This article was downloaded by: [Mount Allison University 0Libraries]On: 05 October 2014, At: 16:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

The role ofautonomy‐supportversus control in theemergent writing behaviorsof African‐AmericanKindergarten childrenLeslie Morrison Gutman a & Elizabeth Sulzby aa University of MichiganPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Leslie Morrison Gutman & Elizabeth Sulzby (1999) Therole of autonomy‐support versus control in the emergent writing behaviors ofAfrican‐American Kindergarten children, Reading Research and Instruction, 39:2,170-184, DOI: 10.1080/19388070009558319

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070009558319

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and

Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Reading Research and InstructionWinter 2000,39 (2) 170-183

T h e r o l e o f a u t o n o m y - s u p p o r t v e r s u s c o n t r o l

i n t h e e m e r g e n t w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s

o f A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n

Leslie Morrison GutmanElizabeth Sulzby

University of Michigan

ABSTRACTThis study examined children's intrinsic motivation during an emergent letter writingtask in both controlling and autonomy-supportive adult-child interactions. Using arepeated measures design, 20 African-American kindergartners from a predominatelylow-income elementary school were randomly assigned to experience either the au-tonomy-supportive followed by the controlling interaction or the controlling followedby the autonomy-supportive interaction. Using videotapes of the interactions, children'smotivation was coded according to categories based on Harter's (1981,1982) Scale ofIntrinsic-Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom and Perceived Competence Scale forChildren. Childrens' letters were assessed using categories based on Sulzby's (1990)Forms of Writing and Rereading Checklist. Results revealed that the autonomy-supportive versus controlling context of the task and the order of the interactionsinfluenced children's motivation. Childrens' use of emergent literacy was also influ-enced by the context of the interaction. Implications for literacy learning and teachingare discussed.

Children begin life with intrinsic motivation to explore, master, and manipulate theirsurroundings. However, as children grow older, features of the environment influencetheir intrinsic motivation. In particular, the autonomy-supportive versus controllingcontext in which children learn new skills may affect their intrinsic motivation in thatskill domain in the future (Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Con-trolling events and contexts undermine motivation by removing choice and pressuringchildren toward particular outcomes. Autonomy-supportive events and contexts, on theother hand, encourage motivation by allowing self-determination, or behaviors initiatedand regulated through choice (Deci & Ryan, 1985). When controlled, children maylack atrae sense of choice and are "pawns" to desired outcomes even though they mayintend to achieve those outcomes (deCharms, 1976; Deci & Ryan, 1987). However,although autonomy-supportive environments and interpersonal contexts may allowindividuals the freedom of choice or the opportunity to choose what they wish to do,choice is not equivalent to "permissiveness." Instead, choice means providing guidancethat is informational rather than controlling (Ryan, Cornell, & Deci, 1985).

Previous studies have demonstrated that autonomy-supportive versus controllinginteractions with others such as teachers and parents can have a profound impact onchildrens' motivation for particular tasks (Deci, Nezlek, & Sheinman, 1981; Deci,Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981; Swann & Pittman, 1977; Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin,Smith, and Deci, 1978). More recent studies, in particular, have focused on the impor-tance of autonomy-supportive interactions for children's motivated literacy behaviors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

171 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000, 39 (2)

For example, Grolnick and Ryan (1987) assigned fifth grade students to read a socialstudies text under three conditions. The first group was instructed to read in order toanswer questions that they thought were important, the second group was instructed toread on their own, and the third group was instructed to read in order to remember thecontent for a graded test Although the third group was highest in rote learning, interestin the topic and conceptual learning were highest for the first group. The authorsconcluded that the students' motivation was influenced by the perception of an externallocus of causality in the reading assignment. The importance of autonomy in students'motivated reading has also been shown in other studies of elementary school students,such as Gambrell (1995) and Morrow (1992), who found that the books that third tofifth-graders enjoyed the most were the ones they had the most freedom in selecting.

Other studies have also demonstrated the importance of autonomy-support formotivated reading and writing in elementary school classrooms. For example, Ng andher colleagues (1998) videotaped third and fifth-grade classrooms and then interviewedthe students to determine their motivations and perceptions of the classroom context.Students who perceived freedom of choice in reading, writing, and interpreting textsreported more involvement, curiosity, and challenge than did students who did notperceive such freedom (Ng, Guthrie, Van Meter, McCann, & Alao, 1998). In anotherstudy of third to fifth graders, Skinner and Belmont (1993) found that when studentsbelieved that teachers were providing meaningful choices for them, students showedan increase in effort, attention, and interest in classroom reading and writing tasks.

