusions

SDT has in this paper shown that it can contribute to how we understand three current topics in Danish

education, namely qualifying grades, student plans, and inclusion.

Through SDT, some important aspects of qualifying grades and their effects on students have been

revealed. We have seen how introducing qualifying grades to upper secondary school would thwart the

students’ need for autonomy because high-stakes testing decreases students experienced volition,

perceived choice, and internal perceived locus of control. SDT has revealed how grades can help students’

foster ego-involvement, rather than task-involvement, which are shown to decrease important aspects of

learning. SDT has also given a picture of how qualifying grades can decrease the well-being, positive

emotions, and enjoyment experienced in the classroom, which decreases interest and learning measures

and, even worse, could contribute to making school a bad experience for many students. SDT has helped us

see these important motivational consequences of introducing qualifying grades to upper secondary

school.

In addition, SDT has also contributed to our understanding of student plans. SDT has helped us see

positive potentials in the intended use of student plans, but also contributed to our understanding of some

of the pitfalls of their actual use and implementation. Student plans that included students in their making

process would increase students’ internal perceived locus of causality, which would nurture both the need

for competence and the need for autonomy. Furthermore, student plans that help students track their

progress could help increase students perceived competence. Oppositely, student plans that only compare

students to common goals could lower their perceived competence. While, student plans that just end up

being documentation that takes time away from the teacher preparation time can end up negatively

affecting the teacher structure in class, which would lower students’ perceived competence. In addition to

that, the way student plans were implemented in a controlling fashion on teachers, could end up making

teachers more controlling with students, which would lower their perceived competence. In these ways,

SDT has helped us see the potentials and pitfalls of student plans and their use.

Furthermore, SDT has contributed to our understanding of inclusion. We have seen how inclusion could

affect students’ need for relatedness and seen some of the pitfalls regarding inclusion. Special needs

students that end up being ostracized and feel isolated by being included in regular school has, as the

analysis have shown, many dire consequences for that student. Furthermore, inclusion may change the

classroom climate for the worse, which has many unwanted results, amongst them: lower degrees of felt

security, academic satisfaction, and positive emotions. Students feeling neglected, alienated, or isolated



Side 30 af 41

bring many unwanted issues with them, not matter if it is regular students or special needs students. As

SDT posits, a sense of belonging provides a distal relational base of security that is needed for intrinsic

motivation and learning to occur. With this in mind, we can see how SDT has helped us discuss possible

consequences of inclusion.

Finally, SDT can contribute to qualify future educational reformation and transformation, when educational

systems are reformed to face future demands caused by changes in technology, population, and

civilization.



Side 31 af 41

6. References

6.1 SDT Articles

Amabile, Teresa M. & Beth A. Hennesey (1987): Creativity and Learning: What Research Says to The

Teacher. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association United States, p. 1-34

Chen, Beiwen & Maarten Vansteenkiste & Wim Beyers & Liesbet Boone & Edward L. Deci & Jolene Van

der Kaap-Deeder & Bart Duriez & Willy Lens & Lennia Matos & Athanasios Mouratidis & Richard M. Ryan &

Kennon M. Sheldon & Bart Soenens & Stijn Van Petegem & Joke Verstuyf (2015): Basic psychological need

satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. In Motiv Emot (2015) 39, p. 216–236

Deci, Edward L. & Maarten Vansteenkiste (2004): Self-Determination Theory and Basic Need

Satisfaction: Understanding Human Development in Positive Psychology. In Ricerche di Psicologia, n, 1. Vol.

27, 2004, p. 23-40

Deci, Edward L., Robert J. Vallerand, Luc G. Pelletier, & Richard M. Ryan (1991): Motivation and

Education: The Self-Determination Perspective in EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 26(3 & 4), p. 325-346

Deci, Edward L. and Richard M. Ryan (2000): The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and

the Self-Determination of Behavior. In Psychological Inquiry 2000, Vol. 11, No. 4, p. 227–268

Deci, Edward L., Willy Lens & Maarten Vansteenkiste (2006): Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Contents in

Self-Determination Theory: Another Look at the Quality of Academic Motivation in EDUCATIONAL

PSYCHOLOGIST, 41(1), p. 19–31

Elliot, Andrew J. & Holly a. McGregor & Todd M. Thrash (2002): The Need for Competence. . In Deci,

Edward L. & Richard M. Ryan (ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester: The University of

Rochester Press, p. 361-387

Furrer, Carrie & Ellen Skinner (2003): Sense of Relatedness as a Factor in Children’s Academic

Engagement and Performance. In Journal of Educational Psychology 2003, Vol. 95, No. 1, p. 148–162



Side 32 af 41

Grolnick, Wendy S. & Corina Benjet & Carolyn O. Kurowski, & Nicholas H. Apostoleris (1997): Predictors

of Parent Involvement in Children's Schooling. In Journal of Educational Psychology 1997, Vol. 89. No. 3, p.

