Anastassis Kozanitis École Polytechnique Montreal Canada Jean-François Desbiens & Sèverine Lanoue University of Sherbrooke Canada Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy Virginia Tech February 2012

 Context  Conceptual framework  Methodology  Results  Discussion

 3 year government-funded research  Partial results of a larger research  4 French speaking universities in Canada  6 undergraduate programs  Multi-method scheme  Short and long instructor’s questionnaire  Short and long student’s questionnaire  Classroom filming, video analyses  Initial interviews  Follow-up interviews

 How do instructor related variables influence their pedagogical decisions?  Do instructors’ pedagogical decisions have an impact on students’ approach to learning?  In turn, does this have an impact on their actual learning?  If so, to what extent? In which situations? Under what conditions?

 Motivation and engagement are strongly related to student learning, academic achievement, and persistence (NSSE, Kuh, & al. 2001, McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006).  According to the socio-cognitive paradigm cognitions and students’ perceptions of their abilities, their school work and the learning environment act as mediators of their behavior and explain much of the achievement-related behaviors, such as effort (Bandura, 1997).

 Bradley and Graham, (2000) found a positive relationship between instructor-student interactions and student academic engagement.  Others have found that instructional practices are related to student adoption of mastery and performance goals (Anderman, Patrick, Hruda, & Linnenbrink, 2002; Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001).

 Theoretical models explaining motivation have integrated myriad of variables, such as:  Precollege and socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, family values, ability);  Social and cognitive characteristics (student perceptions of self and others, school related value, goals);  Contextual characteristics (class size, learning activities)

 The Expectancy-Value theory is used as a conceptual framework in a number of studies on student motivation.  Relevant because of its consideration of how course-specific factors are thought to influence students’ motivation.  For example:  perceived nature of the tasks used;  the way in which students are recognized;  the perceived teachers’ instructional practices.

 A broad adaptation of a model proposed by Pintrich & Schunk (2002) was used to explore the relation between motivation to learn, students’ socio-demographic characteristics, their perception of tasks and learning activities, and their perception of instructor’s openness and reaction towards students.

Socio- demographics Instructor’s reaction and openness Task and learning activities Task-value Avoidance goal Performance goal Mastery goal Control beliefs Self-efficacy

 The purpose of this study is to examine if instructor and course characteristics contribute to student motivation above and beyond socio-demographic variables;  It addresses the underling practical problem on how to motivate students.

 Sample :  French speaking engineering school in Quebec, Canada;  215 students (79% male, with a mean age of 22.7, SD=4.1)  Instrument :  Condensed version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich et al.1993);  Student Engagement Survey (Ahlfeldt et al. 2005);  Perceived Teacher Support of Questioning (PTSQ; Karbenick & Sharma, 1994).

 Multiple linear regression analysis was used to predict the set of motivational components for this study.  Independent variables were introduced with the enter-remove method, in the following order:  socio-demographic variables,  instructor attitude and behavior,  student perception of tasks and learning activities.

Mastery GoalPerformanceAvoidanceTask ValueControl Beliefs Self-efficacy ModelR2R2 FR2R2 FR2R2 FR2R2 FR2R2 FR2R2 F ** ** ** * ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** **

Mastery GoalPerformanceAvoidanceTask ValueControl Beliefs Self-efficacy VariablesBetat t t t t t Age * GPA * Reaction ** ** ** * ** Openness ** Questioning * * Autonomous * * * Critical * Synthesize * Evaluate * Job related * Adapt *

 Instructor and context-related variables are significantly related to student motivational components.  They tend to overhaul most socio- demographic variables when considered concurrently.  Instructor reaction to student questioning is positively related to all components except for Avoidance goals, which is, not surprisingly, inversely related to instructor openness.

 Students tend to have lower performance goals when they are asked to participate in learning activities that require adapting to new or unforeseen situations.  Although older students show higher task value, results indicate that various task related variables can also positively influence task value. Namely autonomous learning, evaluating information, and job related knowledge.

 Critical thinking activities seem to be negatively related to self-efficacy beliefs.  One possible explanation to this surprising result might ensue by the fact that undergraduates are rarely exposed to activities of this nature, and therefore feel insufficiently prepared to do well.

 This study bears evidence that instructors’ classroom attitude and pedagogical decisions can have a direct influence on student motivation.  Carefully designing learning activities can promote effective motivational components.

 Compare between programs  Compare parametric and non-parametric analyses (regressions, HLM, PCA)  Triangulate with qualitative data  Verify relations with actual learning outcomes and academic success (final grades or GPA)

 Bandura, A. (1997). Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 13,  McKeachie, W.J. et Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie’s teaching tips (12 e éd.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.  Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.  Pintrich, P.R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J.S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp ). San Diego: Academic Press.  Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2009). Motivation and Self- Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications. Journal of Higher Education, 80 (4),