Philosophy

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cthe20

Teaching in Higher Education Critical Perspectives

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Autonomy-supportive language in the syllabus: supporting students from the first day

Adena Young-Jones, Chantal Levesque, Sophie Fursa & Jason McCain

To cite this article: Adena Young-Jones, Chantal Levesque, Sophie Fursa & Jason McCain (2021) Autonomy-supportive language in the syllabus: supporting students from the first day, Teaching in Higher Education, 26:4, 541-556, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1661375

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1661375

Published online: 03 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 724

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Autonomy-supportive language in the syllabus: supporting students from the first day Adena Young-Jonesa, Chantal Levesque b, Sophie Fursac and Jason McCaind

aPsychology Department (Hill Hall 319), Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA; bCenter for Instructional Excellence, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA; cPsychology Department, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA; dDepartment of Health Science and Wellness, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO, USA

ABSTRACT An autonomy supportive classroom enhances the learning climate and improves academic motivation. Alternatively, a controlling classroom environment constricts the learning climate and hinders academic motivation. The current study evaluated whether autonomy supportive or controlling language presented in a class syllabus influenced students’ perceptions of a college course. Students were randomly assigned to read a syllabus written with either autonomy supportive or controlling language. After reading, participants rated their perceptions of the learning climate, intrinsic motivation, satisfaction of their basic psychological needs, and intentions to take the class. Analyses revealed that students who viewed the autonomy-supportive syllabus had a more overall positive perception of the course compared to students who read the controlling syllabus. The findings suggest language within a course syllabus can influence student’s early perceptions of and intentions toward taking a course, but not their reported level of intrinsic motivation. Implications for instructors and future directions are discussed.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 8 January 2018 Accepted 23 August 2019

KEYWORDS Academic motivation; learning environment; autonomy; basic needs; syllabus

Course syllabi are integral documents often overlooked, or given only a cursory evaluation, by both students and faculty. The language utilized not only creates a standard, but it often determines the student’s impressions about an instructor’s personality and expectations. These initial perceptions may affect students’ motivation to succeed in the course. Educational psychologists commonly seek ways to enhance student motivation early in the academic process, and research has shown that environmental changes (e.g. teaching methods and language) influence student learning and motivation. For example, ample studies have shown pedagogy and teaching techniques to drastically impact academic success (Bernaus and Gardner 2008; Patall, Cooper, and Wynn 2010; Radel et al. 2010; Tinto 2006; Vallerand, Fortier, and Guay 1997). However, few studies have investigated whether conveying teaching style within the course syllabus increases academic motiv- ation. Therefore, the present study seeks to determine if incorporating autonomy suppor- tive language into the syllabus improves students’ perceptions toward the course.

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Adena Young-Jones [email protected] Psychology Department (Hill Hall 319), Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65897, USA

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2021, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 541–556 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1661375

Self-determination theory

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) of motivation by Deci and Ryan (1985) asserts three basic psychological needs (i.e. autonomy, competence, and relatedness) are essential for facilitating effective functioning in any setting. Autonomy indicates the degree to which individuals feel volition and responsibility for their behavior. Competence refers to feel- ings of effectiveness within their social atmosphere and whether they can express their capabilities. Relatedness marks a need to feel connected to others and positively integrated into their lives (Ryan and Deci 2002).

SDT states that motivation strengthens when the basic psychological needs are satisfied and weakens if the needs are thwarted or undermined (Deci and Ryan 2000; Deci et al. 1991; Howard, Gagné, and Bureau 2017; Howard et al. 2018; Ryan and Deci 2000). Thus, motivation moves along a continuum. On the lowest point of the continuum lies amotivation, or the complete lack of motivation for completing a task. After amotivation, the continuum advances to controlled forms of regulation (i.e. external and introjected regulation). Externally regulated behavior is performed either to receive rewards or avoid punishments. Introjected behaviors are more self-determined than externally regu- lated behaviors. These behaviors are initiated due to feeling guilty or having a lack of self- esteem. Autonomous forms (i.e. identified and integrated motivation) of regulation form the top of the motivation spectrum. Identified motivation refers to behaviors that an indi- vidual values and believes are important; however, they are not integrated with the person’s sense of self. With integrated motivation, the person finds the behavior both meaningful and an integral part of who they are. The highest point of the continuum, intrinsic motivation, occurs when individuals derive gratification simply from performing a task. When autonomy, competence, and relatedness are all fulfilled, intrinsic motivation is attained. Since motivation lies on wide spectrum, educators must adapt the learning environment to promote intrinsic motivation in their students.

Self-determination theory in education

Students with self-determination have a strong interest in learning, believe education is of value, and are confident in their capacities and attributes (Deci et al. 1991). In addition, academic motivation and classroom success increase when students’ basic psychological needs are satisfied and their perceptions of the learning climate are positive (Black and Deci 2000; Reeve 2002, 2006; Ryan and Deci 2009; Sheldon and Krieger 2007; Vansteen- kiste et al. 2004). Thus, teachers should make every effort to ensure their classrooms satisfy all three of the basic psychological needs.

Students are motivated when they perceive having autonomy (Deci and Ryan 1985; Deci et al. 1991). Past research demonstrates that students with autonomy-supportive tea- chers have increased levels of competence and intrinsic motivation (Black and Deci 2000; Noels, Clement, and Pelletier 1999; Young-Jones, Cara, and Levesque-Bristol 2014). For instance, elementary school children who reported perceptions of a more autonomous oriented learning environment had higher perceived academic competence, greater intrin- sic motivation, and a view that academic success is controlled internally (Deci et al. 1981; Ryan and Grolnick 1986). This finding has been replicated in the international realm as well; student-focused strategies connect with conceptual changes in students and deeper

542 A. YOUNG-JONES ET AL.

approaches to learning versus solely the transmission of information from the teacher (Trigwell and Prosser 1991, 1996, 2004; Trigwell, Prosser, and Taylor 1994).

