Learning-Environment Uncertainty and Students’ Approaches to Learning: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective

ABSTRACT

In the literature on the relationship between learning environments and students’ approaches to learning, much attention has been directed to aspects that foster a deep approach. Considerably less attention has been directed to aspects that result in the opposite, namely a surface approach. Indeed, there is a small literature focusing on how learning environments can frustrate the basic psychological needs of individuals and, as a result, foster a surface approach. However, hitherto, this stream has focused on controlling elements in learning environments. We add to this latter literature, through focusing on learning-environment uncertainty. This notion emerged from a qualitative study of 19 students at a Swedish university, where we identified three types of learning-environment uncertainty, related to the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The findings suggest that a surface approach to learning can be understood as a coping strategy that students adopt to reduce such uncertainties.

KEYWORDS:

• Learning-environment uncertainty
• surface approach
• self-determination theory
• autonomy
• competence
• relatedness

Introduction

There is a large and growing literature focusing on the ways in which students approach their learning in higher education (for an overview, see e.g., Asikainen & Gijbels, 2017). In this literature, two main approaches to learning have been identified; a deep approach and a surface approach (Baeten et al., 2016). Given that the deep approach to learning is often elevated as the one to strive for (Baeten et al., 2013; Turner & Baskerville, 2013), considerable research effort has been devoted to exploring what it is that makes students adopt a particular approach to learning. To this end, many scholars have drawn upon Self-Determination Theory (SDT; see e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000) to suggest that students’ approaches to learning are related to their motivation which, in turn, is related to their learning environments—i.e., “the social, psychological and pedagogical contexts in which learning occurs and which affect student achievement and attitudes” (Fraser, 1998, p. 3). A core assumption of SDT is that learning environments either support or thwart students’ basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness and, depending on which, it will incite different types of motivation. Student motivation will, in turn, affect how they engage in, and approach, their learning (Aelterman et al., 2019; De Meyer et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2017).

While a great deal of empirical research has been devoted to the positive part of this theoretical proposition—i.e., those aspects of a learning environment that support the basic psychological needs of students—considerably less research has been devoted to aspects that may frustrate such basic psychological needs, and hence, can be expected to foster a surface approach to learning (for a similar argument, see e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2018). Indeed, there is a small and growing literature focusing specifically on how controlling aspects of learning environments relate negatively to the basic psychological needs of individuals. For example, Aelterman et al. (2019) and others (see e.g., Assor et al., 2005; Collie et al., 2019; Reeve, 2009; Soenens et al., 2012), have pointed to how such learning environments depart from the perspective of the teachers, from which students are either directly or indirectly pressured into thinking, feeling, and acting in line with a teacher agenda. Again though, this topic has received limited attention in the extant literature and these studies have focused more on teachers and their controlling behavior than on the learning environment per se.

In this paper, we draw upon but also add to this latter stream of literature, through focusing on another, largely unexplored, aspect that may provoke a surface approach to learning among students, namely what we refer to as learning-environment uncertainty. This notion emerged as part of an empirical investigation into how students at a Swedish university approached their learning. Based on some initial analyses of this empirical material, we identified various forms of uncertainty that the students experienced and that seemed to affect how they approached their learning. Departing from these preliminary findings, we conducted a more systematic analysis where we drew upon SDT to answer the following emerging research questions:

1. What types of learning-environment uncertainties could be identified in relation to the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness?

2. How were such learning-environment uncertainties perceived to provoke a surface approach to learning?

Our study contributes to the extant literature in the following ways. First, it adds to our understanding of features of learning environments that are associated with surface approaches to learning in higher education, beyond a focus on the controlling aspects of such environments. Second, it furthers our understanding of how aspects of the learning environment can be related to a surface approach to learning through linking them to the basic psychological needs of SDT. In particular, our findings suggest that a surface approach to learning constitutes a form of coping strategy that students adopt to reduce the uncertainties they experience when such needs are frustrated.

In the next section, we elaborate on how students’ approaches to learning relate to motivation and learning environments, according to SDT. Following this, we provide an overview of how the empirical study was designed and conducted, after which we present and discuss our empirical findings. In a final section, we discuss conclusions and contributions.

Literature Review

SDT and Students’ Approaches to Learning

Students’ approaches to learning has been an important research topic for several decades. Starting out in the 1960s, early research was conducted by four main groups of researchers from Sweden (led by Ference Marton), England (one group led by Noel Entwistle and one by Gordon Pask), and Australia (led by John Biggs) (for an overview, see Entwistle, 2018). A common theme in the research conducted by these groups, and the research that followed, was the distinction between a deep approach and a surface approach to learning.

A deep approach to learning is typically seen as one where learning is intrinsically motivated. That is, students are seen as having an “intrinsic interest in the content to be learned” (Baeten et al., 2013, p. 318). Based on this, students typically view learning as a form of personal commitment (Laird et al., 2008) where they become genuinely interested in studying and they tend to do so to achieve personal understanding (Turner & Baskerville, 2013). As repeatedly suggested in this literature, such a view on learning, in turn, tends to result in students adopting deep learning strategies.

