The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0307-4358.htm
MF 37,7
Does motivation matter?
582
On the relationship between perceived quality of teaching and students’ motivational orientations Darren W. Dahl Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and
Kamal Smimou Faculty of Business and IT, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Canada Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on the perceptions that undergraduate students formed and provides further insight into the relationship between perceived teaching quality (with its descriptors) and student motivation. Design/methodology/approach – The paper reports the findings from a survey of student perceptions of quality teaching and its interaction with various motivational orientations that students exhibit in higher education. The proposed hypotheses and conceptual model were tested using regression and correlation analyses, as well as analysis of variance from a survey of 271 undergraduate students in programs at two different universities. Findings – The findings document the explanatory role of various motivations in students’ perceptions of teaching quality: correlation analysis found intrinsic motivation to be positively correlated with the perceived teaching quality, while extrinsic motivation was found to be moderately correlated, suggesting that motivational orientation dimensions are influential in students’ assessments of their teaching experience in school. Intrinsic motivation with its possible states and factor loadings showed strong positive impact on the teaching quality and students’ evaluation, even after accounting for the reputation (general opinion) of the educational institution (or program). Thus, we cannot ignore the value-added nature of various motivational orientations and their influence upon the perceptions of students. Surprisingly, few differences in perception based on gender, age, and country of birth (ethnicity) were found. Young students (less than 25-year old) and Canadian- and American-born students exhibited significant negative reactions (difference) to perceived teaching quality; in contrast, female students exhibited positive reactions towards it. Practical implications – The results presented here will assist researchers, professors, and higher-education administrators by capitalizing on students’ existing intrinsic motivation and understanding the relationship between student perceptions of teaching quality and their degree of motivation to further expand and implement a better quality-assurance educational system. A viable strategy to enhance and further motivate students extrinsically and intrinsically in their learning will significantly enhance their perceptions. Originality/value – The article explores for the first time the link between students’ motivational orientations and their perceptions about teaching quality.
Managerial Finance Vol. 37 No. 7, 2011 pp. 582-609 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0307-4358 DOI 10.1108/03074351111140243
Keywords Motivation (psychology), Students, Teaching, Quality, Higher education, Education administration Paper type Research paper
The authors contributed equally to the paper. Order of authorship was determined by alphabetical ordering by last name.
1. Introduction Over the last couple of decades, a number of major universities have established a center for teaching excellence, in an effort to support and develop teaching resources and to demonstrate ideal practices for teaching methods. Others have created institutions with a narrower focus, delving further into a specific issue pertaining to teaching and learning. As a result of this trend, teaching quality (or excellence) has become an essential component of the university brand, in addition to the standard expectation of research productivity. Indeed, this recognition and fostering of the innovative and outstanding teaching that takes place every day in classrooms has advanced teaching quality (or teaching excellence) as an increasingly crucial ingredient in the quality of education across all business schools. For instance, AACSB International accreditation, which is considered the mark of excellence in management education, promotes excellence and ensures stakeholders that business schools are subject to review and held to a high level of scrutiny on a continual basis. While many research studies have documented useful ideas and practical methods for effective teaching, we believe that the interaction between students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations and perceived teaching quality has not been fully studied; the existing literature notably omits discussion of how, or if, these orientations can be fostered and enhanced in the ongoing effort to promulgate effective teaching (for improved teaching methods, see Covington and Mu¨eller, 2001; Gatfield et al., 1999; Guolla, 1999; Kember and McKay, 1996; Bensimon, 1995). Students’ motivational orientations for learning have long been a major focus of theory and research in business education and educational psychology (Grey, 2004; Cole et al., 2004; Friga et al., 2003; Pintrich, 2003; Ames and Archer, 1988; Fordham, 1980). Given the primary focus of students and parents on the end result of the learning journey, one might have expected to see corresponding interest among instructors and higher-education administrators in personality traits and motivational orientations that students may exhibit, given that these have a significant impact on students’ perceptions regarding teaching quality or teaching excellence. Instructors and researchers in business education always strive to understand different aspects of teaching quality by examining factors and classroom activities that may contribute to it. Since students’ expectations matter – expectations about the nature of the knowledge they are gaining – we will take the student perspective in order to better understand this relationship to teaching quality. To this end, subjects were asked to indicate the extent to which specific attributes (descriptors) are important to them. Part of the survey calls for the completion of some questions to identify students’ motivational orientations. This study focuses on the perceptions that undergraduate students formed and examines the relationship between perceived teaching quality (with its descriptors) and student motivation. The purpose of this study is to assist professors and higher-education administrators by providing further insight into this relationship, and to smooth the path towards better assessment of curriculum and pedagogical policies, thus creating opportunity for future academic change and improvement. The paper is organized into the following five sections. Section 2 looks at the conceptual framework and related studies to show the basis of our exploratory research questions. Section 3 highlights research questions, hypotheses, and proposition developments. Section 4 discusses the data collection method and survey procedure,
Does motivation matter?
583
MF 37,7
584
while Section 5 presents empirical evidence of the impact of students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations (or lack thereof) on perceived teaching quality, with various statistical analyses of the data. Finally, Section 6 contains conclusions, possible limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research. 2. Conceptual framework and related studies Quality teaching has become an increasingly important issue within academia over the past few years. It seems that the focus is starting to shift from providing mass education (Loutete-Dangui, 1994) or just pockets of excellence (Elmore, 1996) to providing high-quality education on a larger scale (Friga et al., 2003). Although few researchers talk directly about quality teaching, they are recognizing that it exists and are finding ways to improve it. Geringer (2003) examined the importance of quality teachers to the learning of students, while Maureen (2002) highlighted the significance of quality-assurance policies to higher education. Additionally, Gatfield et al. (1999) delved into the significance of quality to higher-education management. Accordingly, there has been a great deal of research regarding improvement of teachers, students, and teaching but few studies that actually provide definitions or suggestions for quality teaching. According to Crebbin (1997), there are many definitions of quality out there but few that address the complexities of teaching. Research such as this present study is critical in helping us define quality teaching in relation to the various conceptions of higher education and quality (Maureen, 2002). Accordingly, researchers have carried on with this goal in mind and discussed it with respect to students, or have used teachers as the reference point. For instance, Bensimon (1995) said that quality is defined by customer satisfaction. Therefore, in a classroom environment, we can equate students with customers. However, according to Guolla (1999), students can also be seen as clients, producers, and even products. Other work related to the topic of quality teaching includes exploring the design of the education program to improve learning and thereby increase levels of student achievement in reading, writing, and math (Linek et al., 2003). Maureen (2002) presents the same idea but talks about the conceptual view of quality and its contribution to the development of students in a holistic sense. She suggests that high-quality education makes students grow intellectually, socially, emotionally, and culturally. Her research points out that quality should be considered in relation to both students’ cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of learning, as well as skills and satisfaction with the university environment. On the other hand, Ensign (1998), while addressing improvement of teaching quality, suggests linking standards for teachers to standards for students. He believes in encouraging and rewarding knowledge and skill. He also put forward the ideas of reinventing teacher preparation, professional development, an overhaul of teacher recruitment, and ensuring there are qualified teachers in every classroom. Linek et al. (2003) also talked about professional development. However, their study focused on redesigning teacher education and educational practices, and increasing collaboration among all levels of teachers. According to these researchers, such efforts produce heightened sensitivity or awareness for teachers, improve teacher performance, and possibly increase quality (Kember and McKay, 1996; Elmore, 1996; Ortmann, 1997; Ensign, 1998; Geringer, 2003). Since the present study is concerned with the relationship between student motivation and teaching quality, we present below a summary of related studies on these topics.