538-548

Grolnick, Wendy S. & Nicholas H. Apostoleris (2002): What Makes Parents Controlling? In Deci, Edward

L. & Richard M. Ryan (ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester: The University of


Hodgins, Holly S. & C. Raymond Knee (2002): The Integrating Self and Conscious Experience. In Deci,



Jang, Hyungshim & Johnmarshall Reeve & Edward L. Deci (2010): Engaging Students in Learning

Activities: It Is Not Autonomy Support or Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure. In Journal of

Educational Psychology 2010, Vol. 102, No. 3, p. 588-600

Kasser, Tim (2002): Sketches for a Self-Determination Theory of Values. In Deci, Edward L. & Richard M.

Ryan (ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester: The University of Rochester Press, p. 123-

140

Koestner, Richard & Gaëtan F. Losier (2002): Distinguishing Three Ways of Being Internally Motivated: A

Closer Look at Introjection, Identification, and Intrinsic Motivation. In Deci, Edward L. & Richard M. Ryan

(ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester: The University of Rochester Press, p. 101-121

Niemiec, Christopher. P. & Richard M. Ryan (2009): Autonomy, competence, and relatedness

in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. In Theory and Research in

Education vol 7(2), p. 133–144

Reeve, Johnmarshall (2002): Self-Determination Theory Applied to Educational Settings. In Deci, Edward





Side 33 af 41

Reis, Harry T. & Kennon M. Sheldon & Shelly L. Gable & Jospeh Roscoe & Richard M. Ryan (2000): Daily

Well-Being: The Role of Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness. In Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin vol. 26, No. 4, April 2000, p. 419-435

Ryan, Richard M. & Edward L. Deci (2006): Self-Regulation and the Problem of Human Autonomy: Does

Psychology Need Choice, Self-Determination, and Will? In Journal of Personality 74:6, December 2006, p.

1557-1586

Ryan, Richard M. & Edward L. Deci (2002): Overview of Self-Determination Theory: An Organismic

Dialectical Perspective. In Deci, Edward L. & Richard M. Ryan (ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination

Research. Rochester: The University of Rochester Press, p. 3-33

Ryan, Richard M. & Edward L. Deci (2000): Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and

New Direction. In Contemporary Educational Psychology 25. Rochester: Academic Press, p. 54–67

Ryan, Richard M. & Netta Weinstein (2009): Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self-

determination theory perspective on high stakes testing. In Theory and Research in Education vol 7(2), p.

224-233

Sheldon, Kennon M. (2002): The Self-Concordance Model of Healthy Goal Striving: When Personal Goals

Correctly Represent the Person. In Deci, Edward L. & Richard M. Ryan (ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination


Sheldon, Kennon M. & Vincent Filak (2008): Manipulating autonomy, competence, and relatedness

support in a game-learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. In British Journal of Social

Psychology (2008), 47, p. 267–283

Skinner, Ellen & Carrie Furrer & Gwen Marchand & Thomas Kindermann (2008): Engagement and

Disaffection in the Classroom: Part of a Larger Motivational Dynamic? In Journal of Educational Psychology

2008, Vol. 100, No. 4, p. 765–781

Vallarand, Robert J. & Catherine F. Ratelle (2002): Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: A Hierarchical

Model. In Deci, Edward L. & Richard M. Ryan (ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester:

The University of Rochester Press, p. 37-63



Side 34 af 41

Vallerand, Robert J. & Luc G. Pelletier & Marc R. Blais & Nathalie M. Briére & Caroline Senégal & Evelyne

F. Valliéres (1992): The Academic Motivation Scale: A Measure of Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Amotivation in

Education. In Educational and Psychological Measurement 1992, 52, p. 1003-1017

6.2 Analyzed and Discussed Material

(Altinget.dk) Møller, Erik Bjørn (2015): Minister vil indføre karakterkrav til gymnasiet. Retrieved from:

http://www.altinget.dk/artikel/minister-vil-indfoere-karakterkrav-til-gymnasiet

(B.dk) Jensen, Christina Norvang (2015): Venstre fastholder kravet om adgangskrav til gymnasiet.

Retrieved from: http://www.b.dk/nationalt/venstre-fastholder-adgangskrav-til-gymnasiet

(DR.dk A) Sørensen, Laura Marie (2014): BAGGRUND: Sådan blev inklusion et krav i danske skoler.