In contrast, a surface approach to learning is extrinsically motivated, in the sense that learning becomes a means for achieving something else, such as the completion of certain requirements, pass an exam, or to get a particular job (Baeten et al., 2013; Öhrstedt & Lindfors, 2016; Turner & Baskerville, 2013). When driven by such motives, students tend to view learning as the accumulation of pre-existing knowledge, based on which they employ surface-oriented strategies such as memorization. The premise is that when studying to achieve something else—or to avoid the fear of failure (Entwistle, 2018; Laird et al., 2008)—learning can be oriented towards reproduction for instrumental purposes without attaching personal meaning to it.

Students’ Motivation and Their Basic Psychological Needs

There has been an extensive and continued interest in theorizing when and why students adopt these two different approaches to learning. In the SDT-based literature, such theorizing has departed from a core assumption, namely that motivation does not constitute a fixed and inherent property of individuals. Rather, motivation may vary depending on how their basic psychological needs are supported or thwarted. In fact, the theory posits that to the extent that an individual’s need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are supported, individuals can come to internalize external forms of regulation (such as the goals, instructions, and content decided upon by others), so that they become more autonomously or intrinsically motivated (which, as suggested above, is associated with a deep approach to learning; Gagné & Deci, 2005). In contrast, to the extent that such basic psychological needs are thwarted, an individual can be expected to revert to extrinsic forms of motivation (which is associated with a surface approach). Related to each specific need, the line of reasoning is as follows.

First, in order for individuals to become more intrinsically motivated, they need to feel autonomous in their actions i.e., that they do what they do because of their own choice (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to the extant literature, such feelings of “self-determination” are typically related to the experience of psychological freedom in the sense that one feels that one is in control of one’s own actions. Put differently, being autonomous tends to provoke a feeling that the motivational force comes from the inside, and hence, that the perceived locus of causality is internal (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

A second need concerns the need to feel competent. According to Ryan and Deci (2000), this relates to the individual’s need to understand what one does and to feel that one can succeed in doing it. Such feelings are typically related to the ways in which students perceive that they can master the different forms of knowledge, abilities, and values that are necessary to succeed in their studies.

Third, and finally, the propensity of individuals to internalize external forms of regulations can be expected to increase when their need for relatedness is satisfied (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In fact, as suggested by Vansteenkiste et al. (2006, p. 21), “it is out of the desire to be related to others, to feel part of a family, group, or social order, that individuals are inclined to take on the values, beliefs, and behaviors that are endorsed by those others”. In other words, to internalize what otherwise may be felt as the desire of others, individuals need to feel that they belong, and are connected, to others (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

How Learning Environments Can Frustrate Students’ Basic Psychological Needs

When it comes to how learning environments can frustrate the basic psychological needs of students, which is the main focus of this paper, the extant literature has pointed to the importance of controlling elements of such environments (Aelterman et al., 2019; Assor et al., 2005; Collie et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2017). First, and related to the need for autonomy, several researchers stress how controlling environments typically depart from teachers and their agendas, and the ways in which such agendas are inflicted upon students through external controls (such as commands, punishments, and strict deadlines) or internal ones (such as activating feelings of anxiety, shame, or guilt). For example, Aelterman et al. (2019) talked about teachers adopting a “tunnel view” based on their own agendas, while De Meyer et al. (2014, p. 541) referred to how such a tunnel view forces students to “think, feel, or behave in a specific way, thereby bypassing the students’ viewpoint” (see also Haerens et al., 2016; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). In a similar manner, Perlman (2013, p. 415) stressed how controlling environment use “instructional aspects that focus on external factors (e.g., guilt or rewards), are strict within their communication (e.g., deadlines and guilt), ignore students who struggle and attempt to demonstrate power, and pressure students to complete tasks”.

Second, controlling environments can also frustrate the need for competence among students. Although a considerably less well researched area, Aelterman et al. (2019) pointed to how teachers can frustrate the need for competence through adopting an awaiting approach, as this typically leads to unclear or even contradictory requirements and expectations for learners (see also Perlman, 2013). As a result, they suggest, “students may experience the learning environment as confusing, and may feel incapable and uncertain as to how to proceed”. In a similar manner, Haerens et al. (2016, p. 63) point to how teachers can “create confusion among students by exerting an illogical and incoherent structure when introducing tasks”. Moreover, such confusion can also be triggered by the giving of ambiguous feedback or destructive criticism.

Third, and finally, learning environments can also frustrate students’ need to feel related. Several characteristics of such environments have been suggested, including where teachers ignore students and their perspectives (cf. the teacher agenda above), remain unengaged in the students, or contribute to a cold or unfriendly climate (Perlman, 2013). Along these lines, Haerens et al. (2016, p. 63) pointed to how “the need for relatedness can be thwarted when teachers create an emotionally cold learning environment for students”. In a similar manner, De Meyer et al. (2014, p. 548) stressed that teachers may thwart students’ need for relatedness “by acting in a cold and unfriendly fashion”.

