Motivation and Learning Strategies 1

Motivation and Learning Strategies 1

Running Head: MOTIVATION AND LEARNING STRATEGIES

Motivation and Learning Strategies in a PBL Course Concurrently Taught

with a Lecture-Based Course

Neil A. Knobloch

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Sheila R. Fowler

ChicagoHigh School for Agrisciences

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL

April 10, 2007

Motivation and Learning Strategies in a PBL Course Concurrently Taught

with a Lecture-Based Course

Neil A. Knobloch, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Sheila R. Fowler, ChicagoHigh School for Agrisciences

Abstract

Instructional approaches structure the nature of learning and can influence student motivation and how they learn. This experimental study investigated the effects of concurrent enrollment in a problem-based learning course on college students’ performance, motivation and use of learning strategies in a lecture-based course. Theproblem-based learning course was designed to apply content taught in the lecture-based course. There were three findings. First, students earned higher grades in the lecture-based course when concurrently enrolled in a problem-based course. Second, students concurrently enrolled in a PBL course were more extrinsically motivated, had higher task value motivation, and felt more responsible of their learning in a lecture-based course compared to their peers who were only enrolled in the lecture-based course. Third, students concurrently enrolled in a complementary PBL courses had higher organization and metacognitive self-regulation learning strategy use in the lecture-based course. Further inquiry should look at student benefits of a PBL course taught concurrently with a lecture-based course.

Statement of the Issue & Purpose

Educational quality for global competitiveness is an emerging concern among leaders, scientists, and educators in the food and health industries. The Committee on the Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (2006) recently reported that “an educated, innovative, motivated workforce” (p. 22) is a nation’s most valuable resource in a global economy. The Committee questioned if higher education is creating the human capital needed in knowledge intensive occupations for America to sustain the quality of life for its citizens and be globally competitive in the sciences.

Building on the need to reform higher education, The Boyer Commission (1998) said it was imperative that colleges prepare the next generation of professionals (The Boyer Commission, 1998), especially in an area of growing societal concerns—the health and food sciences (Institute of Medicine, 1994; National Research Council, 1992). The Institute of Medicine further described “the best undergraduate education programs in the nutrition and food sciences help students understand the interrelationships of nutrition, food, and health and to develop critical thinking and problem solving” (p. 7).

Recently, leaders in agriculture and public health recommended that research is needed to understand effective instructional tools for food and health education, especially to address concerns such as obesity, malnutrition, hunger, food-borne illnesses, and disease prevention (Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2004). If universities are going to be successful in building human capital in the food, nutritional, and health science, they will need to attract highly motivated and performance-oriented students (Institute of Medicine, 1994) and engage them in solving problems with creative and critical thinking. The research university should prepare graduates “equipped with a spirit of inquiry and a zest for problem solving…” (The Boyer Commission, 1998, p. 13). As such, the purpose of this study was to explore the effects of a problem-based learning course on college student performance, motivation, and learning strategies in lecture-based course in the nutritional and food sciences.

Theoretical Framework

Problem-based learning is “an instructional (and curricular) learner-centered approach that empowers learners toconduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to developa viable solution to a defined problem” (Savery, 2006, p. 12). Students learn through inquiry (Dewey, 1938) driven by solving complex, ill-structured, and open-endedproblems (Hmelo-Silver, 2004) that are realistic and relevant to students’ interests and experiences(Oliver-Hoyo & Allen, 2005; Walczyk & Ramsey, 2003). In doing so, students are actively engaged and responsible for their own learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Problem-based learning helps students construct a knowledge base, develop problem-solving (cognitive) skills, develop self-directed and life-long learning (metacognitive) skills, become effective collaborators, and become intrinsically motivated to learn (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).

Problem-based learning is educational strategy that was first used in medical education in the 1960s. Although definitions vary, problem-based learning is “an educational method characterized by the use of patient problems as a context for students to learn problem-solving skills and acquire knowledge about the basic and clinical sciences” (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993). Problem-based learning has five basic components: (a) problem formulation, (b) application of knowledge, (c) self-directed learning, (d) abstraction, and (e) reflection (Koschmann, 2001). In a series of steps, students are presented with a clinical problem and they work in groups to discuss causes, develop hypotheses and strategies to test hypotheses. The professor serves as a facilitator and helps guide the students through the process. In doing so, the professor also presents the students with additional information and students refine their hypotheses and make decisions to solve the problem (Finucane, Johnson, & Prideaux, 1998).

Students learn through inquiry (Dewey, 1910) driven by solving complex, ill-structured, and open-ended problems (Hmelo-Silver, 2004) that are realistic and relevant to students’ interests and experiences (Oliver-Hoyo & Allen, 2005; Walczyk & Ramsey, 2003). In doing so, students are actively engaged and responsible for their own learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Problem-based learning helps students construct a knowledge base, develop problem-solving (cognitive) skills, develop self-directed and life-long learning (metacognitive) skills, become effective collaborators, and become intrinsically motivated to learn (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Using these five goals of problem-based learning as a framework, the researchers of this study specifically explored the influence of problem-based learning on college students’ cognition, metacognition, collaborative learning, and motivation. However, complex, ill-structured, open-ended problems that require problem-solving and higher-order thinking can have a negative effect on students’ motivation. Young (2003) found that the challenging tasks, the autonomy, and lack of exams can be overwhelming to college students who are familiar to more structured classrooms. Because learning strategies, goals, beliefs, self-efficacy, and motivations contribute to learning (Svinicki, 1999), the researchers informed themselves with various perspectives.