Retrieved from: http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/baggrund-saadan-blev-inklusion-et-krav-i-danske-

skoler

(DR.dk B) Sørensen, Laura Marie & Maiken Steen Frederiksen & Lauritz Nansen (2014):

Forgangskommune har massive problemer med inklusion i skolerne. Retrieved from:

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/foregangskommune-har-massive-problemer-med-inklusion-i-skolerne

(DR.dk C) Egegaard, Kim (2014): Autismeforening efter inklusion: Autister bliver hjemme fra skole.

Retrieved from: http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/regionale/sjaelland/autismeforening-efter-inklusion-autister-

bliver-hjemme-fra-skole

(DR.dk D) Sørensen, Laura Marie & Maiken Steen Frederiksen (2013): Inklusion eller isolation: Cecilie sad

alene bag en skærm i 3 år. Retrieved from: http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/valg/kv13/inklusion-eller-

isolation-cecilie-sad-alene-bag-skaerm-i-tre-aar

(EVA, 2007) Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (2007): Elevplaner: De første erfaringer. Retrieved from:

https://www.eva.dk/eva/projekter/2007/elevplaner-og-skole-hjem-samarbejde/rapport-folder-og-

bilag/elevplaner-de-foerste-erfaringer/download

http://www.altinget.dk/artikel/minister-vil-indfoere-karakterkrav-til-gymnasiet

http://www.b.dk/nationalt/venstre-fastholder-adgangskrav-til-gymnasiet

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/baggrund-saadan-blev-inklusion-et-krav-i-danske-skoler

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/baggrund-saadan-blev-inklusion-et-krav-i-danske-skoler

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/foregangskommune-har-massive-problemer-med-inklusion-i-skolerne

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/regionale/sjaelland/autismeforening-efter-inklusion-autister-bliver-hjemme-fra-skole

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/regionale/sjaelland/autismeforening-efter-inklusion-autister-bliver-hjemme-fra-skole

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/valg/kv13/inklusion-eller-isolation-cecilie-sad-alene-bag-skaerm-i-tre-aar

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/valg/kv13/inklusion-eller-isolation-cecilie-sad-alene-bag-skaerm-i-tre-aar

https://www.eva.dk/eva/projekter/2007/elevplaner-og-skole-hjem-samarbejde/rapport-folder-og-bilag/elevplaner-de-foerste-erfaringer/download

https://www.eva.dk/eva/projekter/2007/elevplaner-og-skole-hjem-samarbejde/rapport-folder-og-bilag/elevplaner-de-foerste-erfaringer/download



Side 35 af 41

(EVA 2008) Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (2008): Arbejdet med elevplaner: En national undersøgelse af

erfaringer. Retrieved from: https://www.eva.dk/eva/projekter/2008/arbejdet-med-

elevplaner/projektprodukter/arbejdet-med-elevplaner/download

(Folkeskolen.dk) Kaare, Jan (2007): Elevplaner er en dyr form for tidsspilde. Retrieved from:

http://www.folkeskolen.dk/48971/elevplaner-er-en-dyr-form-for-tidsspilde

(Kristeligt-dagblad.dk) Henriksen, Lars (2007): Er skriftlige elevplaner i folkeskolen en god idé?. Retrieved

from: http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/debat/er-skriftlige-elevplaner-i-folkeskolen-en-god-id%C3%A9

Kvalitets- og Tilsynsstyrelsen (2013): Erfaringer med elevplaner. Retrived

from: https://uvm.dk/~/media/UVM/Filer/Folkeskolereformhjemmeside/Rapport%20om%20elevplaner/Er

faringer%20med%20elevplaner.pdf

(Lovændring om inklusion) Lov om ændring af lov om folkeskolen, lov om friskoler og private

grundskoler m.v. og lov om folkehøjskoler, efterskoler, husholdningsskoler og håndarbejdsskoler (frie

kostskoler). Retrieved from: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=141611

(Nyheder.tv2.dk) Nielsen, Morten (2016): Overblik: Sådan står partierne på adgangskrav til gymnasiet.

Retrieved from: http://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2016-04-12-overblik-saadan-staar-partierne-paa-

adgangskrav-til-gymnasiet

(PUB.UVM.dk) Begrebsafklaring. Retrieved from: http://pub.uvm.dk/2004/karakterer/kap02.html

Robinson, Ken (2013): Kreativitet og Læring. Skødstrup: VAERKSTADT.

