Mallari, g ; grate, e ; gutierrez, v ; and bueno, d c motivation of engineering students at cci imra

IMRaD Journal Vol. 1 Oct. 2017

MOTIVATION OF ENGINEERING STUDENTS AT COLUMBAN COLLEGE, INC. Engr. Greg C. Mallari Engr. Edwin V. Grate Engr. Vivian E. Gutierrez Dr. David Cababaro Bueno

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract- This paper examines motivational factors affecting motivation among engineering students at Columban College, Inc. A reliable identification of motivational factors would usefully inform pedagogical interventions. Students who are more intrinsically motivated may benefit from less prescriptive assignments which offer more freedom to choose from “formative” assessment topics in which they have a greater personal interest. Those who are more extrinsically motivated, where the final “summative” grade is thought of as the most important, may be less influenced by pedagogical styles. The investigatory approaches employed in this study to assess motivation discover different results. While questionnaire responses indicate that students operate both intrinsically and extrinsically, semi-structured interviews found little evidence of the former, with most students indicating that they operate extrinsically.

Keywords – Engineering education, students, motivational factors, academic tasks

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to investigate factors which influence how students studying engineering subjects are motivated and the extent, if any, to which motivation can be nurtured. If motivational influences change, then pedagogical interventions may be adjusted to enhance learning experiences, thereby improving student satisfaction and reducing rates of attrition. A longer term goal of this study is to continue an examination of how to promote greater “efficiency” in educating 1

IMRaD Journal Vol. 1 Oct. 2017

technology students. With increased funding pressures on HE institutions, attention must be directed towards how our students learn.

Previous research studies (Rebolledo-Medez et al., 2006; Turner and Patrick, 2004; Rebolledo-MendezG., du BoulayB. and LuckinR. (2006) Motivating the learner: an empirical evaluation. 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 26-30 June 2006, Jhongli, Taiwan.

TurnerJ.C. and PatrickH. (2004) Motivational influences on students’ participation in classroom learning activities. College records have highlighted the importance of increasing a student’s intrinsic motivation as they study at university. Intrinsically motivated students develop a “deep” approach to learning; emphasizing intellectual rigor over a “surface” approach (Rowe, 2001). Approaches to study by first year engineering students. Progress 1 Conference: Improving Student Progression and Achievement in Engineering, December 2001, Hull, UK. . It is argued that the greatest influences on intrinsic motivation are the way that the teacher frames the work and the assessments that the student must complete (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004; Vansteenkiste, Lens, and Deci, 2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: the synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts.

The importance of student motivation is highlighted elsewhere, significantly in a Treasury report (2003), which states that “output” is affected not only by the input standard and the quality of the institution, but also by the motivation of the student.

“Motivation” as an influence on the student body has thus far never been assessed within the University of Portsmouth. Data from this study may be useful in developing a strategy to support students by helping to manage expectations and to ensure that the transition from school or college to university is facilitated.

2

IMRaD Journal Vol. 1 Oct. 2017

Motivation is variably conceptualized by different theorists and its definition is contested. Means of measurement include quantifying time spent on a task, assessment of personality traits and capture of various cognitive-based processes ( Atkinson & Raynor, 1978; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Atkinson & Raynor, 1974); and personality, motivation and achievement; a socialcognitive approach to motivation and personality (Psychological Review, 95). Other studies on motivation focus on the goals that students set themselves and how they are achieved (Bandura, 1977; Dweck, 1986; Bandura, 1977).

As to Dweck (1986), motivational processes may affect learning but not the reasons why students desire to realize those goals. “Fundamental human needs” are addressed by Maslow, who proposes a hierarchy of human needs encompassing the physiological, safety, love, esteem and self-actualization (Maslow, 1943). In this analysis, higher education may serve to address a student’s self-actualization needs as they seek to acquire purposeful knowledge within their subject area. Higher education may also fulfil the student’s need for a reciprocally higher level of esteem as they progress and do well.