These studies provide substantial evidence for the value of autonomy-support inchildren's motivated literacy behaviors. However, they have focused primarily on howthe classroom context influences the literacy behaviors of older elementary schoolstudents (third to fifth graders). There is less information regarding how autonomy-supportive versus controlling interactions influence children's early literacy learning.Yet, according to Teale (1982), early literacy development often depends upon theexperiences the child has in reading and writing activities that are mediated by literateadults, older siblings, or events in the child's everyday life. Depending on the context,these early experiences may either encourage or hinder children's emergent reading andwriting. For instance, autonomy-supportive experiences may support children's gradualprogression from emergent to conventional reading and writing, whereas controllingexperiences may not only limit children's opportunities to read and write emergently butalso undermine their motivation to do so. Clearly, an examination of both autonomy-supportive and controlling environments seems essential in understanding the contextualinfluences on children's early engagements with literacy. The present study examinedkindergartners' intrinsic motivation in the context of an emergent writing task in bothautonomy-supportive and controlling interactions. As kindergartners, these childrenare in the process of becoming literate—emerging as young readers and writers (Sulzby,1990).

EMERGENT LITERACY

Emergent literacy is the reading and writing behaviors of young children (birththrough age 6-7) that precede and develop into conventional reading and writing (Sulzby,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Autonomy Versus Control 172

1990). According to this perspective, young children engage in meaningful literacyevents long before they receive direct, school-based literacy instruction (Bissex, 1980;Clay, 1975; Schickendanz, 1986; Sulzby, 1990; Teale, 1982). Research has found thatmuch literacy learning and teaching has gone on in the home setting well beforekindergarten in the homes of both middle- and low-income children (Heath, 1982;Sulzby & Teale, 1987; Taylor, 1983; Teale, 1987).

The focus on young children's literacy development has brought more attention tothe social context in which young children learn about literacy. As a result, numerousstudies have documented the importance of parent-child and teacher-child interactionson children's early literacy development (for example; McMahon, Richmond, & Reeves-Kazelskies, 1998; Ninio, 1980; Pellegrini, Brody, and Sigel, 1985; Snow, 1983; Snow& Ninio, 1986). However, only a few studies have explored the role of autonomyversus control in such interactions (Burns & Casbergue, 1992; Turner, 1995). In onestudy, Burns and Casberque (1992) examined the degree of parental control in parent-child interactions during a letter-writing task. In a sample of middle-income EuropeanAmerican families, they found that a higher degree of parental control was associatedwith the parent demonstrating how to complete at least one step of the task, correctingthe child's performance, or verbally commanding the child to pursue a given course ofaction. A lower degree of parental control was associated with the parent asking thechild more open-ended questions, giving the child more choices, repeating what thechild said, or commenting on the child's work. They also found that lower levels ofparental control were associated with a more emergent-looking letter (e.g., scribbles,drawings, invented spellings, and letter-strings), while higher levels of parental controlwere associated with more conventional spelling and writing. This may be due to the factthat controlling parents often wrote the letter for their children, while less controllingparents allowed their children to write their own letter. Furthermore, higher levels ofparental control were associated with children who passively responded more thaninitiated conversation, whereas lower levels of control were associated with more verbalinput and initiation from the child.

In an observational study of the classroom context, Turner (1995) demonstratedsimilar findings for first graders in a predominantly middle-income European Americanschool district. Turner (1995) found that when children were given a reasonable amountof freedom and responsibility for literacy activities, such as choosing their own books toread and deciding whether to write or draw, they demonstrated more motivated literacybehaviors. Turner (1995) concluded that motivation for early literacy learning is situatedin children's encounters with reading and writing; however, she suggested that futureresearch investigate the applicability of her results to other cultural and ethnic groups.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Despite some evidence that autonomy-support is an important consideration formotivated literacy behaviors, there has been little empirical attention to how autonomy-supportive versus controlling interactions influence young children's motivation foremergent literacy. Additionally, there has been little work on the motivation of African-American children from low-income communities (Graham, 1994), especially the con-textual influences on their motivation to engage in early literacy behaviors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