2.1 Student motivation Research on motivation has focused on various types of relationships. Ames and Archer (1988) studied motivational patterns as they are connected with the salience of mastery and performance goals. Experimental studies suggest that students’ use of learning strategies may be related to the extent to which students adopt a mastery or performance goal orientation in the classroom. Ames and Archer (1988) found that motivation patterns of high-achieving students were the result of the perceived goal orientation of the classroom; and students’ perceptions of classroom climate were connected with motivational variables that have an impact on the development of self-regulated, long-term involvement, and interest in learning. Thus, these authors suggested that changing the nature of students’ experience in the classroom may provide an important way of redirecting their achievement goal orientation. Modifying the goal structure of the classroom to make mastery goals salient and have them adopted by students is necessary to draw out adaptive motivation patterns. Some empirical studies have shown that autonomous motivation is linked with desirable outcomes and has benefits for students (Deci et al., 2001; Reeve et al., 2004). Roth et al. (2007) examined whether autonomous motivation for teaching – defined as teachers’ thoughts and feelings regarding their own motivations for engaging in this occupation – is indeed attached to students’ self-reports of positive teacher attributes and desirable teacher behavior. Among their results, they found that autonomous motivation for teaching has positive outcomes for both teachers and students, promoting autonomous motivation for learning by improving students’ perceptions of their teachers as supportive. Fordham (1980) discussed the concept of intrinsic motivation in association with school-based learning by addressing two important aspects: first, students’ prior knowledge (which they bring to the learning experience), and second, identification of characteristics of the learning environment that are relevant to intrinsically motivated behavior, such as novelty of information being taught and intellectual freedom of students to engage and pursue their own answers. This author found a positive relationship between students’ level of intrinsic motivation and their construction of an integrated knowledge of the curriculum. While Fordham did not find any relevant interactive effect of intrinsic motivation and the learning environment variable upon student learning, in our study we find some indirect supports for a strong connection between the intrinsic motivation and learning environment, as evidenced by strong correlation between some descriptors of perceived teaching quality and some loading factors of intrinsic motivation (e.g. curiosity dimension)[1]. In contrast to past studies (Kohn, 1993; Deci, 1971; Covington and Mu¨eller, 2001) attempted to advance a new perspective on the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation by critically examining how the will to learn for its own sake is withdrawn by the presence of extrinsic rewards and incentives such as grades. They found that much of what students learn and retain is acquired out of personal interest and not for the sake of high grades. In addition, this study raised some concerns about the line of reasoning in the way we view classic intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy. For instance, the study concluded that it is not the offering of rewards per se but rather the fear of negative reinforcers that is the major threat to learning for its own sake, which means that students engage in learning not to achieve something positive but to avoid negative and harsh upshots such as failure.
Does motivation matter?
585
MF 37,7
586
Research on student motivation is essential, playing a central role in research about learning and teaching contexts. Pintrich (2003) emphasized the significance of a general scientific approach for research on student motivation. He outlined some relevant future research questions, such as determining what students want and what motivates them in the classroom, and whether they know what they want and what motivated them, and finally how motivation leads to cognition, including the roles of context and culture. Under the question of what motivates students, Pintrich explored various motivational generalizations and social-cognitive constructs. Some of them are in alignment with the present study, including the propositions that: P1.
Higher levels of interest and intrinsic motivation enable student performance.
P2.
Higher levels of value motivate students.
Relevant to our present interest in perception of teaching quality, the research of Pintrich and others (Hidi, 1990; Pintrich and Schunk, 2002) showed that higher levels of both personal and situational interest are linked with more cognitive engagement, more learning, and higher levels of achievement. Moreover, other studies (Eccles and Wigfield, 1995; Brophy, 1999) have been undertaken from the expectancy – value theory framework, in which the authors addressed importance, cost, and utility – defined in terms of individuals’ perceptions of the usefulness of the content or task (extrinsic orientation). Thus, Pintrich (2003) proposed some design principles that can be derived from the value framework by providing tasks and activities that are significant and useful to students, allowing for some personal identification with the school, and letting the classroom discourse focus on importance and utility of content and activities. Lepper and Corpus (2005) examined the interaction between age differences and motivational orientations (intrinsic versus extrinsic) with academic outcomes. They found that extrinsic motivation is negatively correlated with academic outcomes, while intrinsic motivation decreases with the increase of educational level (lower levels of intrinsic motivation for older versus younger), thereby concluding that intrinsic motivation has a positive correlation with the academic outcome. Lepper and Corpus’s (2005) study generated a method of scaling (with sub-scales) and measuring extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation that provided the basis for our measures of students’ motivational orientation (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) in this study. Also, relevant to our study is the research presented by Noels et al. (1999). These authors examined student perceptions of their instructors’ communicative style and supportive role (relative to student autonomy and feedback about their learning) in relation to students’ extrinsic and intrinsic motivational orientations. They found that stronger feelings of intrinsic motivation are related to positive language learning outcome, greater self-evaluation of competence, and reduction of anxiety. As an important perspective on our search for the connection between motivation and student perceptions of teaching quality, they found that perceptions of instructors’ communicative style were attached to intrinsic motivation: the more instructors were perceived by students to be controlling and less informative, the lower was students’ intrinsic motivation. The difference in students’ motivation is well documented in the literature. As characterized by various authors, we note and observe two types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic (Morgan et al., 1980; Miller et al., 1998).
Intrinsic motivation develops when students are seeking intellectual stimulation from their studies, and extrinsic motivation occurs when students are more worried about their grades or marks and their future employment prospects. The dearth of research concerning students’ motivational orientation and its interaction with perceived teaching quality is surprising, especially when compared to the rich research in students’ motivations in regard to other learning aspects.
Does motivation matter?
587 2.2 Teaching quality measures (students’ perceptions-based teaching quality index) It is important to note that a definition is of no use by itself until there exists a means of testing it. For this, we can turn to the same instruments used by other researchers to measure teaching effectiveness, hence teaching quality proxy. In his study, Marsh (1991) used the following: . Frey’s endeavour instrument – assesses presentation clarity, workload, personal attention, class discussion, organization/planning, grading, and student accomplishments. . Student instructional rating system form – assesses instructor involvement, student interest and performance, student-instructor interaction, course demands, and course organization. . Student description of teaching questionnaire – assesses analytic/synthetic approach, organization/clarity, instructor group interaction, instructor individual interaction, and dynamism/enthusiasm. . Student evaluation of educational quality (SEEQ) – assesses learning/value, instructor enthusiasm, organization/clarity, individual rapport, group interaction, breadth of coverage, examinations/grading, assignments/readings, and workload/difficulty. Other ideas include using student growth as a measure, as suggested by Maureen (2002). To this end, the students’ social, intellectual, emotional, and cultural progressions are measured to see if an overall increase has been achieved. As illustrated from the literature, there are some commonalities between aspects of measures that address the teaching effectiveness or quality of service to students (proxy teaching quality), thus quantitatively we decided to use for the present study the eight well-known SEEQ[2] items (Marsh, 1991) to construct students’ perception teaching quality index (perceptions-based teaching quality (PTQ)). Since this present study attempts to analyze the relationship between students’ motivation and perceived teaching quality, we proceeded to consider the related scholarly work and to generate a set of hypotheses, given the conceptual framework for further advancements in this area. 3. Hypotheses development Based on the above, we explored the relationship between teaching quality and students’ motivational orientation. According to self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985, 2002), behavior can be effectuated through intrinsic motivation (pleasure and interest-related motives), extrinsic motivation (instrumental motives), and amotivation (an absence of motivation). These three broad theoretical types of motivation are the focus of this study, which examines five major propositions (see conceptual model in Figure 1).
