Contagious Motivation: Can Seeking Help Improve Group Project Experiences?

Contagious motivation: Can seeking help improve group project experiences?

Anjala S. Krishen*

Lee Business School

Department of Marketing and International Business

University of Nevada, Las Vegas NV 89154-6010

Phone: (540) 588-3961

Fax: (702) 895-4854

e-mail:

*Corresponding Author

September 6, 2012

quote without permission of the author.

KEYWORDS: contagious motivation, help seeking behavior, group projects, teamwork, intrinsic motivation, class satisfaction

RUNNING HEAD: Contagious motivation for projects

Contagious motivation: Can seeking help improve group project experiences?

Abstract

This paper proposes a theory-based contagious motivation model focusing on enhancing student perceptions of group projects. Moreover, a positive feedback cycle is presented which ties together intrinsic motivation theory with social contagion and contextualizes these within the conceptual methodology of group projects in a classroom. The structural equation model is tested with an undergraduate student sample of 257 university students and found to have adequate fit. The model and details are not presented in this abstract but will be included in the published paper. The key implication of the model is that individual student motivation can be increased by fostering an active learning environment, and more importantly, group projects can create a positive motivation cycle when properly implemented by educators.

Introduction

For the best educators, a classroom full of motivated students creates a consistently gratifying teaching experience. In fact, pedagogical research shows that by increasing active learning in the classroom, students tend to be more engaged and empowered and hence perform better (Rassuli Manzer, 2005). Not only does active learning foster a healthier classroom environment, it also allows students to experience reflective or higher-order learning, i.e. critical thinking, questioning, and the expression of doubt or difference of opinion (Peltier, Hay, & Drago, 2005). Yet, marketing professors often find themselves faced with several simultaneous requirements: (1) build contextual knowledge; (2) augment the classroom by providing more experiential learning; and (3) create a business setting within which students must solve cases or problems. The combination of these needs gives rise to project-based teaching which is most often done in teams or groups. However, academic research finds conflicting results vis-à-vis group projects.

Whereas some scholars argue that group projects can facilitate student motivation (Denton, 1994), prepare students to work well with others (Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003) and increase deeper thinking (Deeter-Schmelz, Kennedy & Ramsey, 2002), others find that they can lead to less learning (Bacon, 2005; Bacon, Stewart & Silver, 1999; Bacon, Stewart & Stewart-Belle, 1998), be dysfunctional (Chapman, Mueter, Toy, & Wright, 2010), and be hindered by social loafing (Aggarwal & O'Brien, 2008). Thus the core context of the present research lies in the intersection of these two tandem ideas – increasing student motivation and providing experiential learning through group projects. This paper presents a contagious motivation model which centers on a cycle for promoting positive attitudes towards group projects and ultimately classroom satisfaction.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Social contagion of motivation

Self-determination theory (SDT) posits that various reasons or goals drive actions and discusses the differences between motivation types (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This theory distinguishes predominantly between two types of motivation: (1) intrinsic, which means that a person is doing something due to the interesting or enjoyable nature of the activity; and (2) extrinsic, i.e. driven by some sort of potential reward or outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In the case of intrinsic motivation, extant pedagogical research shows that that it can be increased or decreased by external forces such as parents or teachers (Ryan & Stiller, 1991). The fact that intrinsic motivation, although it is not driven by outside rewards or consequences, can be increased from social interactions is a very important tenet of the contagious motivation model in the present research. The ability to increase intrinsic motivation can create a positive motivation cycle, and as can be seen in the model (see Figure 1), this cycle can lead to a better attitude towards the project and the class, and eventually increase overall satisfaction.