173 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000, 39(2)

The present study addressed these issues by examining children's intrinsic motiva-tion during an emergent writing task in both controlling and autonomy-supportiveinteractions. There were three main hypotheses. First, we examined whether the samechild's intrinsic motivation changed over qualitatively different adult-child interactions.We hypothesized that children would make more statements of independent-mastery,interest, and competence in the autonomy-supportive context than in the controllingcontext. This prediction was based on numerous studies demonstrating that autonomy-supportive interpersonal contexts are positively correlated with independent mastery,perceived competence, and interest (Deci, Nezlek, et al., 1981; Deci, Schwartz, et al.,1981; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986).

Second, the order of the autonomy-supportive and controlling interaction wasconsidered. We hypothesized that children experiencing the controlling interactionfirst would demonstrate less interest and competence, and more dependent mastery in thesubsequent autonomy-supportive context than children who experience the autonomy-supportive interaction first. This prediction was based on research demonstrating thatwhen controlled, children display less intrinsic motivation in similar, subsequentactivities (Swann & Pittman, 1977; Zuckerman et al., 1978).

Third, we examined the quality of children's writing product in both autonomy-supportive and controlling interactions. It was expected that children's written productsin the autonomy-supportive context would be more emergent-looking than their writtenproducts in the controlling context. This was based on previous research suggesting thatchildren in autonomy-supportive contexts engage in more emergent literacy behaviors(e.g., scribbles, invented spellings, and letter-strings), whereas children in controllingcontexts use more conventional spelling and writing dictated by adults (Burns &Casberque, 1992).

METHOD

Sample and contextThe sample consisted of 20 African-American kindergarten-age children (10 boys

and 10 girls). The children were recruited from a kindergarten class in a public elemen-tary school in a low-income suburb of Detroit. There was both a morning class and anafternoon class with approximately 25 children each. Ten children from the morningclass and 10 children from the afternoon class participated in the study. These childrenwere randomly selected from the African-American children in both classes.

The kindergarten class had one teacher and an aide. The teacher frequently inter-acted with the children, while the aide organized the classroom materials. The teacherfollowed a routine, but was flexible in her approach. She frequently read to the childrenand many of her lessons incorporated writing. The classroom was organized aroundcenters that included a writing and computer center.

MaterialsAll the interactions took place in a small conference room in the children's school.

The first researcher and a child sat together in front of a table. The researcher sat on theright-hand side of all the children. Writing materials that were used in the activity wereplaced on the table, including primary color markers and white paper.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Autonomy Versus Control 174

The researcher used a set of guidelines or a script for both the controlling andautonomy-supportive interactions. In order to simulate parent-child interactions, theframework for both the controlling and autonomy-supportive contexts was developedwith transcripts of parents and their children from the Burns and Casbergue (1992) study.In particular, the framework for both contexts was based on one or two transcripts thatexemplified either a controlling or autonomy-supportive context.

A video camera was in the room and visible to the child. The video camera wasplaced directly in front of and focused on the faces of the researcher and the child inorder to record their affect. The second researcher videotaped and took notes on theinteractions. She also rechecked the first researcher for consistency in following theinteraction guidelines.

ProcedureData collection occurred during a two-week period in March. Using a repeated

measures design, the first researcher wrote a letter with each of the 20 children in boththe controlling and autonomy-supportive interactions. Writing a letter was chosen asan authentic task since it is an activity that young children are likely to have knowledgeof, both from emergent literacy activities prior to school and in school through activitiessuch as notes that are regularly sent to and from school. This task was also chosenbecause of the different way s in which a letter can be written, from an adult-controlledperspective that does not necessarily honor the child's emerging literacy to an adultautonomy-supportive perspective that accepts and supports the child's concepts.

Order effects were controlled by random assignment of children to either the control-ling followed by autonomy-supportive interaction or the reverse order. The first researcherinteracted with all of the children on the letter-writing task in both the controlling andautonomy-supportive contexts.

