The Dilemma of Measuring Motivation and Study Habits
by Mary Brakke and Kevin Smith
After deciding to use PBL in our class, we created a questionnaire
to determine if it improved student interest in course material
and students' motivation to learn (study). We asked students
to complete the questionnaire at the conclusion of each of the
three or four problems. Students were asked to rate their interest
in the issue, the personal relevance of the issue, and the effectiveness
of the PBL approach in motivating them to learn. We also asked
them to rank the effectiveness of class activities
(e.g., videos, group work) in helping them to learn. Student
demographic data were obtained from enrollment information. While
these questionnaires provided us with useful information on students'
attitude toward PBL, we wondered whether they accurately assessed
student motivation. Is there a better, more formal way to capture
student motivation and studying habits? It was a good question,
particularly
because we sought to gain an understanding of, and experience with,
classroom research methods.
We found references to two surveys designed to assess motivation,
the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory or IMI and the Approaches to
Studying Inventory or ASI. The IMI was designed to assess the effect
of interventions on student interest/intrinsic motivation and other
aspects of self-regulation. It poses questions that relate to 1)
interest/enjoyment (the self-report measure of intrinsic motivation),
2) perceived competence, 3) effort,
4) value/usefulness, and 5) perceived pressure and choice. The
second survey, the ASI, characterizes the way in which students
engage in learning. The abbreviated form we used describes students' approaches
to studying as either meaning-oriented (intent to understand and
connect learning to other knowledge) or reproducing-oriented (intent
to memorize to pass exams).
In fall 2006, we asked if student motivation was affected by the
PBL approach in comparison to an issue-focused, active learning
approach that did not entail PBL. In addition, we asked if group
work in conjunction with the PBL approach had any effect on student
interest and motivation. We included the 25-item IMI in the questionnaire
that students completed at the conclusion of each problem. We also
included the 32-item ASI in surveys taken by students at the beginning
of the semester as well as after
the final problem. Thus, we surveyed students four times during
the course of the semester and questionnaires varied from about
40 to 70 questions
in length.
We found that student responses showed no significant differences
for any of the six subscales of the IMI after each problem. In
other words, according to the IMI, students' intrinsic motivation
to learn biology was not changed by the use of PBL, with or without
group work. In retrospect, this is probably not surprising. Most
students take Agro 1101 to fulfill a liberal education requirement.
Thus, while our earlier survey results indicated that most students
viewed PBL as effective at motivating their learning, using the
IMI, we could not detect a change in attitude in response to PBL
over the course of a semester. This suggests that a single course
will not change the attitudes of most students toward the subject
and that we may need to focus on other motivational factors. It
also points to the need to measure student motivation over a longer
period of time.
Additionally, we found that mean ASI scores were higher for meaning-orientation
than reproducing-orientation both at the beginning and end
of the semester, suggesting that students were, in fact, slightly
more focused on studying in order to understand than simply to
obtain a passing grade. The fact that mean scores did not differ
over the course of a semester may indicate that teaching approaches
during a single semester have limited impact on this dimension
of student learning. We decided to retain the ASI as a measurement
of students' disposition toward study in a nonmajors course
and to explore its use as a corollary variable to help explain
differences in students' attitudes toward classroom activities
(e.g., lecture, group work, reading, labs).
The results we obtained with the IMI and ASI caused us to rethink
the questions we were asking about the effect of PBL on student
learning. Although PBL may not cause students in a nonmajors course
to want to study the subject (as is implied by intrinsic motivation),
it may make it more interesting and thus perhaps easier to study.
PBL may provide other benefits to learning, such as retention,
that we have not attempted to measure in our course. And, while
we think that students might be more deeply engaged in learning
material that seems interesting and relevant, the reality may be
that students' attitudes toward studying may be a trait that
is not easily changed by the content or the manner of teaching
in a single course. We also learned that students, like the rest
of us, grow weary of excessive surveying, as evidenced by failure
to complete surveys or questionable responses. The quality of students' responses
is probably best when surveys are short and used judiciously. Thus,
our self-designed questionnaires provided us with the most direct
and useful information for evaluating our teaching.
Mary Brakke is an education specialist in the Department of Agronomy
and Plant Genetics. Kevin Smith is associate professor in the Department
of Agronomy and Plant Genetics.
|
Return
to: U of M Home : Office
of the Provost : Academy of Distinguished Teachers : Office of Human
Resources : CTL
