Measuring Motivation in Collaborative Inquiry-Based Learning Contexts Angela Chow

1. Measuring Motivation in Collaborative Inquiry-Based Learning Contexts Angela Chow IT in Education Symposium, 10th July, 04

2. What is motivation? Energy Internal Drive Motivation Direction (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Reeve, 1996)

3. Motivation Motivation: related to multiple aspects of learning • e.g., • learning goals (Ames, 1992; Archer & Scevak, 1998) • engagement in terms of on-task time (Tapola et al., 2001) and • learning strategies used (Jarvela & Niemivirta, 2001)

4. Motivation: Important dimensions • Beliefs/Values on task • Beliefs on self-competence • External drive (e.g., reward and punishment) Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation, Goal Orientation Theory & Expectancy-Value Theory Expectancy-Value Theory &Self-Efficacy Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation

5. Learning Context: Traditional to Collaborative Inquiry-based well-defined task individual individual acquisition of specific knowledge skills inquiry-based collaborative group work • group • ill-structured • process-emphasized, learning how to learn • risks, uncertainty • unknown outcomes, highly depend on self-directed choices

6. Understanding Motivation in the New Learning Context • A common pattern of studies: • 1. Categories students according to their orientation • 2. Examines exhibited behaviour of different groups/individuals. Goal Orientation Theory e.g., different choices, persistence and learning strategies (e.g., Jarvela & Niemivirta, 2001; Veermans and Tapola, in press)

7. Motivation in the Current Study • Motivation as chronic structure that lead to individual’s preferences and tendencies in responsiveness to learning activities (Pintrich, 2000; Niemivirta, 1998)

8. Self-Determination Theory Extrinsic Motivation Intrinsic Motivation Integrated Regulation same features:high value and autonomy Identification Introjection (the identified regulations have been fully assimilated and internalized to the self) (most autonomous) (recognize the importance of a behaviour to the person) (quite autonomous, but the level of autonomy is not optimal, as the identified regulations have not internalized) External Regulation (perform with the feeling of pressure in order to avoid guilt/anxiety or to attain ego-enhancements or pride) (driven by pressure of enhancing or maintaining self-esteem) (to satisfy an external demand or obtain an externally imposed reward) (external regulated behaviour) Value Autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci 2000)

9. Research Questions • How is motivation structured in collaborative inquiry-based learning? • How does motivation relate to students’ engagement? (e.g., participation in discussion and depth of enquiry)

10. Establishment of Questionnaire • develop an instrument to measure motivation in collaborative enquiry-based learning • build upon the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A) (Ryan & Connell, 1989) • Developed for students in late elementary and secondary schools • 32 items • 4-point scale • 4 question stems, 8 similar items constructed on each question stem: (1)Why do I do my homework? (2)Why do I work on my class work? (3) Why do I try to answer hard questions in class? (4) Why do I try to do well in school?

11. design to elicit students’ responses on the inquiry and social dimensions • 7-point likert-scale instead of 4-point scale, as the students are at least 14-year-old • in Chinese, mother tongue of the students

12. Establishment of Questionnaire Research setting • In conjunction with “Learning Community Project” organized by Centre of IT in Education, The University of Hong Kong • Around 200 - 400 grade 9 to 12 students from Hong Kong schools • formed groups with classmates, usually 4-6 per group • worked on a topic • allowed flexibility to identify focus, subject areas ranged from science to humanities, e.g., • “Is it desirable to set up a chlorine production plant in Hong Kong?” • “Design a Solar Cooker” • worked around for 8 to 12 weeks

13. Research setting • Face-to-face discussion • Online discussion • Knowledge Forum (http://csile.oise.utoronto.ca/) • Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto • support knowledge building (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1999) • support the students to construct knowledge and aware of their understanding, for example, by prompting the students to think of: • My theory... • I need to understanding... • New information... • The theory cannot explain... • A much better theory...

14. Knowledge Forum • the users can store notes, connect ideas, and “rise-above” previous thinking • the users in the community can connect their ideas together

15. Data • 1. Project 1: July-Oct, 02 • a. Pre Q: 269 • b. Post Q: 235 • 2. Project 2: June-Sept, 03 • a. Post Q: 173 • 3. Project 3: Oct-Dec, 03 • a. Pre Q: 192 • b. Post Q: 300

16. Motivation Model Building • Starting version: 24 items (8 items adopted from SRQ-A) • Final version: 20 items (8 items adopted from SRQ-A) • 3 question stems: (1) Why do I try to do well in school? (adopted from SRQ-A) (2) Why do I work on my class work? (adopted from SRQ-A) (3) Why do I participate in project work? • 5-factor model were repeatedly found • Statistical acceptance of a model (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000) : • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < 0.1 • non-normed fit index (NNFI) and comparative fix index (CFI) > 0.9

17. Motivation Model Building Table: Fit statistics of the Validated Five-Factor Models

18. Adopted from SRQ-A Table: The 5 Factors and their corresponding Items

19. Methodological Considerations • Validity and reliability of self-report measures being challenged (Boekaerts, 2001) • Dynamic assessment to capture the interaction between motivation and contexts (Jarvela, Salonen & Lepola, 2002) • Variable-centred method (examine relations among variables across the sample) V.S. person-centred method (exploring characteristics of different motivational groups) (Niemivirta, 2002)

20. Empirical Explorations • Variable-centred method Table: Correlation Matrix of the 5 Factors of the Motivation Model (data: project 3 post-q, n=300) ** p< 0.01

21. Empirical Explorations • Data from ATK (Analytical Tool Kit of Knowledge Forum) • Numeric data of students’ online engagement: • e.g., number of notes created, number of notes edited & number of rise-above made

22. Empirical Explorations Table: Factor Loadings of the 3 ATK Factors

23. Empirical Explorations Table: Correlation Matrix of the 5 Factor Motivation Score with the 3 ATK Factor Score (n=300) ** p< 0.01, *p<0.05

24. Empirical Explorations • Cluster analysis as effective approach in relation to person-centred method (Bergman, 2000) • 3-cluster solution Table: Cluster Centres of the 3 Motivation Clusters

25. Empirical Explorations • Significant differences found betweens groups for ATK factor 1 (basic functions) and factor 2 (rise-above), but not factor 3 (different group) Table: Comparing scores of ADK factor 1 (Basic Functions) between the 3 motivation clusters ** p< 0.01, *p<0.05

26. Empirical Explorations Table: Comparing scores of ADK factor 2 (Rise-above) between the 3 motivation clusters ** p< 0.01, *p<0.05