The adult took one child at a time and walked with him or her to the room wherethe videotaping was to take place. During that time, she talked with the child and oftenheld the child's hand. Once the child and the adult were in the room, the adult interactedwith the child according to the following guidelines:

Autonomy-Supportive Guidelines. In autonomy-supportive contexts, the adultallows the child to make his/her own choices; asks the child a where, when, who, tellme about or why question; uses phatics (e.g. yes, uh-huh, okay) to indicate that he/sheunderstands the child, is listening and perhaps interested; and provides guidance that isinformational rather than controlling (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Hess & Shipman, 1965; Laosa,1980; Ryan et al., 1985; Tizard, Hughes, Pinkerton, & Carmichael, 1982; Wood, 1980).

In the autonomy-supportive context of the study, the researcher first providedinformation about the task to the child. The adult then asked the child whom he or shewas going to write to, what he or she was going to write about, and what color markerhe or she was going use to write the letter. The adult used phatics and repeated whatthe child said in order to indicate that she understood and was listening to the child.The adult did not offer unsolicited help to the child; however, the adult answered thechild's questions if the child specifically asked for help. The adult also allowed thechild to write autonomously without disturbing the child.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

175 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000, 39 (2)

Writing - Controlling Guidelines. In controlling contexts, the adult demonstrateshow to complete at least one step of the task, corrects the child's performance, limitsthe child's choices, or verbally commands the child to pursue a given course of action(Deci & Ryan, 1987; Hess & Shipman, 1965; Laosa, 1980; Tizard et al., 1982; Wood,1980). The adult uses directives (e.g., "put," "place," "take," etc.) and statements of"should," "must," and so forth (Ryan, Mims, & Koestner, 1983). The adult decideswhat is right and utilizes highly controlling sanctions to produce the desired behavior(Deci, Nezlek, et al., 1981).

In the controlling context of the study, the adult first told the child about the task.The child was then told whom to write to and what to write about. The researchers toldthe child that he or she should write a letter to his/her mother and tell her what she/hedid in school yesterday. In order to demonstrate the task, the researcher had queried theclassroom teacher about a recent event that the child would have taken part in. In thesession, the researcher asked the child a series of yes/no questions about that eventwhich would be the content of the letter. The adult then asked the child whether he/shewanted the adult to write the letter. If the adult wrote the letter, she wrote severalsentences and then told the child to sign his or her name and draw a small picture. If thechild wrote the letter, the adult told the child what to write, where to write it, and howto spell it. The adult also demonstrated how to write certain letters and words byplacing her hand over the child's hand.

Coding SystemChildren's intrinsic motivation was assessed using categories based on Hatter's

(1981) Scale of Intrinsic-Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom and Harter's (1982)Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Harter's (1981) Scale of Intrinsic-ExtrinsicOrientation in the Classroom taps five separate dimensions defined by an intrinsic andextrinsic pole including preference for challenge versus preference for easy work,interest versus teacher approval, independent mastery versus dependence on the teacher,independent judgment versus reliance on the teacher's judgment, and internal versusexternal criteria for success/failure. Harter's (1982) Perceived Competence Scale forChildren defines three discreet domains of self-evaluation specific to various typesof competence as well as general satisfaction with the self. The three domains ofperceived competence include cognitive (or academic), social (competence in relationto peers), and physical (mostly sports related), as well as children's general self-esteem(i.e., the degree to which one likes oneself as a person). In this study, the motivationalcategories were based on two of Harter's (1981) intrinsic dimensions (independentmastery and interest) and one of Harter's (1982) perceived competence domains (cog-nitive). The other categories were not considered since preliminary analyses revealedthat the children did not verbalize these dimensions. Children's written products wereassessed using categories based on the Forms of Writing and Rereading Checklistdeveloped by Sulzby (1990).

Intrinsic motivation. Children's intrinsic motivation was coded with the video-tapes through examination of children's statements. From the videotapes, transcriptswere made of all the children's statements along with a description of their context.Children's statements were defined as those statements that were not direct answers to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Autonomy Versus Control 176

the adult's questions or repetitions of the adult's comments. Statements were definedaccording to adult-child turns. Reliability was assessed between the first and secondresearchers on five children in both interactions. There was perfect agreement for thenumber of children's statements.

The children's statements were coded using categories based on Harter's scales(1981,1982). These categories are mutually exclusive categories, that is, all commentswere coded into one category, and no comments overlapped into more than one category.

