Paper No. 13
Presentation Time: 11:25 AM
THE EFFECT OF STUDENT MOTIVATION AND LEARNING STRATEGIES ON PERFORMANCE IN PHYSICAL GEOLOGY COURSES: GARNET PART 4, STUDENT PERFORMANCE
BYKERK-KAUFFMAN, Ann1, MATHENEY, Ronald K.
2, NYMAN, Matthew W.
3, STEMPIEN, Jennifer A.
4, BUDD, David A.
4, GILBERT, Lisa A.
5, JONES, Megan H.
6, KNIGHT, Catharine
7, KRAFT, Katrien J.
8, NELL, Ryan M.
4, PERKINS, Dexter
2, TEASDALE, Rachel
9, VISLOVA, Tatiana
10 and WIRTH, Karl
11, (1)Geological and Environmental Sciences, California State Univ, Chico, 400 W. 1st St, Chico, CA 95929-0205, (2)Dept. of Geology and Geological Engineering, University of North Dakota, 81 Cornell Street Stop 8358, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8358, (3)Earth & Planetary Science/Natural Science Program, University of New Mexico, MSC03 2040, Albuquerque, NM 87131, (4)Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2200 Colorado Ave, Boulder, CO 80309, (5)Maritime Studies Program, Williams College and Mystic Seaport, 75 Greenmanville Ave, Mystic, CT 06355, (6)Geology, North Hennepin Community College, 7411 85th Ave. No, Brooklyn Park, MN 55445, (7)Educational Foundations and Leadership, The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325, (8)Physical Sciences, Mesa Community College, 1833 W. Southern Ave, Mesa, AZ 85202, (9)Geological & Environmental Sciences, CSU Chico, Chico, CA 95929-0205, (10)Earth Sciences, SUNY College at Oneonta, 885 Westview Drive, Shoreview, MN 55126, (11)Geology Department, Macalester College, 1600 Grand Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55105, abykerk-kauffman@csuchico.edu
We sought to determine whether students’ attitudes and learning strategies influence their performance in college-level physical geology courses. We administered pre- and post-course Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaires (MSLQ, Pintrich et al, 1993) in physical geology classes taught by 13 instructors at six colleges and universities and compared the results to final class grade. Preliminary analysis using step-wise multiple regression
* of matched pairs of student responses to the MSLQ (n = 152 for Fall 2008; n = 188 for Spring 2009) reveals that grades cannot be predicted from pre-course MSLQ scores, but are significantly (p < 0.01) correlated with several subscales of the MSLQ administered near the end of the course. The strongest predictor of final class grade was the student’s score on the
self-efficacy subscale. Students with high
self-efficacy are confident that they can understand class material, do well on assignments and exams, and master the skills being taught in the course.
Other key subscales of the MSLQ had effects that varied by semester. In Fall 2008, students’ scores on the peer learning (PL) and control of learning beliefs (CB) subscales each had a negative correlation with their performance. Students who score high on the peer learning subscale often study with peers. Those who score high on the control of learning beliefs subscale feel that their individual study efforts determine their academic performance. In Spring 2009, students’ scores on the intrinsic goal (IG) subscale had a negative correlation with their performance, but students’ scores on the task value (TV) subscale had a positive correlation with their performance. Students who score high on the intrinsic goal subscale strive to thoroughly understand course content and they prefer course material that challenges them and arouses their curiosity. Students who score high on the task value subscale like the course content and find it useful.
Our results suggest that strategies to improve students’ self-efficacy have a strong chance of improving student performance in college physical geology classes.
*Fall 2008: Final Score (out of 100) = 74.6 + 6.2(SE) – 3.3(CB) – 1.2(PL), R2 = 0.26
Spring 2009: Final Score (out of 100) = 64.0 + 5.2(SE) – 4.5(IG) + 2.6(TV), R2 = 0.21
![[Visit Client Website]](/img/gsa/banner.jpg)