Teachers can create an autonomy supportive environment in several ways. According to Assor, Kaplan, and Roth (2002), explaining the relevance of projects and papers, per- mitting students to express their concerns, and allowing students to tailor activities to their personal interests forms an autonomy-supportive classroom. It is critical, though, to differentiate an autonomy-supportive environment from a non-structured environ- ment. Creating an autonomy-supportive classroom does not mean there are no rules, rou- tines, or assignments. Autonomy support gives students freedom to pursue their own agendas yet maintains structure by giving clear expectations, attainable challenges, infor- mative and consistent feedback, and applicable support (Ryan and Deci 2002; Skinner and Belmont 1993). Thus, autonomy support and structure are not opposites but rather two distinct concepts, which should be incorporated simultaneously into the classroom. Stu- dents perform at optimal levels when structure and autonomy support are both present (Skinner and Belmont 1993).

Teachers foster relatedness by ensuring students feel they belong in the classroom and are accepted and supported there. The student-teacher relationship has been shown to strongly influence these perceptions and positively impact academic success (Curby, Rimm-Kaufman, and Ponitz 2009; Hamre and Pianta 2001; Roorda et al. 2011). Previous research asserts that positive student-teacher relationships can predict strong academic scores and constructive behaviors (Hamre and Pianta 2001). Furthermore, teacher relat- edness can promote positive relationships among the students, which creates a supportive classroom culture. Relatedness can also refer to how the material connects to the students, specifically the students’ personal goals. Thus, when teachers nurture relatedness in their classrooms, students have a more positive experience with their instructor, peers, and course material.

Fewer studies have evaluated how students’ perceptions of competence influence motivation. Competence is satisfied when students feel that they have grasped presented content and are able to successfully complete course assignments. Teachers can increase feelings of competence by providing valuable feedback and expressing confidence in their students’ abilities. Several studies have found that students who have a mastery goal orientation, meaning they are focused on mastering a task and building their personal competence, are open to challenges and have a positive attitude towards school (Ames and Archer 1988; Church, Elliot, and Gable 2001). The three following tips, though suggested for medical educators, could be used by any teacher to support competence in their stu- dents: (1) concentrate on the content rather than the individual, (2) use statements that make the student feel in control (e.g. How will you do this?), (3) include students in pro- fessional groups and settings (Ten Cate, Kusurkar, and Williams 2011).

Teachers have the power to affect autonomy, relatedness, and competence within the classroom. Moreover, satisfaction of these three basic psychological needs can be initiated on the first day of college. Young-Jones, Cara, and Levesque-Bristol (2014) found that autonomy-supportive language can impact students starting on the first day. When tea- chers used autonomy-supportive language (e.g. providing a rationale behind rules), stu- dents rated the learning climate more positively, reported greater satisfaction of their basic psychological needs, and were more inclined to take the course. Autonomy-suppor- tive language can also be easily incorporated on the first day in the course syllabus.

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 543

The syllabus

Syllabi serve as a course roadmap, because they outline everything a college student needs to know in order to receive a passing grade. According to Parkes and Harris (2002), syllabi serve three main purposes: to act as a contract, work as a permanent record, and assist in learning. The document displays semester long expectations of teachers and students, but also facilitates student learning. Subsequent research on syllabi content and structure support this notion (Becker and Calhoon 1999; Cullen and Harris 2009; Habanek 2005; Richmond et al. 2016; Saville et al. 2010). To maintain standards of accountability and commitment by both students and instructors, Habanek (2005) asserts that the syllabus must provide an overview of course outcomes, descriptions of textbooks and other materials, a layout of the schedule, tips on how to succeed, and an explicit statement saying students will be respected by the teacher and their classmates throughout the seme- ster. More than that, the instructor must convey enthusiasm for the content area being taught throughout the document.

Due to the significance of the course syllabi, researchers have proposed various ways to make the document integral to the learning process. One proposed method to influence student learning through the syllabi is to create a learning-centered document. A learn- ing-centered syllabus shifts focus from content delivery (i.e. teaching) to student learning (Cullen and Harris 2009). Teachers who develop a community culture in the classroom, share power with students over what and how information is learned, and evaluate stu- dents directly on the learning outcomes accomplish this shift with a learning-centered syl- labus. For example, teachers should state the learning outcomes in the syllabus and then evaluate students on the outcomes listed. Recommendations on learner-centered syllabi are promising for improving learning climates; however, they come solely from professors’ perspectives. One must also consider students’ perspectives in order to thoroughly under- stand what information is relevant to include in syllabi.

According to the literature, students find several components of the syllabus meaning- ful. For example, Saville et al. (2010) asserted that students preferred a detailed syllabus compared to a brief syllabus. After reading the detailed syllabus, students were more likely to rate the professor favorably, recommend the course to others, and take an additional course from the professor. However, the importance of syllabus content may differ depending on student age and experience. In Becker and Calhoon (1999), first-seme- ster students rated prerequisites and support services information as being important, while non-traditional students rated assignment details as being more valuable.

Recently, Richmond et al. (2016) evaluated whether student’s perceptions were influenced by a teacher-centered syllabus compared to a learner-centered syllabus. Stu- dents were randomly assigned to read a teacher-centered or learner-centered syllabus, and they rated their perceptions of the course’s professor after viewing the document. The learner-centered syllabus incorporated the three aspects discussed by Cullen and Harris (2009): community, shared power, and evaluation based on objectives. These themes were supported in the syllabus by using direct phrases (e.g. ‘Rewriting and redoing assignments is encouraged and required’), conveying a positive tone, and focusing on student learning rather than rules. The authors found that students who read the learner-centered syllabus were more likely to rate their faculty with positive traits (e.g. creative, caring, receptive, and supported) and more likely to agree with the notion that

544 A. YOUNG-JONES ET AL.

the professor had a positive rapport with students. These results show that syllabi can influence a student’s view of a course, but can the syllabus also impact a student’s motiv- ation toward the class?