The motivational categories included:

1. Mastery - The child comments or asks a question about his/her letter.a. Independent - The child tells the adult how to write or spell a

word or letter, what he/she is going to write about or whathe/she already wrote, when he/she wants to begin or finishwriting, where he/she is going to write, or what color markerhe/she wants to write with.

b. Dependent - The child asks the adult how to write or spell aword or letter, what he/she should write about or whathe/she already wrote, when he/she should begin or finishwriting, or where he/she should write.

2. Interest - The child comments about his/her interest in writing the letter.a. Claim - The child comments that he/she had fun writing

the letter, that he/she wants to write another one, orthat he/she wants to write more.

b. Deny - The child comments that writing the letter isboring or that he/she is tired of writing the letter.

3. Competence - The child comments specifically on his/her cognitive ability inwriting the letter.

a. Claim - The child comments that he/she knows howto write or spell a word, wrote a word or letter correctly, orwrote a good letter.

b. Deny - The child comments that he/she does notknow how to write or spell a word, wrote a letter or wordincorrectly, or does not know what to write.

The other verbal categories included:

1. Comment - The child comments about his/her class, superficialaspects of task itself, or his/her personal life. The child asks theadult what she said.

2. Completion - The child completes the adult's statement.

Reliability was also assessed between the first and second researchers on fivechildren in both interactions for each of the motivational categories. Mean reliability forthe motivational categories was .98. The reliability was .88 for independent masteryand 1.00 for dependent mastery, claimed competence, denied competence, claimedinterest, and denied interest.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

177 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000, 39 (2)

Forms of writing. Children's forms of writing were coded using the children'swritten product from both the autonomy-supportive and controlling contexts. Thechildren's written products were divided into several categories based on their relativelevel of emergent versus conventional writing. These categories were based on Sulzby's(1990) Forms of Writing and Rereading Checklist. For each written product, the cat-egories were evaluated as present or absent. All forms of writing on the children'sletters were coded. The categories included:

1. Drawing2. Letter-like units- These resemble manuscript letters but they appear

to be forms the child has created.3. Nonphonemic Letter-strings

Random- Letters that appear to be generated at random.Patterned- Letters that have reoccurring patterns, particularly inalternating vowels and consonants.Name-elements- The letters of the child's name are recombined innumerous ways.

4. Invented Spelling- The creative or invented spelling of words.5. Conventional- Words that approximate dictionary or "correct" spelling.

Adult Produced- Words written or dictated by adult.Child Produced - Words written and composed by child.

Reliability between the first and second researcher was assessed on five childrenin both interactions. Mean reliability for the forms of writing was .94.

RESULTS

Intrinsic MotivationMultivaríate analyses of variance including Order (2) as the between-subjects vari-

able and Context (2) as the within-subjects variable were performed on eight dependentvariables including independent mastery, dependent mastery, claimed competence,denied competence, claimed interest, denied interest, comment, and completion. Asevident in Table 1, there was a significant main effect of Context for interest F (1,18) =8.32, (p < -01)- Children in the autonomy-supportive context made more statementsof interest than children in the controlling context (see Table 1). There was also asignificant main effect of Order for dependent mastery F(l ,18) = 4.82, (p <.05). Meansindicated that children in the controlling followed by autonomy-supportive interactionmade more statements of dependent mastery than children in the autonomy-supportivefollowed by controlling interaction (see Table 1).

There was also a significant interaction between Order and Context for the depen-dent variable independent mastery F (1,18) = 4.58, (p <.O5). In fact, the differencesbetween the levels of independent mastery obtained in the autonomy-supportive contextand the controlling context differed according to which context came first (Order). Asshown in Figure 1, when the autonomy-supportive context was first, the mean of inde-pendent mastery was 5.7 statements, but this value declined to 2.5 in the immediatelyfollowing controlling context. The pattern was very different when the controlling

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Autonomy Versus Control 178

context was first: the level of independent mastery began at the negligible level of .5statements, but climbed steeply to 31.3 in the following autonomy-supportive context.

FIGURE 1 Interaction between context and order for independent mastery.

