Advertisement

Wahrgenommener Druck und der Wunsch nach Partizipation – Selbstbestimmung in der Schule aus der Perspektive der Schülerinnen und Schüler

Chapter
  • 2.7k Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Eine zunehmende Ergebnisorientierung trägt dazu bei, dass Lernende in Schulen unter Druck geraten, was zu einer Verringerung der wahrgenommenen Selbstbestimmung führt und sich negativ auf Motivation, Leistung und Wohlbefinden in der Schule auswirkt (Ryan und Deci 2017). In der vorliegenden Studie wurde die Perspektive von SchülerInnen diverser Sekundarschulen (n = 364) in Bezug auf die Wahrnehmung von Druck in der Schule und dem Wunsch nach mehr Partizipation eingeholt und inhaltsanalytisch ausgewertet. Die Ergebnisse sollen dazu beitragen, Evidenzen für die Aus-, Weiter- und Fortbildung von LehrerInnen zu generieren.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Althoff, M. (2008): Partizipation, Steuerung und Verständigung. In: Rihm, T. (Hrsg.): Teilhaben an Schule. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, S. 121–132.Google Scholar
  2. Assor, A.; Kaplan, H.; Kanat-Maymon, Y.; Roth, G. (2005): Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15. 5, S. 397–413.Google Scholar
  3. Assor, A.; Kaplan, H.; Roth, G. (2002): Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomyenhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72. 2, S. 261–278.Google Scholar
  4. Bartholomew, K. J.; Ntoumanis, N.; Ryan, R. M.; Bosch, J. A.; Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011): Self-Determination Theory and Diminished Functioning: The Role of Interpersonal Control and Psychological Need Thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37. 11, S. 1459–1473.Google Scholar
  5. Bergmüller, S. (2006): Schulische Belastung und Gesundheitsbeschwerden bei 15-/16-Jährigen. In: Haider, G.; Schreiner, C. (Hrsg.): Die PISA-Studie. Österreichs Schulsystem im internationalen Wettbewerb. Wien: Böhlau, S. 252-264.Google Scholar
  6. Böhm-Kasper, O. (2004): Schulische Belastung und Beanspruchung. Eine Untersuchung von Schülern und Lehrern am Gymnasium. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, B.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Beyers, W.; Boone, L.; Deci, E. L.; Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., et al. (2015): Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39. 2, S. 216–236.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1960): A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20. 1, s. 37–46.Google Scholar
  9. Cox, A.; Duncheon, N.; McDavid, L. (2009): Peers and teachers as sources of relatedness perceptions, motivation, and affective responses in physical education. Research Quarterly For Exercise And Sport, 80. 4, S. 765-773.Google Scholar
  10. DAK-Initiative (2010): Hintergrundinformationen zur Studie „Subjektive Gesundheitsbeschwerden von Schülern“ der DAK und der Leuphana Universität Lüneburg. https://www.dak.de/dak/download/studie-stress-maedchen-1318836.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20.02.2019.
  11. DAK-Initiative (2011): Depressive Stimmungen bei Schülerinnen und Schülern. Personale und schulische Risikofaktoren und Ansatzpunkte zur Prävention und Intervention. https://www.leuphana.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Forschungseinrichtungen/zag/files/projekte/ggse/DAK-Leuphana-Studie_2011_Depressive_Stimmungen_bei_Schuelerinnen_und_Schuelern.pdf. Zugegriffen: 22.02.2019.
