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

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

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

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.

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

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

Similar to A SDT Perspective on Danish Educational Debate (Jake-Pcs modstridende kopi 2016-05-12) (20)

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