Figure 1. Relationship between students’ motivational orientations and perceived teaching quality H2 (+)
Students’ general view (reputation), VQT (+++)
Perceived Teaching Quality (PTQ)
H4b (+)
H4a (–)
H4c (–)
H3 (–)
H5 (–;+)
Extrinsic Motivation. EM (+)
States of EM/factor loadings (1) External regulation (+) (2) Identified regulation (+) (3) Easy work (n.s.) (4) Pleasing teacher (n.s.) (5) Dependence on teacher (+)
States of IM/factor loadings Intrinsic (1) Achieve learning (+) Motivation. IM (2) Surpass past accomplishments (+) (3) Challenge (+) (+;+) (4) Curiosity (+) (5) Independent mastery (+)
Amotivation (–)
Notes: The sign (+) denotes statistical significance of the indicated factor loading, while (n.s.) implies statistical insignificance based on the results; however, the signs (–) and (+) indicate the hypothetical sign of the relationship between main variables based on the proposed hypotheses
Eight descriptors (1) Learning (2) Enthusiasm (3) Organization (4) Interaction (5) Rapport (6) Breadth (7) Assignments (8) Material
H1 (–)
588 Students’ motivational orientations
MF 37,7
In addition, we explore possible differences across various subgroups of our sample based on gender, seniority in the educational program, age, and country of birth. We analyze these differences using four dummy variables to proxy for gender, seniority, age, and country of birth (Lepper and Corpus, 2005) in order to see if the perception of teaching quality differs across those various subgroups (Lepper and Corpus, 2005; Noels et al., 1999). We believe that students’ perceptions about teaching quality (measured by the eight descriptors) may begin to be explained by motivational orientation factors and the type of motivation exhibited towards the learning experience (intrinsic versus extrinsic). Thus, it is expected that students who are intrinsically motivated will have an ability to fully engage in the learning process, and therefore these states will have a higher positive impact on students’ perceptions (Lepper and Corpus, 2005; Pintrich, 2003; Pintrich and Schunk, 2002; Covington and Mu¨eller, 2001; Noels et al., 1999; Hidi, 1990). In contrast, students who are non-motivated will have a negative perception about teaching quality, with this amotivation being the other end of the spectrum (Legault et al., 2006). (Students who are in an amotivational state are those who exhibit inability or unwillingness to be motivated): H1. There is significant negative relationship between students’ amotivational state and perceived teaching quality. Highly non-motivated students have a tendency to lower their perception regarding the teaching quality at their institution when compared to more motivated students. Intrinsically motivated students under various factor loadings show a more positive perception of teaching quality in their learning experience, which will eventually translate into a higher positive evaluation of teaching quality (proxied by teaching effectiveness). Also, the correlation will be significantly positive between students’ motivational states and factor loadings underlying the intrinsic motivation variable in relation to perceived teaching quality (Pintrich, 2003; Fordham, 1980): H2. Perceptions of intrinsically motivated students about teaching quality will be positive and higher if students exhibit high states of intrinsic motivation. Thus, the evaluations of highly intrinsically motivated students regarding teaching quality based on the eight descriptors will be higher than those of less-motivated students. Students usually have external and identified regulations that shape their extrinsic motivation, in addition to some factor loadings that have been identified to increase their extrinsic motivation. Motivational processes in class are related to the salience of mastery and performance goals. Since intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are found to be moderately correlated (Lepper and Corpus, 2005), students who are only extrinsically motivated will have tendency to evaluate their teaching experience less favorably. Thus, we predicted a negative relationship between the level of extrinsic motivation and teaching quality perception in our study (Liu et al., 2009; Covington and Mu¨eller, 2001; Eccles and Wigfield, 1995; Brophy, 1999; Fordham, 1980): H3. There is a negative relationship between perceived teaching quality and students’ extrinsic motivational orientation. Evaluations of teaching quality – based on the eight descriptors – by the extrinsically motivated students will tend to be lower than the evaluations of other students.
Does motivation matter?
589
MF 37,7
590
Perceived teaching quality can be seen as the product of a positive and agreeable learning experience; thus, we anticipate students’ perceptions of quality teaching to be in alignment with such satisfaction when they are intrinsically motivated, as students’ satisfaction will be greatly enhanced by a positive learning environment, which will be reflected in a positive perception about the teaching experience. Also, students’ perceptions of quality teaching tend to be more negative when the students are more extrinsically motivated. Based on some past studies (Lepper and Corpus, 2005; Covington and Mu¨eller, 2001), extrinsically motivated students are seen to develop negative opinions regarding learning aspects that are not relevant to their extrinsically motivated behavior, or perhaps states of extrinsic motivation are not fulfilled by those learning aspects (Fordham, 1980): H4. We propose that the latency of various levels of motivational orientation has a predictive role on perceived teaching quality. Although students’ motivational orientation may positively predict perceived teaching quality even when we are using differing states and factor loadings (Covington and Mu¨eller, 2001), the factor of a university’s high reputation may increase and further enhance students’ perception of teaching quality as measured by the eight factors (SEEQ items) referred to above. To rule out the possibility of substitution effect (proxy hypothesis) that the general view (or reputation) of the institution may enhance participants’ responses regarding performance instruments, we augment the previous propositions by adding the prior general view (reputation, view of quality teaching (VQT)) to account for its potential effect on perceived teaching quality (Soutar and Turner, 2002; Nguyen and LeBlanc, 2001; Herbig and Milewicz, 1993; Wartick, 1992; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Shapiro, 1982). Thus, we suggest the following three hypotheses: H4a. Students who are not motivated will continue to experience and express a negative opinion on perceived teaching quality even after accounting for the general view (reputation) factor. H4b. Students who are intrinsically motivated will exhibit a positive valuation regarding the teaching experience and teaching quality, and this intrinsic motivation will continue to have positive impact on perceived teaching quality even after accounting for the general view (reputation) factor (Pintrich, 2003; Milo et al., 1989). H4c. Extrinsically motivated students will show a negative evaluation regarding the teaching quality, and this extrinsic motivation will continue to negatively impact perceptions of teaching quality even after accounting for the general view (reputation) factor (Milo et al., 1989). H5. Finally, there is the possibility that both motivational orientations (intrinsic and extrinsic) contribute to individual students’ perceptions of teaching quality, as both can be present in one person at different levels. Specifically, humans are always predicting some tangible reward and payoff for their behaviors, intrinsically driven or not. Thus, intrinsic motivation drivers may not operate under zero-sum arrangement with extrinsic motivation drivers. Perceptions of teaching
quality as measured by the eight descriptors will vary according to their level under each motivation orientation. Thus, students’ evaluations of teaching quality may be positively related to intrinsic motivation, but negatively related to extrinsic motivation, such that the more intrinsically motivated student will perceive teaching quality to be higher even if she or he is in a state of extrinsic motivation. With these two hypotheses, we began to explore the predictive and explanatory power of each motivational orientation variable on the perceived teaching quality, both with and without the reputation control variable. We tested whether both motivations have joint impact and explored the magnitude of each, though the presence of a university reputation for quality teaching may increase students’ perception of such, as measured by the eight factors outlined above. Consequently, we suggest the following complementary hypotheses (Covington and Mu¨eller, 2001): H5a. Intrinsic motivation has a more positive explanatory power on the perceived teaching quality than extrinsic motivation. Students who are intrinsically motivated will exhibit a higher positive perception regarding the teaching quality even after accounting for the general view (reputation) factor. H5b. The impact of students’ intrinsic motivational orientation on perceived teaching quality will continue to be higher than the impact of extrinsic motivational orientation even after accounting for the general view (reputation) factor. 4. Data collection, survey elaboration, and procedure 4.1 Data collection Students from two universities were asked to voluntarily participate in the survey. The data were collected from two different institutions (each with a diverse population of students, different size, and different admission requirements) by surveying students engaged in a broad range of studies, not only those enrolled in a business program[3]. Therefore, our results can be applied toward other university programs as well, and not exclusively that of business/management. At one university (labeled East institution, with a small student population of about 5,600 as of September 2008), the surveys were completed in class; these were randomly selected from the pool of all available classes during the academic term, after controlling for repetition. Students were given ample time to complete the survey, and no one had to complete it more than once. Because of the school’s larger size, students (participants) from the other institution (labeled West institution, with a large student population of about 44,892 as of November 2008) were drawn from the participant pool program of the introductory marketing course. The study was listed on the participant pool web site, wherein students were given the option to participate. The survey was completed outside of class in the behavioral experimental labs. We undertook this procedure to preserve the strengths of a controlled study, such as controlling for extraneous noise that makes hypothesized effects hard to detect. We are aware that the design presented here may raise some concerns, such as the concern that participants may not react “on paper” as they might in a real classroom setting. Thus, some participants may have difficulty predicting accurately how they would feel in that situation. However, we tried to reduce the impact of this limitation by running the study at two different institutions in different settings[4].