Notwithstanding the many important insights provided by the controlling learning environment literature though, there has been scant focus on uncertainty as an integral part of such needs-thwarting learning environments. Indeed, a few examples exist where the literature referred to has touched upon the notion of uncertainty in ways that could be relevant to our study. For example, Baeten et al. (2010, p. 243) and others (Baeten et al., 2013; Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2019) point to how students who feel uncertain whether they will succeed or not can engage in strategies involving “rote memorisation and a narrow-syllabus-bound attitude”. Importantly though, we lack more systematic studies of how feelings of uncertainty tie in with the basic psychological needs of students and how this, in turn, affects their approaches to learning.

Methods

Research Context and Data Collection

The empirical study reported upon in this paper is based on 19 interviews with students at a Swedish university. Several aspects were considered when designing the interview study.

First, since extant literature has stressed that the adoption of a particular approach to learning is not only contextually bound, but also related to individual characteristics (Baeten et al., 2013; De Meyer et al., 2014), we included students with different backgrounds, ages, genders etc. (for an overview, see Table 1).

Table 1. List of interviewees.

Student	Pseudonym	Age	Male/Female	Course level
01	Sarah	23	F	Introductory
02	Julia	22	F	Introductory
03	Bruce	20	M	Introductory
04	John	20	M	Introductory
05	Sylvia	19	F	Introductory
06	Olivia	24	F	Introductory
07	Dylan	23	M	Introductory
08	Evelyn	22	F	Introductory
09	Gary	24	M	Advanced
10	Jerry	25	M	Advanced
11	Richard	24	M	Advanced
12	Harry	22	M	Advanced
13	Ben	29	M	Advanced
14	Billy	25	M	Advanced
15	Chris	26	M	Advanced
16	Charlotte	23	F	Advanced
17	Emma	25	F	Advanced
18	Eddie	26	M	Advanced
19	Roxanne	26	F	Advanced

Second, since it has been stressed that students may alter their approaches to learning during their course of study (Öhrstedt & Lindfors, 2016), we wanted students from different phases of a program. Third, and finally, since research has pointed out scientific discipline as having an effect on students’ approaches to learning (Ramsden, 2003), we wanted students from a program that has previously been associated with surface approaches to learning. Based on these prerequisites, we approached students at different levels of the business and economics program at a Swedish university (where the authors are currently employed).

All interviews were conducted during 2020 and all interviewees were informed about the overall purpose of the project. Each interview followed an interview guide (Appendix 1) including open-ended questions related to the students’ perceptions of what Entwistle (2003) refers to as the inner teaching learning environment and how they approached their learning within such an environment. All interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed.

Data Analysis

Overall, our qualitative analyses of the empirical material followed what Miles and Huberman (1994) refer to as the interactive model. This means that reducing, displaying and drawing conclusions from data constituted important activities of our analyses, and that these were done in a recursive manner (Bazeley, 2013). We started out by reading a few of the interviews based on how each student seemed to approach their studies and how they gave voice to issues of autonomy, competence, and relatedness as they talked about the learning environment. As we summarized and displayed for ourselves key aspects of these interviews, three important insights were made. First, it became evident that many of the students interviewed adopted a surface approach in their studies, in the sense that they seemed highly focused on succeeding which, in turn, made them focus on what was required from them in the syllabus. Second, we found that the learning environments perceived by our interviewees displayed both controlling and autonomy-supportive elements. For analytical reasons though, and based on the fact that a surface approach seemed most prevalent among the students, we decided to focus on the elements that seemed to frustrate rather than support their basic psychological needs. Third, it did not seem as if the thwarting elements were only linked to the controlling behaviors of teachers (which could be expected according to the controlling learning environment literature). Instead, there were various aspects in the learning environment that fostered feelings of uncertainty and, moreover, these uncertainties seemed to affect how the students approached their studies.

Based on these preliminary findings, we conducted a more systematic analysis of the emerging concept of learning-environment uncertainty, and a theorization of if/how these uncertainties were perceived by the students to provoke a surface approach to learning. This part of the analysis followed two main steps. First, we (re)read all 19 transcripts and coded them in NVivo (a software for qualitative analyses), with a particular focus on perceptions of uncertainty on the one hand and a surface approach to learning on the other hand. In the former case, the material was coded based on whether it was their need for autonomy (41 codings), competence (57), or relatedness (38) that underlay their feelings of uncertainty. Each of these three categories of uncertainty was further divided into several sub-categories. For example, when it came to autonomy, the 41 codings were divided into seven empirically generated sub-categories, including unclarities related to the relevance of the education (16), its significance (2), the content (4), their own future (1), their expectations (2), the choice to study (8), and their choice of education (8). These sub-categories were then abstracted into two constitutive elements of autonomy-related uncertainties, namely unclear relevance and incoherence. A similar procedure was followed for the other two learning-environment uncertainties (i.e., for uncertainties related to competence and relatedness, respectively). When it came to students’ approaches to learning, we coded the material based on the attributes associated with a surface approach to learning in the extant literature, including fear of failure (50), lack of purpose (9), syllabus-boundness (27), and rote learning (18). Overall, 17 of the 19 students displayed clear indications of a surface approach to learning.

