Roles of Autonomous Motivation, Individualism, and Instructor Support in Student-Centered Learning in South Korea and the United States

  • LEE, Eunbae (The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • BAIRD, Timothy D. (Virginia Tech)
  • Received : 2021.09.10
  • Accepted : 2021.10.18
  • Published : 2021.10.31


It is commonly understood that students' autonomous motivation and individualistic orientations and instructors' autonomy support are important for student-centered learning (SCL). However, few studies have examined this assumption. To help researchers and practitioners design more engaging SCL experiences across diverse cultural contexts, this study examines the associations of these factors with SCL engagement and how these associations compare in different cultures. University students in South Korea and the United States participated in a bold SCL assignment, called Pink Time, in which students decide what and how they learn. Linear, multivariate models were estimated in each context to identify and compare relationships between SCL engagement and student characteristics and perceptions. We found that engagement was high in both contexts. Autonomous motivation, individualism, and perceived instructor support each had significant associations with SCL engagement in South Korea. In the US, which had a smaller sample size, only perceived instructor support was significantly associated. These findings suggest that SCL strategies can be effective across cultures. Also, the narrower classroom context, specifically instructors' support, may be a stronger driver of engagement than the broader societal context. This study contributes to the scholarly discussion regarding SCL in diverse settings and offers several implications for instructors.



This study was supported by the Catholic University of Korea, Research Fund, 2020.