Does motivation matter?
591
MF 37,7
592
4.2 Survey contents This study is a follow-up of another research project based on the same survey, but our present study limited the questions to the ones relevant to teaching perceptions and the hypotheses of this study. Primarily, participants are asked to outline and define their perceptions of teaching quality. The main research question in this paper involves three student motivational orientations, as documented in past literature. Respondents were initially asked to present their general opinions about teaching quality at their institution in order to characterize the reputation of their institution. Then, the first group of questions was designed to understand their motivational orientations, outlining the reasons why the students are motivated to learn. This facilitated determination of the level of motivation or non-motivation they exhibit and identification of other motivation subtypes. It was followed by various questions pertinent to factor loadings or states underlying the intrinsic motivational orientation, such as achievement learning, past accomplishments, challenge, curiosity, and independent mastery, all based on work in the existing literature (Lepper and Corpus, 2005; Noels et al., 1999). Participants next tackled another set of questions pertinent to extrinsic motivational orientation, including underlying factor loadings or states such as external regulation, identified regulation, easy work, pleasing the teacher, and dependence on the teacher. To avoid doubt and increase clarity, some of the factor loadings and states were captured using two or three questions that categorized different conceptual aspects of the variable(s) under investigation. Most of the questions in this survey (except the open questions) used a five-point response scale (5 – strongly agree, 4 – agree, 3 – neither agree nor disagree, 2 – disagree, and 1 – strongly disagree). Table I presents sample structure and information regarding the participants, showing that 72 percent are male; approximately 90 percent of all participants spent one to four years at the university; 95 percent are less than 25-year old; and the majority of them speak more than one language. It is clear that our sample consists of young undergraduate students with various cultural backgrounds who are familiar with learning activities at their institutions. The distribution of the program of study is heavily dominated by participants from the business/commerce/management program, followed by the engineering program, with a small portion distributed among programs in health science/nursing, science, and the arts. We collected 271 surveys (five incomplete surveys were rejected). The final sample size is 266, composed of 180 participants from the East institution and 68 from the West. Psychometrics for the measures showed that all scales and information were reliable and valid; internal consistency measures consistency within the survey[5]. Based on the survey, collected responses of participants show good reliability of the instrument used – in this study Cronbach’s alpha, Split-Half (odd-even) correlation, and Spearman-Brown prophecy measures are 0.84, 0.85, and 0.91, respectively. 5. Empirical analysis and discussion 5.1 Students’ PTQ factors In this study, for purposes of measurement and statistical testing, we decided to use the eight well-known SEEQ items, which are defined as follows: (1) Learning. This reflects the extent to which students felt they received a valuable teaching experience.
Percent of total participants Gender Male Female Time spent at the university (seniority) 0-2 years 3-4 years 5-7 years Over 7 years Exchange student Yes No Country of birth Canada USA Europe Other Unanswered Age group Under 25 26-35 36-45 Foreign languages spoken None One Two Three or more Program of study Arts Bachelor of Engineering/Business Management Bachelor of IT Business/Commerce Criminology Health Sciences Nursing Science Undecided
Does motivation matter?
71.22 28.78 50.55 40.96 8.12 0.37
593
1.11 98.89 59.41 0.37 2.58 34.32 3.32 94.83 3.32 1.85 45.39 33.58 16.61 4.43 Number of total participants 7 73 8 138 8 11 7 18 1
Note: n ¼ 271
(2) Enthusiasm. This measures the students’ perception of the instructor’s enthusiasm, humor, and ability to hold their attention. (3) Organization. This concerns the instructor’s organization of the course, including course materials and class presentations. (4) Interaction. This reflects the perceived degree of encouragement shown by the instructor in class discussions and the sharing of ideas. (5) Rapport. This is the extent to which students felt the instructor was friendly, interested in students, and accessible in or out of class. (6) Breadth. This refers to student perception of the instructor’s inclusion of alternative approaches to the subject.
Table I. Information about participants
MF 37,7
594
(7) Assignments. This refers to perceptions of the value and fairness of graded work. (8) Material. This taps the value of the course’s reading requirements in aiding appreciation and understanding of the subject. Based on Table II, we note that the learning score is the highest factor that reflects students’ perceptions about teaching quality and effectiveness relative to the rest of the eight SEEQ items, with an average of 4.50 (maximum is 5). There is a small variability among participants in comparison with other factors (SD ¼ 69.09 percent), and 4.63 for West institution as compared to 4.43 for East institution, which is how we designated the two institutions in our study. The schools have different sizes and admission requirements. Yet, overall results show the same prioritization of learning in relation to the other factors. The overall PTQ index represents the total (not the average) scores, which are used in this study to proxy the perceived quality of teaching on the part of participants. We deem that this numerical measure is both relevant and useful, as it provides an overall sense of how students perceive quality and which factors matter proportionally to them. We examined the effect of three motivational orientations upon student perception of teaching quality. The results of this study are considered within the context of other variables, such as the general view of teaching at the institutions (proxy the reputation); we consider it important to include that view empirically. As shown in Table III, while both institutions differ in many aspects (e.g. size, location, and admission requirements), the results show the mean score of the reputation variable to be 3.67. (In addition, more than 60 percent of participants indicate existence of an above-average quality of teaching at the institution.) The t-test fails to reject equality between the means, and F-test fails to reject the equality of related standard deviations between the West and East institutions. Moreover, overall scores (and sub-sample scores) are negatively skewed (with negative kurtosis), which suggests that there is a higher probability for participants to have a positive as opposed to a negative view about the quality of teaching at their college (response distribution is concentrated on the right and has relatively few low values). This initial result lends support to our contention that this overarching view or opinion is important to acknowledge in our search to understand the sources and impact of motivation on student’s perceptions. 5.2 Students’ motivational orientations Since prior research in student motivational orientations is documented, we want to capture and identify current thought on the topic and examine student perceptions. Table IV reports the results of various questions, all based on a five-point scale. In panel A, for the first question, “why are you motivated to learn?”, seven statements were used to represent possible responses, giving participants a chance to score their attitudes on a five-point scale. We can see from the results in panel A that the mean scores for response C (better employment) and response E (personal development) are high among data from both universities. Responses A and B, questions aimed to identify existing levels of amotivation, generated low scores, which implies that on average participants have very low levels of amotivation. That fact suggests that a number of various factor loadings and states describe participants who exhibit more intrinsic or extrinsic motivational orientations or both.