Apart from making it possible to “keep track of data” these various codings for learning-environment uncertainties and a surface approach to learning also helped us build ideas from, and identify patterns in, data (Bazeley, 2013, p. 127). This was particularly important for the second step of the analysis, where we went back and forth between the codings in NVivo, the whole interview transcripts, and extant literature, to explore whether—and if so, how—the learning-environment uncertainties were related to the adoption of a surface approach. Rather than focusing on each category as such (as in the first step), this second step thus largely focused on identifying utterances and expressions in the material that indicated patterns in the data or that seemed to “tie” the different categories together (cf. Bazeley, 2013; Maxwell & Miller, 2008).

Empirical Findings

In this section, we introduce and empirically substantiate the different types of learning-environment uncertainties identified (cf. Research question 1) and discuss how such learning-environment uncertainties, according to the students, made them adopt a surface approach to learning (cf. Research question 2).

Autonomy-Related LE Uncertainties and a Surface Approach to Learning

A first type of learning-environment uncertainty that we identify in the empirical material is referred to as autonomy-related learning-environment uncertainties. Generally speaking, this type of uncertainties refers to qualities of a learning environment that, through the ways in which they frustrate students’ basic psychological need to feel autonomous in their studies, make them uncertain as to whether the education is in line with their own current interests and/or their potential professional interests. In our analyses, we identify two such qualities, namely when learning environments are perceived as having an unclear relevance and/or to be incoherent.

Unclear relevance is largely grounded in the ways in which students interpret, and compare, the learning environment based on their own expectations and aspirations. Importantly, when students experience that the learning environment does not satisfy such expectations or aspirations, it can give rise to feelings of autonomy-related uncertainty. That is, to feelings of doubt or unsureness whether the education is really for them, whether it is in line with their own interests, and whether they are pursuing it for their own reasons. Most of the times when this quality surfaced during the interviews, it was linked to one of two feelings, namely that they either did not understand what they were currently studying or why, or that they could not really see how they would benefit from it (in their future work life). Starting out with the former, it was referred to how:

I know that you’re supposed to learn everything, but my feeling is that your own motivation increases if you understand why you want to know something […] but now it feels more like we’re going through the different parts [of the course] without any … like the importance [of them] is a bit fuzzy. (Billy)

In the latter case, it was more about the unclear utility of a particular course, assignment, or material. For example, several students returned to how they doubted whether a particular material would be useful to them in their future work or that reading certain things made them feel that they were “far from reality” (Billy). It could be described as follows:

It becomes perhaps too theoretical; you lack the reality, or like “when will this be useful to us”? (Sarah)

The second, and related, quality that tends to elicit autonomy-related uncertainty is when learning environments are perceived to be incoherent. In the material, such perceptions were associated with different elements of the environment (such as course modules, literature, assignments, teaching etcetera) and with different reasons (such as where the environment was perceived to have an unclear common thread or where it was perceived as inconsistent or even contradictory). When students experienced such incoherencies in the learning environment, it clearly affected the degree to which they perceived their education meaningful and personally relevant. Or, as suggested by one of the respondents, when that is the case, the environment “becomes less of a trigger, less stimulating” (John). Moreover, as in the case with the former quality (i.e., unclear relevance), we find that students become highly focused on what is formally required from them, just to make sure that they succeed in their studies.

As an example of the meaning of an unclear common thread, some students imagine the education as a package but find that although courses do share features, the overall storyline of the education is missing. It creates uncertainty of what the course package aims for and could be referred to like:

… especially when you undertake a long education that is supposed to contain a common thread and, well, where you think that it is somehow a package that you buy but when you open it and it is more of a Russian doll sometimes. It was many different parts that did not really, they looked kind of alike, but they did not fit together and so on. (Dylan)

As suggested by the illustrative examples above, both these qualities of learning environments—i.e., unclear relevance and incoherence—fostered feelings of a lack of purpose among our interviewees. That is, and in similarity with extant literature, feelings of being less connected with the course content (Brown et al., 2017) and a questioning of whether it was worthwhile to pursue the studies (Ramsden, 2003). Importantly, such feelings of a lack of purpose seemed to be linked to a strong orientation towards the syllabus, in the sense that they substituted a deeper meaning in their studies with a focus on results and that which was formally required from them. For example, our respondents referred to how doubts about what they learned during a particular course was relevant, resulted in an attitude that “you do what you have to and then you just let it be; you do something fun instead” (Billy). Or, as suggested by the following respondent, implying a surface approach to learning:

The chance that you skip a lecture increases when you just … , you can’t take it anymore. When you feel like: “this doesn’t offer me anything”. You lose faith in the usefulness of this. But, what do you do? Well, you just keep going. Perhaps you skip a bit more in school, to have more time for the fun stuff in your life, and to realize that everything [in life] isn’t about higher education credits. (Roxanne)

Competence-Related LE Uncertainty and a Surface Approach to Learning

A second type of learning-environment uncertainty that we identify in the empirical material relates to the basic psychological need of individuals to feel competent. This type of uncertainty derives from the many situations in which students’ competencies are tested or put at display in different ways, such as when they take a written exam, when their hand-ins are discussed at a seminar, when asked questions during a lecture, or having to explain themselves during group work. In such situations, SDT suggests it is important that one feels that one can master the situation in “the sense that one can succeed” or live up to the expectations (Ryan & Deci, 2020, p. 1). In contrast, when such situations contribute to feelings of not being able to attain the desired outcome, the theory posits that individuals will become less motivated or even amotivated to pursue their studies at all (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

When learning environments contribute to these latter feelings, we find that they can be an important source of competency-related learning-environment uncertainties. In fact, in our empirical analyses, we identify two qualities of learning environments that can evoke such feelings among students, namely when the workload is so excessive that students doubt whether they will be able to succeed or not, or when the performance standards are so unclear that they become uncertain whether they can or will be able to meet such standards.

If we start out with excessive workload, our analyses suggest this quality is an effect of two interrelated aspects, namely the time available and the scope of the demands (cf. Kyndt, 2011). The former aspect refers to feelings of not having enough time to fulfill all the requirements or to live up to the demands. This was typically referred to as the students talked about various types of deadlines, and the ways in which such deadlines would make them uncertain about, or question, their own ability to succeed.

It feels tough when I devote 120 percent [of time] and I still don’t understand. It’s that complicated and not enough time […] then you feel that you’re not really given a chance [to succeed]. (Olivia)

In a similar way the sheer scope can provoke feelings of uncertainty, in particular when you feel that you do not have the time to read, write, work with or know by heart, that which is included in a particular course, assignment, or exam.

Here [at the university] it’s more comprehensive [than in upper secondary school], and then it becomes this big thing and you become, like … insecure. (Evelyn)

The second quality of learning environments that tends to provoke feelings of competency-related uncertainty relates to unclear performance standards. In the interviews, students associated such unclear performance standards not only with various aspects in the learning environment—such as how to respond to a particular question in a written exam, how to write their thesis, or how to act as an opponent at a seminar—but also with how and where such performance standards were manifested—such as by different teachers, in the course plan, and in various forms of guidelines. Many respondents felt that the performance standards were not only sometimes unclear, they could also be highly implicit. The following quotes illustrate how unclear (first quote) and implicit (second quote), performance standards fostered uncertainty feelings.

It can be very vague and difficult sometimes, until you can see the framing: “what are we supposed to do?” (Gary)

We were expected to give feedback on each other, and I can understand that, but then you don’t know like: “have we interpreted this correctly or … ? Have we talked about the right stuff” […] It’s good that we’re supposed to be active, but it’s hard to be active if you don’t know whether you’re doing it right. […] And many times, this means that you … you don’t want to be mean [to the other students], so then you just do it half-heartedly. (Sarah)

Just as was the case with the autonomy-related learning-environment uncertainties, our findings suggest that when students feel uncertain whether they will be able to meet their own expectations or those of others regarding their competency, they tend to become highly extrinsically oriented. That is, the motivating force becomes to succeed in your studies (or making sure that you avoid failure), regardless of whether the content of what you are studying feels interesting or personally meaningful. Again, the premise is that when you have a basic psychological need to feel competent at what you do, and the learning environment jeopardizes this feeling, your intrinsic motivation can be expected to decrease. In our material, we saw how this typically resulted in that students attempted to reduce the scope of what they felt that they had to do (through sorting out what they considered important or relevant to succeed), or as suggested by the quote above, that they did it “half-heartedly” (Sarah). To further illustrate the association between these aspects of uncertainty and a surface approach to learning, consider how a perceived excessive workload made one of the students highly focused on just finishing an assignment so that she could devote her time to the upcoming written exam:

It was a rather small group work, but it was still incredibly stressful because we were given a noticeably short time-limit. The others [in my group] wanted to do everything together, but I felt that it is too much to read in this short amount of time; “we won’t be able to do it”. […] I just wanted to finish the assignment so that I could prepare for the written exam. (Sylvia)

In a similar way, we saw how unclear performance standards could have demotivating effects which, in turn, resulted in a leveling down of ambitions, so that focus became “just to make it” (Roxanne) or to “comply with what the teacher wants” (Roxanne). Or as suggested by another respondent:

I’m just trying to interpret the task. My focus is on what I think [the teachers] want me to do and then I think, alright they want me to write about this and then I just do so and wait for the results to come, so that I can see if it was good enough. (Richard)

Relatedness-Related LE Uncertainty and a Surface Approach to Learning

A third and final type of learning-environment uncertainty that we identify in the empirical material relates to the basic psychological need of individuals to feel related. This type of uncertainty derives from the many types of social relationships that students form as they try to navigate and progress through their studies. The premise is, as suggested by SDT, that to feel motivated, to experience well-being, and to allow for personal growth, individuals need to feel related when forming part of such relationships. That is, they need to feel that they are connected to (important) others, in the sense that they feel respected and cared for by those others (see Ryan & Deci, 2020).