  12. Deb, S.; Strodl, E.; Sun, J. (2015): Academic Stress, Parental Pressure, Anxiety and Mental Health among Indian High School Students. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 5. 1, S. 26–34.Google Scholar
  13. Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2000): The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11. 4, S. 227–268.Google Scholar
  14. Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2002): The Paradox of Achievement: The Harder You Push, the Worse It Gets. In: Aronson, J. (Hrsg.): Improving Academic Achievement. Impact of psychological factors on education. Amsterdam: Academic Press, S. 61–87.Google Scholar
  15. Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2008): Facilitating Optimal Motivation and Psychological Well-Being Across Life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49. 1, S. 14–23.Google Scholar
  16. Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2011): Levels of Analysis, Regnant Causes of Behavior and Well-Being: The Role of Psychological Needs. Psychological Inquiry, 22. 1, S. 17–22.Google Scholar
  17. Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2012): Motivation, Personality, and Development Within Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-Determination Theory. In: Ryan, R. M. (Hrsg.): The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation. Oxford: University Press, S. 85–107.Google Scholar
  18. Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2016): Optimizing Students’ Motivation in the Era of Testing and Pressure: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. In: Liu, W. C.; Wang J. C. K.; Ryan, R. M. (Hrsg.): Building Autonomous Learners. Perspectives from research and practice using self-determination theory. Singapur: Springer, S. 9–29.Google Scholar
  19. Demski, D. (2019): Und was kommt in der Praxis an? In: Zuber, J.; Altrichter, H.; Heinrich, M. (Hrsg.): Bildungsstandards zwischen Politik und schulischem Alltag. Wiesbaden: Springer, S. 129-152.Google Scholar
  20. Early, D. M.; Berg, J. K.; Alicea, S.; Si, Y.; Aber, J. L.; Ryan, R. M.; Deci, E. L. (2016): The Impact of Every Classroom, Every Day on High School Student Achievement: Results From a School-Randomized Trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9. 1, S. 3–29.Google Scholar
  21. Edelstein, W.; Bendig, R.; Enderlein, O. (2011): Schule: Kindeswohl, Kinderrechte, Kinderschutz. In: Fischer, J.; Buchholz, T.; Merten, R. (Hrsg.): Kinderschutz in gemeinsamer Verantwortung von Jugendhilfe und Schule. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, S. 117–140.Google Scholar
  22. Eikel, A. (2006): Demokratische Partizipation in der Schule. https://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/q/upload/Demokr._Partizipation_in_der_Schule.pdf. Zugegriffen: 21.02.2019.
  23. Flink, C.; Boggiano, A. K.; Barrett, M. (1990): Controlling Teaching Strategies: Undermining Children’s Self-Determination and Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59. 5, S. 916–924.Google Scholar
  24. Gläser, J.; Laudel, G. (2010): Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  25. Holtappels, H. G. (2004): Beteiligung von Kindern in der Schule. In: Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk e.V. (Hrsg.): Kinderreport Deutschland 2004. Daten, Fakten, Hintergründe. München: Kopaed, S. 259–275.Google Scholar
  26. IDEC (2019): International Democratic Education Conference. http://www.idenetwork.org/. Zugegriffen: 20.02.2019.
  27. Inchley, J. (2016): Growing up unequal: Gender and Socioeconomic Differences in Young People’s Health and Well-Being: Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Study: International report from the 2013/2014 survey, World Health Organization. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/303438/HSBC-No.7-Growing-up-unequal-Full-Report.pdf. Zugegriffen: 21.02.2019.
  28. Jang, H. (2008): Supporting Students’ Motivation, Engagement, and Learning During an Uninteresting Activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100. 4, S. 798–811.Google Scholar
  29. Jang, H.; Reeve, J.; Deci, E. L. (2010): Engaging Students in Learning Activities: It Is Not Autonomy Support or Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 .3, S. 588–600.Google Scholar