Past research has focused on the importance of syllabus content and structure, but it lacks a thorough examination of the language used throughout the syllabus. Considering that supportive language can influence student learning (Young-Jones, Cara, and Levesque- Bristol 2014) and the syllabus can be used to facilitate learning (Cullen and Harris 2009), syllabi language is a warranted avenue for research. The present study sought to identify differences in basic psychological needs, learning climate perceptions, and enrollment intentions based on autonomy-supportive or controlling language presented in the syllabus. It was hypothesized that students would have a more positive perception of the autonomy- supportive syllabus than the controlling syllabus. This would be demonstrated if students who read the autonomy-supportive syllabus rated their basic psychological needs satisfac- tion, intrinsic motivation, impression of the learning climate, and intention to enroll in the course higher than students who viewed the controlling syllabus.

Methods

Participants

Undergraduate students (N = 91) from a large Midwestern university in the United States were recruited to participate in this study. Students registered for a data collection timeslot through the university’s online systems, and, unbeknownst to the participants, each time- slot was assigned to one of two conditions. In the first condition, students read a syllabus written in autonomy-supportive language (n = 51), whereas in the second condition, stu- dents read a syllabus written in controlling language (n = 40). Based on self-reported data, the sample was composed of more women (76.9%) than men, juniors (39.6%), students who identified as white/non-Hispanic (90.1%), and students enrolled full time (94.5%). See Table 1 for complete details about the sample population.

Measures

Participants completed four questionnaires as one survey. The packet included the Basic Needs Satisfaction at College Scale (BNSC-S), Intrinsic Motivation scale (IMI), Learning Climate questionnaire (LCQ), and an Intentions Toward Class questionnaire (ITC).

Basic needs satisfaction at college scale (BNSC-S) The Basic Needs Satisfaction at College Scale (BNSC-S; Jenkins-Guarnieri, Vaughan, and Wright 2015) was used to assess fulfillment of the three basic psychological needs pro- posed by Deci and Ryan (1985): autonomy, competence, and relatedness Each need is assessed with a different subscale on the BNSC-S. The autonomy subscale consists of four statements such as, ‘I am free to express my ideas and opinions at school.’ The com- petence subscale is determined by five items resembling declarations like, ‘People at my university tell me I am good at what I do in school,’ and the relatedness subscale includes four statements including, ‘I get along with people at my university.’ The entire scale is composed of 13 statements, and a seven-point rating scale was used, ranging from one (not at all true) to seven (very true).

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 545

Intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI) The IMI (Ryan 1982) assesses students’ motivation toward taking a course. Three of the seven subscales were used for this study: perceived effort, perceived choice, and value/use- fulness. The perceived effort subscale uses statements like, ‘I would put a lot of effort into this class.’ The perceived choice subscale consists of statements like, ‘I would complete assignments in this class because I had to.’ The value/usefulness subscale is made up of items such as, ‘I think that completing this class is useful.’ The complete scale is comprised of 19 Likert-type statements. Students indicated their agreement with the statements using a seven-point rating scale ranging from one (not true at all) to seven (very true). Partici- pant’s responses were averaged for each subscale.

Learning climate questionnaire (LCQ) The LCQ (Williams and Deci 1996; Williams et al. 1994) determines if students view the course as autonomy-supportive. This 15 item scale measures responses on a one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree) scale. Statements in the scale include ‘I felt that the instructor would provide me choices and options’ and ‘I felt the instructor would listen to how I would like to do things.’ An average of all 15 items was used to create a total score for each participant. For this analysis, reliability measured by Cronbach’s alpha was α = .95.

Intentions toward class questionnaire (ITC) The ITC was internally developed to measure students’ intentions to take the course detailed in the syllabus. Students rated six Likert type items on a seven-point scale from one (completely disagree) to seven (completely agree). Items consisted of statements such

Table 1. Demographic frequencies and descriptive statistics. Demographic Autonomy Supportive Controlling Totala

n 51 40 91 Mean Age 20.92 (4.75) 20.25 (2.25) 20.63 (3.85) University GPA 3.57 (0.38) 3.48 (0.42) 3.26 (0.52) Gender Women 40 30 70 Men 10 9 19 Other 1 1 2

Race/Ethnicity White/Non-Hispanic 43 39 82 Black/Non-Hispanic 1 0 1 Asian/Pacific Islander 4 0 4 Hispanic 1 0 1 Native American 1 0 1

Classification First-time Freshman 12 11 23 Other Freshman 1 0 1 Sophomore 13 8 21 Junior 21 15 36 Senior 2 6 8 Unclassified 2 0 2

Enrollment Status Full-Time 47 39 86 Part-Time 4 0 4

aSome demographic questions were left unanswered; in such cases, participants’ data were still used in hypothesis testing. Note: Standard Deviations in parenthesis.

546 A. YOUNG-JONES ET AL.

as ‘If possible, I would take a class from this instructor next semester’ and ‘I would expect to learn a lot from this instructor’. Reliability measured by Cronbach’s alpha was deter- mined to be α = .95.

Because three of the measures used each had a priori proposed factor structures, confi- rmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the IBM® SPSS® Amos package (Arbuckle 2017) was used to examine the construct validity of the relevant data in the present study. Following recommendations by Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino (2017), the minimum acceptable value for the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was set at greater than or equal to .90, whereas the acceptable value for the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was set at .08 or less.