In contrast, when this basic psychological need is frustrated, we find that social relationships can be a source of what we refer to as relatedness-related learning-environment uncertainties. This type of uncertainty is associated with situations in which the individual becomes unsure about other actors (e.g., in terms of their motives, their level of commitment, or their views on a topic) or what those other actors (will) think of oneself (e.g., in terms of do I count, am I wanted/needed, what is my place/role?). In our empirical analyses, we identify two qualities of learning environments that tend to provoke such feelings of uncertainty among students, namely the distant nature and the inequalities that characterize many relationships in learning environments.

If we start out with distant nature, this should certainly not be seen as a general and defining property of social relationships in academic learning environments. However, and as suggested by our respondents, many of their relationships are characterized by a certain form of distance or shallowness in the sense that they do not feel close or related to the other(s). According to our respondents, this is mainly due to the temporal character of such relationships (i.e., that they last only for shorter periods of time and through rather infrequent contacts) and the fact that they are often played out in large groups. To illustrate this temporal and spatial character of the relationships, consider the following quotes:

I think it’s mostly my course really. [The climate is] a bit cold and rigid, because we’ve hardly met, more than in a few groups. (Sylvia)

Perhaps [if it could be] a bit more personal. It’s hard when you’re that many, I know that. When I studied [subject X] we were some 150 people, and then you realize that, well it’s not going to be any personal feedback, but now […] at the master’s level we’re only 30 people most of the time and then I think … I mean, that the teacher doesn’t know your name and that we never sit down and have a proper conversation, that’s a bit weird. (Roxanne)

The second quality concerns the inequalities that characterize some of the relationships in learning environments. Such inequalities can be grounded in many different things. In the empirical material though, and when it came to feelings of uncertainty, such inequalities were primarily related to unequal distributions of knowledge and/or formal power, and especially when such distributions made them feel inferior to others. That is, when they felt that someone else (i.e., other students or the teacher) was, for example, more knowledgeable than them or had the formal power to decide on right or wrong, good or bad etcetera. To illustrate such feelings of inferiority, both in relation to teachers and other students, consider the following utterance:

Right now, I don’t feel as good as [the other group members] are, but that’s the way it is. It will always be that way, wherever I end up. There will always be those who are better at a certain topic. (Sarah)

When such qualities of learning environments triggered students’ feelings of uncertainty, they expressed that their motivation decreased (because of feelings of a lack of purpose in their studies) or that the main motivating force was to avoid failure. In either case, it seems to result in the adoption of a rather narrow syllabus-bound attitude as a form of need substitute (cf. Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). In fact, while we saw occasional references to how the distanced character of their relationship could result in a form of hesitation or reluctancy to engage in social relationships at all, disengagement or detachment constituted more common effects among our respondents. And, as suggested by the following quote, such disengagement typically had the effect that students engaged in the relationships only as a means to succeed or to avoid failure, i.e., a surface approach to learning.

If we don’t become good friends along the way, then we just study. Then your focus is different … and the demands too. (Chris)

In a similar manner, we saw how perceptions of inequalities had this type of effects on their studies. For example, it was clear that some efforts were only made to live up to the expectations of, or to not “look stupid” (Roxanne) in the eyes of, others. That is, their educational efforts were only made for extrinsic reasons. To illustrate, consider how Jerry only go to the lecture to live up to the expectations of others.

To me it feels like a form of coercion, to go [to the lecture], I feel that it’s expected from me to be there, and if I don’t live up to it I get a bad gut feeling […] It’s like I push myself and my friends expect me to be there, and then it feels good to live up to that expectation. (Jerry)

Again, when such forms of motivation formed the basis for their studies, they became increasingly focused on doing only what was formally required from them. That is, they became rather narrowly focused on the syllabus as such.

Conclusions and Contributions

This study set out to answer two research questions in relation to the empirical material, namely (1) What types of learning-environment uncertainties could be identified in relation to the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and (2) How were such learning-environment uncertainties perceived to provoke a surface approach to learning?

If we start out with the first research question, the current study adds to the small but growing literature on those qualities of a learning environment that tend to trigger a surface approach to learning among students. When attention has been directed to such qualities in the extant literature, the notion of controlling learning environments has been at the forefront. We add to this literature through identifying other qualities of learning environments than controlling ones, that can result in such a surface approach to learning, namely what is referred to as learning-environment uncertainties. As suggested above, and in similarity with controlling learning environments, such uncertainties refer to aspects in the learning environment—including the course context, the teaching and assessment content, the student-staff relationships, and the student cultures (Entwistle, 2003)—that are designed and/or implemented in such a way that they thwart students’ needs to feel autonomous, competent, and related. However, rather than being interesting because of how they pressure students into needs frustration (which is the case in the controlling learning environment literature), we argue that such aspects are interesting because of how they foster feelings of uncertainty among students—i.e., feelings of not knowing whether, or the extent to which, one is autonomous, competent, and/or related.