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

First SecondOrder

Number of Independent Mastery Statements

C followed by A-SA-S followed by C

TABLE 1 Mean Numbers of Children's Statements in the Controlling followed byAutonomy-Supportive Context and Autonomy-Supportive followed byControlling Context

Categories

MasteryIndependentDependent

CompetenceClaimDeny

InterestClaimDeny

CommentCompletion

ContextC followed by A-S

n=10

Control.5

2.8

.71.0

0.00.0.5.5

A-S31.311.1

1.34.4

1.20.011.90.0

A-S followed by Cn=10

A-S2.81.2

.3

.3

.10.0.9.9

Control5.71.2

.41.2

0.00.01.71.5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

179 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000, 39 (2)

Forms of WritingMultiple analysis of variance including Order (2) as the between-subjects variable

and Context (2) as the within-subjects variable were performed on eight dependentvariables including drawing, letter-like units, random letter-strings, patterned letter-strings, name-elements, invented spelling, adult produced conventional words, and childproduced conventional words. There were significant main effects of Context for drawingF(l , 18) = 18.00, p «C.0001, letter-like units F(l, 18) = 6.08, p <.O3, random letter-strings F(l,18) = 10.76, p <.01, patterned letter-strings F(l, 18) = 14.40, p <001,name-elements F(l,18) = 22.22, p <.0001, adult produced conventional words F(l,18)= 61.36, p <.0001, and child produced conventional words F(l,18) = 4.8, p <.05.

TABLE 2 Mean Numbers of Children's Forms of Writing in Both the Controllingand Autonomy-Supportive Context

Categories

DrawingLetter-like UnitsNonphoneroic Letter-strings

RandomPatternedName-elements

Invented SpellingConventional

Adult ProducedChild Produced

Controlling

.20.0

0.00.00.00.0

1.90.0

Context

Autonomy-Supportive

1.0.5

.7

.81.1.1

:

0.0.4

Children in the autonomy-supportive context included more drawings, letter-like units,random letter-strings, patterned letter-strings, name-elements, and child produced con-ventional words than in the controlling context (see Table 2). Moreover, the adultproduced more conventional words in the controlling context than in the autonomy-supportive context (see Table 2). Although children in the autonomy-supportive contextincluded more invented spelling than in the controlling context (see Table 2), the differ-ence was not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

This study revealed three major findings. First, children's motivation was influ-enced by the context of the letter writing task. In the autonomy-supportive context,children demonstrated more interest in the letter writing task than in the controllingcontext Second, the order of the interactions affected children's motivation. Childrenin the controlling followed by autonomy-supportive interaction made more statements ofdependent mastery than children in the autonomy-supportive followed by controllinginteraction. However, children in the controlling followed by autonomy-supportiveinteraction also made more statements of independent mastery in the autonomy-sup-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Autonomy Versus Control 180

portive context than children in the autonomy-supportive followed by controllinginteraction. Third, children used more emergent literacy in the autonomy-supportivecontext than in the controlling context When children were in the autonomy-supportivecontext, they included more drawings, more letter-like units, more random and patternedletter-strings, more name-elements, more child produced conventional words and lessadult produced conventional words in their letter than when they were in the controllingcontext. Each of these findings will be discussed below.

The present study supports previous research indicating that autonomy-support hasa positive influence on children's motivation for literacy. This study also expands pastresearch by demonstrating this association in the framework of an emergent literacy taskand, in particular, for low-income African-American children. Our study found thatthe same children demonstrated more interest in the autonomy-supportive context thanin controlling context. This finding is especially important since few studies haveexamined the motivational influences on African-American children (Graham, 1994).In support of Turner's (1995) findings with middle-income European American chil-dren, our results suggest that low-income African-American children's motivation toengage in literacy tasks are not determined solely by a general orientation toward ex-trinsic versus intrinsic motivation, but rather may also be situated in their encounterswith reading and writing.

