Measuring Motivation in Measuring Motivation in

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Learning ContextsCollaborative Inquiry-Based Learning Contexts

Angela ChowAngela Chow

IT in Education Symposium, 10th July, 04

Energy

Direction

Internal Drive

What is motivation?What is motivation?

Motivation

(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Reeve, 1996)

Motivation:related to multiple aspects of learning

MotivationMotivation

e.g.,

• learning goals (Ames, 1992; Archer & Scevak, 1998)

• engagement in terms of on-task time (Tapola et al., 2001) and

• learning strategies used (Jarvela & Niemivirta, 2001)

Motivation: Important dimensionsMotivation: Important dimensions

• Beliefs/Values on task

• Beliefs on self-competence

• External drive (e.g., reward and punishment)

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation, Goal Orientation Theory & Expectancy-Value Theory

Expectancy-Value Theory &Self-Efficacy

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation

well-defined well-defined tasktask

individualindividual

individual acquisition of specific knowledge skills

Learning Context: Learning Context: TraditionalTraditional to to Collaborative Inquiry-based Collaborative Inquiry-based

• group • ill-structured• process-emphasized, learning how to

learn• risks, uncertainty• unknown outcomes, highly depend on

self-directed choices

inquiry-based collaborative group work

Goal Orientation TheoryGoal Orientation Theory

Understanding Motivation in the New Learning ContextUnderstanding Motivation in the New Learning Context

• A common pattern of studies:

1. Categories students according to their orientation

2. Examines exhibited behaviour of different groups/individuals.

e.g., different choices, persistence and learning strategies

(e.g., Jarvela & Niemivirta, 2001; Veermans and Tapola, in press)

Motivation in the Current StudyMotivation in the Current Study

• Motivation as chronic structure that lead to individual’s preferences and tendencies in responsiveness to learning activities (Pintrich, 2000; Niemivirta, 1998)

Self-Determination TheorySelf-Determination Theory

Intrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic Motivation

External Regulation

IntrojectionIdentification

Integrated Regulation

same features:high value and autonomy

Value

Autonomy

(to satisfy an external demand or obtain an externally imposed reward)

(external regulated behaviour)

(perform with the feeling of pressure in order to avoid guilt/anxiety or to attain ego-enhancements or pride)

(driven by pressure of enhancing or maintaining self-esteem)

(recognize the importance of a behaviour to the person)

(quite autonomous, but the level of autonomy is not optimal, as the identified regulations have not internalized)

(the identified regulations have been fully assimilated and internalized to the self)

(most autonomous)

(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci 2000)

1. How is motivation structured in collaborative inquiry-based learning?

2. How does motivation relate to students’ engagement? (e.g., participation in discussion and depth of enquiry)

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

• develop an instrument to measure motivation in collaborative enquiry-based learning

• build upon the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A) (Ryan & Connell, 1989)

• 32 items

• Developed for students in late elementary and secondary schools

• 4-point scale

• 4 question stems, 8 similar items constructed on each question stem: (1)Why do I do my homework? (2)Why do I work on my class work? (3) Why do I try to answer hard questions in class? (4) Why do I try to do well in school?

Establishment of QuestionnaireEstablishment of Questionnaire

• design to elicit students’ responses on the inquiry and social dimensions

• 7-point likert-scale instead of 4-point scale, as the students are at least 14-year-old

• in Chinese, mother tongue of the students

• In conjunction with “Learning Community Project” organized by Centre of IT in Education, The University of Hong Kong

• Around 200 - 400 grade 9 to 12 students from Hong Kong schools

• formed groups with classmates, usually 4-6 per group

• allowed flexibility to identify focus, subject areas ranged from science to

humanities, e.g.,

• worked around for 8 to 12 weeks

• “Is it desirable to set up a chlorine production plant in Hong Kong?”• “Design a Solar Cooker”

Research settingResearch settingEstablishment of QuestionnaireEstablishment of Questionnaire

• worked on a topic

• Face-to-face discussion

• Online discussion

Research settingResearch setting

• Knowledge Forum (http://csile.oise.utoronto.ca/) • Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toront

o

• support the students to construct knowledge and aware of their understanding, for example, by prompting the students to think of:• My theory...

• I need to understanding...

• New information...

• The theory cannot explain...

• A much better theory...

• support knowledge building (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1999)

• the users can store notes, connect ideas, and “rise-above” previous thinking

• the users in the community can connect their ideas together

Knowledge ForumKnowledge Forum

1.1. Project 1: July-Oct, 02Project 1: July-Oct, 02 a. Pre Q: 269b. Post Q: 235

2.2. Project 2: June-Sept, 03Project 2: June-Sept, 03 a. Post Q: 173

3.3. Project 3: Oct-Dec, 03Project 3: Oct-Dec, 03 a. Pre Q: 192

b. Post Q: 300

Data Data

Motivation Model BuildingMotivation Model Building

• Starting version: 24 items (8 items adopted from SRQ-A)

• 5-factor model were repeatedly found

• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < 0.1

• non-normed fit index (NNFI) and comparative fix index (CFI) > 0.9

• Statistical acceptance of a model (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000) :

• Final version: 20 items (8 items adopted from SRQ-A)

• 3 question stems: (1) Why do I try to do well in school? (adopted from SRQ-A) (2) Why do I work on my class work? (adopted from SRQ-A) (3) Why do I participate in project work?