Self-regulated learning involves students using an array of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to manage and direct their learning (Pintrich, 1999; Zimmerman, 2001). Self-regulating students are assumed to be cognizant of their actions and able to control them in order to reach learning goals (Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). As students self-regulate, they are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally dynamic within their personal process of learning (Zimmerman, 1994). Eccles and Wigfield (2002) support this view by identifying three characteristics that self-regulated learners possess, such as cognitive strategy use, high levels of self-efficacy, and a variety of goals.

Motivational beliefs affect students’ self-regulation of their learning, thereby affecting motivation and achievement outcomes (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Meece, 1994; Pintrich, 1999; Zimmerman, 1990, 1994). Several research studies have investigated the role of motivation beliefs and self-regulated learning in the classroom (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991; Pintrich, 1999; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998).

Expectancy-value and goal orientations were two motivation theories that informed the researchers’ perspective. Expectancy-value theory has aspects of self-efficacy expectancies, outcome expectancies, and task-values (Breen & Lindsay, 2002). Modern expectancy-value theories tie performance, persistence, and choice to one’s expectancy-related and task-value beliefs (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Expectancy-value theories have shown that one’s perception of the outcomes and likelihood for success combined with their task-value beliefs can predict performance (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000).

Self-efficacy concerns an individual’s confidence in their ability to perform some type of task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pintrich, 1999). Self-efficacy beliefs determine whether or not an individual will engage in some task, and whether or not they will persevere to finish that task (Bandura, 1986; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Tollefson, 2000). Moreover, research studies have shown that students’ perceived self-efficacy was positively related to their use of learning strategies (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; VanZile-Timesen & Livingston; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). Self-efficacy is a predictor of students’ use of learning strategies (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich, 1999) and academic achievement (Schunk, 1994,1996; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1994). Task value relates to the comparative worth that a person places on engaging in a particular activity rather than the reasons behind why that person engages in the activity (Stefanou & Salisbury-Glennon, 2002). Students work harder and longer to complete a particular task when they have high task value beliefs (Eccles & Wigfield, 1992). Task value beliefs have been shown to affect students’ use of learning strategies and classroom achievement (Pintrich 1989, 1999; Wigfield, 1994).

Goals are fundamental in determining motivation to learn (Ames, 1992). Goals are distinct from reasons, which are considered to be more general and dictated by emotions (Elliot & Thrash, 2001). Mastery goals, often called task-involved or learning goals, are characterized by an orientation to master new problems and skills (Ames, 1992; Pintrich, 1999), and an intrinsic motivational orientation (Meece, 1994; Wigfield, 1994). Mastery goals are usually accompanied by persistence, varied approaches to problem solving, and engagement in challenging tasks (Eppler & Harju, 1997; Schunk, 1994). In contrast, performance goals, often called ego-involved or extrinsic goals, are characterized by a focus on outcomes instead of processes. Performance goals are accompanied by the desire to appear competent and outperform others (Ames, 1992; Eppler & Harju, 1997). Adopting a performance goal generally leads to a preference for avoiding difficult tasks, low persistence, and a decline in performance when difficulty arises (Eppler & Harju, 1997; Meece, 1997). Mastery goal orientation and students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies are linked (Ames, 1992; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). Mastery goal orientations tend to be adopted within the context of real-life collaborative situations, where the emphasis is on learning rather than performance (Ames & Ames, 1984; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Stefanou & Salisbury-Glennon, 2002). Mastery goal orientations are likely to promote deep, long-term, and quality engagement in learning (Ames, 1992; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1994).

Three hypotheses were developed based on the literature. First, students concurrently enrolled in the PBL course would earn higher grades in the lecture-based course than their peers who were only enrolled in the lecture-based course because they would be more motivated by the PBL applications of the lecture-based knowledge and the development of learning strategies in the PBL course that would be used in the lecture-based course. Several researchers have found that motivational beliefs affect students’ self-regulation of their learning, thereby affecting motivation and achievement outcomes (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Meece, 1994; Pintrich, 1999; Zimmerman, 1990, 1994). Second, students concurrently enrolled in the PBL course would have higher task value, self-efficacy, and mastery goals in the lecture-based course because of the collaborative learning(Ames & Ames, 1984; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Stefanou & Salisbury-Glennon, 2002), real-life career applications (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992), and self-directedness that is facilitated in solving problems (Ames, 1992; Eppler & Harju, 1997; Pintrich, 1999; Schunk, 1994) learned through PBL. Third, students concurrently enrolled in the PBL course would have higher use of learning strategies in the lecture-based course due to the higher motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Meece, 1994; Pintrich, 1999; Zimmerman, 1990, 1994), task value of career applications (Pintrich, 1999; Wigfield, 1994), development of self-efficacy (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich, 1999; VanZile-Timesen & Livingston; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000), and mastery goal orientation (Ames, 1992; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990).

Connection to the Literature

The focus in undergraduate education is shifting from teaching to learning (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Higher education needs to improve teaching and learning in college classrooms by placing a greater emphasis student learning and instructional methods that help students solve problems, think critically, work as teams, and effectively communicate (Menges & Astin, 2001; NASULGC, 2001). Teaching in college classrooms remains predominately a traditional lecture-based, teacher-directed model of student assimilation and recitation of factual information (Gardiner, 1994). Yet, a body of literature in teaching and learning supports the notion that a learner-centered paradigm for teaching that incorporates student engagement in the learning process is effective. In their report on the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education,Chickering and Gamson (1987) presented that good practice encourages student-faculty contact and active learning among other factors.

Student-centered learning is based on the assumption that the most effective way for students to acquire knowledge is to apply information or instruction to assessing and resolving problems that are common to the student’s experience(Robertson, 2005). Problem-based learning is grounded on constructivism (Savery& Duffy, 1994) and is one of several different instructional approaches that is based on the principles of learner-centered teaching (Hmelo & Evensen, 2000). Learner centered is defined as a two-fold perspective that couples a focus on individual learners’ interests, abilities, experiences, and needswith a focus on learning and using the most effective teaching strategiestomotivate and help all learners learn and achieve (McCombs & Whisler, 1997). From a college persepective, Weimer (2002) defined learner-centered teaching as focusing the instructor’s attention on learning. She clarified that being focus on student learning is, “what the student is learning, how the student is learning, the conditions under which the student is learning, whether the student is retaining and applying the learning, and how current learning positions the student for future learning” (p. xvi). In learner-centered teaching, the action is on what the students are doing while the instructor plays the role as a facilitator.

In contrast, college classrooms and courses are designed in ways that do not encourage students to be engaged with the material they are supposed to master (Harris & Alexander, 1998). Instead, instructors disseminate a selected amount of knowledge, measure students’ passive reception of this knowledge, and focus on stimulus-response relationships (Leonard, 2002). The lack of active engagement with the material often leads to lower levels of thinking and a decrease of motivation to actually learn the material (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). The absence of motivation leaves students unable, or unwilling, to regulate their individual learning (Pintrich, 1999). Thus, one comes to the phenomena of graduates being unprepared to enter their chosen profession. Instructional approaches are linked to student performance and motivation (Van Berkel & Schmidt, 2000). Studies have shown that when students are engaged with the material they are learning, they are more likely to perform well and also be motivated to learn (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Schunk, 2001).

Problem-based learning has been documented to motivate students, construct their knowledge, help them develop learning and decision-making strategies, and become self-directed learners (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). In light of promising results regarding the development of problem-solving skills, self-directed learning, and technical knowledge in a given area (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Savin-Baden, 2000), research is needed to understand the effects problem-based learning has college students, especially in the nutritional and food sciences (Duffrin, 2003), and more empirical evidence is needed regarding student learning and outcomes (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). In a meta-analysis of 43 studies, Dochy et al. (2003) found problem-based learning had a positive, robust effect on students’ skill acquisition, but it had no effect on knowledge acquisition. Duffrin suggested food science education needs to improve the way content is organized and learned, and argued problem-based learning is an alternative to the conventional teacher-directed lectures used in college classrooms. Duffrin found that students in an introductory food science course were interested and engaged in solving problems using a PBL approach. Duffrin recommended further study of student outcomes be explored.

Mode of Inquiry & Sources of Data

This was a non-equivalentpost-onlycontrol group design. Sixteen of the 18 students, who were concurrently enrolled in FSHN 320 and FSHN 329, provided consent to participate in the treatment of the study, and 18 of the 30 students who were only enrolled in FSHN 320 provided consent to participate in the control for the study. Although the number of participants was small, this study was strengthened because all participants were enrolled in the two courses during the same semester: problem-based learning course (experiment), and lecture-based course (control). Both the lecture-based course and the problem-based learning course were upper-level courses in the discipline area of food science and human nutrition. The treatment was the instructional approach (problem-based and lecture-based vs. lecture-based) while concurrently enrolled in a lecture-based course, and the three dependent variables were (a) academic performance, (b) student motivation, and (c) learning strategies.

A pretest was conducted in September 2003 to determine selection characteristics of the participants’ demographics. The researcher also obtained the GPA of the participants. Because the students were not randomly assigned to the treatment and control, the two groups were compared on three selection variables using ANOVA and Cohen’s (1988)d to determine if the groups were different. There were no differences between the two groups of students on their opinion of the course at the beginning of the semester, expected course grade, grade earned in a course prerequisite (Introduction to Biochemistry), and overall grade point average.