“Self-determination theory” addresses the underpinning of this desire by positing that people wish to develop themselves and to master challenges that confront them. It identifies two causes of desire to study: the need for recognition, praise and/or reward (extrinsic motivation) and the need to fulfil an interest (intrinsic motivation) (Deci et al., 1991). Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be linked loosely with the theory of learning styles proposed by Marton and Säljö (1976). Intrinsically motivated students can be thought of as taking on a “deep learning” style; that is they try to understand the reasoning behind the academic work that they are doing and experience their development as self-actualization. Extrinsically motivated students are referred to as “surface” learners, identifying only

3

IMRaD Journal Vol. 1 Oct. 2017

those features that they think they will be tested on in order to fulfil their esteem needs.

If the learning culture of a university department is designed to ensure that students’ self-determination is increased (i.e. that all students develop a constructivist approach to knowledge of their subject area) it follows that students should be rewarded for adopting a constructivist approach, rather than for their ability to learn by rote and/or the effectiveness of their exam technique.

That conflicts sometimes arise in applying this approach is exemplified by a recent group discussion with a cohort of six directentry third year students. The discussion was held in a laboratory and aimed to find out what difficulties the students had in their transition from a Ministry of Defence training establishment to university. During the discussion the students were free to make comments. Some commented, with all agreeing, that they were looking forward to coming to university because all their learning to date had employed a surface approach (“learning for exams”). They expected that HE would demand that they adopt a deep learning style. However, they reported that the quantum of content to be completed forced them to revert to a surface approach or risk falling behind the rest of the class. In this instance, the learning environment thwarted, rather than supported, students’ proclivity for active engagement and growth.

This study identified the motivational factors effecting learning among engineering students. It specifies the processes of motivating learning and academic tasks among students.

Methodology The researchers utilized the descriptive-survey design of research employing two approaches such as designing, piloting and implementing a questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews with randomly selected students.

4

IMRaD Journal Vol. 1 Oct. 2017

The questions employed in the questionnaire borrow from investigations undertaken by Waugh (2002). In addition, the SelfDetermination Scale, the Perceived Competency Scale and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory have been interrogated to identify any sections or questions not otherwise included. The questionnaire originally consisted of a set of 53 questions employing the Likert scale. The 53 questions were grouped into twelve sub categories: standards, goals, tasks, effort, values, ability, interest, learning from others, responsibility for learning, extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards and social rewards. A pilot study of the questionnaire was given to nine male first and second year engineering students. The resulting feedback lead to the rewording of some questions and the removal of those that were considered confusing and/or correlated very strongly with other similar questions.

After the questionnaire results had been collated 15 students were invited to attend a semi-structured interview. The aim of the interview was to allow each student to elaborate on their academic experience and how that experience affects their motivation. All interviews followed the same structure: firstly, questions were asked to identify attributes of motivating lecturers and motivating pedagogical interventions. The students were then asked to reflect on their confidence in working with the subject material at the end of a unit and how competition with other students affected their studies. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed. No leading questions or suggestions of any pedagogic techniques were made to the students at any time.

All results were tabulated and coded, with 1 as “strongly agree”, 2 as “agree”, 3 as “neither agree nor disagree”, 4 as “disagree” and 5 as “strongly disagree”. Many questions were either rated as “strongly agree” or “agree”. A mean of all student responses to each question was calculated and the highest scoring and lowest scoring questions were identified. The number of 5

IMRaD Journal Vol. 1 Oct. 2017

respondents for each value on the Likert scale is given to demonstrate the distribution of responses.

Results and Discussion Students demonstrated a strong agreement that it was important to do well on the program they are studying; that is to say that they value (tending towards “strong agreement”) achievement in academic work. However, a previous study (Savage & Birch, 2008). An evaluation of motivation in engineering students, employing self-determination theory reported that students’ interest in their subject area decreased in proportion to increased length of time at university. This finding is also supported here: the mean scored response to the question ’I do what I do because it interests me’ decreases in line with the year of study. If students’ interest in the subject declines as they spend more time at college it may indicate that their intrinsic motivation is often not being maintained or developed.