Instrument & Data used RMSEA CFI NNFI

24-item CIPQ:

PTP pre (n=269), validated byPTP post (n=235)

0.091 0.92 0.92

20-item CIPQ:

ABL post (n=173),validated byPHT pre (n=192)

0.070 0.94 0.94

PHT pre (n=92), validated byPHT post (n=300)

0.076 0.94 0.94

Motivation Model BuildingMotivation Model Building

Table: Fit statistics of the Validated Five-Factor Models

Factors Items

Project Work Factor

1. I participate in project work because it’s fun.2. Because participating in project work can help my academic learning. 3. Because it’s important to me to do project work.

4. Because comparing with learning by doing homework, it is more effective to learn by doing project work.

Social Learning Factor

5. Because I like to work with my classmates in group activities.6. Because working in group (compare with working individually) allow me to tackle more

complex project topics.7. Because there are many chances for discussion and sharing ideas by working in groups.8. Because learning in group allow me to have more courage to investigate more complex

topics.

Task Factor 9. Because that’s what I’m supposed to do.10. Because I enjoy doing my school work well. 11. Because I want to learn new things.

12. Because I enjoy doing my classwork.

Reward Factor 13. Because I will be scolded be my parents or teachers if I don’t do well.

14. Because I might get a reward if I do well.

15. Because I want the teacher to think I’m a good student.

16. Because I’ll be ashamed of myself if it didn’t get done.

Group Pressure Factor

17. Because if I don’t participate, my groupmates will blame me.

18. Because I don’t want to be perceived as a burden of my groupmates.

19. Because if I don’t participate, my reputation will be affected badly.

20. Because if I don’t participate, the friendship between my friends and I will be affected badly.

Table: The 5 Factors and their corresponding Items

Adopted

from

SRQ-A

Methodological ConsiderationsMethodological Considerations

• Variable-centred methodVariable-centred method (examine relations among variables across the sample) V.S. person-centred methodperson-centred method (exploring characteristics of different motivational groups)

(Niemivirta, 2002)

• Validity and reliability of self-report measures being challenged (Boekaerts, 2001)

• Dynamic assessment to capture the interaction between motivation and contexts (Jarvela, Salonen & Lepola, 2002)

Project Social Task Reward Pressure

Project .707** .502** .271** .223**

Social .558** .200** .170**

Task .354** .200**

Reward .528**

Pressure

** p< 0.01

Table: Correlation Matrix of the 5 Factors of the Motivation Model (data: project 3 post-q, n=300)

• Variable-centred method

Empirical ExplorationsEmpirical Explorations

Empirical ExplorationsEmpirical Explorations

• Data from ATK (Analytical Tool Kit of Knowledge Forum)

• Numeric data of students’ online engagement:

• e.g., number of notes created, number of notes edited & number of rise-above made

ATK Factor 1(Basic Functions)

ATK Factor 2 (Rise-above)

ATK Factor 3(Different group)

Create .863 .236 .224

Read .676 .309 .557

Keyword .833 .175

Scaffold Support .609 .552 .167

Read (same group) .810 .170 .122

Built-on (same group) .931

Edit .208 .604 .207

Reference .270 .715

Rise-Above .871

Read (different group) .328 .792

Built-on (different group) .134 .774

Table: Factor Loadings of the 3 ATK Factors

Empirical ExplorationsEmpirical Explorations

Table: Correlation Matrix of the 5 Factor Motivation Score with the 3 ATK Factor Score (n=300)

** p< 0.01, *p<0.05

ATK Factor 1 (Basic Functions)

ATK Factor 2(Rise-above)

ATK Factor 3(Different gp)

Project 0.139* 0.184** 0.041

Social 0.156** 0.205** -0.042

Task 0.133* 0.189** 0.080

Reward -0.029 -0.038 -0.008

Pressure -0.013 -0.046 -0.008

Empirical ExplorationsEmpirical Explorations

• 3-cluster solution

• Cluster analysis as effective approach in relation to person-centred method

Empirical ExplorationsEmpirical Explorations

Table: Cluster Centres of the 3 Motivation Clusters

All Low (n=144)

Achieving (n=109)

Positive (n=47)

Project 3.74 5.20 4.92

Social 3.90 5.36 5.25

Task 4.28 5.47 5.14

Reward 3.81 4.67 3.00

Pressure 3.94 4.84 2.79

(Bergman, 2000)

• Significant differences found betweens groups for ATK factor 1 (basic functions) and factor 2 (rise-above), but not factor 3 (different group)

Empirical ExplorationsEmpirical Explorations

Table: Comparing scores of ADK factor 1 (Basic Functions) between the 3 motivation clusters

** p< 0.01, *p<0.05

Positive Achieving All Low

Positive Positive>Achieving, 0.256

Positive>All Low, 0.534**

Achieving Achieving>All Low, 0.278*

All Low

Table: Comparing scores of ADK factor 2 (Rise-above) between the 3 motivation clusters

** p< 0.01, *p<0.05

Positive Achieving All Low

Positive Positive>Achieving, 0.667 Positive>All Low,0.403*

Achieving Achieving>All Low,0.336**

All Low

Empirical ExplorationsEmpirical Explorations