Procedure

Based on approval from the Institutional Review Board, participants were recruited through the Introductory Psychology class. Students participated in this study to receive credit toward the research participation requisite. Interested participants were able to sign up through the SONA system, a human subject pool management software. Students were also offered extra credit in certain Psychology classes. As individuals elected to be involved, they were provided room information to attend the study in-person. The con- dition was randomly determined prior to arrival of participants.

Participants completed the study in small groups of 10–20 students in a classroom setting on campus. Upon arrival, students were invited to take a seat at one of the desks in the class- room, and the experimenter introduced him/herself. Participants were then told that a new program was being tested at the university, which evaluated professors’ teaching style. The participants were asked to follow along and listen while the syllabus was being read to them, and then were asked to re-read the syllabus quietly to themselves. In concordance with research by Vansteenkiste et al. (2004), the syllabi represented language that was either autonomy-supportive or controlling. Modifications were made to the way information was conveyed rather than changing the content of the course. This allowed us to diminish measurement error caused by differences in content. For example, the same attendance pol- icies were presented in both syllabi, but the language used to present these polices was altered. In the controlling condition, the attendance policy stated, ‘I will take attendance each class. Attendance is MANDANTORY’ whereas the autonomy supportive condition stated, ‘Attendance is beneficial for this class, as you learn more when attending class. I will take attendance in each class.’ Finally, after exposure to one of the two syllabi (see Appendix A), participants completed a survey packet which included the questionnaires of interest: BNSC-S, IMI, LCQ, and ITC.

Results

Prior to the analyses data were screened for accuracy and missing values. One response was excluded for invariant responding (marking the highest number on all questions across the entire packet). No univariate outliers were identified, and no cases were deter- mined to be multivariate outliers using distance values [Mahalonobis (24.32)]. Therefore, the final number of cases available for analyses was 90. Descriptive statistics analyses revealed that values of skew and kurtosis were within acceptable ranges (between ±1)

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 547

for all variables. Homogeneity of variances was assessed with Levene’s test, which revealed that all dependent measures demonstrated homogeneity of variance.

An initial CFA of the BNSC-S scale was performed, and modification indexes were examined to identify correlations between pairs of errors. Taking these correlations into account, a subsequent CFA demonstrated adequate fit of the model to the data, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05. Factor loadings for 12 of the items were significant at p < .020, whereas the factor loading from one item on the competence subscale was not significant (p = .095). Overall, these results were considered to demonstrate sufficient construct val- idity for the scales in the BNSC-S.

Similarly, an examination of an initial CFA and the reported modification indexes of the IMI scale suggested that correlations between error pairs should be considered. Fol- lowing a subsequent CFA accounting for these correlations, the model did not adequately fit the data using all of the aforementioned criteria (CFI = .91, RMSEA = .10). Upon further analysis, it was discovered that two items from the choice subscale had standar- dized regression weights less than .10, and the factor loadings of two other items from this scale did not meet the a priori significance criteria (i.e. p < .050). Given these findings, it was determined that the choice subscale was not suitable for use in subsequent analyses. The following CFA with error correlation consideration for the remaining two subscales (i.e. perceived effort and value/usefulness) demonstrated adequate fit of the model to the data, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06, and all factor loadings were significant at p < .001. Therefore, all hypothesis testing was completed using only the perceived effort and value/usefulness scales of the IMI measure.

For the LCQ, an initial CFA again revealed the need to consider the correlation between error pairs. The CFA performed following this consideration revealed that the model was an adequate fit to the data, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06. Furthermore, all factor loadings were significant at p < .001. As such, the data regarding the LCQ were deemed to be appropriate for subsequent hypothesis testing.

Lastly, an exploratory factor analysis was performed on the items of the ITC, to test the hypothesis that there would be a sole factor. Sampling adequacy as indicated by the Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin measure was adequate (.88), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < .001). Only a single factor had an eigenvalue greater than 1.00, and this factor accounted for 79.6% of the total variance. These findings were deemed to be in support of the proposed single factor solution, and thus the items on the ITC were used for the hypothesis testing.

Group comparisons

Correlations between the dependent variables were analyzed and these, along with means and standard deviations, are presented in Table 2. Significant correlations were revealed for the majority of these variables, and consistent with prior research using similar scales (Young-Jones, Cara, and Levesque-Bristol 2014), no significant correlations were found between the IMI effort and the BSNC-S autonomy subscales. In addition, the effort subscale was not significantly correlated with autonomy or competence satisfaction. The only other non-significant correlation identified by this analysis was the relationship between the relatedness measure and the IMI value measure. Prior to the main analyses assessing differences on the dependent variables by the chosen independent variable, a

548 A. YOUNG-JONES ET AL.

one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed with respondent gender as the grouping variable. This ANOVA was performed to determine if males responded in a sig- nificantly different manner than females on any of the dependent measures. Results of these analyses revealed no significant difference between genders on any of the dependent variables (all p’s > .400), and thus we proceeded with our main analyses.

A series of independent-samples t-tests were used to identify any significant differences between students who read either an autonomy-supportive syllabus or a controlling sylla- bus on measures of intentions to take the course, basic psychological needs (autonomy, relatedness, competence), student perceptions of effort and the value of the course, and student perceptions of autonomy in the learning environment.

