Motivations of and Implications for Students in Introductory Biology Courses for Majors and Nonmajors

• In Event: Applying Educational Psychology Lenses to the “Curious Construct of Active Learning” in Undergraduate Science Education

Abstract

Objectives/Purpose: Instructors design courses according to instructional goals and in consideration of students’ motivations for learning. In this paper, we examine two introductory biology courses that adhere to master course designs including high structure, active learning components that prioritize pre-reading, self-testing, and formative feedback. We consider how students’ motivations differ between those who pursue biology as a major area of study versus those who do not.

Perspectives/Theoretical Framework: Students’ engagement in learning is defined by their achievement goals (Elliot & Dweck, 2005) and achievement related choices, as well as their perceptions of their ability to successfully learn (i.e., self-efficacy, growth mindset, perceived self-regulated learning), and their perception that a course is valuable, though it may exact costs (i.e., situated expectancy value theory; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). We aimed to understand how these motivations differ, and how the relations between motivation and achievement differ across distinct student populations in otherwise analogous instructional contexts.

Methods & Data Sources: Data were collected from 537 and 376 students from in-person lectures that involved “high structure” and active learning design elements (Eddy & Hogan, 2014; Lombardi, et al., 2021). Both courses were co-developed with educational psychology and technology experts who partnered with biology educators to refine instructional designs, provide transparent course and unit learning objectives, align exams to objectives, provide tables of specifications for student study use, and create active learning materials that promote engagement in strategies suited to promote mastery of course objectives (e.g., retrieval practice, self explanation, metacognitive monitoring).

Across courses, students completed a measure of prior biology knowledge and survey of motivations and beliefs in weeks 1-2. Students completed instructional units involving pre-lecture readings and formative quizzes, participation in 2 active lecture sessions per week, and engagement with post-lecture notes and self-testing materials. Assessments included unit and cumulative final exams.

Results: We observed mean differences in self-efficacy beliefs, performance avoidance goals, attainment, intrinsic, and utility value, and opportunity cost (Figure 1). When we consider how these differences in motivations influence students' success in the course, the strength of associations varied, and most notably, perceptions of psychological cost exacted by engaging in course activities (Figure 2).

Significance: STEM instructors have deep disciplinary expertise, but may lack nuanced understanding of student motivations and learning behaviors. While these courses are designed according to a master template that promotes active learning, students who enroll in them differ substantially in the beliefs, goals, and perceptions of value and cost of coursework that motivate their engagement in course activities. STEM instructors may erroneously characterize their students as either having or lacking motivation. Here, we document meaningful distinctions in the motivational attributes of two groups of introductory biology students that were learners in structurally similar courses within the same institutional context. When instructors know that students are likely to be driven by strong perceptions of value or that students may be hindered by perceptions of high cost, they can adapt their instructional materials to “meet students where they are” and enhance the motivation, engagement, and success of their students.

Authors

• Christy Strong, University of Nevada - Las Vegas

• Matthew L. Bernacki, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

• Jenifer Utz, University of Nevada - Las Vegas

• Kathryn Rafferty, University of Nevada - Las Vegas

• MeganClaire Cogliano, University of Nevada - Las Vegas

• Jonathan C. Hilpert, University of Nevada - Las Vegas