Supervision meetings give teachers and students opportunities to interact with each other and to co-regulate students’ learning processes. Co-regulation refers to the transitional process of a student who is becoming a self-regulated learner by interacting with a more capable other such as a teacher. During a task, teachers are expected to pull back their support and give opportunities to students to take responsibility. This study aims to explore the shifting patterns of co-regulation, feedback perception, and motivation during a 5-month research project. Participants were 20 students conducting research in pairs and six teachers who supervised these students. Two videotaped supervision meetings at the beginning and end of the research process and questionnaires on feedback perception and motivation were analysed. Results on co-regulation showed a constant and comparable level of regulation at the start and at the end of students’ research projects. Feedback perception did not change, but motivation decreased significantly.
DOCUMENT
Acknowledging the knowledge gaps and novel paradigms outlined above within both coaching research and practice, the PhD research aims to investigate how need-supportive coaching—rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT)—effectively fulfils the satisfaction of beginning teachers’ basic psychological needs (BPNs) and autonomous motivation in pursuing their coaching goals within dyadic coaching relationships. To systematically explore this overarching objective, this PhD project and thesis adopt a structured, four-step approach, where each step investigates specific and complementary aspects of the coaching process. Collectively, these steps provide a comprehensive examination of how and under what conditions BPN-supportive coaching facilitates optimal motivational outcomes, enriching our understanding of the dynamic processes that shape coaching effectiveness among beginning teachers. Specifically, four research questions systematically guide the four research steps:1. What is the current state of empirical evidence linking BPN support, BPN satisfaction, and autonomous motivation within coach-coachee relationships?2. How do perceptual distances between coaches’ and coachees’ perceptions regarding BPN support relate to the coachees’ BPN satisfaction?3. How do coaches’ and coachees’ BPN satisfaction mutually predict autonomous motivation toward shared goals in their dyadic relationships?4. How do coaches and coachees dynamically co-regulate BPN interactions in real-time dyadic coaching conversations?Chapter 1 outlined a four-step empirical approach across Chapters 2 to 5 to understand BPN-supportive coaching. Chapter 2 meta-analysed the extant literature guided by a circular framework connecting BPN support, BPN satisfaction, and autonomous motivation for both parties. The results revealed that previous studies predominantly used individual-level data, neglecting the dynamic, reciprocal interactions in coaching. Chapter 3 investigated perceptual distance between coaches and coachees regarding BPN support using polynomial regression and response surface analysis. Results indicated that coachees reported greater BPN satisfaction when perceptions were closely aligned. Chapter 4 adopted the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model to examine how both parties’ BPN satisfaction is associated with their own and each other’s autonomous motivation. We found a positive unidirectional association between coachees’ relatedness satisfaction and coaches’ autonomous motivation and bidirectional associations for autonomy satisfaction. Chapter 5 employed State Space Grid analyses to capture the moment-to-moment co-regulation of autonomy in coach-coachee dyads. Results revealed recurrent patterns of predominant functional co-regulation (e.g., autonomy support met with proactive autonomy expression), and occasional dysfunctional co-regulation (e.g., evaluative feedback met with disengagement). Temporal evolvement in autonomy co-regulation was identified across coaching sessions in response to changing goals. Chapter 6 synthesised the contributions of the thesis. Collectively, BPN-supportive coaching can be viewed as a context-sensitive, interdependent, co-regulatory, and dynamic process, and we provided guidance for adaptive and relationally grounded coaching practices.
DOCUMENT
ACHTERGRONDMDMA (ecstasy) is een relatief veilige drug en induceert weinig afhankelijkheid, maar staat desondanks samen met andere harddrugs op lijst I van de Nederlandse Opiumwet. Bezorgdheid over de aan MDMA gerelateerde criminaliteit, het aantal gezondheidsincidenten en de mogelijk onterechte plaatsing van MDMA op lijst I hebben geleid tot een voortdurend debat over het huidige Nederlandse ecstasybeleid.DOELOntwikkeling van een rationeel MDMA-beleid waarbij men rekening houdt met alle aspecten gerelateerd aan de productie, verkoop en gebruik van MDMA.METHODEEen interdisciplinaire groep van 18 experts formuleerde een wetenschappelijk onderbouwd MDMA-beleid door de verwachte effecten van 95 beleidsopties op 25 uitkomsten te beoordelen, waaronder gezondheid, criminaliteit, rechtshandhaving en financiën. Het optimale beleidsmodel werd gevormd door een combinatie van 22 beleidsopties met de hoogste totaalscore op alle 25 uitkomsten. RESULTAAT Het optimale beleidsmodel bestond uit een vorm van gereguleerde productie en verkoop van MDMA, beter kwaliteitsbeheer van ecstasypillen en intensievere bestrijding van de MDMA-gerelateerde georganiseerde criminaliteit. Een dergelijk beleid zou leiden tot een kleine toename in de prevalentie van ecstasygebruik, maar met minder gezondheidsschade, minder MDMA-gerelateerde misdaad en minder milieuschade. Om de praktische uitvoerbaarheid en de politieke haalbaarheid te vergroten werd het optimale model enigszins aangepast.CONCLUSIEHet ontwikkelde optimale model biedt een politiek en maatschappelijk haalbare set van beleidsinstrumentopties, waarmee men plaatsing van MDMA op lijst I kan herzien, wat de schade van MDMA voor gebruikers en de samenleving kan verminderen. Voor de psychiatrie betekent het bevordering van therapeutisch onderzoek en minder hinder door nodeloze stigmatisering bij de behandeling van patiënten.--English:SUMMARYThe development of a rational national MDMA policy and itsrelevance for psychiatry.J.G.C. van Amsterdam, T. Nabben, G.-J. Peters, F. van Bakkum, J. Noijen, W. van den BrinkBackground MDMA (ecstasy) is a relatively safe drug and induces little dependence, but is nevertheless scheduled as a hard drug (Dutch Opium Act, List 1). Concerns about MDMA-related crime, health incidents and possible inappropriate listing of MDMA on List I have led to an ongoing debate about current Dutch ecstasy policy.Aim To develop a rational MDMA policy that takes into account all aspects related to production, sale and use ofMDMA.Method An interdisciplinary group of 18 experts formulates a science-based MDMA policy by assessing the expected effects of 95 policy options on 25 outcomes, including health, crime, law enforcement and finance. The optimal policy model consists of the combination of the 22 policy options with the highest total score on all 25 outcomes.Results The optimal policy model consisted of a form of regulated production and sale of MDMA, better qualitymanagement of ecstasy tablets and more intensive fight against MDMA-related organized crime. Such a policywould lead to a small increase in the prevalence of ecstasy use, but with less health damage, less MDMA-related crime, and less environmental damage. To increase practicality and political feasibility, the optimal model was slightly modified.Conclusion The developed optimal model offers a politically and socially feasible set of policy instrument options, with which the placement of MDMA on List I can be revised, thereby reducing the damage of MDMA to users and society. For psychiatry, it means promoting therapeutic research and less nuisance from unnecessary stigmatization in the treatment of patients.
MULTIFILE
