Learning in a Technology Rich Environment

Student Motivation, Attitude, Engagement or Efficacy

(Compiled by Geetanjali Soni, LITRE Assessment Coordinator, NCSU)

Researchers have looked at the effect of student affective variables on student learning and performance using a several different concepts and operationalizations.

Student engagement – See Elaine Chapman’s (2003) “Assessing Student Engagement Rates”. ERIC Digest. http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13 for a detailed description of student engagement and measurement of this construct.

Some instruments like the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) use information about student participation in programs and activities that institutions provide for their learning and personal development as indicator of engagement.

Others definitions use variations of three inter-related criteria to assess engagement:

Cognitive criteria, which index the extent to which students are attending to and expending mental effort in the learning tasks encountered (e.g., efforts to integrate new material with previous knowledge and to monitor and guide task comprehension through the use of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies),
Behavioural criteria, which index the extent to which students are making active responses to the learning tasks presented (e.g., active student responding to an instructional antecedent, such as asking relevant questions, solving task-related problems, and participating in relevant discussions with teachers/peers), and
Affective criteria, which index the level of students’ investment in, and their emotional reactions to, the learning tasks (e.g., high levels of interest or positive attitudes towards in the learning tasks).

(Source, Chapman 2003)

Student Efficacy: From Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory. Bandura defines efficacy as “Perceived self-efficacy is defined as people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives.” Self-efficacy is extremely situational and comprises of motivational and expectancy beliefs. See http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html for more detail.

Self- Assessment Scales

Instrument

Construct measured

Instrument Type

Number of Questions

Source

Details

Comments /Other Information

Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)

The instrument assesses participants’ interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort, value/usefulness, felt pressure and tension, and perceived choice while performing a given activity, thus yielding six subscale scores.

Likert

45 Items that can be used depending on what is needed.

Based on the Self Determination Theory (E. L. Deci, R. M. Ryan, Dept. of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, Univ. of Rochester.)

http://psych.rochester.edu/SDT/
measures/intrins.html

The IMI is intended to assess participants’ subjective experience related to a target activity in laboratory experiments. IMI items have often been modified slightly to fit specific activities.

Articles on Self Determination Theory and Education can be found at

http://psych.rochester.edu/SDT/
publications/pub_edu.html

Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

Motivation and Learning Strategies

7 pt Likert Type

81 items in the full version

Pintrich, R. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Short Version: http://www.indiana.edu/
~p540alex/MSLQ.pdf

NCSU affiliates have permission to obtain the full instrument. Please email litre@ncsu.edu.

81 items are divided into 15 scales , 6 motivation (Intrinsic goal motivation, extrinsic goal motivation, Task value, control of learning beliefs, self efficacy for learning and performance, test anxiety) and 9 learning strategies subscales9 rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation, time and environment management, effort regulation, peer learning, help seeking) that can be used modularly.

The MSLQ has proven to be a reliable and useful tool that can be adapted for a number of different purposes for researchers, instructors, and students.

The complete instrument along with examples of its use, and a history of its development can be found in Teresa Duncan‌ & Wilbert J. McKeachie‌, (2005) The Making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, Educational Psychologist 40:. 2, 117-128.

The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F

Deep and Surface approaches to learning for Motivation and Strategy

5 pt Likert

43 items

Questionnaire is developed and owned by John Biggs and David Kember.

http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/programs/
3day/BiggsrevisedSPQ.pdf

Deep Approach –two subscales: Deep Motive and Deep Strategy

Surface approach- two subscales: Surface Motive and Surface Strategy

The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F

John Biggs; David Kember; Doris Y P Leung:British Journal of Educational Psychology; Mar 2001; 71, 133-149

Approaches and study skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST)

* Conceptions of Learning

* Approaches to studying –deep approach, Strategic approach, Surface Apathetic approach and Preferences for different types of courses and teaching.

1-5 Likert

51 questions

Entwistle, N. (2000). Approaches and study skills inventory for students (ASSIST). Accessed 12 July

2007, from http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/etl/
questionnaires/ ASSIST.pdf

Approaches to studying derive from Marton & Saljo’s ideas on approaches to learning, combined

with Entwistle & Ramsden’s descriptions on a strategic approach to studying.

Observation Protocols

ClassTech Classroom Observation Protocol: Developed by C Dianne Raubenheimer, Joni Spurlin, Deena Murphy-Medley, Stan Martin & Brad Mehlenbacher, North Carolina State University.

University of Minnesota: CORE EVALUATION CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL - CETP
Rubric: http://www.education.umn.edu/carei/cetp/PDF/COP2002.pdf
Annotated Training Guide: http://www.education.umn.edu/carei/cetp/PDF/AnnotatedGuideCOP.pdf

Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR), Dr. Karen Beerer & Dr. Alec M. Bodzin, Lehigh University: http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/stir/index.html

Reference

Chapman, Elaine (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13). Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13 .

Other Scales

Academic Motivation Scale : Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1017.

Instrument	Construct measured	Instrument Type	Number of Questions	Source	Details	Comments /Other Information
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)	The instrument assesses participants’ interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort, value/usefulness, felt pressure and tension, and perceived choice while performing a given activity, thus yielding six subscale scores.	Likert	45 Items that can be used depending on what is needed.	Based on the Self Determination Theory (E. L. Deci, R. M. Ryan, Dept. of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, Univ. of Rochester.) http://psych.rochester.edu/SDT/ measures/intrins.html	The IMI is intended to assess participants’ subjective experience related to a target activity in laboratory experiments. IMI items have often been modified slightly to fit specific activities.	Articles on Self Determination Theory and Education can be found at http://psych.rochester.edu/SDT/ publications/pub_edu.html
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire	Motivation and Learning Strategies	7 pt Likert Type	81 items in the full version	Pintrich, R. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. Short Version: http://www.indiana.edu/ ~p540alex/MSLQ.pdf NCSU affiliates have permission to obtain the full instrument. Please email litre@ncsu.edu.	81 items are divided into 15 scales , 6 motivation (Intrinsic goal motivation, extrinsic goal motivation, Task value, control of learning beliefs, self efficacy for learning and performance, test anxiety) and 9 learning strategies subscales9 rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation, time and environment management, effort regulation, peer learning, help seeking) that can be used modularly.	The MSLQ has proven to be a reliable and useful tool that can be adapted for a number of different purposes for researchers, instructors, and students. The complete instrument along with examples of its use, and a history of its development can be found in Teresa Duncan‌ & Wilbert J. McKeachie‌, (2005) The Making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, Educational Psychologist 40:. 2, 117-128.
The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F	Deep and Surface approaches to learning for Motivation and Strategy	5 pt Likert	43 items	Questionnaire is developed and owned by John Biggs and David Kember. http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/programs/ 3day/BiggsrevisedSPQ.pdf	Deep Approach –two subscales: Deep Motive and Deep Strategy Surface approach- two subscales: Surface Motive and Surface Strategy	The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F John Biggs; David Kember; Doris Y P Leung:British Journal of Educational Psychology; Mar 2001; 71, 133-149
Approaches and study skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST)	* Conceptions of Learning * Approaches to studying –deep approach, Strategic approach, Surface Apathetic approach and Preferences for different types of courses and teaching.	1-5 Likert	51 questions	Entwistle, N. (2000). Approaches and study skills inventory for students (ASSIST). Accessed 12 July 2007, from http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/etl/ questionnaires/ ASSIST.pdf		Approaches to studying derive from Marton & Saljo’s ideas on approaches to learning, combined with Entwistle & Ramsden’s descriptions on a strategic approach to studying.