The majority of results provided support for the proposed hypotheses. For example, on the ITC significantly higher responses were given by students who read the autonomy- supportive syllabus ([AS], M = 4.26) than those who read the controlling syllabus ([CS], M = 2.51), t(88) = 5.80, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.23. Regarding basic psychological needs, similar results were found for autonomy (AS, M = 5.35; CS, M = 4.28, t(88) = 3.83, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .97) and for competence (AS, M = 5.20; CS, M = 4.48, t(88) = 5.70, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .81), but not for relatedness (AS, M = 4.82; CS, M = 5.04, t(88) = 0.78, p = .218). Comparisons between the aforementioned groups on measures of intrinsic motivation were mixed, with support for the hypotheses coming from the value measure (AS,M = 4.78; CS,M = 3.91, t(88) = 2.65, p = .005, Cohen’s d = .56). There were no signifi- cant differences between groups on the effort subscale (AS,M = 4.12; CS,M = 4.24, t(88) = 0.93, p = .179). Lastly, the results of the analysis for the LCQ revealed a significant differ- ence between groups, with students who read the autonomy-supportive syllabus providing significantly higher scores, and thus indicating a higher likelihood of taking such a course, than did those who read the controlling syllabus (AS,M = 4.31; CS,M = 2.69, t(88) = 7.08, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.50).

In sum, the results partially supported our hypothesis that students had a more positive perception of the autonomy supporting syllabus. Specifically, we found that students who read the autonomy supporting syllabus responded higher on measures of intentions to take the course in the future, measures of competence and autonomy needs fulfillment, measures of the value of such a course, and on measures of the climate of the learning environment. Estimated marginal means for all measures, standard errors, effect sizes, and effect size confidence intervals for all analyses are presented in Table 3.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between dependent variables. Variables Mean SD 1. ITC 2. AUT 3. COMP 4. REL 5. LCQ 6. EFFORT

1. ITC 3.49 1.66 – 2. AUT 4.87 1.21 .58** – 3. COMP 4.88 .96 .52** .71** – 4. REL 4.92 1.30 .23* .24* .28** – 5. LCQ 3.59 1.34 .78** .65** .53** .24* – 6. EFFORT 4.17 .62 .36** .12 .14 .39** .25* – 7. VALUE 4.39 1.58 .65** .27** .32** .17 .56** .40**

*p < .050; **p < .010. Notes: For all scales, high scores indicate more positive responses to the constructs assessed. SD = Standard Deviation; ITC = Intention scale; AUT = Basic Needs Satisfaction at College Scale: Autonomy subscale; COMP = Basic Needs Satisfaction at College Scale: Competence subscale; REL = Basic Needs Satisfaction at College Scale: Relatedness subscale; LCQ = Learning Climate Questionnaire; EFFORT = Intrinsic Motivation Inventory Effort subscale; VALUE = Intrinsic Motivation Inventory Value subscale.

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 549

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate if a syllabus could promote an autonomy- supportive classroomand studentmotivationwithin a course.Overall, the results supported the main hypothesis that students would have a more positive perception of the autonomy- supportive syllabus than the controlling syllabus. Consistent with past research, students from the autonomy supportive group reported higher levels of autonomy and competence, both of which were large effect sizes according to the levels outlined by Cohen (1988). Fur- thermore, students who read the autonomy-supportive syllabusweremore likely to endorse autonomy-supportive statements such as ‘I felt that the instructorwould provideme choices and options’ and ‘I felt the instructor would listen to how I would like to do things.’ Our analyses also revealed a large effect of the autonomy-supportive syllabus on students’ like- lihood of taking the course compared to the controlling syllabus.

Syllabus language was also expected to influence students’ intrinsic motivation. However, the results did not fully support the hypothesis, as students who read the auton- omy-supportive syllabus only rated their intrinsic motivation significantly higher on one of the two subscales on the IMI. The hypothesis was supported for the perceived value of the course, meaning the autonomy-supportive group felt the course would be more ben- eficial to take. Ratings on the perceived effort subscale were not significant between the two groups, suggesting the autonomy-supportive syllabus did not impact the amount of effort students felt they would put forth during the course. These findings are not entirely sur- prising when considering the different scales, and the aspect of intrinsic motivation measured. For example, the ‘value’ of a course may be a relatively straightforward and comparatively simple judgment to make, based upon quantifiable and relatively easily retrievable metrics (e.g. the furtherance of goals towards graduation, usefulness of infor- mation for future careers, etc.). In contrast, the amount of effort an individual expends may be much more difficult to quantify and gauge prospectively, given the numerous issues that could impact the difficulty (and perhaps, the ultimate value) of a task. Despite the mixed results regarding intrinsic motivation, we believe that beginning the semester by promoting a higher perceived value of a course is still a laudable goal, particu- larly when the cost to instructors is so low.

Findings from this study complement the existing literature on the benefits (i.e. increased sense of autonomy and competence) of an autonomy-supportive classroom (Black andDeci 2000; Deci et al. 1981; Noels, Clement, and Pelletier 1999; Ryan and Grolnick 1986; Young-

Table 3. Estimated marginal means, standard errors, effect sizes, and effect size confidence intervals for all hypothesis tests.

Type of Syllabus

Autonomy-Supportive Controlling Dependent Variable Mean (SE) Mean (SE) Effect Size (d ) 95% CI of d

Intention to Take the Course 4.26 (.22) 2.52 (.20) 1.23 [0.78,1.68] BNSC: Autonomy 5.35 (.13) 4.28 (.20) 0.97 [0.53,1.41] BNSC: Competence 5.20 (.13) 4.48 (.14) 0.81 [0.38,1.24] BNSC: Relatedness 4.82 (.18) 5.04 (.22) – – Learning Climate Perceptions 4.31 (.15) 2.69 (.17) 1.50 [1.03,1.97] IM: Perceived Effort 4.12 (.08) 4.24 (.11) – – IM: Perceived Value 4.78 (.21) 3.91 (.25) 0.56 [0.14,0.98]

Notes: For all scales, higher scores indicate more positive responses to the constructs assessed. SE = Standard Error; CI = Confidence Interval; BNSC = Basic Needs Satisfaction in College; IM = Intrinsic Motivation.