While students understand that they are responsible for their own learning, they frequently value having a facilitator to guide them and give them advice. The extent to which this is the case may represent an individual’s position on the continuum which runs from “being taught” to “constructing one’s own understanding”. Of interest is that the question ’I have positive feedback from my lecturers on my ability in academic work’ features as a low scoring response. Nor did students typically show great inclination to read outside of their course area. This may be indicative of a lack of time or a lack of understanding of what other academic areas can contribute to wider study.

Motivating lecturers. Lecturer characteristics and the techniques that they employ will both be reported here. For example, it is interesting to note that all 11 interviewees, unprompted by the interviewer, referred to the use of PowerPoint 6

IMRaD Journal Vol. 1 Oct. 2017

and reading from PowerPoint slides as ‘not very motivating’, although the use of PowerPoint was not universally seen as a bad thing. It was suggested by two students that it should be used to prefigure what the class would do, as long as the presentation did not go on for too long. All of the students except one were of the opinion that practical work was one of the best ways to learn and that lecturers should always give practical examples - preferably giving an indication of when they have used this particular technique in the past (putting the theory into the context of the real world or discussing how the students may use it in their future work). All students commented that non-motivating lecturers are characterized as lacking engagement with the students. The personal characteristics of a good and motivating lecturer frequently include enthusiasm and commitment: For the motivating one, commitment is definitely the key. Because when you feel that they are interested and committed it makes you want to be interested and the more committed they are the more they can get out of you because they can help you more. It seems that many students directly derive their motivation from the lecturer’s engagement and self-presentation and emphasize the importance of being treated correctly: ’treated like you are an adult who is there to do the work.’ One commented that ’He doesn’t make you feel overwhelmed which other ones do, he doesn’t make you feel inferior to him.’ This reflects the view that some students could have of lecturers being their intellectual superiors. Two students commented on lecturers going beyond expectation: Whenever you need help he is always there - you can knock on his door whenever you want he is always there and you can send him emails and he will answer you even at the weekend. Whenever you want help he is always willing to help you. Eight students commented on the difference between college and university, with particular respect to the apparent freedom that students are given. One commented that ’university is more on the students for what they are doing so in that aspect college was better because they said what you needed to 7

IMRaD Journal Vol. 1 Oct. 2017

do’. This perhaps indicates a need for more effective transition management.

Motivating academic tasks. All except one student commented on the need for academic tasks to be “practical” and relevant to the real world: I think I get motivated by something more if I think that it is going to be meaningful and used in real life rather than something that is just there and you are just going to learn it for the sake of it and you are never going to use it in real life. Five of the students also commented on the requirement for a clear idea of what they need to do to achieve. This is not always obvious, as many units at university do not employ criteria referencing (where the student is assessed against a clearly defined and articulated benchmark). One commented that a lecturer would only give over 70% if the student thought of something that the lecturer did not expect, a daunting task if the lecturer is viewed as “intellectually superior”. In such cases students cannot have their need for esteem met and they may be unable to progress further to self-actualization if they are not helped to construct their own models of understanding. All students commented on the need to get good grades, indicating that, in this instance, they are dominantly extrinsically motivated: I think it is in every student’s blood that they want to know how the mark is made up and what they should be getting into. I think it is bad because you are not thinking about doing the work because you want to; you are doing the work because you want to pass.

If educators in the faculty of engineering agree in wanting their students to take a constructivist approach to learning, there is clearly some disparity between the goals of educators and those of students evident from these findings. Interview data indicate that students are extrinsically motivated. Should the goal of educators therefore be to encourage success in summative assessments in order to fulfil the student’s need for self-esteem?

At the same time, the questionnaire responses indicate that students are also motivated by a desire to learn and for self8

IMRaD Journal Vol. 1 Oct. 2017

actualization. Such evidence questions the extent to which we should seek to develop intrinsic motivation in undergraduate study.

A liberal, enlightened view of why students come to college will facilitate fulfilment of their self-actualizing needs. However, with mass expansion of higher education and it’s embracing of market forces, students today may feel that they must focus on meeting their needs for tangible, material achievement, worldly success and esteem.