  30. Jang, H.; Reeve, J.; Halusic, M. (2016): A New Autonomy-Supportive Way of Teaching That Increases Conceptual Learning: Teaching in Students’ Preferred Ways. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84. 4, S. 686–701.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, K. L.; Tymms, P.; Kemethofer, D.; O’Hara, J.; McNamara, G.; Huber, S.; et al. (2017): The unintended consequences of school inspection: the prevalence of inspection sideeffects in Austria, the Czech Republic, England, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Oxford Review of Education, 43. 6, S. 805–822.Google Scholar
  32. Kaplan, H. (2018): Teachers’ autonomy support, autonomy suppression and conditional negative regard as predictors of optimal learning experience among high-achieving Bedouin students. Social Psychology of Education, 21. 1, S. 223–255.Google Scholar
  33. Koestner, R.; Ryan, R. M.; Bernieri, F. J.; Holt, K. D. (1984): Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52. 3, S. 233–248.Google Scholar
  34. Kötters, C.; Schmidt, R.; Ziegler, C. (2001): Partizipation im Unterricht. Zur Differenz von Erfahrung und Ideal partizipierender Verhältnisse im Unterricht und deren Verarbeitung: In: Böhme, J.; Kramer, R.-T. (Hrsg.): Partizipation in der Schule: Theoretische Perspektiven und empirische Analysen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, S. 93–122.Google Scholar
  35. Landis, J. R.; Koch, G. G. (1977): The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33. 1, S. 159–174.Google Scholar
  36. Larson, H. A.; El Ramahi, M. K.; Conn, S. R.; Estes, L. A.; Ghibellini, A. B. (2010): Reducing Test Anxiety among Third Grade Students through the Implementation of Relaxation Techniques. Journal of School Counseling, 8. 19, S. 1–19.Google Scholar
  37. Larson, H. A.; Yoder, A. M.; Brucker, S.; Lee, J.; Washburn, F; Perdieu, D.; et al. (2011): Effects of Relaxation and Deep-Breathing on High School Students: ACT Prep. Journal of Counseling in Illinois, 2. S. 16–27.Google Scholar
  38. Leithwood, K.; Jantzi, D. (2000): The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38. 2, S. 112–129.Google Scholar
  39. Liu, W. C.; Wang, J. C. K.; Ryan, R. M. (Hrsg.) (2016): Building Autonomous Learners. Perspectives from Research and Practice using Self-Determination Theory. Singapur: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Lodge, C. (2005): From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematising student participation in school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 6. 2, S. 125–146.Google Scholar
  41. Maier, U. (2010): Effekte testbasierter Rechenschaftslegung auf Schule und Unterricht. Ist die internationale Befundlage auf Vergleichsarbeiten im deutschsprachigen Raum übertragbar? Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 56. S. 112–128.Google Scholar
  42. Martinek, D. (2012): Selbstbestimmung und Kontrollreduzierung in Lehr- und Lernprozessen. Hamburg: Kovac.Google Scholar
  43. Mayring, P. (2010): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  44. McDonald, A. S. (2001): The Prevalence and Effects of Test Anxiety in School Children. Educational Psychology, 21. 1, S. 89–101.Google Scholar
  45. Mulvenon, S. W.; Stegman, C. E.; Ritter, G. (2005): Test Anxiety: A Multifaceted Study on the Perceptions of Teachers, Principals, Counselors, Students, and Parents. International Journal of Testing, 5. 1, S. 37–61.Google Scholar
  46. Neill, A. S. (1960): Summerhill: A radical approach to child rearing. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  47. Niemiec, C. P.; Ryan, R. M. (2009): Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom. School Field, 7. 2, S. 133–144.Google Scholar
  48. OECD (2014): Indicator D1: How much time do students spend in the classroom? http://www.oecd.org/education/EAG2014-Indicator%20D1%20(eng).pdf. Zugegriffen: 20.02.2019.
  49. Ottová-Jordan, V.; Smith, O. R. F.; Augustine, L.; Gobina, I.; Rathmann, K.; Torsheim, T.; et al. (2015): Trends in health complaints from 2002 to 2010 in 34 countries and their association with health-behaviours and social context factors at individual and macro-level. European Journal of Public Health, 25. 2, S. 83–89.Google Scholar
  50. Reeve, J. (2006): Teachers as Facilitators: What Autonomy‐Supportive Teachers Do and Why Their Students Benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106. 3, S. 225–236.Google Scholar
  51. Reeve, J. (2009): Why Teachers Adopt a Controlling Motivating Style Toward Students and How They Can Become More Autonomy Supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44. 3, S. 159–175.Google Scholar
