Motivation of engineering students in higher education

Abstract

This paper examines motivational factors affecting higher education (HE) students in the Faculty of Technology at the University of Portsmouth. 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.

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to investigate factors which influence how students studying technology 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 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) 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; emphasising intellectual rigour over a “surface” approach (Rowe, 2001). 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). 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.

Investigation rationale

“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.

Background

Motivation as a concept

Motivation is variably conceptualised 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 and Raynor, 1978; Dweck and Leggett, 1988). Other studies on motivation focus on the goals that students set themselves and how they are achieved (Bandura, 1977; Dweck, 1986), but not the reasons why students desire to realise those goals. “Fundamental human needs” are addressed by Maslow, who proposes a hierarchy of human needs encompassing the physiological, safety, love, esteem and self-actualisation (Maslow, 1943). In this analysis, higher education may serve to address a student’s self-actualisation 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 selfactualisation. Extrinsically motivated students are referred to as “surface” learners, identifying only those features that they think they will be tested on in order to fulfil their esteem needs. This proposed framework of motivation is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. A framework of motivation

Other studies of the way that motivation is nurtured have found a positive correlation between actively developing a motivating environment and student performance (Rebolledo-Medez et al., 2006; Turner and Patrick, 2004; Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). A technology faculty may therefore wish to consider how to increase student motivation by adjusting pedagogical interventions and enhancing student learning experiences.

Measuring motivation

Measurement of student motivation has often been conducted in primary and secondary school environments. The measurement of motivation has been conducted either through an assessment of the amount of time that students freely spent on an activity (Leo and Galloway, 1996) or by using tools such as questionnaires and interviews (examples being Waugh (2001) and Jacobs and Newstead (2000)) which are notably reliant on students being able to competently reflect on “motivation”.

Leo and Galloway (1996) comment on the problems of considering motivation as a unitary concept, stating that each aspect of motivation should be treated differently. This is attempted by Waugh (2001) in his study of the motivation of 239 first year university students. He employs a 12 aspect model of motivation, assessing the students on each aspect: standards, goals, tasks, effort, values, ability, interest, learning from others, responsibility for learning, extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards and social rewards. Waugh uses a questionnaire with a five point Likert scale to attempt to assess the motivation of the students.

Other methods for testing motivation have been promoted by Ryan and Deci in a paper which discusses definitions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). They suggest a test for intrinsic motivation which involves letting students start a task and leaving them to see if they complete it unsupervised. Whilst this investigative method may assess levels of intrinsic motivation, it is less plausible as a measure of extrinsic motivation since the nature of the task will greatly affect a student’s need or desire to do it and the preamble could greatly affect the outcomes of the investigation (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004).

Measuring motivation in engineering

Although most of the work on motivation has been conducted in secondary schools or social science faculties, there has been some study within engineering disciplines. Much of this work has focused on student attrition and mainly attempts to identify ways to prevent high drop-out rates. A widely referenced study concerns students who prematurely quit Imperial College engineering degrees (Baillie and Fitzgerald, 2000). The students found the mathematics challenge too great, engineering dull and they did not feel adequately prepared for university learning styles. Baillie and Fitzgerald comment that the students had been inappropriately motivated (by the attraction of living in London and Imperial’s reputation) rather than by the desire to study engineering. Also of interest to this investigation is a study conducted at Sheffield Hallam University (Rowe, 2001). Rowe looked at the learning techniques used by first year students and suggested that those with a “reproducing” learning style succeeded more reliably.

Pedagogical interventions to enhance motivation

Other investigations suggest that the context within which work is presented, as well as the learning environment, has an effect on a student’s learning and performance. Vansteenkiste et al. (2004) classified motivation as either a desire for money and self-image (extrinsic) or for personal growth (intrinsic). Learning material was set in either an extrinsic or intrinsic context, the latter resulting in improved student performance. However, Elton (1988) commented that as long as university students are presented with assessment-based goals they will focus on achieving those goals. Only when a goal has been achieved do they begin to become intrinsically motivated.

An attempt was made by Breen to assess the effect of the atmosphere of the department on student motivation (Breen and Lindsay, 1999). The study was qualitative rather than quantitative and involved interviewing two students from each of four disciplines to elicit accounts of experiences and perceptions of the influence of the learning environment on them. They sought to explore students’ feelings about these episodes, discover what behaviours resulted and encourage students to identify those attributes contributing to their response to the situation. Not only social, but disciplinary and institutional cultures affect the learner.

Context and practice

If the learning culture of a university department is designed to ensure that students’ selfdetermination 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.

Methodology

The study employs two approaches:

1. designing, piloting and implementing a questionnaire

2. semi-structured interviews with students

Designing, piloting and implementing a questionnaire

The questions employed in the questionnaire borrow from investigations undertaken by Waugh (2002), Jacobs and Newstead (2000), Carré (2000) and Gore (2006). In addition, the Self-Determination Scale, the Perceived Competency Scale and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory have been interrogated to identify any sections or questions not otherwise included. These scales and inventories are available on the website of Deci and Ryan (http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/). 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. This resulted in the final questionnaire consisting of 22 questions (Appendix A).