550 A. YOUNG-JONES ET AL.

Jones, Cara, and Levesque-Bristol 2014). Additionally, just as autonomy-supportive teach- ing has a positive effect on students, a syllabus written to encourage student learning, rather than control it, can have a positive effect on student perceptions. According to this study, students reported that they would be more likely to enroll in a course that is perceived to be autonomy-supportive through its description in the syllabus. This finding is substantial as it suggests students are positively influenced when teachers make small educational environment changes, such as adapting the syllabus language.

Future research should further examine which subtle manipulations to the syllabi might produce positive student outcomes. The current study only focused on the overall tone used within the syllabus, but do some aspects of the syllabus (e.g. attendance policy, course materials) contribute more to a student’s perception of an autonomy-supportive environment? Subsequent studies could also assess whether autonomy-supportive language influences students’ perceptions of university policies (e.g. academic integrity statements, disability accommodation statements). Future studies should also explore whether different demographic variables (i.e. ethnicity, enrollment status, classification, etc.) have an impact on views of the two syllabi, as the only demographic that could be analyzed in this study was gender, which was non-significant.

While this study used syllabi for an introductory course in Psychology, the essential information relevant to generalizability, that is, the inclusion of content related to student responsibilities and expectations, were included. Although this does not guarantee generalizability to syllabi from other courses, we feel that the current findings with this content would generalize to highly similar courses (e.g. courses traditionally listed in the sciences). Additional research could verify if this is the case, as well as determining if the type of language used in a syllabus influences students in other areas of academic focus (e.g. humanities, etc.). Furthermore, the finding that one subscale of the IMI measure was a poor fit to the data collected in this study suggests that, in future studies with similar participant demographics, another measure or method may be required to capture the latent variable of perceived choice in the classroom. Another important area of future research resides in exploration of the use of autonomy-supporting language in syllabi for courses that are considered to be ‘elective’ or, at least, not required as part of a student’s major area of study, as these classes may be perceived as having different levels of both value and necessary effort. Finally, subsequent research could discover how auton- omy-supportive and controlling environments impact other important outcome variables (i.e. content retention, etc.).

Autonomy-supportive classrooms allow students to share in the responsibility of their learning (Cullen and Harris 2009). Therefore, the classroom becomes a community where teacher and students are united in supporting the students’ goals. Autonomy-support has been shown to increase intrinsic motivation and boost student confidence (Deci et al. 1981; Ryan and Grolnick 1986). Teachers, professors, and other educators can initiate the partnership between themselves and their students on the first day of class by ensuring their syllabi convey a supportive message. In doing so, students will begin the semester on track toward academic success.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 551

ORCID

Chantal Levesque http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5034-0028

References

Ames, C., and J. Archer. 1988. “Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students’ Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes.” Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 260–267.

Arbuckle, J. L. 2017. Amos (Version 25.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: IBM SPSS. Assor, A., H. Kaplan, and G. Roth. 2002. “Choice is Good, but Relevance is Excellent: Autonomy-

Enhancing and Suppressing Teacher Behaviours Predicting Students’ Engagement in Schoolwork.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 72: 261–278.

Becker, A. H., and S. K. Calhoon. 1999. “What Introductory Psychology Students Attend to on a Course Syllabus.” Teaching of Psychology 26: 6–11.

Bernaus, M., and R. C. Gardner. 2008. “Teacher Motivation Strategies, Student Perceptions, Student Motivation, and English Achievement.” The Modern Language Journal 92 (3): 387–401.

Black, A. E., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “The Effects of Instructors’ Autonomy Support and Students’ Autonomous Motivation on Learning Organic Chemistry: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective.” Science Education 84 (6): 740–756.

Church, M. A., A. J. Elliot, and S. L. Gable. 2001. “Perceptions of Classroom Environment, Achievement Goals, and Achievement Outcomes.” Journal of Educational Psychology 93: 43–54. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.43.

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.

Cullen, R., and M. Harris. 2009. “Assessing Learner-Centeredness through Course Syllabi.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34: 115–125. doi:10.1080/02602930801956018.

Curby, T. W., S. E. Rimm-Kaufman, and C. C. Ponitz. 2009. “Teacher-Child Interactions and Children’s Achievement Trajectories Across Kindergarten and First Grade.” Journal of Educational Psychology 101: 912–925. doi:10.1037/a0016647.

Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 2000. “The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits”Human Needs and Self- Determination of Behavior.” Psychological Inquiry 11: 227–268. doi:10.1207/ S15327965PLI1104_01.

Deci, E. L., A. J. Schwartz, L. Sheinman, and R. M. Ryan. 1981. “An Instrument to Assess Adult’s Orientations Toward Control Versus Autonomy with Children: Reflections on Intrinsic Motivation and Perceived Competence.” Journal of Educational Psychology 73 (5): 642–650.

Deci, E. L., R. J. Vallerand, L. G. Pelletier, and R. M. Ryan. 1991. “Motivation and Education: The Self-Determination Perspective.” Educational Psychologist 26 (3 &4): 325–346.

Habanek, D. V. 2005. “An Examination of the Integrity of the Syllabus.” College Teaching 53 (2): 62–64.

Hamre, B. K., and R. C. Pianta. 2001. “Early Teacher-Child Relationships and the Trajectory of Children’s School Outcomes through Eighth Grade.” Child Development 72: 625–638.

Howard, J. L., M. Gagné, and J. S. Bureau. 2017. “Testing a Continuum Structure of Self- Determined Motivation: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 143 (12): 1346–1377.

