<p dir="ltr"><a href="" target="_blank">Improving student motivation and changing students from a negative motivational mindset to a positive one can be a viable way to ensure that students stay in their programs and obtain academic success. While educators and administrators are interested in improving motivation, they may not have the full body of knowledge about motivational theories and make uninformed classroom interventions and departmental policies. Using theory to understand student motivations grounds the research in specific constructs that allow educators and policymakers to easily interpret the results and make better-informed decisions regarding classroom activities and academic policies. Tying motivational mindsets to effective classroom behaviors and learning outcomes can help educators determine what motivational orientations are effective within the classroom, and which may need to be altered.</a></p><p dir="ltr">The work that I have done as part of this dissertation helps to advance the use of motivational theory within the field of engineering education and provides useful insight into the motivational mindsets of first-year engineering students. I conducted a latent profile analysis using data from engineering undergraduate students, combining constructs from two established motivational theories to develop motivational profiles. Using two theories, achievement goal theory and expectancy-value theory, allows me to look at the students’ motivational mindsets based on their expectations for success (Expectancy Beliefs), the perceived value of doing well in the course (Task Value Beliefs), their desire to develop their skills (Mastery Orientation), their desire to look well in front of their peers (Performance Approach Orientation), and their desire to not look bad in relation to others (Performance Avoidance Orientation). These five constructs were used to develop profiles, which were then correlated with classroom behaviors and academic performance to determine which motivational profiles were more effective. Correlational analysis was conducted using either ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests, depending on the normality of the data.</p><p dir="ltr">The results of the latent profile analysis yielded five distinct profiles of motivation: <i>Moderate-Low All</i>, <i>Moderate-Low Performance/Moderate-High Intrinsic</i>, <i>Moderate All</i>, <i>High Performance/Moderate Intrinsic</i>, <i>and High All</i>. The <i>Moderate-Low All </i>profile consisted of students who reported lower measures of all motivation constructs than their peers. The <i>Moderate-Low Performance/Moderate-High Intrinsic</i> profile consisted of students who reported average responses related to Expectancy, Task-Value, and Mastery beliefs but scored lower in the Performance Approach and Performance Avoidance beliefs. The <i>Moderate All</i> profile was comprised of students who scored on average along all motivational constructs. The <i>High Performance/Moderate Intrinsic</i> profile contained students who reported average responses to Expectancy, Task-Value, and Mastery beliefs but scored higher in the Performance Approach and Performance Avoidance beliefs. The <i>High All</i> profile was comprised of students who scored higher than the average for all motivational constructs.</p><p dir="ltr">Students were asked to reflect on their use of specific classroom behaviors that were categorized based on the Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive framework of educational activities. Correlational analysis showed that <i>Moderate-Low All</i> students reported using Passive, Constructive, and Interactive behaviors at a lower rate than their peers, especially <i>High All </i>students. Correlational analysis of academic performance measures also found that there were non-significant differences between profiles related to exam scores, but there were significant differences found in the final grades. <i>Moderate-Low All</i> students had lower final grades than the <i>Moderate-Low Performance/Moderate-High Intrinsic</i>, <i>Moderate All</i>, and <i>High All</i> groups.</p><p dir="ltr">These findings suggest that students in the <i>Moderate-Low All </i>profile are not doing worse in the class because of their exams, but due to not performing the other activities in the class. These activities include large group projects (Interactive tasks) and homework assignments (Constructive tasks). Considering the context of the study and the course that these students are taking, educational recommendations would be finding ways to incorporate more Constructive behaviors (i.e., reflection on their learning or making meaning from the material) into the course, as the class already has multiple Interactive tasks. Further research can also be done to investigate why students hold the views that they do, and whether this is an issue of perception or some other phenomenon.</p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:purdue.edu/oai:figshare.com:article/26337082 |
| Date | 19 July 2024 |
| Creators | Alexander V Struck Jannini (19179625) |
| Source Sets | Purdue University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, Thesis |
| Rights | CC BY 4.0 |
| Relation | https://figshare.com/articles/thesis/_b_Developing_Motivational_Profiles_of_First-Year_Engineering_Students_Using_Latent_Profile_Analysis_b_/26337082 |
Page generated in 0.0162 seconds