4.32 4.51 4.38
4.21 4.37 4.26 80.47
4.43 4.63 4.50
69.09%
75.90
Organization
Enthusiasm
Learning
98.64
3.83 4.02 3.89
Interaction
82.21
4.26 4.27 4.26
Rapport
89.83
3.83 3.76 3.80
Breadth
84.67
4.17 4.10 4.15
Assignments
85.56
4.06 4.03 4.05
Material
Notes: n ¼ 266; scores were based on a five-point scale ranging from strongly unimportant (1) to strongly important (5)
Mean East West Both SD Both
Factors
418.53
33.08 33.70 33.28
Overall, PTQ index
Does motivation matter?
595
Table II. Teaching quality factors (SEEQ items) with the overall score (perceived quality teaching, PTQ index)
Table III. Reputation or general VQT at their institutions
Note: n ¼ 266
35.34
59.02
1.13
Overall (both)
Above average (4) 57.78 61.63
Average (3)
Percentage of participants per institution East (n ¼ 180) 1.11 36.11 West (n ¼ 86) 1.16 33.72 Difference (d)
Below average (1 and 2)
4.51
5.00 3.49
Outstanding (5) 3.66 3.67 jtj ¼ 0.13 p . 0.10 3.67
Mean score
62.99 58.96 F(179, 85) ¼ 0.01 p . 0.10 57.99%
SD
20.15
20.08 20.32
Skewness (SK)
596
Valuation
20.24
20.27 20.12
Kurtosis (KR)
MF 37,7
3.80 1.05
3.22 1.17
2.84 1.18
2.88 1.19
3.34 1.10
3.17 1.14
3.33 1.12
Dependence on Easy work Pleasing teacher teacher 3.72 3.10 2.83 3.03 3.45 3.24 3.24 3.84 3.28 2.85 2.80 3.29 3.14 3.37 jtj ¼ 0.87 jtj ¼ 1.18 jtj ¼ 0.16 jtj ¼ 1.51 jtj ¼ 1.18 jtj ¼ 0.74 jtj ¼ 0.91 p . 0.10 p . 0.10 p . 0.10 p . 0.10 p . 0.10 p . 0.10 p . 0.10
E F G 4.51 3.63 3.95 4.16 3.64 3.86 jtj ¼ 3.21 jtj ¼ 0.07 jtj ¼ 0.71 p , 0.01 p . 0.10 p . 0.10
Notes: n ¼ 266; scores were based on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5); the following statements represent possible responses to the question “why are you motivated to learn?”; A: he/she does not understand the reason for studying; B: wasting his/her time studying; C: for better employment opportunities in the future; D: to make money in the future; E: because it is important for my personal development; F: for the enjoyment he/she experiences achieving learning; G: the enjoyment he/she experiences surpassing past accomplishments
Panel A – why learn? Responses ! A B C D East (n ¼ 180) 1.80 1.73 4.37 4.27 West (n ¼ 86) 1.71 1.58 4.57 4.35 Equal mean tests jtj ¼ 0.71 jtj ¼ 1.25 jtj ¼ 1.77 jtj ¼ 0.71 p . 0.10 p . 0.10 p , 0.10 p . 0.10 between two universities (difference) Panel B Independent Challenge Curiosity mastery East 3.83 3.24 4.07 3.99 West 3.63 3.11 3.92 3.78 Equal mean tests jtj ¼ 1.61 jtj ¼ 0.92 jtj ¼ 1.31 jtj ¼ 1.57 p . 0.10 p . 0.10 p . 0.10 p . 0.10 between universities (difference) Both 3.69 3.15 3.97 3.85 SD 0.94 1.15 0.86 1.02
Does motivation matter?
597
Table IV. Students’ motivational orientations
MF 37,7
598
It appears that the majority of responses for the question in panel A differ between the two universities. ANOVA analysis of results in panel A reveals that the equality between mean responses from the two universities is not statistically significant, with exceptions in responses C and E, which both had a p-value less than 10 percent. Thus, students across both universities do not differ in their view towards external regulation (4.37 versus 4.57) for better employment opportunities; nor do they differ in their view towards identified regulation (4.51 versus 4.16) for reasons of personal development – factor loadings and states which both fall under the extrinsic motivation category. Panel B in Table IV shows that on average all respondents exhibit a moderate level in the other factor loadings or states, such as challenge (3.69), curiosity (3.15-3.97), and independent mastery (3.85), all of which fall under the intrinsic motivation category. All of these factors have low standard deviations, thereby illustrating a reasonable divergence towards the mean. Again, using the ANOVA analysis, we did not find any statistical support for equating mean responses between both institutions. In addition, for the other states such as easy work (3.80-3.22), pleasing teacher (2.84-3.34), and dependence on teacher (3.17-3.33), which all fall under the extrinsic motivation category, results were moderately high, with the “pleasing teacher” factor showing a low reaction. The implication is that students exhibit an extrinsic motivational orientation that is not necessarily based on seeking to please one’s teacher. Overall, it is clear that from the students’ perspective they have various motivational orientations, which we have attempted to separate and capture by the use of factor loadings and states. The next section discusses how much and to what extent these differences will impact student ratings and assessment of teaching effectiveness and teaching quality. Overall, among the survey respondents, participants tend to be curious, with an independent mastery orientation; and they prefer some degree of easy work and a moderate level of challenge. The data do not allow clear conclusions in regard to differences between universities, but they may be due to differing expectations: the two institutions have different student populations and dissimilar admission requirements, thus student expectations and motivational drivers may be influenced by those aspects of the environment. 5.3 Correlation and regression analyses among key variables 5.3.1 Correlation analysis. To understand the nature of relationship between various motivational orientations and perceived teaching quality, we first need to estimate correlation coefficients between key variables in the study. Students’ scores based on the two motivational orientations (IM and EM) were moderately positively correlated with all eight descriptors of the perceived teaching quality (PTQ index), with the exception of assignments for intrinsically motivated students, which shows a statistically insignificant correlation coefficient (0.05). Extrinsically motivated students have no significant correlation with the learning descriptor, in distinct contrast to intrinsically motivated students, who showed the highest positive correlation with it. In addition, it is self-revealing that non-motivated students will negatively evaluate the effectiveness of a teaching experience (Legault et al., 2006). Five out of eight descriptors (attributes) show statistically significant but moderate negative correlation coefficients – for example, with learning, which is in the order of (2 0.32), material (2 0.21), organization (2 0.19), enthusiasm (2 0.14), and rapport (2 0.11). The other three coefficients are not statistically significant. As shown in Table V, there is a clear
SD 1.64 4.22 5.35 0.58 0.69 0.80 0.75 0.98 0.82 0.89 0.84 0.87
Mean
3.37 22.18 35.69 3.66 4.49 4.26 4.37 3.89 4.26 3.80 4.15 4.04
2 2 0.14 * * 0.23 * * * 0.14 * * 0.21 * * * 0.41 * * * 1.0
1 20.32 * * * 0.30 * * * 0.02 0.09 1.0
2 0.19 * * * 0.15 * * 0.19 * * * 0.08 0.32 * * * 0.43 * * * 1.0
3 2 0.07 0.30 * * * 0.12 * 0.13 * * 0.26 * * * 0.29 * * * 0.21 * * * 1.0
4 20.11 * 0.15 * * 0.16 * * * 0.24 * * * 0.32 * * * 0.37 * * * 0.38 * * * 0.38 * * * 1.0
5 20.07 0.18 * * * 0.14 * * 0.13 * * 0.33 * * * 0.25 * * * 0.29 * * * 0.41 * * * 0.38 * * * 1.0
6
8 2 0.21 * * * 0.22 * * * 0.21 * * * 0.03 0.31 * * * 0.17 * * * 0.31 * * * 0.30 * * * 0.32 * * * 0.37 * * * 0.35 * * * 1.0
7 2 0.02 0.05 0.19 * * * 2 0.004 0.30 * * * 0.23 * * * 0.26 * * * 0.16 * * * 0.17 * * * 0.27 * * * 1.0
Notes: Statistical significance at: *10, * *5, and * * *1 percent levels, respectively; n ¼ 266; scores were based on a five-point scale ranging from strongly unimportant (1) to strongly important (5); afor these variables, the values represent aggregate scores with respect to states and factor loadings underlying each of the three motivational orientations; AM, IM and EM indicate amotivation, intrinsic, and extrinsic motivational orientations, respectively
AMa IMa EMa VQT 1. Learning 2. Enthusiasm 3. Organization 4. Interaction 5. Rapport 6. Breadth 7. Assignments 8. Material
Variables
Does motivation matter?