Howard, J. L., M. Gagné, A. J. Morin, and J. Forest. 2018. “Using Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling to Test for a Continuum Structure of Motivation.” Journal of Management 44 (7): 2638–2664.

Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., A. L. Vaughan, and S. L. Wright. 2015. “Development of a Self- Determination Measure for College Students: Validity Evidence for the Basic Needs Satisfaction at College Scale.” Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 48 (4): 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175615578737.

Meyers, L. S., G. Gamst, and A. J. Guarino. 2017. Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

552 A. YOUNG-JONES ET AL.

Noels, K. A., R. Clement, and L. G. Pelletier. 1999. “Perceptions of Teachers’ Communicative Style and Students’ Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.” The Modern Languages Journal 83: 23–34. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00003.

Parkes, J., and M. B. Harris. 2002. “The Purposes of a Syllabus.” College Teaching 50 (2): 55–61. Patall, E. A., H. Cooper, and S. R. Wynn. 2010. “The Effectiveness of Relative Importance of Choice

in the Classroom.” Journal of Educational Psychology 102 (4): 896–915. Radel, R., P. Sarrazin, P. Legrain, and C. T. Wild. 2010. “Social Contagion of Motivation Between

Teacher and Student: Analyzing Underlying Processes.” Journal of Educational Psychology 102 (3): 577–587.

Reeve, J. 2002. “Self-Determination Theory Applied to Educational Settings.” In Handbook for Self- Determination, edited by E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, 183–203. Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.

Reeve, J. 2006. “Teachers as Facilitators: What Autonomy-Supportive Teachers Do and Why Their Students Benefit.” The Elementary School Journal 106 (3): 225–236.

Richmond, A. S., J. M. Slattery, N. Mitchell, R. K. Morgan, and J. Becknell. 2016. “Can a Learner- Centered Syllabus Change Students’ Perceptions of Student-Professor Rapport and Master Teacher Behaviors?” Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 2: 159–168. doi:10. 1037/stl0000066.

Roorda, D. L., H. M. Koomen, J. L. Spilt, and F. J. Oort. 2011. “The Influence of Affective Teacher- Student Relationships on Students’ School Engagement and Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Approach.” Review of Educational Research 81: 493–529.

Ryan, R. M. 1982. “Control and Information in the Intrapersonal Sphere: An Extension of Cognitive Evaluation Theory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43 (3): 450–461.

Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “The Darker and Brighter Sides of Human Existence: Basic Psychological Needs as a Unifying Concept.” Psychological Inquiry 11: 319–338. doi:10.1207/ S15327965PLI1104_03.

Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2002. “Overview of Self-Determination Theory: An Organismic Dialectical Perspective.” In Handbook for Self-Determination, edited by E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, 3–33. Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2009. “Promoting Self-Determined School Engagement: Motivation, Learning, and Well-Being.” In Handbook on Motivation at School, edited by K. R. Wenzel and A. Wigfield, 171–195. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Ryan, R. M., and W. S. Grolnick. 1986. “Origins and Pawns in the Classroom: Self-Report and Projective Assessments of Individual Differences in Children’s Perceptions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (3): 550–558.

Saville, B. K., T. E. Zinn, A. R. Brown, and K. A. Marchuk. 2010. “Syllabus Detail and Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Effectiveness.” Teaching of Psychology 37: 186–189.

Sheldon, K. M., and L. S. Krieger. 2007. “Understanding the Negative Effects of Legal Education on Law Students: A Longitudinal Test of Self-Determination Theory.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (6): 883–897.

Skinner, E. A., and M. J. Belmont. 1993. “Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Behavior and Student Engagement Across the School Year.” Journal of Educational Psychology 85 (4): 571–581.

Ten Cate, O., R. A. Kusurkar, and G. C. Williams. 2011. “How Self-Determination Theory Can Assist our Understanding of the Teaching and Learning Processes in Medical Education. AMEE Guide No. 59.” Medical Teacher 33: 961–973.

Tinto, V. 2006. “Research and Practice of Student Retention: What Next?” Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 8 (1): 1–19.

Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 1991. “Improving the Quality of Student Learning: The Influence of Learning Context and Student Approaches to Learning on Learning Outcomes.” Higher Education 22: 251–266.

Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 1996. “Congruence between Intention and Strategy in University Science Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching.” Higher Education 32: 77–87.

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 553

Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 2004. “Development and Use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory.” Educational Psychology Review 16 (4): 409–424.

Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and P. Taylor. 1994. “Qualitative Differences in Approaches to Teaching First Year University Science.” Higher Education 27: 75–84.

Vallerand, R. J., M. S. Fortier, and F. Guay. 1997. “Self-Determination and Persistence in a Real-Life Setting: Toward a Motivational Model of High School Drop-Out.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (5): 1161–1176.

Vansteenkiste, M., J. Simons, W. Lens, K. M. Sheldon, and E. L. Deci. 2004. “Motivating, Learning, Performance, and Persistence: The Synergistic Effects of Intrinsic Goal Contents and Autonomy- Supportive Contexts.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (2): 246–260.

Williams, G. C., and E. L. Deci. 1996. “Internalization of Biopsychosocial Values byMedical Students: A Test of Self-Determination Theory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 767–779.

Williams, G. C., M. W. Wiener, K. M. Markakis, J. Reeve, and E. L. Deci. 1994. “Medical Student Motivation for Internal Medicine.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 9: 327–333.

Young-Jones, A., K. C. Cara, and C. Levesque-Bristol. 2014. “Verbal and Behavioral Cues: Creating an Autonomy-Supportive Classroom.” Teaching in Higher Education 19 (5): 497–509.