  1. Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2013). The effects of different learning environments on students' motivation for learning and their achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 484-501.
  2. Baird, T. D. (2021). Applying the Own it, Learn it, Share it framework to the flexible Pink Time assignment to scaffold student autonomy online and in person. Educational Technolgy Research and Development, 69(1), 105-108.
  3. Baird, T. D., Kniola, D. J., Hartter, J., Carlson, K. A., Rogers, S., Russell, D., & Tise, J. C. (2020). Adapting pink time to promote self-regulated learning across course and student types. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
  4. Baird, T. D., Kniola, D. J., Lewis, A. L., & Fowler, S. B. (2015). Pink time: Evidence of self-regulated learning and academic motivation among undergraduate students. Journal of Geography, 114, 146-157. doi:10.1080/00221341.2014.977334
  5. Betitis, N. C., & Burke, J. D. (1978). Alternatives to the lecture-discussion method: student-centered approaches to teaching college geography. Journal of Geography 77. 35-37.
  6. Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756.<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
  7. Boud, D. (Ed.). (1988). Developing student autonomy in learning. Routledge. Nichols Publishing Company: New York.
  8. Caruso, C. M. (2021). The Effect of Active Learning on Academic Motivation Among Pre-Service Teachers (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).
  9. Cavanagh, A. J., Aragon, O. R., Chen, X., Couch, B. A., Durham, M. F., Bobrownicki, A., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2016). Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15, 76.
  10. Chae, S. E., & Lee, M. (2019). Student-centered learning and higher-order thinking skills in engineering students. The International journal of engineering education, 35, 617-622.
  11. Choi, E., Lindquist, R., & Song, Y. (2014). Effects of problem-based learning vs. traditional lecture on Korean nursing students' critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-directed learning. Nurse Education Today, 34, 52-56.
  12. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students' perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31, 3-14.
  13. Cook-Sather,, A., & Luz, A. (2015). Greater engagement in and responsibility for learning: what happens when students cross the threshold of student-faculty partnership. Higher Education Research & Development, 34, 1097-1109.
  14. Darwish, A.-F. E., & Huber, G. L. (2003). Individualism vs collectivism in different cultures: a cross-cultural study. Intercultural Education, 14, 47-56.
  15. 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, 227-268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
  16. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Optimizing students' motivation in the era of testing and pressure: A self-determination theory perspective. In W. C. Liu, J. C. K. Wang & R. M. Ryan. (Eds.), Building autonomous learners (pp. 9-29). Singapore: Springer.
  17. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
  18. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt and Co.
  19. Diekman, A. B., Steinberg, M., Brown, E. R., Belanger, A. L., & Clark, E. K. (2017). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: Understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 142-175.
  20. Gotelli N.J., & Ellison, A.M. (2004). Primer of ecological statistics. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA. USA.
  21. Hamamura, T. (2012). Are cultures becoming individualistic? A cross-temporal comparison of individualism-collectivism in the United States and Japan. Personality and social psychology review, 16(1), 3-24.
  22. Hamamura, T., & Xu, Y. (2015). Changes in Chinese culture as examined through changes in personal pronoun usage. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(7), 930-941.
  23. Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Land, S. M., & Lee, E. (2014). Student-centered, open learning environments: Research, theory, and practice. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 641-651). New York: Springer.
  24. Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89.
  25. Hoidn, S. (2017). Student-centered learning environments in higher education classrooms. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
  26. Huang, Y. S., & Asghar, A. (2016). Science education reform in confucian learning cultures: policymakers' perspectives on policy and practice in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 2(1), 3.
  27. Hung, H. T., & Yuen, S. C. Y. (2010). Educational use of social networking technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 703-714.
  28. International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE). (2016). ISTE Standards for Students.
  29. Jenkins, D. G., & Quintana-Ascencio, P. F. (2020). A solution to minimum sample size for regressions. PLOS ONE, 15(2), 1-15.
  30. Jung, J., & Cho, E. (2019). A study on the conceptual model of effective instruction based on student perspectives at C university. Korean Education Inquiry, 37, 155-177.
  31. Kiefer, S. M., Alley, K. M., & Ellerbrock, C. R. (2015). Teacher and peer support for young adolescents' motivation, engagement, and school belonging. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 38(8), 1-18.
  32. Kim, C. (2012). The role of affective and motivational factors in designing personalized learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 563-584.
  33. Kim, Y. (2018). Revisiting classroom practices in East Asian Countries: Examination of within-country variations and effects of classroom instruction. Teachers College Record, 120(7), 1-42.
  34. Kizilcec, R. F., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Eight-minute self-regulation intervention raises educational attainment at scale in individualist but not collectivist cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 4348-4353.
  35. Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question?. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109-113.
  36. Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 707-734. DOI:10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5
  37. Lee, K. B. (2009). Happiness and educational culture in Korea. Studies on Korean Youth, 20, 365-392.
  38. Lee, M. K. (2018). Flipped classroom as an alternative future class model?: Implications of South Korea's social experiment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 837-857.
  39. Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in context. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14, 65-77.
  40. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3.
  41. Park, C. (2010). Engaging students in the learning process: The learning journal. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(2), 183-199.
  42. Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, USA: Penguin.
  43. Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senecal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 734.
  44. Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and instruction, 42, 95-103.
  45. Seth, M. J. (2002). Education fever: Society, politics, and the pursuit of schooling in SK. University of Hawaii Press.
  46. Sharma, P. (2010). Measuring personal cultural orientations: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 787-806.
  47. Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 57-68.
  48. Statistics Korea, (2019). Private Education Expenditures Survey of Elementary, Middle and High School Students in 2018. (Released 2019.3.12).
  49. Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College students' sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Chicago: Routledge.
  50. Su, Y. L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159-188.
  51. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross- cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338.
  52. Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 72, 1161.
  53. van Loon, A. M., Ros, A., & Martens, R. (2012). Motivated learning with digital learning tasks: What about autonomy and structure? Educational Technology Research & Development, 60, 101-1032.
  54. Virtanen, P., & Nevgi, A. (2010). Disciplinary and gender differences among higher education students in self-regulated learning strategies. Educational psychology, 30, 323-347.
  55. Vollhardt, L. T. (1990). Rigidity: A comparison by age and gender. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 18, 17-26.
  56. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Boston: Harvard university press.