(Retsinformation.dk A) Fremsat den 27. februar 2014 af undervisningsministeren (Christine Antorini)

Forslag til Lov om ændring af lov om folkeskolen og forskellige andre love. Retrieved from:

https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=161969

(selfdeterminationtheory.org) Home. Retrieved from: http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/

(SOPHIA-tt.org) Notater om elevplaner. Retrieved from: http://www.sophia-tt.org/da/elevplaner

https://www.eva.dk/eva/projekter/2008/arbejdet-med-elevplaner/projektprodukter/arbejdet-med-elevplaner/download

https://www.eva.dk/eva/projekter/2008/arbejdet-med-elevplaner/projektprodukter/arbejdet-med-elevplaner/download

http://www.folkeskolen.dk/48971/elevplaner-er-en-dyr-form-for-tidsspilde

http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/debat/er-skriftlige-elevplaner-i-folkeskolen-en-god-id%C3%A9

https://uvm.dk/~/media/UVM/Filer/Folkeskolereformhjemmeside/Rapport%20om%20elevplaner/Erfaringer%20med%20elevplaner.pdf

https://uvm.dk/~/media/UVM/Filer/Folkeskolereformhjemmeside/Rapport%20om%20elevplaner/Erfaringer%20med%20elevplaner.pdf


http://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2016-04-12-overblik-saadan-staar-partierne-paa-adgangskrav-til-gymnasiet

http://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2016-04-12-overblik-saadan-staar-partierne-paa-adgangskrav-til-gymnasiet

http://pub.uvm.dk/2004/karakterer/kap02.html


http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/

http://www.sophia-tt.org/da/elevplaner



Side 36 af 41

Tonsberg, Signe (2013): Børn har det fint med deres diagnoser i specialskolen. I Asterisk. nr. 67

September 2013, p. 18-21

(UVM.dk) Elevplaner i folkeskolen. Retrieved from:

https://www.uvm.dk/Uddannelser/Folkeskolen/Elevplaner-nationale-test-og-trivselsmaaling/Elevplaner

Weirsøe, Mathilde (2015): Når karakteren ikke rækker. I Asterisk. nr. 76 December 2015, p. 5-9

https://www.uvm.dk/Uddannelser/Folkeskolen/Elevplaner-nationale-test-og-trivselsmaaling/Elevplaner



Side 37 af 41

7. Petitum

Amabile, Teresa M. & Beth A. Hennesey (1987): Creativity and Learning: What Research Says to The

Teacher. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association United States, p. 1-34

34 pages.

Bandura, A. (1971: Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press. p. 1-46.

46 pages.

Chen, Beiwen & Maarten Vansteenkiste & Wim Beyers & Liesbet Boone & Edward L. Deci & Jolene Van

der Kaap-Deeder & Bart Duriez & Willy Lens & Lennia Matos & Athanasios Mouratidis & Richard M. Ryan &

Kennon M. Sheldon & Bart Soenens & Stijn Van Petegem & Joke Verstuyf (2015): Basic psychological need

satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. In Motiv Emot (2015) 39, p. 216–236

20 pages.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1991): Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York:

HarperPerennial.

280 pages.

Deci, Edward L. & Maarten Vansteenkiste (2004): Self-Determination Theory and Basic Need

Satisfaction: Understanding Human Development in Positive Psychology. In Ricerche di Psicologia, n, 1. Vol.

27, 2004, p. 23-40

17 pages.

Deci, Edward L., Robert J. Vallerand, Luc G. Pelletier, & Richard M. Ryan (1991): Motivation and

Education: The Self-Determination Perspective in EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 26(3 & 4), p. 325-346

21 pages.

Deci, Edward L. and Richard M. Ryan (2000): The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and

the Self-Determination of Behavior. In Psychological Inquiry 2000, Vol. 11, No. 4, p. 227–268

41 pages.

Deci, Edward L., Willy Lens & Maarten Vansteenkiste (2006): Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Contents in

Self-Determination Theory: Another Look at the Quality of Academic Motivation in EDUCATIONAL



Side 38 af 41

PSYCHOLOGIST, 41(1), p. 19–31

12 pages.

Elliot, Andrew J. & Holly a. McGregor & Todd M. Thrash (2002): The Need for Competence. . In Deci,



26 pages.

Furrer, Carrie & Ellen Skinner (2003): Sense of Relatedness as a Factor in Children’s Academic

Engagement and Performance. In Journal of Educational Psychology 2003, Vol. 95, No. 1, p. 148–162

14 pages.

Grolnick, Wendy S. & Corina Benjet & Carolyn O. Kurowski, & Nicholas H. Apostoleris (1997): Predictors

of Parent Involvement in Children's Schooling. In Journal of Educational Psychology 1997, Vol. 89. No. 3, p.