Appendix A

PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY Fall Semester Instructor: Professor Casey Plum Office: Hill 1 Office Hours: MW 2:00-4:00 and by appointment. Phone: 417-836-1234 E-mail Address: [email protected]

PURPOSE OF THE COURSE: The primary purpose of this course is to introduce you to the broad principles of Psychology, including neuroscience, psychological disorders, motivation, conscious- ness, learning, and memory. You will emerge with an enhanced awareness of psychological phenomenon and an increased ability to comprehend and evaluate psychological research. Empha- sis will be placed on applying the principles of Psychology to everyday life. This course is a prere- quisite for advanced Psychology courses.

REQUIRED TEXTBOOK: Smith, A. Y. (2009). Modern Principles of Psychology. New York: Worth.

MATERIALS: You may purchase a one section spiral notebook. Occasionally, this notebook may be used during quizzes. The notebooks may not be shared or borrowed during class to ensure every- one is doing their own work.

ATTENDANCE/BEHAVIOR POLICY: Attendance is beneficial for this class, as you learn more when attending class. I will take attendance in each class. Active participation will enhance the retention of material, thus enhancing your exam performance. Please conduct yourself in an appropriate manner when in class (i.e. tardiness, sleeping, leaving early, packing up early, texting in class, talking to your neighbor, etc.). Professional conduct also includes turning cell phones to silent or vibrate.

READING POLICY: Pop-quizzes will be administered randomly to ensure you keep up with the assigned readings. The purpose of the quizzes is to encourage you to keep up with the reading assignments. These quizzes also serve to familiarize you with the types of questions you will see on the exams.

554 A. YOUNG-JONES ET AL.

EXAMINATIONS: A total of four exams will be given. The first three exams are worth 100 points each, and the cumulative final exam is worth 150 points.

HOMEWORK: Problems will be assigned from the sections we cover in class. It is to your benefit to complete the homework assignments; completing the assignments will help familiarize you with the material.

GRADING: Grades are assigned as follows:

Exam 1 100 points Exam 2 100 points Exam 3 100 points Final Exam 150 points Homework 100 points Quizzes 100 points Attendance 150 points Total 750 points

FINAL GRADING SCALE: Grades will be awarded based on the following scale: 90%–100% of total points = A 80%–89% of total points = B 70%–79% of total points = C 55%–69% of total points = D Below 55% = F

PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY Fall Semester Instructor: Professor Casey Plum Office: Hill 1 Office Hours: MW 2:00-4:00 and by appointment. Phone: 417-836-1234 E-mail Address: [email protected]

PURPOSE OF THE COURSE: The primary purpose of this course is to introduce you to the broad principles of Psychology, including neuroscience, psychological disorders, motivation, conscious- ness, learning, and memory. You will emerge with an enhanced awareness of psychological phenomenon and an increased ability to comprehend and evaluate psychological research. Empha- sis will be placed on applying the principles of Psychology to everyday life. This course is a prere- quisite for advanced Psychology courses.

REQUIRED TEXTBOOK: Smith, A. Y. (2009). Modern Principles of Psychology. New York: Worth. MATERIALS: You will need a one section spiral notebook. Occasionally, this notebook may be used during quizzes. You will not be allowed to share or borrow spiral notebooks during class. If you do so, you will get an XF for the course.

ATTENDANCE/BEHAVIOR POLICY: A seating chart will be created for the first day of class based on your last name. You are expected to sit in the assigned seat. I will take attendance each class. Attendance is MANDANTORY. You must attend class and participate to receive credit for the particular day. I will track each absence, in addition to every unprofessional act (i.e. tardiness, sleeping, leaving early, packing up early, texting in class, talking to your neighbor, etc.). When cell phones ring during class, this disrupts everyone. Cell phones must be turned to silent or vibrate upon entering the classroom. Exceptions to this policy have to be discussed with me prior to class.

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 555

Each student is responsible for all material, whether you attend class or not. Additionally, do not come to class late or leave before class is dismissed unless you inform me beforehand.

READING POLICY: You are expected to keep up with each of the assigned readings. You must complete the readings on time and be prepared to discuss, in class, the pertinent topics. Pop- quizzes will be administered randomly to ensure you keep up with the assigned readings. Quizzes cannot be made up.

EXAMINATIONS: A total of four exams will be given. The first three exams are worth 100 points each, and the cumulative final exam is worth 150 points. It is your responsibility to know when a test will be given, as make-up exams will be given ONLY if the absence has been for an acceptable and documented reason. All make-up exams will be administered on study day. Consequently, do not miss an exam.

HOMEWORK: I will assign problems from the sections we cover in class. Late work will not be accepted; all late homework will receive zero points.

GRADING: Grades are assigned as follows:

Exam 1 100 points Exam 2 100 points Exam 3 100 points Final Exam 150 points Homework 100 points Quizzes 100 points Attendance 150 points Total 750 points

FINAL GRADING SCALE: I do NOT grade on a curve or round off your total points. Grades will be awarded based on the following scale: 90%–100% of total points = A 80%–89% of total points = B 70%–79% of total points = C 55%–69% of total points = D Below 55% = F

***IT IS THE STUDENT’S RESPONSIBILITY TOUNDERSTAND THE PROCEDURE TODROP THE COURSE. STUDENTS THAT STOP ATTENDING CLASS, BUT DO NOT FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE PROPER PAPERWORK WILL RECEIVE A FAILING GRADE.***

556 A. YOUNG-JONES ET AL.

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles false /AutoRotatePages /PageByPage /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile () /CalRGBProfile (Adobe RGB \0501998\051) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 524288 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments false /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo false /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings false /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Remove /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.90 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.90 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 300 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects true /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /Description << /ENU () >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [600 600] /PageSize [595.245 841.846] >> setpagedevice