Paper No. 8
Presentation Time: 9:55 AM
THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN STUDENT, INSTRUCTOR, MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE: HOW DOES IT ALL RELATE?
VAN DER HOEVEN KRAFT, Katrien J.1, HILPERT, Jonathan C.
2, BUDD, David A.
3, GILBERT, Lisa A.
4, MCCONNELL, David A.
5, PERKINS, Dexter
6, WIRTH, Karl R.
7, BYKERK-KAUFFMAN, Ann
8, STEMPIEN, Jennifer A.
3 and MATHENEY, Ronald K.
9, (1)Physical Sciences, Whatcom Community College, 237 W. Kellogg Road, Bellingham, WA 98226, (2)Department of Curriculum Foundations and Reading, College of Education, Georgia Southern University, 1332 Southern Dr, PO Box 08144, Statesboro, GA 30458, (3)Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2200 Colorado Ave, Boulder, CO 80309, (4)Williams-Mystic and Geosciences, Williams College, 75 Greenmanville Ave, Mystic, CT 06355, (5)Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, (6)Harold Hamm School of Geology and Geological Engineering, University of North Dakota, MS 8358, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8358, (7)Geology Department, Macalester College, Saint Paul, MN 55105, (8)Geological and Environmental Sciences, California State Univ, Chico, 400 W. 1st St, Chico, CA 95929-0205, (9)Dept. of Geology and Geological Engineering, University of North Dakota, MS 8358, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8358, kkraft@whatcom.ctc.edu
Two decades of discipline-based education research have consistently shown that learning gains are typically greater in student-centered classrooms than in classes emphasizing traditional lectures. But why? Is it the classroom teaching style or might there also be accompanying changes in student affect (e.g., motivation, learning strategies, metacognition, etc.) that impact learning? To address this question, we applied a hierarchical linear modeling method to a data set of ~1800 student participants across multiple institution types in the NSF-funded GARNET (Geoscience Affective Research NETwork) project. We focused on quantified measures of classroom teaching practices (Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol; RTOP) and students’ motivation (value and expectancy) and metastrategies (as measured by the Motivation Strategy and Learning Questionnaire; MSLQ).
With these variables, we determined that 9% of a student grade is attributable to the instructor’s classroom pedagogy and 91% to the student. There is a strong correlation between a student’s grade and their learning gains on a modified version of the Geoscience Concept Inventory. Factors that influence variation in a student’s grade include the expectancy a student has for his/her success in the course, the amount s/he values the content (both of which impact motivation), and effective employment of learning strategies (metastrategies). The teacher’s influence on student grades is directly related to how student-centered the classroom is (as measured by the RTOP), and influences almost half of the 9% variance in students’ grade. In addition, a student’s expectancy for success is less likely to impact their grade in a more student-centered classroom. As such, students who may have low expectations of success still have an equal opportunity to achieve. These results indicate that we need to include consideration of how to support student motivation when we consider how to approach the future of student-centered practices in the classroom.