599
Table V. Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables: zero-order correlations
MF 37,7
600
difference between the perceived teaching quality measured by the eight factors as a basis, and the general view – proxy reputation (VQT) – that participants expressed when asked to characterize the quality of teaching at their university. In fact, we did not observe a very high correlation coefficient between them; it was in the order of 0.19 with p-value less than 1 percent. 5.3.2 Regression analysis results. Table VI reports the results of students’ motivational orientations (AM, EM, and IM) and their effect on perceived teaching quality (PTQ index). Following the conceptual framework and hypotheses outlined above, we wanted to see if these variables have a predictor effect (explanatory power) in relation to perceived teaching quality. Thus, ordinary regression analyses were used to assess the contribution of these tools to the PTQ index. The empirical results were achieved using four steps: (1) We attempt to regress only one variable at a time (models 1, 3, and 5). (2) We repeat some procedure as in step 1 but this time by adding some dummy variables to capture differences, if any, based on gender, seniority in the program, and age[6] (models 2, 4, and 6). (3) We regress two constructed extrinsic and intrinsic variables (model 7). (4) We attempt to regress again both extrinsic and intrinsic variables with three dummy variables (model 8). We also considered entering the interaction terms, but since they were insignificant we did not report them. The results are presented in Table VI, panel A. As expected, the IM variable emerged as a positive significant (with more explanatory power) predictor of perceived quality teaching. EM has statistically significant positive impact but weak explanatory power, implying that other relevant variables were not included. We note that the coefficient of IM has a higher impact than the other variables. Based on models 4 and 6, when we alternately enter dummy variables the results show that IM has a higher positive significant impact than EM. In addition, dummy-variable results reveal that there is a statistically significant positive gender difference and a statistically significant negative effect of age in the case of extrinsic motivation. But, age and seniority effects were shown to be insignificant once we combined both motivational orientations, i.e. the IM and EM variables (model 8), in which case the results show that age makes a visible difference on perceived teaching quality, with a high adjusted R 2. This result is partially in line with what Legault et al. (2006) and Lepper and Corpus (2005) have found in their studies. The implication is that female students have a greater tendency to increase their perception about teaching quality versus male students. Also, it is noticeable that intrinsic motivation orientation emerges with a higher impact on perceived teaching quality than the extrinsic motivation. The result of models 7 and 8, panel A, imply a strong explanatory power, such that IM remains a highly significant predictor of perceived teaching quality, followed by EM with or without the three dummy variables being entered into the model. The absence of interactions between IM and EM showed that the highly significant effects of IM did not depend on the value of EM. Based on results shown in model 2, panel A, we observe that an unmotivated young student with two years or less of academic experience will tend to negatively value the quality of teaching that he or she is receiving at a particular institution.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Panel A (n ¼ 266) – represents the results from ordinary least squares (OLS) without accounting for the general view of quality variable 1. AM 20.558 * * * 20.501 * * * (0.1552) (0.155) 2. EM 0.185 * * * 0.186 * * * 0.214 * * * 0.213 * * * (0.046) (0.045) (0.044) (0.043) 3. IM 0.313 * * * 0.293 * * * 0.343 * * * 0.323 * * * (0.057) (0.058) (0.055) (0.056) 4. D1 (gender) 0.693 0.994 * 1.064 * * 0.928 * (0.559) (0.53) (0.538) (0.508) 5. D2 (seniority) 20.841 * 2 0.723 20.70 2 0.726 (0.499) (0.483) (0.491) (0.463) 6. D3 (age) 22.163 * 1.579 22.733 * * 2 1.614 (1.122) (1.102) (1.101) (1.057) R 2 adjusted 0.044 0.065 0.097 0.114 0.052 0.085 0.169 0.185 Panel B (n ¼ 266) – represents the results from OLS after incorporating the reputation factor manifested by general view of the participants about the quality of teaching at their institutions to control for a possible substitution effect 1. AM 20.519 * * * 20.456 * * * (0.151) (0.155) 2. EM 0.183 * * * 0.184 * * * 0.211 * * * 0.209 * * * (0.045) (0.045) (0.043) (0.043) 3. IM 0.286 * * * 0.264 * * * 0.317 * * * 0.295 * * * (0.059) (0.059) (0.043) (0.057) 4. VQT 1.227 * * * 1.241 * * * 0.870 * * 0.928 * * 1.342 * * * 1.338 * * * 0.791 * 0.846 * * (0.429) (0.427) (0.059) (0.428) (0.424) (0.418) (0.414) (0.411) 5. D1 (gender) 0.825 1.077 * * 1.167 * * 1.005 * * (0.554) (0.528) (0.530) (0.506) 6. D2 (seniority) 20.868 * 2 0.751 20.742 2 0.751 (0.492) (0.486) (0.483) (0.461) 7. D3 (Age) 21.951 * 2 1.495 22.46 * * 2 1.537 (1.108) (1.095) (1.085) (1.051) R 2 adjusted 0.070 0.091 0.107 0.126 0.084 0.117 0.177 0.196 (continued)
Variable/models
Does motivation matter?
601
Table VI. Regression analysis results
Table VI. (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Panel C (n ¼ 257) – represents the results from OLS without accounting for the general view of quality variable, with an additional dummy variable D4, country of birth, to proxy for ethnicity difference 1. AM 20.555 * * * 20.526 * * * (0.1577) (0.161) 2. EM 0.189 * * * 0.176 * * * 0.220 * * * 0.207 * * * (0.047) (0.047) (0.044) (0.044) 3. IM 0.328 * * * 0.299 * * * 0.359 * * * 0.331 * * * (0.058) (0.059) (0.056) (0.057) 4. D1 (gender) 0.693 1.031 1.040 * 0.933 * * (0.562) (0.492) (0.544) (0.513) 5. D2 (seniority) 20.698 2 0.588 20.602 2 0.611 (0.507) (0.492) (0.503) (0.473) 6. D3 (age) 21.937 * 2 1.425 22.594 * * 2 1.514 (1.123) (1.101) (1.107) (1.058) 7. D4 (country of birth) 21.337 * * 2 1.013 * * 20.866 * 2 0.611 (0.521) (0.506) (0.523) (0.494) R 2 adjusted 0.042 0.082 0.105 0.131 0.055 0.093 0.181 0.197 Panel D (n ¼ 257) represents the results from OLS after incorporating the reputation factor manifested by general view of the participants about the quality of teaching at their institutions to control for a possible substitution effect, in addition to the additional dummy variable D4, country of birth, to capture ethnicity difference 1. AM 20.512 * * * 20.478 * * * (0.156) (0.158) 2. EM 0.187 * * * 0.170 * * * 0.216 * * * 0.201 * * * (0.046) (0.046) (0.044) (0.044) 3. IM 0.299 * * * 0.265 * * * 0.333 * * * 0.301 * * * (0.059) (0.06) (0.057) (0.058) 4. VQT 1.281 * * * 1.409 * * * 0.931 * * 1.104 * * 1.389 * * * 1.472 * * * 0.845 * * 0.978 * * (0.441) (0.434) (0.438) (0.434) (0.434) (0.428) (0.420) (0.419) 5. D1 (gender) 0.844 1.128 * * 1.160 * * 1.023 * * (0.554) (0.528) (0.534) (0.51) (continued)
(1)
602
Variable/models
MF 37,7
0.069
(1) 20.723 (0.498) 21.659 (1.106) 21.486 * * * (0.513) 0.116
(2)
0.117
(3) 2 0.615 (0.487) 2 1.286 (1.09) 2 1.161 * * (0.504) 0.150
(4)
0.088
(5) 20.639 (0.492) 22.252 * * (1.089) 21.047 * * (0.515) 0.131
(6)
0.191
(7)
2 0.635 (0.469) 2 1.388 (1.050) 2 0.754 (0.493) 0.211
(8)
Notes: Significant difference from zero at: *10, * *5, and * * *1 percent levels, respectively; n ¼ 257; standard errors are provided in parentheses below estimated coefficients; coefficients of interactions terms are insignificant and not reported; for panels C and D, to add the fourth dummy variable, we have to reduce the sample size, because of the missing observations; this table reports the results from regression on students’ motivational orientations; the dependent variable is perceived teaching quality, PTQ; the independent variables include AM, proxy students’ amotivational orientation; EM, the extrinsic motivational orientation variable; and IM, the intrinsic motivational orientation variable; VQT represents participants’ general view about quality of teaching (“reputation”) at their institution, which was used as a control variable; D1, D2, D3, and D4 represent dummy variables used to capture the differences based on gender, seniority (time spent at the university), age, and country of birth (ethnicity), respectively
R2 adjusted
8. D4 (country of birth)
7. D3 (age)
6. D2 (seniority)
Variable/models
Does motivation matter?