  52. Reeve, J. (2018): Understanding Motivation and Emotion. (7th edition). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Reeve, J.; Assor, A. (2011): Do Social Institutions Necessarily Suppress Individuals’ Need for Autonomy? The Possibility of Schools as Autonomy-Promoting Contexts Across the Globe. In: Chirkov, V. I.; Ryan, R. M.; Sheldon, K. M. (Hrsg.): Human Autonomy in Cross-Cultural Context. Perspectives on the Psychology of Agency, Freedom, and Well-Being. Berlin: Springer, S. 111–132.Google Scholar
  54. Reeve, J.; Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2004a): Self-Determination Theory: A Dialectical Framework for Understanding Socio-Cultural Influences on Student Motivation. In: McInerney, D. M.; Van Etten, S. (Hrsg.): Big Theories Revisited. Greenwich: Information Age Press, S. 31–60.Google Scholar
  55. Reeve, J.; Halusic, M. (2009): How K-12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles into practice. School Field, 7. 2, S. 145–154.Google Scholar
  56. Reeve, J.; Jang, H. (2006): What Teachers Say and Do to Support Students’ Autonomy During a Learning Activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98. 1, S. 209–218.Google Scholar
  57. Reeve, J.; Jang, H.; Carrell, D.; Jeon, S.; Barch, J. (2004b): Enhancing Students’ Engagement by Increasing Teachers’ Autonomy Support. Motivation and Emotion, 28. 2, S. 147–169.Google Scholar
  58. Reeve, J.; Jang, H.; Hardre, P.; Omura, M. (2002): Providing a Rationale in an Autonomy-Supportive Way as a Strategy to Motivate Others During an Uninteresting Activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26. 3, S. 183–207.Google Scholar
  59. Reeve, J.; Nix, G.; Hamm, D. (2003): Testing Models of the Experience of Self-Determination in Intrinsic Motivation and the Conundrum of Choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95. 2, S. 375–392.Google Scholar
  60. Rheinberg F. (1995): Individuelle Bezugsnormen der Leistungsbewertung und Motivation im Unterricht. Pädagogische Welt, 49. 2, S. 59–62.Google Scholar
  61. Ryan, R. M.; Brown, K. W. (2005): Legislation Competence. High-Stakes Testing Policies and Their Relations with Psychological Theories and Research. In: Elliot, A. J.; Dweck, C. S. (Hrsg.): Handbook of Competence and Motivation. New York: Guilford Press, S. 354–372.Google Scholar
  62. Ryan, R. M.; Deci, E. L. (2008): Overview of Self-Determination Theory: An Organismic Dialectic Perspective. In: Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (Hrsg.): Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, S. 3–33.Google Scholar
  63. Ryan, R. M.; Deci, E. L. (2017): Self-Determination Theory. Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  64. Ryan, R. M.; Weinstein, N. (2009): Undermining quality teaching and learning. School Field, 7. 2, S. 224–233.Google Scholar
  65. Soenens, B.; Sierens, E.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Dochy, F.; Goossens, L. (2012): Psychologically controlling teaching: Examining outcomes, antecedents, and mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104. 1, S. 108–120.Google Scholar
  66. Talley, A. E.; Kocum, L.; Schlegel, R. J.; Molix, L.; Bettencourt, B. A. (2012): Social roles, basic need satisfaction, and psychological health: the central role of competence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38. 2, S. 155–173.Google Scholar
  67. UN Kinderrechtskonvention (1989): Konvention über die Rechte des Kindes. https://www.unicef.de/informieren/materialien/konvention-ueber-die-rechte-des-kindes/17528. Zugegriffen: 22.02.2019.
  68. Vansteenkiste, M.; Niemiec, C. P.; Soenens, B. (2010): The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: an historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In: Urdan, T. C.; Karabenick, S. A. (Hrsg.): The Decade Ahead. Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement. Bingley: Emerald, S. 105–166.Google Scholar
  69. VERBI Software (2018): MAXQDA 2018 Online Manual. https://www.maxqda.com/helpmax18/welcome. Zugegriffen: 15.01.2019.
  70. Wigfield, A.; Lutz, S. L.; Laurel Wagner, A. (2005): Early Adolescents’ Development Across the Middle School Years: Implications for School Counselors. Professional School Counseling, 9. 2, S. 112–119.Google Scholar
  71. Winter, F. (2004): Leistungsbewertung: Eine neue Lernkultur braucht einen anderen Umgang mit den Schülerleistungen. Hohengehren: Schneider.Google Scholar
  72. Winter, F. (2015): Lerndialog statt Noten: Neue Formen der Leistungsbeurteilung, Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität SalzburgSalzburgÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations