The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the College of Education students at Kuwait University
Main Article Content
An everlasting controversial issue in is the problem of teaching students to become initiative-motivated and self-regulating learners. The focus in this study was on the interactive relationships between students’ motivation and cognition in the College of Education students at Kuwait University – more specifically, the relationships between students’ motivational orientation and their use of cognitive learning strategies as well as their metacognitive and effort management strategies (cf. Pintrich, 1988; Pintrich, Smith, & Mckeachie, 1989). Some preliminary empirical results from current research on college students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement in different College of Education students are also presented.
In education an especially important issue is how to promote in teachers the skills to produce more active and motivated learners. National reports are focused on the necessity of improving teachers’ efforts in teaching students at elementary, secondary, and university levels – not only the content of the curriculum but also the “process” or “critical thinking” skills. This concept is based on the assumption that knowledge in different disciplines may change rapidly all over the world. Consequently, students need to acquire factual knowledge, basic skills, critical thinking skills, and so on, which enable them to evaluate new ideas and concepts (Ames, 1992; Glaser, 1984; Pintrich, Cross, Kozma, & McKeachie, 1986; Schunk, 1991; Wentzel, 1997).
Most of the research into teaching higher order skills is focused on the cognitive and instructional variables as important components for fostering student learning (Chance, 1986; Sternberg, 1985). Dweck and Elliott (1983) showed that motivational constructs such as goals and values are assumed to guide students’ approach to a task and therefore may influence their cognition. It seems likely that cognitive skills are not learned or employed in isolation from motivation. Motivation seems to be implicated when students are taught cognitive skills and they seem to learn them, but do not employ them in all situations.
Most motivational models of students’ achievement do not incorporate cognitive skills or strategies and almost all models imply that students who have a positive motivational orientation (e.g., high self-efficiency, high task value, adoption of a learning goal, low anxiety) will work harder and harder at a task with a concomitant increase in performance. For example, a college student may study for many hours a week using ineffective or inefficient strategies, but she/he will not do as well as a student using effective learning strategies. Thus Paris, Lipson, and Wixson (1983) show that neither an unmotivated student nor a motivated student without appropriate cognitive skills will perform well.
A number of authors have studied different models of motivation that may be relevant to college students’ learning. For example, Weiner (1980) studied some general motivational models, especially the general expectancy value model (value component that reflects students’ beliefs in the importance of, and interest in, a task). Expectancy components are also generally more familiar and more often examined than are value components (Pearsons & Goff, 1978).
Expectancy of success is defined as the students’ belief in the probability of success or failure of a particular task. Lewalter (2003) studied the cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals; he used think-aloud protocols to examine the learning processes initiated by both types of visuals. When learning with dynamic illustrations, learners are confronted with similar – or even more challenging – problems (Lowe, 1999, 2003).
Bandura (1993) discovered that when individuals with high self-efficacy were challenged by a difficult situation they were more likely to attempt different strategies, or to develop new ones, and were less likely to give up than were people with a low sense of self-efficacy.
Anderman (1992) showed that learning goal-oriented students are also more likely to engage in self-regulating activities such as the use of monitoring, planning, and deep-level cognitive strategies. Anderman and Midgley (1992) studied the relationship between self-efficacy and constructs such as goal orientation and self-regulation. Results indicated that students who believed they were capable of performing certain tasks used more cognitive skills and meta-cognitive strategies and persisted longer than did those who felt incapable of performing certain tasks (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991).
As mentioned above, in the present study the focus was on the interactive relationships between students’ motivation and cognition in the College of Education students at Kuwait University. Research has been done on the relationships between students’ motivational orientation and their use of cognitive learning strategies as well as their metacognitive and effort management strategies. These components are studied in the context of the College of Education students at Kuwait University. Different authors – Ames (1981), Doyle (1983), Covington and Omelich (1984), Dunkin (1986), Cantor and Kihlstrom (1987), – have studied this problem from different points of view.
Method
Sample
The participants were 336 college students with a mean age of 21.1 (SD = 2.23) years enrolled in three departments at the College of Education at Kuwait University in the state of Kuwait, namely, Education Management (EM), Teaching Methods (TM), and Psychology (PS). There were eleven classes involved in the study: 3 EM, 5 TM, and 3 PS.
Instrument and Procedure
I used the self-report questionnaire of learning motivations scale (MSLQ) developed by Pintrich, Smith, and McKeachie (1989). The MSLQ asks students to rate themselves on a variety of motivational and cognitive strategies. McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin, and Smith (1986) present the general theoretical framework that underlies the MSLQ. There are essentially two sections to the MSLQ, a motivation section and a learning strategies section. The motivation section consists of 35 items while the learning strategies section consists of 31 items.
A modified questionnaire of Pintrich (1989) was also used, but with a 3-point Likert rating scale, and using sample items which are related to these research objectives (see Appendix). The questionnaire contains 32 questions classified into four important subjects: motivational components – 4 items, 2 questions for each except task value, which contain 3 subitems with 2 questions each; cognitive strategies – 3 items with 2 questions each; metacognition – 3 items with 2 questions each; and resource management strategies – 4 items with 2 questions each.
Results
In this research SPSS version 11 was used for data analysis. The data and the information obtained in the associated part of the MSLQ questionnaire have been analyzed. More specifically, the simple zero-order correlations between the motivational and cognitive components of the model and student performance were used. The results are shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1. Zero-Order Correlations Between Student Performance and Cognitive and Motivation Scales
Note: *p < .05
From Table 1 above, it can be seen that students who were able to regulate their efforts and attention did better in class than did those who made less effort. Good use of study time resulted in better grades in the class as well as in examinations. As expected, students who reported using a variety of metacognitive strategies did better on all performance measures. Students who stated that they were highly motivated for challenge and mastery performed at a higher level in examinations, papers and grades than did students who were not so intrinsic in their orientation.
The zero-order correlations for the relationships between the motivational and cognitive components are set out in Table 2 below.
In Table 2 it can be seen that students who were more challenge and mastery oriented used more cognitive strategies and engaged in more metacognitive activities as well as managing their effort in a more positive fashion than did students who were less intrinsically oriented. Students high in task value showed the same pattern. Students with high control beliefs were higher than students with low control belief in all the cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management strategies except for help seeking. The situation was similar for students with high expectancy for success, except for elaboration and help-seeking strategies. These results suggest that both the expectancy and value components of motivation are related to students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Thus, the active self-regulating learners tend to be good students with an interest in their course work and also have high control beliefs and high expectations of success.
Discussion
In conclusion, the model in the context of students’ learning in this study is supported by the results, thus highlighting the functional and adaptive roles of cognition and motivation for different academic tasks. These results show the importance of these relationships among the cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational components.
Consideration of the pattern of relationships among these variables is a start on the specification of the dynamic interplay between motivation and cognition that seems to be more useful than simple linear regression models of student learning. Thus, the above results show that task value and expectancy may combine with cognitive, metacognitive, and effort management components to influence student performance. The results also suggest that task value plays an important role for some students, helping them with some levels of self-regulation (metacognitive and effort management).
Students can be skilled in cognitive and self-regulating strategies, but motivational beliefs can influence the way these strategies are used for different tasks.
References
Ames, C. (1981). Competitive versus cooperative reward structure: The influence of individual and group performance factors on achievement attributions and affect. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 273-287.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Anderman, E. M. (1992). Motivation and cognitive strategy use in reading and writing. (Educational Resources Information Center Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374.402)
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1992). Student self-efficacy as a function of classroom goal orientation. (Educational Resources Information Center Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375-367).
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive functioning. Education Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self- efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.
Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chance, P. (1986). Thinking in the classroom: A survey of programs. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Covington, M., & Omelich, C. (1984). Task oriented versus competitive learning structures: Motivational and performance consequences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1038-1050.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Education Research, 53, 159-200.
Dunkin, M. (1986). Research on teaching in higher education. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 754-777). New York: Macmillan.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychological Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley.
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93-104.
Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177-189.
Lowe, R. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225-244.
Lowe, R. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157-176.
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. (1986). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (NCRIPTAL), The University of Michigan.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Pearsons, J. E., & Goff, S. B. (1978). Achievement and motivation: Dual modalities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 13, 93-96.
Pintrich, P. R. (1988). A process-oriented view of student motivation and cognition. In J. Stark & S. Mets (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning through research: New directions for institutional research, 57, 65-79.
Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Motivation Enhancing Environment, 6, 117-160.
Pintrich, P. R., Cross, D. R., Kozma, R. B., & McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 611-651.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Machr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory Processes, 7, 371-402.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., & McKeachie, W. J. (1989). A manual for the use of the MSLQ. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (NCRIPTAL), The University of Michigan.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R., Torff, B., & Griogorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 374-384.
Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411-419.
Appendix
College:
Department:
Course:
I. Motivational Components | |||
A. Intrinsic orientation: | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. I prefer course work that is interesting and challenging so I can learn more things. | |||
2. I often choose course assignments that are interesting to me even if they don’t guarantee a good grade. | |||
B. Task Value: | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. Interest | |||
1. I think that the course material in this class is interesting. | |||
2. I like the subject matter of this course. | |||
2. Importance | |||
1. It is important for me to learn the course material in this class. | |||
2. Understanding the subject matter in this class is important to me. | |||
2. Utility Value | |||
1. I think that what I learn in this course will be useful to me after college. | |||
2. I think that the subject matter of this course is useful for me to know | |||
C. Control Beliefs | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. I think my grade in this class depends on the amount of effect I exert. | |||
2. I think my grades in this class depend on the instructor’s teaching and grading style. | |||
D. Expectancy for Success | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. I expect to do well in this class. | |||
2. I expect to receive a good grade in this class | |||
II. Cognitive Strategies | |||
A. Rehearsal Strategies | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. When I study I practice saying the material to myself over and over. | |||
2. When I study for a test I copy my notes over and over again. | |||
B. Elaboration Strategies | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. When I study I translate difficult material into my own words. | |||
2. I write short summaries of what I am studying. | |||
C. Organizational Strategies | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. I have difficulty identifying the important points in my reading. | |||
2. When I study for an exam I integrate information from different sources (e.g., lectures, readings, discussions). | |||
III. Metacognition | |||
A. Planning | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. When I study I often skim the material to see how it is organized. | |||
2. When I study I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities in each study period. | |||
B. Monitoring | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. When studying I try to determine which concepts I don’t understand well. | |||
2. I often find that I have been reading for class but don’t know what it was all about (reversed). | |||
C. Regulating | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. I stop periodically while reading and mentally go over or review what was written. | |||
2. I adjust my reading speed based on how well I understand the material. | |||
IV. Resource Management Strategies | |||
A. Time Management | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. I make good use of my study time | |||
2. I find it hard to stick to a study schedule. | |||
B. Study Environment | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. My primary place for studying is relatively quiet and has few distractions. | |||
2. I have a regular place set aside for studying. | |||
C. Effort Management | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. When work is difficult I either give up or study only the easy parts. | |||
2. Even when study materials are dull and uninteresting, I manage to keep working until I finish. | |||
D. Help-Seeking | |||
Strategy | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree |
1. When I can’t understand the material in a course, I ask another student for help. | |||
2. I ask my instructor to clarify concepts that I don’t understand well. | |||
(Pintrick, 1989 - modified. See p. 343, Instrument and Procedure) | |||
Ames, C. (1981). Competitive versus cooperative reward structure: The influence of individual and group performance factors on achievement attributions and affect. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 273-287.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Anderman, E. M. (1992). Motivation and cognitive strategy use in reading and writing. (Educational Resources Information Center Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374.402)
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1992). Student self-efficacy as a function of classroom goal orientation. (Educational Resources Information Center Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375-367).
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive functioning. Education Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self- efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.
Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chance, P. (1986). Thinking in the classroom: A survey of programs. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Covington, M., & Omelich, C. (1984). Task oriented versus competitive learning structures: Motivational and performance consequences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1038-1050.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Education Research, 53, 159-200.
Dunkin, M. (1986). Research on teaching in higher education. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 754-777). New York: Macmillan.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychological Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley.
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93-104.
Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177-189.
Lowe, R. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225-244.
Lowe, R. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157-176.
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. (1986). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (NCRIPTAL), The University of Michigan.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Pearsons, J. E., & Goff, S. B. (1978). Achievement and motivation: Dual modalities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 13, 93-96.
Pintrich, P. R. (1988). A process-oriented view of student motivation and cognition. In J. Stark & S. Mets (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning through research: New directions for institutional research, 57, 65-79.
Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Motivation Enhancing Environment, 6, 117-160.
Pintrich, P. R., Cross, D. R., Kozma, R. B., & McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 611-651.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Machr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory Processes, 7, 371-402.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., & McKeachie, W. J. (1989). A manual for the use of the MSLQ. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (NCRIPTAL), The University of Michigan.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R., Torff, B., & Griogorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 374-384.
Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411-419.
Table 1. Zero-Order Correlations Between Student Performance and Cognitive and Motivation Scales
Note: *p < .05
Luisa Faria
Faculty of Psychology &
Education
Porto State University
1055 Rua do Campo Alegre
4150 Porto
Portugal
Carolyn Jagacinski
Psychological Sciences
Purdue University
703 Third St
West Lafayette
IN
USA 47907-2004
[email protected]">[email protected]
Giovanni Moneta
Department of Psychology
South Hall 118
Harvard Business School
Soldiers Field
Boston
MA 02163
USA