1,930 undergraduate HE students were selected to receive the questionnaire. This was all of the full-time undergraduate students in the Faculty of Technology, the majority of whom (approximately 80%) were male students. Approximately half of the students invited to complete the questionnaire were studying engineering courses. Other courses included were mathematics, computer science and property development. A cash prize was offered to increase incentives for returns. A link to the online version of the questionnaire was emailed to each student, along with clarification on how to complete it. A reminder was sent out a week later to those who had not responded.

Semi-structured interviews

After the questionnaire results had been collated 24 students were invited to attend a semi-structured interview. The aim of the interview was to allow each student to elaborate on their university 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. The list of questions used is given in Appendix B.

Findings

A total of 422 students completed the whole questionnaire. There were five partial submissions where no more than two questions were left incomplete. Of the 24 students invited to attend the interviews, 11 attended.

Questionnaire results

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”.

Questions of significance

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 (Tables 1 and 2). The number of respondents for each value on the Likert scale is given in Tables 1 and 2 to demonstrate the distribution of responses.

Students demonstrated a strong agreement that it was important to do well on the programme they are studying; that is to say that they value (tending towards “strong agreement”) achievement in academic work. However, a previous study (Savage and Birch, 2008) 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, from 1.7 in the first year to 2.03 in the third year. If students’ interest in the subject declines as they spend more time at university it may indicate that their intrinsic motivation is often not being maintained or developed.

Whilst 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.

Interview findings

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 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 (no more than 20-30 minutes).

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 (i.e. putting the theory into the context of the real world or discussing how the students may use it in their future work).

Table 1 High scoring questions

Question	Likert scale value	Mean score
1	2	3	4	5
It is important to me to do well at this degree	314	77	15	8	11	1.41
I value achievement in academic work	224	146	30	15	9	1.68
I do what I do because it interests me	186	151	55	20	14	1.88
I try to pay attention to my teachers in order to learn as much as I can	201	162	38	20	5	1.75
I take personal responsibility for my academic learning	186	178	37	17	7	1.78

Table 2 Low scoring questions

Question	Likert scale value	Mean score
1	2	3	4	5
I have positive feedback from my lecturers on my ability in academic work	65	141	138	57	25	2.62
I read widely on a number of academic topics outside of my course area	52	92	129	114	39	2.99
I always feel like I choose the things I do	73	156	108	65	23	2.67
I participate in class discussions to improve my understanding in academic matters	82	128	117	71	28	2.61

All students commented that non-motivating lecturers are characterised 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 emphasise 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 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-actualisation 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.

Discussion

If educators in the Faculty of Technology 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 self-actualisation. 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 university will facilitate fulfilment of their self-actualising needs. However, with mass expansion of HE and its 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 realising 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.

Conclusions

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 centre of this engagement.

An interesting 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 recognised as appropriate within the public domain: that is a degree, organised as units or modules, in which the student has to satisfy objective-assessed standards.

Appendix A

The questionnaire was presented where the student had to respond based on a 5 point Likert scale between strongly agree and strongly disagree.

1. I try my best to reach the academic standards that I set.

2. It is important to me to do well at this degree.

3. I try different strategies to achieve my academic goals when I have difficulties.

4. I set myself realistic but challenging academic goals.

5. When I have difficulties in reaching my goals, I make a renewed effort to ensure I achieve my goals.

6. I write and re-write my academic assignments in order to achieve.

7. When I have conflicts about the time I spend on achieving I re-think my priorities.

8. I value achievement in academic work.

9. I have positive feedback from my lecturers on my ability in academic work.

10. I feel able to meet the challenge of performing well in this course.

11. I read widely on a number of academic topics outside of my degree area.

12. I always feel like I choose the things I do.

13. I do what I do because it interests me.

14. I enjoy doing this course very much.

15. I participate in class discussions to improve my understanding in academic matters.

16. I try to pay attention to my teachers in order to learn as much as I can.

17. I take personal responsibility for my academic learning.

18. I plan to seek out information when necessary and take steps to master it.

19. I try to achieve academically because I like the rewards it brings to me.

20. I try to achieve academically because I like the challenges it brings.

21. After finishing each module, I felt pretty competent.

22. I like the social relationships involved in academic work.

Appendix B

Examples of questions asked of the students during the interview.

• Can you think about a lecturer that you felt was motivating and one you felt wasn’t motivating and tell me the characteristics of each of them?

• Can you think about an academic assessment that you felt was motivating and one you felt wasn’t motivating and tell me the characteristics of each of them?

• Can you think about an academic task that you felt was motivating and one you felt wasn’t motivating and tell me the characteristics of each of them?

• Can you think about a teaching technique that you felt was motivating and one you felt wasn’t motivating and tell me the characteristics of each of them?

• Can you give an example of when you had finished a unit and you felt confident using the material from that unit? Why did you feel confident?