A Shifting Motivational Landscape: Gender Differences in Perceptions of Motivational Climate

• In Event: Motivated Students, Motivating Contexts: Building Clarity About the Nature and Mechanisms of Motivational Climate

Abstract

Objectives. Students’ perceptions of the same situation vary widely (Schenke et al., 2017), and instructional methods may motivate some students while actually demotivating others (Murphy et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2016). Women’s lower representation and lower likelihood of completing degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; National Science Board, 2020) suggest that women face additional barriers to sustaining motivation in STEM (Cimpian & Leslie, 2017; Cheryan et al., 2009; Diekman et al., 2010). Thus, STEM contexts may systematically differ in how well they support men and women, but such variation is not yet empirically documented. In this study, we addressed the following research questions:

1. Do men and women differ systematically in their perceptions of motivational climate in STEM courses?
2. Do gender differences appear consistently across multiple STEM courses?

Theoretical framework. Although we know that students vary in their perceptions of instruction (Lam et al., 2015), little research has investigated why this is the case. In alignment with broader situated views on motivation (Nolen, 2020), Eccles and Wigfield (2020) recently emphasized the interconnected roles of the environment, socializers, and personal identities in shaping student perceptions. Importantly, students’ interpretations of their experiences are presumed to act as the vital explanatory link between instructor behaviors and students’ motivational shifts. Women and men may perceive their environments differently, on average, due to gender role stereotypes in STEM, their own gender identities, and actual differential supports in the environment.

Method. Data was gathered in five university STEM courses during Fall 2020. At mid-semester, students answered questions about the motivational climate in their course including autonomy support (8 items, α=.891), instructor mastery goals (3 items, α=.868), connections to real life (5 items, α=.898), and instructor enthusiasm (7 items, α=.903). Students also reported on their expectancy for success (5 items, α=.850-.919) and interest value (5 items, α=.942-.944), and course grades were collected from the instructors.

Results. Structural equation modeling results indicated that overall, women tended to perceive higher motivational support in their STEM classes compared to men (Figure 1) and that perceived motivational supports predicted grades, expectancy for success, and interest value for the course material. However, within-course comparisons were quite heterogeneous (see Figure 2): men tended to report higher perceived motivational support in calculus, whereas women tended to report higher perceived motivational support in the two chemistry courses. The two computer science courses exhibited the fewest mean differences in perception across gender groups. There were no significant gender differences in autonomy support perceptions in four out of the five courses.

Significance. This paper presents the first evidence, to our knowledge, that gender explains at least some of the variation in students’ differential perceptions of the same environment. Importantly, gender differences were not uniform, but rather appeared to be a product of both the student and the situation. Findings also suggest that contexts specifically tailored to women, wherein women perceive higher motivational supports than men, may reduce gender-based motivation and achievement gaps.

Author

• Kristy A. Robinson, McGill University