The semi-structured interviews all highlighted the importance of the role of lecturers in motivating students. It is also apparent that radically innovative pedagogies seeking deep learning from students require patient, incremental implementation undergraduate students may not immediately be confident in realizing their own learning goals and acting as deep learners.

Those interviewed demonstrated a greater proclivity towards extrinsic motivation, where surface learning brings about reward.

Moving students away from surface learning and towards deep learning may require careful and thoughtful teaching design and full engagement of teacher and students.

In conclusion, the most important pedagogical question arising from this study concerns the advisability of structuring teaching to assist students to develop as “deep� learners. A significant body of educational thought indicates that this should be the case. Another principal finding has been the potential of the lecturer to inspire and motivate students and influence their perception of education. This is evidenced by all interviewees bringing lecturer attributes up in response to almost every question asked (whether about the lecturers themselves, academic tasks, academic assessments or teaching techniques).

This suggests that any improvement in practice must be predicated upon all lecturers constantly reflecting on how they engage, motivate and inspire students. Their performance in the classroom is at the center of this engagement. An interesting 9

IMRaD Journal Vol. 1 Oct. 2017

feature to emerge from this work is the possibility of tension between teacher expectation and student experience. This arises through issues such as the form and purpose of feedback and desired outcomes for undergraduate study within the market place for higher education. In turn they have implications on factors like contact time and class sizes and, crucially, the distinction between formative and summative models of assessment. Finally, there are important questions to address concerning the transitional arrangements needed to facilitate students’ entry into the university sector.

This study anticipates another: what might be done to promote active learning whilst ensuring that necessary academic standards are maintained? The challenge is to stimulate our students’ intrinsic motivation by providing them with opportunities for independent, self-developmental learning. This ambition must, of course, respect a context where undergraduate studies are recognized as appropriate within the public domain: that is a degree, organized as units or modules, in which the student has to satisfy objective-assessed standards.

REFERENCES AtkinsonJ. and RaynorJ. (1974) Personality, motivation and achievement. Washington DC: Hemisphere.

BaillieC. and FitzgeraldG. (2000) Motivation and attrition in engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25 (2), 145– 155.

BanduraA. (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191–215.

CarréP. (2000) Motivation in adult education: from engagement to performance. 41st Annual Adult Education Research Conference, 24 June 2000, Vancouver, Canada.

DeciE.L., VallerandR.J., PelletierL.G. and RyanR.M. (1991) Motivation and education: the self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3), 325–346.

10

IMRaD Journal Vol. 1 Oct. 2017

DeciE. L. and RyanR. M. (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227–268.

DweckC.S. and LeggettE.L. (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95 (2), 256–273.

GoreP. A. (2006) Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: two incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14 (1), 92–115.

JacobsP.A. and NewsteadS.E. (2000) The nature and development of student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (2), 243–254.

LeoE.L. and GallowayD. (1996) Evaluating research on motivation: generating more heat than light? Evaluation and Research in Education, 10 (1), 35–47.

MartonF. and SäljöR. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning - 1: outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46 (1), 4–11.

MaslowA. (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.

Rebolledo-MendezG., du BoulayB. and LuckinR. (2006) Motivating the learner: an empirical evaluation. 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 26-30 June 2006, Jhongli, Taiwan.

RoweJ.W.K. (2001) Approaches to study by first year engineering students. Progress 1 Conference: Improving Student Progression and Achievement in Engineering, December 2001, Hull, UK. SavageN. and BirchR. (2008) An evaluation of motivation in engineering students, employing self determination theory. Engineering Education 2008: International Conference on Innovation, Good Practice and Research in Engineering Education, 14-16 July 2008, Loughborough, UK. TurnerJ.C. and PatrickH. (2004) Motivational influences on students’ participation in classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106 (9), 1759–1785.

VansteenkisteM., SimonsJ., LensW., SheldonK.M. and DeciE.L. (2004) Mo tivating 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.

11