Figure 4-27 indicates that all four teachers had high average scores (50% or above) for introjected regulation, with Dea having scored the lowest. Not many examples came from the qualitative data, thus introjected regulation can in some cases possibly be induced by parents. The school environment, class teachers, and its influence on learners may also be part of the cause of introjected regulation.
Figure 4-27_Introjected regulation_All teachers
Figure 4-28_Codes_Introjected regulation
Table 4-11 shows that examples of introjected regulation came mostly from learners’ perceptions, and are not often seen in teachers’ actions.
Table 4-11_Codes_Occurrence_Introjected regulation Introjected regulation
Anne Beth Chris Dea Totals
Conditional regard 0 0 0 0 0
Induces guilt and shame 0 2 0 1 3
Internal punishments 1 0 2 1 4
Learner feels guilty 4 2 0 1 7
Learner has internal rewards 2 0 1 3 6
Learner is ashamed 1 3 0 1 5
Learner wants to please teacher 1 2 0 2 5
Praise vs. disappointment from
teacher 0 2 0 1 3
Totals 9 11 3 10 33
Induces guilt and shame has already been discussed under relatedness negative (see Figure 4-19). The examples included Beth with L3, and Dea with L1. Learner feels guilty came from examples by Anne, Beth and Dea, and is signified by learners saying ‘sorry’ if they make a mistake, or having a guilty facial expression. Learner is ashamed came from Anne, Beth and Dea, and is signified by learners confessing shyly that they didn’t practise something, or by giggling or smiling shyly when
making a mistake. L3 of Dea (8:21) wrote that she feels embarrassed if she gets something wrong in her lessons. A slightly different example was already discussed under competence negative (Figure 4-13), and refers to L2 of Beth (3:97) when she asked him to play an ensemble part for a performance, and the part was easy as it was meant for beginners. He may feel ashamed to play something so far below his standard, which may indicate that there is some pride involved in his playing.
Internal punishments are indicated by what L3 of Anne (2:80) wrote about what she enjoys least about practising: “[w]hen I make a blunder during a piece”, because “I feel as if I am disappointing someone by making a mistake.” One cannot be certain who the “someone” is that L3 refers to, but it can be seen as an internal punishment. L3 is a diligent learner, who entered the class looking tense. Anne watched from above as she was nearing the music building, and commented on her tenseness and worrying. It may confirm that she shows signs of introjected regulation, which is also shown on her qualitative data. L3 may not fully be able to enjoy her music due to this. L4 of Chris (6:14) wrote that she feels bad when she gets a piece wrong, also indicating that she has internal punishments. Similarly, L1 of Chris (6:17) wrote that when she gets a piece wrong in her lessons, it makes her feel bad about herself. L3 of Dea (8:57) wrote that she gets angry when she practises and forgets
something from her lesson, because she feels she should have paid better attention.
Learner has internal rewards is indicated by the following example written by L4 of Anne (2:13): “I enjoy trying different things because it makes me and my family proud.” How L4’s family feels is clearly an important part of her motivation for her instrument. Figure 4-29 shows another example by L2 of Anne (2:46).
Figure 4-29_Anne_Internal rewards
Although L2 (2:40, Figure 4-29) has indicated competence, associated with getting her pieces right, it is not enough to fully internalise a motivation. L1 of Chris (6:44) wrote that practising makes her “feel good about myself”. L4 of Dea (8:66) also wrote she likes to play well, because she feels good about herself afterwards. The use of the word “myself’ indicates that their self-esteems may be
contingent upon what they achieve. L3 of Dea (8:5) wrote that she feels proud of herself when she had learnt a piece. She also wrote that figuring something out on her own during practising makes her feel proud of herself. According to SDT, pride can have negative implications for self-determined behaviour, as it is associated with introjected regulation.
Learner wants to please teacher came from Anne, Beth and Dea. Anne’s (2:39) L4 said she enjoys getting better from practising, because than she can make her teacher proud. The improvement contributes positively to competence, but the learner making it her goal to make her teacher proud indicates introjected regulation. This is the learner’s perception, and whether that is really the teacher’s attitude, one cannot tell for certain. Learners also reported feeling they have let their teachers down when not getting something right in the lesson (Beth, L1, 4:36), as L3 of Dea (8:24) wrote that her teacher counted on her to learn her piece. L3 (8:28) also wrote that she likes showing her teacher that she loves playing music. L6 of Beth (4:30) wrote that when she feels she has not practised enough, she worries that her teacher will be disappointed. It was also assigned Praise versus disappointment from teacher. Regardless of whether Beth expresses disappointment explicitly, L6 may experience it like that. Under the same code, L1 of Beth (4:56) wrote what she likes least about her teacher: “When I disappoint her, she’s very hard on me.” L3 of Dea (8:39) wrote the following on the same question: “I feel she is dissap[p]ointed when I don’t practise hard enough.” This may not be intentional behaviour from Dea, but L3 perceives it as such. On the ANOVA boxplot (Figure 4-30), it is also shown that L3 scored high on introjected regulation (above 50% average).
It is surprising that introjected regulation received high scores across all four teachers, as all three basic psychological needs also scored high for all teachers. SDT theorises that if all three needs are met, a person should have internalised forms of motivation, where one would remain introjected if only relatedness and competence are fulfilled. Interestingly, L2 of Beth, who scored low on
relatedness, received a considerably lower score (although above 50%) on introjected regulation than Beth’s other learners. Table 4-12 confirms that Beth’s data on introjected regulation is reliable.
Table 4-12_ANOVA_Beth_Introjected regulation Beth: Introjected regulation
Source SS df MS F Prob>F
Columns 10,43939 5 2,087879 4,818182 0,000907
Error 26 60 0,433333
Figure 4-30_Beth_Introjected regulation
Chris’s L4, who reported high levels of relatedness to him also scored the highest of all his learners on introjected regulation. The same tendency did not however hold for his other learners. The ANOVA table (Table 4-13) confirms that the results for Chris’s introjected regulation are reliable.
Table 4-13_ANOVA_Chris_Introjected regulation Chris: Introjected regulation
Source SS df MS F Prob>F
Columns 14,79545 3 4,931818 7,138158 0,000597
Error 27,63636 40 0,690909
Total 42,43182 43
Could relatedness in some cases possibly be a cause of introjected regulation? As learners perceive that their teachers (who they feel related to) are disappointed when they ‘fail’, do they therefore perceive their teachers’ approval as conditional? One could also consider the possibility that
introjected regulation is a cause of the school environment, or how their parents treat them. Learners may therefore project the conditional regard that they receive from their class teachers or parents onto their music teachers.