Our study also supports previous research indicating that the context in whichchild learns new skills may affect their intrinsic motivation in that skill domain in thefuture (Boggiano et al., 1988; Deci & Ryan, 1985). In particular, our study suggests thatthe controlling nature of the context in which a child engages in an emergent literacy taskmay undermine their subsequent motivation for that task. As predicted, we found thatchildren in the controlling followed by the autonomy-supportive interaction demonstratedmore dependent mastery in both the controlling and autonomy-supportive contexts thanchildren in the autonomy-supportive followed by the controlling interaction. How-ever, we also found that children in the controlling followed by autonomy-supportiveinteraction made more statements of independent mastery in the autonomy-supportivecontext than children in the autonomy-supportive followed by controlling interaction.These unexpected findings may be explained, in part, by the children's prior knowledgeof letter writing. As kindergartners, these children are likely to have had few experienceswith letter writing. Indeed, when visiting their classroom, we did not evidence any class-room lessons on writing a letter. Since research in emergent literacy clearly indicates thatmany facets of children's literacy development are facilitated through adult guidance,these children may have been more receptive to instruction when first learning how towrite a letter. Therefore, although children in the controlling followed by autonomy-supportive interaction elicited more adult help, they also demonstrated more independentmastery since they had more previous adult guidance concerning how to write a letter.

Our study also highlights the importance of autonomy-supportive contexts forchildren's literacy productions. As expected, the controlling context discouraged emer-gent literacy behaviors and limited children's opportunities to engage in natural literacypractices. In contrast, the autonomy-supportive context allowed children to write intheir own way. As a result, in the autonomy-supportive context, children used many

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

181 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000,39 (2)

forms of emergent writing such as drawing, scribbling, and invented spellings and wrotefor relatively long periods of time without soliciting adult help. These children showedsuch behaviors as maintaining a flow of writing while changing colors of markers,keeping an attentive eye on the paper, occasionally sounding out words or saying lettersaloud. This suggests that autonomy-supportive environments are important in encour-aging children's gradual and natural literacy development.

ImplicationsThis study has important, practical implications concerning the context in which

literacy occurs. According to Teale (1982), children's literacy environments do nothave independent existence, but rather they are constructed in the interactions betweenchildren and the persons around them. Our findings support Teale's (1982) contentionby suggesting that children's motivation for emergent literacy is situated in theirencounters with others and the environment. And, as our data indicate, the autonomy-supportive versus controlling context in which children learn literacy tasks may notonly affect their present motivation but may also influence their subsequent motivationfor that task. Practically, teachers may allow children more freedom in daily literacyinstruction and be more open to children's emergent literacy behaviors. Both teachersand parents may also be more aware of how their language may affect children's motiva-tion for literacy. Whereas controlling language such as verbal commands or criticisms andstatements of "should" may undermine children's motivation, open-ended questions, theuse of phatics, and repeating what children say may encourage children's motivation foremergent literacy.

Our study also highlights the importance of scaffolding for emergent literacy. Inparticular, our data suggest that children's literacy development is facilitated throughadult guidance especially when learning a new task such as writing a letter. As Teale(1982) asserted, literacy learning is not an independent and purely autonomous activity.In addition to autonomy-support, emergent writers also need guidance, involvement,and structure. What seems important is the right match of structure in a warm andsupportive environment with positively motivated role models (Grolnick & Ryan, 1992).In order to encourage natural literacy learning, teachers and parents need to give childrenthe freedom of choice, encourage expressiveness and initiation, and provide guidanceand structure that is informational rather than controlling.

ConclusionsThis study provides both theoretical and practical insights into children's motivated

literacy learning; however, much research remains to be done. First, although we chosean authentic task for our study, this work was not embedded in the social context ofchildren's everyday lives. Interactions in children's home and classroom environmentshave an important influence on their intrinsic motivation. For example, in our study,the children's motivation may have been affected by previous writing interactions withthe teacher. However, since our study was limited to one classroom, we could notdetermine how classroom interactions influenced the children's motivated literacybehaviors beyond the effects of our study. Future research may collect data from severalclassrooms to determine how past writing interactions with teachers influence students'

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Autonomy Versus Control 182

motivation. Future research may also examine the effects of the classroom environmentin interaction with the effects of the home environment. For example, can a moreautonomy-supportive context in the home compensate for a more controlling contextin the classroom?

Second, although we used a repeated measures design, our study examined only asmall time frame for these children. Further research may investigate the longitudinaleffects of context on children's motivation for literacy. For example, how does au-tonomy-supportive versus controlling nature of the context in which children engage inearly literacy learning influence their literacy behaviors as they grow older? Moreover,can more autonomy-supportive contexts in children's later literacy experiences facilitateincreased motivated engagements with literacy?