As discussed in more detail above, we identify several qualities of learning environments that trigger such uncertainties and systematize them depending on whether they relate to the basic psychological needs to feel autonomous, competent, or related, respectively. A few of these qualities may be seen as somewhat overlapping those identified in the controlling learning environments literature. For example, when it comes to excessive workload, the extant literature has already pointed to how the use of strict deadlines may be important for understanding the adoption of a surface approach (see e.g., Perlman, 2013). In a similar manner, the notion distanced relationships can be seen as overlapping the discussion in the controlling learning environment literature on cold climates (see e.g., Haerens et al., 2016; Perlman, 2013). Importantly though, while the controlling learning environment literature emphasizes these qualities because of their controlling character—i.e., because of how they put an external or internal pressure on students to behave in certain ways (cf. Bartholomew et al., 2018)—we find that they are interesting also because of how they foster feelings of uncertainty. A distinction which, as will be elaborated below, is arguably important for how we understand and theorize the relationship between learning environments and students’ approaches to learning.

When it comes to the second research question, we find that need-thwarting qualities of the learning environment were mainly associated with two controlled forms of motivation in the empirical material, namely external and introjected ones. For example, and largely in line with Bartholomew et al. (2018, p. 52) and others (Amoura et al., 2015; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013) we find that when one or more of the basic psychological needs are frustrated “students may come to engage in tasks purely for extrinsic reasons”. Interestingly though, while the controlling learning environment literature stresses how such extrinsic reasons are triggered by demanding and domineering elements in the learning environment (Aelterman et al., 2019)—whereby students are “pushed” into adopting a surface approach—our findings suggest such behavior can also constitute more of an active response due to feelings of uncertainty. That is, it becomes an important means for dealing with and lessening the types of uncertainty identified in this study. Arguably, such a distinction is important, not only when considering how and why learning environments may foster a surface approach to learning, but also because the resulting surface approach may be manifested in many ways. For example, while it seems reasonable to believe that controlling environments can pressure students into, for example, memorizing certain things out of fear of failure, this is very different from the rather strategic and narrow focus on the boundaries of the syllabus found in our case. In fact, we argue that when provoked by learning-environment uncertainties, the different attributes of a surface approach may be understood in a somewhat different way than when seen as effects of controlling learning environments. The premise is that from an uncertainty-perspective, the different attributes of a surface approach become coping strategies for reducing or handling the perceived uncertainties (cf. Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013), and as such they are not sculpted or determined by the learning environment per se. On the contrary, they are as much (if not more) in the hands of the students.

To summarize and conclude, this article has focused on one particular aspect of learning environments that, according to students, provoke them to adopt a surface approach to learning, namely learning-environment uncertainties. Arguably, this concept helps to broaden the perspective on aspects of the learning environment that may thwart the basic psychological needs of individuals, beyond the current literature’s focus on controlling aspects in such environments.

Limitations and the Future

The authors recognize that this study suffers from usual limitations with qualitative research, including issues related to generalizability and subjectivity. For example, the empirical material is limited to interviews with 19 students from a particular program at one Swedish university, which raises the question whether the findings are transferrable to other programs, universities, and educational settings. Moreover, since this is an interview-based study, we only capture student perceptions and narratives of what provokes their surface approaches to learning, not actual behavior. To determine whether learning environment uncertainties affect the approaches to learning that students adopt, we would need to observe actual behavior. Doing so would arguably also enable a further exploration of the extent to which it is the type of perceived uncertainties identified in this study that trigger such behavior and the extent to which the behavior can be explained by other aspects not covered here. After all, the extant literature has repeatedly argued, and also empirically shown, that what underlies the adoption of a surface approach to learning among students is a complex composition of factors, including “personal factors, such as gender, age, personality, mental ability and previous studying experiences, and contextual factors, such as feedback procedures, assessment methods and the levelling of student-centred versus teacher-centred learning contexts” (Öhrstedt & Lindfors, 2016, p. 211). From such a perspective, the surface approach to learning among our respondents could be the result of us interviewing individuals with certain personal attributes, backgrounds, and experiences. For example, it could be that our respondents have been socialized into a surface-oriented behavior in their previous experiences of an educational system that is increasingly oriented towards instrumental outcomes, such as getting good grades or getting a degree so that one becomes “employable”. It could also be the result of other contextual aspects than uncertainties in the learning environment, such as expectancies and requirements in the syllabus or the focus on certain types of teaching or forms of assessment. Importantly though, and largely in line with this, it has not been the intention of this paper to claim that learning environment uncertainties as a concept constitutes the one and only way of understanding the adoption of a surface approach to learning among higher education students. On the contrary, as argued above, it constitutes but one of many such potential explanations; yet one that seems both important and rather overlooked in the extant literature.