603
Table VI.
MF 37,7
604
It was necessary to rule out the possibility of substitution effect – proxy hypothesis – should the general view (or reputation) of an institution contaminate participants’ responses in regard to motivational orientations and thereby their scores for the eight descriptors; for example, the highly intrinsically motivated students may have positive experiences due to pre-conceived notions regarding their school’s reputation. To help control for the fact that some participants, notably first- and second-year students, may have pre-set notions before entering a program, we augment the regression models (1-8 in panel B) by introducing the VQT as a control variable following the same steps described for panel A, thus accounting for its effect on PTQ. Surprisingly, after conditioning with VQT, the IM variable still displays a positive significant effect but is lower than the previously reported result in panel A. Moreover, the magnitude of the IM coefficients is lower than VQT, indicating that the general view of the institution has a greater explanatory power in regard to PTQ. The result in column 8 shows that EM effect is lower than the previous one in panel A (0.20 versus 0.21), with a higher adjusted R 2. We note that gender difference persists, as is visible over all regression tests in panel B, with the difference being greater than the previous one in panel A. Overall, the evidence strongly suggests that a favorable reputation or general view of an institution adds to the perceived teaching quality, but student motivations matter, with a greater positive effect resulting from states and factor loadings underlying the intrinsic motivational orientation (see Figure 1 for results per each state/factor loading[7]) (Soutar and Turner, 2002; Yoon et al., 1993; Weissman, 1990; Milo et al., 1989). Again in panels C and D, we repeat all regression models, but this time adding an additional dummy variable to capture differences in country of birth (a possible proxy ethnicity difference)[8] (Lepper and Corpus, 2005; Salili et al., 2000). This procedure was carried out here to reduce the sample size because of some missing data regarding the dummy variable, country of birth. Results in panel C again are in line with those found in panel A but this time with a higher degree of explanatory power. Of course, the impact of both IM and EM is still positive and statistically significant, but coefficients are lower in panel C than the previous results in panel A. Moreover, results in panel C show that there is a statistically significant difference based on country of birth. Those who are born in Canada or the USA display the tendency (on average) to have negative perceptions about the effectiveness of their teaching experience (Lepper and Corpus, 2005). Again, after incorporating the reputation factor, evidence in panel D does not differ substantially from that in panel B in regard to intrinsic motivational orientation and its drivers. 5.3.3 General discussion of results. H1 predicted that amotivation has a negative effect on student satisfaction. The regression analysis presented in Table VI (based on models 1 and 2) shows a negative statistically significant impact. This result is maintained even after adding some dummy variables. Along the same lines of argument, H2 predicted that intrinsic motivation has a positive impact on perceived teaching quality, with results in Table VI (models 3 and 4), in addition to correlation analysis in Table V, supporting this hypothesis. H3 again predicted a negative impact of extrinsic motivation on perceived teaching quality; however, results in Table VI (models 5 and 6) show the reverse form of the relationship. H4 and its associated series have attempted to address the substitution effect of the institutional reputation. With this group of hypotheses, we began to explore the predictive and explanatory power of the factor loading and states underlying the two motivational orientations (intrinsic and extrinsic) on perceptions of teaching quality.
The H4 series tests whether each variable has a positive impact on its own, and then tests them jointly. The regression results in Table VI show a positive and significant interaction between perceived teaching quality and both motivational orientations, and the magnitude varies with the nature of the type of motivation. To exclude the possibility of proxy hypothesis (substitution effect) on perceived teaching quality due to reputation or pre-conceived views of the institution, H5 predicted the same result even after accounting for the control variable (Yoon et al., 1993; Weissman, 1990). Another set of statistical tests using regression analysis show that explanatory power of the tests increased. Meanwhile, the impact of both types of motivations was still both statistically significant and positive. Overall, the findings from this study reveal that students’ motivational orientations provide a significant means of differentiating between student perceptions of teaching quality based on the eight SEEQ items, in addition to the influences of gender and country of birth, and to lesser extent, student age as well (Lepper and Corpus, 2005; Hwang et al., 2004). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality at the respective institution/program changed in accordance with the differing level and type of motivational orientation they exhibit. The consistent pattern of findings across the number of regression models suggests that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation – when they are blended with other possible factors and activities that enhance teaching quality – will likely foster improved learning as well as increase the students’ perceptions in relation to teaching quality (Roth et al., 2007; Covington and Mu¨eller, 2001). 6. Conclusion, limitations, and future research The purpose of this study is to shed light on the relationship between perceived teaching quality and students’ motivational orientations. Across the three motivational orientations, we found that intrinsic motivation is the greatest or most significant driver behind a high perception of teaching quality, followed by students’ extrinsic motivation (Pintrich, 2003). On the other hand, our results show that if instructors and administrators want to improve student perceptions of teaching quality, they cannot ignore the fact that students’ motivational orientations and their general opinion (reputation) of the educational institution (or program) play influential roles in creating positive perceptions. A viable strategy to enhance and further motivate students extrinsically and intrinsically in their learning will significantly enhance their perceptions (Deci et al., 2001; Ames and Archer, 1988). Ideally, the results presented here will assist researchers, professors, and higher-education administrators by capitalizing on students’ existing intrinsic motivation and understanding the relationship between student perceptions of teaching quality and their degree of motivation to further expand and implement a better quality-assurance educational system (Maureen, 1999). Some of the limitations of this study, as revealed by the explanatory power given in Table VI, are related to unexplored variables. Other factors related to perceived teaching quality remain unexamined (e.g. student performance instruments or physical facilities and learning spaces, or other technology tools used in classroom), as they do not fit within the conceptual and empirical framework of this study. In addition, the sample used in this study could be viewed as limited, but we concluded that any so-called “institution effect” or program effect biases were successfully reduced. This was accomplished by conducting the survey and collecting the data from two different
Does motivation matter?