In conclusion, motivation is clearly an important factor in children's early engage-ments with literacy. As our data suggest, the controlling nature of the context in whichchildren learn literacy may not only limit children's opportunities to use emergentliteracy, they may also undermine their motivation to do so. Evidently, researchers andeducators need to place sharper attention on how the nature of the context influenceschildren's motivation for emergent literacy.

REFERENCESBissex.G.L. (1980). GNYSATWORK: A child learns to write and read. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children's preferences for challenge:

The role of perceived competence and control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54, 134-142.

Burns, M. S. & Casbergue, R. M. (1992). Parent-child interaction in a writing context.Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 289-312.

Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann Press.deCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the classroom. New York: Irvington.

Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of the rewarder and theintrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1-10.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The Support of Autonomy and the Control of Behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assessadults' orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic moti-vation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642-650.

Gambrell, L. B. (1995). Motivation matters. In W. M. Linek (Ed.), Generations of literacy:The seventeenth yearbook of the College Reading Association 1995. Harrisonburg, VA: CollegeReading Association.

Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African-Americans. Review of Educational Research,64, 55-117.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimentaland individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,273-288.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Parental resources and the developing child inschool. In M. E. Procidano (Ed.), Contemporary families: A handbook for school professionals.New York: Teachers College Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

183 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 2000,39 (2)

Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in theclassroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17(3),300-312.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53,87-97.

Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and at school.Language in Society, 11, 49-76.

Hess, R., & Shipman, V. (1965). Early experiences and socialization of cognitive models inchildren. Child Development, 34, 869-886.

Laosa, L. M. (1980). Maternal teaching strategies in Chicano and Anglo-American families:The influence of culture and education on maternal behavior. Child Development, 51, 759-765.

McMahon, R., Richmond, M. G., & Reeves-Kazelskies, C. (1998). Relationships betweenkindergartner teachers' perceptions of literacy acquisition and children's literacy involvement andclassroom materials. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 173-182.

Morrow, L. M. ( 1992). The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement, useof literature and attitudes of children from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 27,250-275.

Ninio, A. (1980). Picture-book reading in mother-infant dyad belonging to two subgroupsin Israel. Child Development, 57, 587-590.

Ng, M. M., Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A., Alao, S. (1998). How do classroomcharacteristics influence intrinsic motivation for literacy? Reading Psychology, 19, 319-398.

Pellegrini, A. D., Brody, G. H., & Sigel, I. E. (1985). Parents' book-reading habits withtheir children Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 332-340.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determi-nation and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames and R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivationin education: Vol. 2. The classroom milieu. New York: Academic Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report andprojective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 50, 550-558.

Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and inter-personal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736-750.

Schickedanz, J. A. (1986). More than ABCs: The early stages of Reading and Writing.Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effectsof teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 85, 571-581.

Snow, C. E. (1983). Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years.Harvard Educational Review, 53, 165-189.

Snow, C. E., & Ninio, A. (1986). The contracts of literacy: What children learn fromlearning to read books. In W. H. Teale and E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing andreading. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Sulzby, E. (1990). Assessment of writing and children's language while writing. In L. M.Morrow and J. K. Smith (Eds.), Assessment for instruction in early literacy. Englewood Cliff,New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. H. (1987). Young children's storybook reading: Longitudinal studyof parent-child interaction and children's independent functioning. Final report to the SpencerFoundation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Swann, W. B., & Pittman, T. S. (1977). Initiating play activity of children: The moderatinginfluence of verbal cues on intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 48, 1128-1132.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Autonomy Versus Control 184

Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Teale, W. H. (1982). Toward a theory of how children learn to read and write naturally.Language Arts, 59, 555-570.

Teale, W. H. (1987). Emergent Literacy: Reading and writing development in early child-hood. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 36, 45-74.

Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children's motivation forliteracy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410-441.

Tizard, B., Hughes, M., Pinkerton, G., & Carmichael, H. (1982). Adult's cognitivedemands at home and at nursery school. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 23,105-116.

Wood, D. J. (1980). Teaching young children: Some relationships between social interaction,language, and thought. In D. R. Olson (Ed.), The social foundation of language and thought. NewYork: W.W.Norton.

Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importanceof self-determination for intrinsically motivated behavior Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 4, 443-466.

Received: February 15,1999Revision Received: May 11, 1999

Accepted: June 8, 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

40 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014