Based on this, we suggest more research is needed in this area. For example, such research could further explore the conceptual boundaries of learning-environment uncertainties, both when it comes to the uncertainties identified in this study and other potential ones. Moreover, it could explore how learning environment uncertainties relate to other aspects in the learning environment and how these together, in turn, are related to students’ approaches to learning in a potentially reciprocal and dynamic way. When doing so, we suggest it would be fruitful to collect a broader empirical material to enable generalizations; a task that also invites for a quantitative research approach on these matters.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

Financial support was provided by Örebro University.

Appendix. Interview guide [Translated from Swedish]

Introductory information: The project that this interview forms part of is about learning environments and learning. We are interested in how students perceive their learning environments when studying here at the business school and whether/how such perceptions affect their studies and their learning. Before starting, we just want to say that all interviews that we conduct are voluntary and that if you should want to, you can at any time choose to abort the interview. If there are certain questions that you do not want to, or can, answer you can just say so and we will move on. If it is okay with you, we will record the interview. The recording will be kept as a form of memory from the interview, but we will not reveal who said what in any documents or publications, which means that you as an individual will always remain anonymous.

1. Background

• − Could you start by telling us how it was that you … 

  • o … started studying at a university?

  • o … here in [name of the city]?

  • o … chose to study business administration?

    ■

    Is it something special about business administration that attracts you?

• − What do you feel is most important about your education?

  • o Do you envision a particular type of job after your education?

• − How has your education lived up to your expectations?

2. Your own studies

• − Can you tell us a bit about how you approached your studies during your current course/the course that you have just finished?

  • o How have you organized your work during the course?

  • o Have you had any particular plan for how to conduct your studies? What did that plan look like?

• − Do you normally follow a particular pattern in your studies? Elaborate!

  • o Does this pattern differ depending on the type of course/subject that you take?

  • o Have you experienced that you get any help for how to structure/plan/organize your work? From whom and how?

  • o Do you feel that you are able to organize your studies the way you want to? Why/why not?

  • o How much time and energy have you devoted to the current course? Why?

    		■	Have you had fun during the course? Have you felt interested/engaged/involved?
    		■	Have you experienced times when it felt demanding or exhausting? Why? What did you do?

3. Teaching

• − Have you taken part in the teaching activities offered in the course?

• − What are your views on teaching in relation to your own learning?

• − What did you feel you needed most help with from the teaching?

  • o Did you feel that you got this kind of help? Why/why not?

  • o Do you feel that you have the possibility to ask questions and have the kind of discussions that you are interested in? Why/why not?

  • o Do you feel that you have had teachers who have listened and understood your point of view? Why/why not?

  • o Are there things that you feel that you have not gotten any help with? What do you think is the reason for this?

• − Do you feel that teaching has been aligned with what you are supposed to learn? How?

• − Does it matter to you whether teachers are enthusiastic and interested in their subject? In what ways? Can you give any examples?

• − How do you envision your own role during class? Why do you think that is?

4. Working with the course material (books, articles, etcetera)

• − How have you experienced the course material that you have worked with, and that you’re expected to learn from?

• − Have you been able to influence the choice of material you worked with?

  • o Is that something that you would like to have an influence on? Why?

• − How have you worked with the material?

  • o Do you read and re-read?

  • o Do you make notes?

  • o Were there things that you felt that you had to memorize?

  • o Did you come across things that you did not understand? What did you do then?

  • o Have you tried to tie different parts of the material together? How?

  • o Do you try to link what you read to your pre-understandings/previous experiences? How/why?

  • o Do you try to draw your own conclusions about the material?

  • o Did your teacher(s) share their slides? What’s your view on that? How have you used them?

5. Examination

• − How did you experience your examination?

• − What is your view on the purpose of the examination? Why do you think that is?

• − How do you think you performed?

  • o Can you say in advance how well you have performed at a particular examination (i.e., before you get the result)? Why is that?

• − Have you received any feedback on your work or your performances?

  • o Formative feedback during the course?

  • o Positive/negative feedback?

6. Working with other students

• − How much have you collaborated with other students during the course? Why?

• − How have you experienced this collaboration?

• − Have your fellow students had an impact on your learning? How?

• − What is your view on your own role when working with other students? Why do you think that is?

• − Do you hang out with some of the other students also when you are not studying?

• − Do you feel that you can get the kind of help or support that you need from other students? Why/why not?

7. Course objectives

• − What were your expectations on the current course?

• − Has it been clear to you what the course objectives were and why?

  • o Is that something that is important to you?

  • o Do the course objectives appear relevant to you? In what way(s)?

• − What do you see as the most important topics covered in the course?

  • o Do you feel that you have come to master the most important topics?

  • o Has that affected your own interest in those topics?

  • o Would you like to study more about those topics? Why/why not?