605
MF 37,7
606
institutions (each with a diverse population of students), and by surveying students engaged in a broad range of studies, not only those enrolled in a business program. Thus, our conclusions can be applied towards other university programs as well, and not exclusively that of business/management. Our findings on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation states and factor loadings, and consequent perceptions of teaching quality, generate many additional questions for further study. For example, questions remain as to whether there are other teaching activities that would produce high levels of teaching quality and student satisfaction. What is the role of student motivation in that context? On the other hand, we may need to extend the study by considering instructor perspective as well, in order to determine their perceptions regarding teaching quality (Roth et al., 2007; Lepper, 1988; Malone, 1981) (e.g. instructors’ motivational orientations and their perceptions of teaching quality). Notes 1. Fordham (1980) referred to the dimension of learning environment as facilitation of intrinsic motivation. 2. The SEEQ was developed by Dr Herbert Marsh, University of Western Sydney. Marsh is an internationally recognized expert in the area of psychometrics. SEEQw 1976 Herbert W. Marsh has been extensively tested and used in many courses, with over 1 million students at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. 3. Owing to space limitation, further details about characteristics of each institution were not provided here but are available upon request from the authors. 4. Since the survey requires the use of human participants, we requested the ethical approval before collection of the data from Research Ethics Boards at both institutions; certificates of approval were received in due time. 5. A reliability of 0.80 usually indicates 80 percent consistency in the scores that are produced by the survey. 6. Gender dummy variable equals one for female, and zero for male; seniority dummy variable equals one for time spent at the university less than or equal to two years, and zero otherwise; age dummy variable is constructed such that it is equal to one for age less than 25, and zero otherwise; country of birth dummy (proxy ethnicity) equals one for those who were born in Canada or the USA, and zero otherwise. 7. Owing to space limitation, regression results for each state/factor loading were not reported but they are available upon request from the authors. 8. To understand and imply from this ethnicity proxy and relevant result, we need to be careful, as the authors are aware that some participants who were born in Canada or the USA ethnically may in fact be more culturally aligned with another background.
References Ames, C. and Archer, J. (1988), “Achievement goals in the classroom: students’ learning strategies and motivation processes”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 260-7. Bensimon, E.M. (1995), “Total quality management in the academy: a rebellious reading”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 593-611.
Brophy, J. (1999), “Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 52, pp. 75-85. Cole, M.S., Field, H.S. and Harris, S.G. (2004), “Student learning motivation and psychological hardiness: interactive effects on students’ reactions to a management class”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 64-85. Covington, M.V. and Mu¨eller, K.J. (2001), “Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation: an approach/avoidance reformulation”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 157-76. Crebbin, W. (1997), “Defining quality teaching in higher education”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 21-33. Deci, E.L. (1971), “Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Personal Soc. Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 105-15. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior, Plenum Press, New York, NY. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2002), “Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective”, in Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (Eds), Handbook of Self-determination Research, University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY, pp. 3-33. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Gagne, M., Leone, D.R., Usunov, J. and Kornazheva, B.P. (2001), “Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organization of a former Eastern bloc country”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 27, pp. 930-42. Eccles, J. and Wigfield, A. (1995), “In the mind of the actor: the structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21, pp. 215-25. Elmore, R.F. (1996), “Getting to scale with good educational practice”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 1-26. Ensign, D. (1998), “Investing in quality teaching”, Spectrum, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 4-7. Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990), “What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-48. Fordham, A. (1980), “Student intrinsic motivation, science teaching practices and student learning”, Research in Science Education, Vol. 10, pp. 107-17. Friga, P.N., Bettis, R.A. and Sullivan, R.S. (2003), “Changes in graduate management education and new business school strategies for the 21st century”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 233-49. Gatfield, T., Barker, M. and Peter, G. (1999), “Measuring student quality variables and the implications for management practices in higher education institutions: an Australian and international student perspective”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 239-55. Geringer, J. (2003), “Reflections on professional development: toward high-quality teaching and learning”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 373-4. Grey, C. (2004), “Reinventing business schools: the contribution of critical management education”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 178-86. Guolla, M. (1999), “Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship: applied customer satisfaction research in the classroom”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 87-97. Herbig, P. and Milewicz, J. (1993), “The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand success”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-10.
Does motivation matter?
607
MF 37,7
608
Hidi, S. (1990), “Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 60, pp. 549-71. Hwang, A., Kessler, E.H. and Francesco, A.M. (2004), “Student networking behavior, culture, and grade performance: an empirical study and pedagogical recommendations”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 139-51. Kember, D. and McKay, J. (1996), “Action research into the quality of student learning: a paradigm for faculty development”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 528-54. Kohn, A. (1993), Punished by Rewards, Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, NY. Legault, L., Green-Demers, I. and Pelletier, L. (2006), “Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 567-82. Lepper, M. (1988), “Motivational considerations in the study of instruction”, Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 289-309. Lepper, M.R. and Corpus, J.H. (2005), “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: age differences and academic correlates”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 184-96. Linek, W.M., Fleener, C., Fazio, M., Raine, I. and Klakamp, K. (2003), “The impact of shifting from ‘how teachers teach’ to ‘how children learn’”, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 78-90. Liu, W.C., Wang, C.K.J., Tan, O.S., Ee, J. and Koh, C. (2009), “A self-determination approach to understanding students’ motivation in project work”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 99-102. Loutete-Dangui, N. (1994), “The quality and financial resource dilemma of education in the Congo”, Journal of Education Finance, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 99-102. Malone, T.W. (1981), “Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction”, Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 333-69. Marsh, H.W. (1991), “The multidimensionality of students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: the generality of factor structures across academic discipline, instructor level, and course level”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 9-18. Maureen, T. (1999), “Quality assurance policies in higher education in Hong Kong”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 215-27. Maureen, T. (2002), “University impact on student growth: a quality measure?”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 211-19. Miller, A.H., Imrie, B.W. and Cox, K. (1998), Student Assessment in Higher Education, Kogan Page, London. Milo, K., Edson, K.C. and McEuen, V. (1989), “The impact of negative publicity on institutional reputation and student college choice”, College and University, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 237-45. Morgan, A., Gibbs, G. and Taylor, E. (1980), Student Approaches to Studying the Social Science and Technology Foundation Courses, The Open University, London. Nguyen, N. and LeBlanc, G. (2001), “Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students’ retention decisions”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 303-11. Noels, K.A., Clement, R. and Pelletier, L.G. (1999), “Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation”, The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 23-34.
Ortmann, A. (1997), “How to survive in postindustrial environments: Adam Smith’s advice for today’s colleges and universities”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 483-501. Pintrich, P.R. (2003), “A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 667-86. Pintrich, P.R. and Schunk, D.H. (2002), Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Reeve, J., Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2004), “Self-determination theory: a dialectical framework for understanding socio-cultural influences on student motivation”, in Van Etten, S. and Pressley, M. (Eds), Big Theories Revisited, Information Age Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 31-60. Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y. and Kaplan, H. (2007), “Autonomous motivation for teaching: how self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 761-74. Salili, F., Chiu, C. and Hong, Y. (Eds) (2000), Student Motivation: The Culture and Context of Learning, Kluwer, New York, NY. Shapiro, C. (1982), “Consumer information product quality, and seller reputation”, The Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 20-35. Soutar, G.N. and Turner, J.P. (2002), “Students’ preferences for university: a conjoint analysis”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 40-5. Wartick, S.L. (1992), “The relationship between intense media exposure and change in institutional reputation”, Business and Society, Vol. 31, pp. 33-49. Weissman, J. (1990), “Institutional image assessment and modification in college and universities”, Journal of Higher Education Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 65-75. Yoon, E., Guffey, H.G. and Kijewski, V. (1993), “The effects of information and company reputation on intentions to buy a business service”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 27, pp. 215-28. Further reading Reeve, J., Bolt, E. and Cai, Y. (1999), “Autonomy-supportive teachers: how they teach and motivate students”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 537-48. Corresponding author Kamal Smimou can be contacted at:
[email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Does motivation matter?
609
