Provision of Choice and Grade Focus in the Written Narratives of Students From Four Countries

• In Event: Roundtable Session 124
  In Roundtable Session: The Motivational Benefits and Detriments of Choosing: Exploring the Complexity of Choice in Educational Contexts

Abstract

The issue of optimal strategies for motivating students is of interest to most, if not all, educators. An emphasis on grades and other incentives is pervasive in many educational settings (Newby, 1991), and the effect of such inducements on students’ motivation has been debated for nearly 40 years (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001). According to self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000), teachers’ maximizing choice and minimizing evaluative pressures are associated with students’ motivation (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). The present research took a novel empirical approach to the issue of optimal strategies for motivating students. University undergraduates from four countries [viz., Jordan (n = 100), Taiwan (n = 102), Turkey (n = 100), and the U.S. (n = 123)] first wrote an essay about the instructor who taught the last class in their major, and then wrote essays about their most motivating and demotivating instructors (the order of these latter two essays was counterbalanced across participants). Narratives were coded for content related to instructors’ provision of choice and grade focus by raters who were blind to hypotheses and fluent in the essay’s native language. Our hypotheses, derived from SDT, were that (1) provision of choice would be most apparent in narratives about motivating instructors, and (2) grade focus would be most apparent in narratives about demotivating instructors.

In line with Hypothesis 1, themes related to provision of choice were most apparent in narratives from Jordan about motivating instructors [vs. Demotivating Instructor: μDifference (SE) = 2.05 (.11), p < .001; vs. Last Class Instructor: μDifference (SE) = 1.07 (.14), p < .001], from Taiwan [vs. Demotivating Instructor: μDifference (SE) = .98 (.12), p < .001; vs. Last Class Instructor: μDifference (SE) = .25 (.10), p < .05], from Turkey [vs. Demotivating Instructor: μDifference (SE) = 2.67 (.11), p < .001; vs. Last Class Instructor: μDifference (SE) = .96 (.16), p < .001], and from the U.S. [vs. Demotivating Instructor: μDifference (SE) = 1.59 (.14), p < .001; vs. Last Class Instructor: μDifference (SE) = .36 (.14), p < .05]. In line with Hypothesis 2, themes related to grade focus were most apparent in narratives from Jordan about demotivating instructors [vs. Motivating Instructor: μDifference (SE) = .48 (.10), p < .001; vs. Last Class Instructor: μDifference (SE) = .18 (.07), p < .05], from Taiwan [vs. Motivating Instructor: μDifference (SE) = .19 (.07), p < .05; vs. Last Class Instructor: μDifference (SE) = .12 (.05), p < .09], from Turkey [vs. Motivating Instructor: μDifference (SE) = 1.60 (.12), p < .001; vs. Last Class Instructor: μDifference (SE) = .93 (.13), p < .001], and from the U.S. [vs. Motivating Instructor: μDifference (SE) = .29 (.06), p < .001; vs. Last Class Instructor: μDifference (SE) = .15 (.05), p < .01].

The present research was the first to examine naturally emerging themes in students’ written narratives about their instructors. In four countries, results suggested that motivating instructors are associated with provision of choice whereas demotivating instructors are associated with a focus on grades.

Authors

• Christopher Peter Niemiec, University of Rochester

• Ikhlas Ahmad, The University of Jordan

• Yi Cheng, National Taiwan University

• Erdal Hamarta, Selcuk University

• Zümra Özyeşil, Istanbul Arel University

• Szu-Hsien Yu, National Taiwan University