As part of a subtheory of SDT, cognitive evaluation theory (CET) argues that interpersonal events which increase feelings of competence enhance intrinsic motivation. The ability to alter intrinsic motivation, especially as it relates to pedagogy, is especially tenuous when one considers group projects and shared goals and outcomes in the classroom. In fact, in a series of experiments, Wild, Enzle, Nix & Deci (1997) argue that intrinsic motivation theory can be extended to include a social contagion effect of motivation. These authors show that people socially engage in perceptions of others as they form their own intrinsic motivation levels (and this is an on-going process), which in turn stimulates them to increase or decrease their quality of engagement in an activity or class. From the educational perspective, this engagement in a class can have immediate consequences for college students; not attending class, for example, represents the highest level of disengagement. On the other end of the spectrum, attending and participating in class can have positive consequences and increase intrinsic motivation in a ripple effect fashion. Thus, the social contagion of intrinsic motivation can have intense consequences in a classroom setting. Indeed, perceptions of another student in the class or even the instructor (Radel, Sarrazin, Legrain & Wild, 2010), can greatly alter the intrinsic motivation of a student during a group project experience. Radel and colleagues show that students experience higher intrinsic motivation and rate their peers as also possessing such when instruction style is altered.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Managerial Implications

There are multiple implications of the contagious motivation model for educators. First and foremost, educators should empower students in the classroom by providing an active learning environment and maximizing reflective learning abilities in students. These goals can be accomplished by charting out exercises and facilitating lively classroom discussions throughout the semester. Secondly, whereas literature shows that group projects can yield mixed results in terms of learning outcomes, the majority of research favors the idea of creating a realistic “business-like” environment in the classroom, which projects provide (King & Behnke, 2005). The biggest benefit of contagious motivation for group projects is that, as the theory shows, intrinsic motivation in students can be increased, which will then lead to enhancement of attitudes for all team members.

Future research can address several important aspects of the contagious motivation model. One possible venue would be the ethical implications of the model, for example the impact of unethical group member behavior on student projects and course satisfaction (Nill & Schibrowsky, 2005). Cross cultural implications would also be an interesting area to pursue, in particular the impact of self construal theory and interdependent versus independent thinkers (Payan, Reardon, & McCorkle, 2010). Additionally, the help seeking behavior variable should be further explored in combination with other important group project variables such as group size, group grade percentage, and other group-related variables.

References

Aggarwal, P., & O'Brien, C. (2008). Social Loafing on Group Projects: Structural Antecedents and Effect on Student Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 255-264.

Bacon, D. R. (2005). The effect of group projects on content-related learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(2), 248-267.

Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., & Silver, W. S. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, 23(5), 467-488.

Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., & Stewart-Belle, S. (1998). Exploring predictors of student team project performance. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(1), 63-71.

Barclay, D., Thompson, R., & Higgins, C. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285-309.

Chapman, K., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2010). Are Student Groups Dysfunctional?: Perspectives From Both Sides of the Classroom. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(1), 39-49.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Kennedy, K. N., & Ramsey, R. P. (2002). Enriching our understanding of student team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2), 114-124.

Denton, H. G. (1994). Simulating design in the world of industry and commerce: Observations from a series of case studies in the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Education, 6(1), 1045-1064.

Homer, P. M. (1995). Ad size as in indicator of perceived advertising costs and effort: The effects on memory and perceptions. Journal of Advertising, 24(Winter), 1-12.

King, P. E., & Behnke, R. R. (2005). Problems associated with evaluating student performance in groups. College Teaching, 53, 57-61.

Nill, A., & Schibrowsky, J. A. (2005). The Impact of Corporate Culture, the Reward System, and Perceived Moral Intensity on Marketing Students' Ethical Decision Making. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 68-80.

Payan, J., Reardon, J., & McCorkle, D. (2010). The Effect of Culture on the Academic Honesty of Marketing and Business Students. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(3), 275-291.

Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Drago, W. (2005). The Reflective Learning Continuum: Reflecting on Reflection. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(3), 250-263.

Pfaff, E., & Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 37-45.

Radel, R., Sarrazin, P., Legrain, P., & Wild, T. C. (2010). Social contagion of motivation between teacher and student: Analyzing underlying processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 577-587.

Rassuli, A., & Manzer, J. P. (2005). "Teach Us to Learn": Multivariate Analysis of Perception of Success in Team Learning. Journal of Education for Business, 81(1), 21-27.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

Ryan, R. M., & Stiller, J. (1991). The social contexts of internalization: Parent and teacher influences on autonomy, motivation and learning. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 115-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wild, T. C., Enzle, M. E., Nix, G., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Perceiving Others as Intrinsically or Extrinsically Motivated: Effects on Expectancy Formation and Task Engagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(8), 837-848.