联系我们
Isaac Scientific Publishing
Journal of Advances in Education Research
JAER > Volume 5, Number 2, May 2020

Motivation States among STEM and Non-STEM Undergraduates

Download PDF  (492.8 KB)PP. 39-49,  Pub. Date:April 11, 2020
DOI: 10.22606/jaer.2020.52001

Author(s)
David Palmer
Affiliation(s)
School of Education, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
Abstract
Student motivation influences retention in university STEM programs, but whereas most studies have focused on trait-like motivational factors relatively few have focused on motivation states (i.e., episodic experiences of being motivated to learn). The aim of this study was to investigate the states of motivation experienced by undergraduates in authentic lecture settings. Interviews were carried out with 43 university students from STEM and non-STEM specializations. Each interview was held immediately after a regular lecture, and the questions focused on the motivation states (defined as an active feeling of wanting to learn) that they experienced towards the end of the lecture, just before they were interviewed. Validity was established by triangulation of their interview responses. It was found that the motivation states of STEM students were significantly more negative than those of the non-STEM students. This was educationally important because it correlated overall with levels of concentration, although it was noted that some female STEM students managed to self-regulate their concentration. It was concluded that STEM students may be more susceptible to low motivation for learning during formal lectures.
Keywords
motivation state, concentration, self-regulation
References
  • [1]  M. Ainley (2006), Connecting with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition in interest processes. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 391-405. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9033-0
  • [2]  E. M. Anderman, S. M. Noar, R. S. Zimmerman, and L. Donohew (2004), The need for sensation as a prerequisite for motivation to engage in academic tasks. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Volume 13, Motivating students, improving schools: The legacy of Carol Midgley (pp. 1-26). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
  • [3]  O. R. Anderson (1983), A neuromathematical model of human information processing and its application to science content acquisition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 603-620.
  • [4]  R. F. Baumeister (2002), Ego depletion and self-control failure: An energy model of the self’s executive function. Self and Identity, 1, 129–136.
  • [5]  Bayer Corporation (2014). The Bayer facts of science education XVI: US STEM workforce shortage – myth or reality? Fortune 1000 talent recruiters on the debate. Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 617-623.
  • [6]  M. A. S. Boksem, T. F. Meijman, and M. M. Lorist (2005), Effects of mental fatigue on attention: An ERP study. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 107-116.
  • [7]  V. Braun and V. Clarke (2006), Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
  • [8]  A. Byars-Winston (2014), Toward a framework for multicultural STEM-focused career interventions. Career Development Quarterly, 62, 340-357.
  • [9]  X. Chen and M. Soldner (2013), STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields. National Center for Educational Statistics, US Department of Education.
  • [10]  J. G. Cromley, T. Perez, and A. Kaplan (2015), Undergraduate STEM achievement and retention: Cognitive, motivational, and institutional factors and solutions. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1- 8.
  • [11]  S. S. Culbertson, C. J. Fullagar, M. J. Simmons and M. Zhu (2015), Contagious flow: Antecedents and consequences of optimal experience in the classroom. Journal of Management Education, 39, 319-349. doi: 10.1177/1052562914545336
  • [12]  N. B. Dohn (2013), Situational interest in engineering design activities. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2057-2078.
  • [13]  N. Golafshani (2003), Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8, 597-606.
  • [14]  E. Grossnickle (2016), Disentangling curiosity: Dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 23-60. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9294-y
  • [15]  J. Gyllenpalm (2018), Inquiry and flow in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13, 429-435. Doi: 10.1007/s11422-016-9794-9
  • [16]  G. Hagay and A. Baram-Tsabari (2015), A strategy for incorporating students’ interests into the high school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 949-978.
  • [17]  H. Järvenoja, S. Järvelä and J. Malmberg (2017), Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation during collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.004
  • [18]  T. Kim and D. L. Schallert (2014), Mediating effects of teacher enthusiasm and peer enthusiasm on students’ interest in the college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 134-144.
  • [19]  T. Long and M. Johnson (2000), Rigor, reliability, and validity in qualitative research. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 4, 30-37.
  • [20]  A. Loukomies, K. Juuti and J. Lavonen (2015), Investigating situational interest in primary science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 3015-3037.
  • [21]  V. Maltese, C. S. Melki, and H. Wiebke (2014), The nature of experiences responsible for the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM. Science Education, 98, 937-962.
  • [22]  L. Menna-Barreto and D. Wey (2008), Time constraints in the school environment: What does a sleepy student tell us? Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 24-28.
  • [23]  D. B. Miele and A. A. Scholer (2018), The role of metamotivational monitoring in motivation regulation. Educational Psychologist, 53, 1-21. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2017.1371601
  • [24]  K. A. Renninger and S. Hidi (2016), The power of interest for motivation and engagement. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • [25]  S. A. Rizvi (2015), RMP evaluations, course easiness, and grades: Are they related? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20, 1-8.
  • [26]  J. I. Rotgans and H. K. Schmidt (2017), Interest development; Arousing situational interest affects the growth trajectory of individual interest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 175-184.
  • [27]  U. Schiefele (1999), Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257-279.
  • [28]  J. L. Smith, K. L. Lewis, L. Hawthorne and S. D. Hodges (2013), When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 3-15.
  • [29]  M. Tekkumru-Kisa, M. K. Stein and C. Schunn (2015), A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: Task analysis guide in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 659- 685.
  • [30]  D. B. Thoman, J. A. Arizaga, J. L. Smith, T. S. Story and G. Soncuya (2014), The grass is greener in nonscience, technology, engineering, and math classes: Examining the role of competing belonging to undergraduate women’s vulnerability to being pulled away from science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 246–258.
  • [31]  Y. -M. Tsai, M. Kunter, O. Lüdtke, U. Trautwein and R. M. Ryan (2008), What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational factors and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 460-472. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.460
  • [32]  J. C. Turner and H. Patrick (2008), How does motivation develop and why does it change? Reframing motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 119-131. doi: 10.1080/00461520802178441
  • [33]  M.–P. Vainikainen, H. Salmi and H. Thuneberg (2015), Situational interest and learning in a science center mathematics exhibition. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 1, 15-29.
  • [34]  R. Vollmeyer and F. Rheinberg (2006), Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 239-253. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9017-0
  • [35]  D. F. Whalen and M. C. Shelley II (2010), Academic success for STEM and non-STEM majors. Journal of STEM Education, 11, 45-60.
  • [36]  P. H. Winne and R. W. Marx (1989), A cognitive-processing analysis of motivation within classroom tasks. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education, Volume 3, Goals and Cognitions (pp. 223-257). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  • [37]  A. Wolters (2003), Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189-205.
  • [38]  A. Wolters and P. R. Pintrich (1998), Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27-47.
Copyright © 2020 Isaac Scientific Publishing Co. All rights reserved.