538-548

10 pages.

Grolnick, Wendy S. & Nicholas H. Apostoleris (2002): What Makes Parents Controlling? In Deci, Edward



20 pages.

Hodgins, Holly S. & C. Raymond Knee (2002): The Integrating Self and Conscious Experience. In Deci,



13 pages.

Jang, Hyungshim & Johnmarshall Reeve & Edward L. Deci (2010): Engaging Students in Learning

Activities: It Is Not Autonomy Support or Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure. In Journal of

Educational Psychology 2010, Vol. 102, No. 3, p. 588-600

12 pages.

Kasser, Tim (2002): Sketches for a Self-Determination Theory of Values. In Deci, Edward L. & Richard M.

Ryan (ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester: The University of Rochester Press, p. 123-



Side 39 af 41

140

17 pages.

Koestner, Richard & Gaëtan F. Losier (2002): Distinguishing Three Ways of Being Internally Motivated: A

Closer Look at Introjection, Identification, and Intrinsic Motivation. In Deci, Edward L. & Richard M. Ryan

(ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester: The University of Rochester Press, p. 101-121

20 pages.

Niemiec, Christopher. P. & Richard M. Ryan (2009): Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the

classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. In Theory and Research in Education

vol 7(2), p. 133–144

11 pages.

Reeve, Johnmarshall (2002): Self-Determination Theory Applied to Educational Settings. In Deci, Edward



20 pages.

Reis, Harry T. & Kennon M. Sheldon & Shelly L. Gable & Jospeh Roscoe & Richard M. Ryan (2000): Daily

Well-Being: The Role of Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness. In Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin vol. 26, No. 4, April 2000, p. 419-435

16 pages.

Robinson, Ken (2013): Kreativitet og Læring. Skødstrup: VAERKSTADT.

292 pages.

Ryan, Richard M. & Edward L. Deci (2006): Self-Regulation and the Problem of Human Autonomy: Does

Psychology Need Choice, Self-Determination, and Will? In Journal of Personality 74:6, December 2006, p.

1557-1586

29 pages.

Ryan, Richard M. & Edward L. Deci (2002): Overview of Self-Determination Theory: An Organismic

Dialectical Perspective. In Deci, Edward L. & Richard M. Ryan (ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination



Side 40 af 41


30 pages.

Ryan, Richard M. & Edward L. Deci (2000): Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and

New Direction. In Contemporary Educational Psychology 25. Rochester: Academic Press, p. 54–67

13 pages.

Ryan, Richard M. & Netta Weinstein (2009): Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self-

determination theory perspective on high stakes testing. In Theory and Research in Education vol 7(2), p.

224-233

9 pages.

Seligman, Martin E. P: (2002): Authentic Happiness. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

304 pages.

Sheldon, Kennon M. (2002): The Self-Concordance Model of Healthy Goal Striving: When Personal Goals

Correctly Represent the Person. In Deci, Edward L. & Richard M. Ryan (ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination


21 pages.

Sheldon, Kennon M. & Vincent Filak (2008): Manipulating autonomy, competence, and relatedness

support in a game-learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. In British Journal of Social

Psychology (2008), 47, p. 267–283

16 pages.

Skinner, Ellen & Carrie Furrer & Gwen Marchand & Thomas Kindermann (2008): Engagement and

Disaffection in the Classroom: Part of a Larger Motivational Dynamic? In Journal of Educational Psychology

2008, Vol. 100, No. 4, p. 765–781

16 pages.

Vallarand, Robert J. & Catherine F. Ratelle (2002): Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: A Hierarchical

Model. In Deci, Edward L. & Richard M. Ryan (ed.) Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester:

The University of Rochester Press, p. 37-63

26 pages.



Side 41 af 41

Vallerand, Robert J. & Luc G. Pelletier & Marc R. Blais & Nathalie M. Briére & Caroline Senégal & Evelyne

F. Valliéres (1992): The Academic Motivation Scale: A Measure of Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Amotivation in

Education. In Educational and Psychological Measurement 1992, 52, p. 1003-1017

14 pages.

Wigfield, Allan & Jenna Cambria (2010): Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest:

Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. In Developmental Review 30 (2010) 1–

35

35 pages.

Wild, T. Cameron &Michael E. Enzle (2002): Social Contagion of Motivational Orientations. In Deci, Edward

L. & Richard M. Ryan (ed.): Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester: The University of

Rochester Press. P.141-157

16 pages.

Summed up 1.471 pages.

Documents

A SDT Perspective on Danish Educational Debate (Jake-Pcs modstridende kopi 2016-05-12)