Methods Internalized Motivation Leads to Improved Course Performance Owen Clinger and Monica Perrone University of Rochester – Department of Chemistry Bibliography Background and Purpose A survey was constructed to evaluate the students’ motivation via a variety of questions depending on their enrollment in either freshman organic chemistry or inorganic chemistry. Organic and inorganic chemistry students were asked about what motivated them to take their respective courses. Students were also asked to rate their fear of failure on a scale of 1-10, with one meaning they had no fear of failure and ten being an extreme fear of failure. A series of fixed statements were then listed and students were asked to select the statement they most identify with; the statements were each attributable to a certain category of motivation as explained by Ryan and Deci (2000). For the purposes of this analysis, motivational categories were grouped into three types– external regulation, internalized extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation. Percentage based grades were matched with each student response. For a subset, these included a numerical mean of all lab scores for freshman organic chemistry lab (n=15); and for another subset of organic chemistry (n=18) and inorganic chemistry (n=13) students, these included the numerical mean of three preliminary exam scores. To compare performance across courses, grades were normalized-- lab grades were normalized by a factor of and inorganic chemistry grades were normalized by a factor of Data Analysis Limitations Recognition of confounding variables such as strength of motivation and fear of failure are important to outlining the scope of this study. Attempting to categorize students motivation into a dichotomy of external versus internal regulation neglects the level of motivation of a student, which could significantly impact their success. In fact, it has been found that the strongest positive correlation to good grades is observed in students possessing both high intrinsic motivation and a moderate level of extrinsic motivation– a spectrum of motivation rather than strict categories [5]. The lack of correlation regarding fear may be due to such as variable levels of anxiety, resilience, and vulnerability to learned helplessness [6]. Additionally, motivation as categorized by free response versus selected response differed indicating that the categorization and complexity of motivation is more complex than previously imagined. A more comprehensive analysis would be required for better analysis of motivational levels. Acknowledgements 1. Ryan, Richard M., Deci, Edward L. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, (2000) pp Levesque, C., Copeland, K.J, and Pattie, M.D. Deci, E.L. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.” (2010) 3. Seguin, C., Pelletier, L.G. “Automatic activation of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 126 (2000) pp Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W. “Fear of Failure: Friend or Foe?” Australian Psychologist 38.1 (2003) pp Lin, Yi-Guang., McKeachie, Wilbert J., Kim, Yung Che. “College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning" Learning and Individual Differences 13 (2003): University of Rochester – Department of Chemistry, Nicholas Hammond, Daniel J. Weix, Mike Neidig, Joseph Dinnocenzo Figure 1: Responses rating fear of failure where 1 represents no fear of failure and 10 represents extreme fear of failure. There is a bimodal distribution concerning students fear of failure (Figure 1), but there exists no correlation between student performance and their fear of failure (Figure 2). It is not immediately obvious as to why the bimodal distribution exists; although, this may be due to fear for different reasons such as self-protection and over-striving [4]. In determining whether the difference in performance was significant between students expressing external regulation, internalized extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation, two-sample t-tests were performed. It was determined that the difference in performance between intrinsically motivated students and students experiencing external regulation was statistically significant (p = ), while the difference in performance between external regulation and internalized extrinsic motivation (p = ) and between internalized extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation (p = ) were not significant (Figure 3). Conclusion and Implications These studies suggest that there is a significant relationship between the type of motivation experienced by students and their performance while there is no relationship between fear of failure and performance. More intrinsically motivated students perform significantly better than externally regulated students. Students with internalized extrinsic motivation had a larger range of scores, but there was no significant difference in performance between either the primarily externally regulated students and the intrinsically motivated students. Extrinsic motivation itself is not necessarily a negative thing in all circumstances; however, as teachers, we can encourage our students to perceive the material as having value and importance by promoting autonomy, helping them achieve competence, and providing insight into relatedness of the material. This would ideally result in an increase in student performance while promoting an environment in which students feel supported and engaged. Motivation literally means to be moved to do something [1]. Students at University must be motivated to some degree to achieve success in their academic endeavors. In the interest of improving our students' success in the classroom and in a laboratory setting through workshops, this study investigates whether or not the two fundamental motives of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation are correlated to the success of students. Specifically, this study attempts to determine whether extrinsic motivation undermines intrinsic motivation to determine to what extent motivation affects student performance and whether or not steps to improve student motivation would be beneficial. To assess whether fear of failure is also having an impact on performance or motivation as a whole, self-reported fear of failure was compared to performance. Overall, when students feel supported and engaged, positive forms of motivation are more likely to be sustained; thus, if motivation and performance correlate, this emphasizes the importance of workshop leaders taking steps to emphasize a supportive and engaging workshop environment [2]. We define the three categories as follows: Individuals who are intrinsically motivated as those who choose to engage in an activity solely out the interest, enjoyment and satisfaction which that activity provides them [1]. In contrast, extrinsically motivated individuals are those who engage in activities due to external pressures or consequences as a means of reaching a desired result [1]. In between, internalized extrinsic motivation is comprised of the extrinsic motivation categories in which there is a combination of internal factors and external influences. In light of the fact that activating intrinsic motivation produces better performance than extrinsic motivation [3],we hypothesize that student performance is increased in students exhibiting more internalized motivation– with the highest performance expected from those who are intrinsically motivated and the lowest performance expected from those who are externally regulated. Number of Responses Internalized Extrinsic Figure 2: Normalized Grade vs. Fear of Failure. Correlation -0.21, R 2 = 0.04 Figure 3: Motivation levels and performance. External— Mean: 53, SD: 11 Internalized Extrinsic— Mean: 62, SD: 16 Intrinsic– Mean: 66, SD: 11 10