Paper Summary

The Influence of Tutor Communication on Motivation: Controlling Versus Noncontrolling Language

Sun, April 15, 12:25 to 1:55pm, Pan Pacific, Floor: Restaurant Level, Pacific Rim 1

Abstract

1. Objectives
The way tutors communicate instructions can influence students’ motivation and performances. Student-centered learning environments, such as problem-based learning (PBL) are assumed to be intrinsically motivating (e.g., Black & Deci, 2000), because tutors have a guiding instead of a directive role. However, students do not always perceive the tutor as guiding their learning process (Hendry, Ryan, & Harris, 2003). It is therefore useful to examine the influence of tutor communication on student motivation.

2. Theoretical Framework
Small language changes can influence students’ motivation and learning (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Soenens, & Matos, 2005). Reading controlling instructions using words like “you must” resulted in lower scores on perceived autonomy and on a subsequent test compared to autonomy-supportive instructions, such as “you can” (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). In addition, when controlling instructions were formulated to increase guilt or pressure (e.g., “it is important for your own good”), performance became worse (Vansteenkiste et al., 2005).

3. Method
In an experiment tutor instructions were manipulated resulting in three conditions: (1) “can” for autonomy-supportive (2) “must” for externally controlling (3) “for your own good” for internally controlling. Students participated in a simulated video-based experimental design to control for the influence of group dynamics (see Van Blankenstein, Dolmans, Van der Vleuten, & Schmidt, 2011).

4. Data Sources and Materials
Ninety-three students participated. In contrast to previous studies we controlled for the influence of topic interest and prior motivation. Topic interest (Mason, Gava, & Boldrin, 2008) was measured before the experiment. Students’ autonomous (i.e., internal control and intrinsic motivation) and controlled motivation (i.e., feelings of internal or external pressure and shame; Vansteenkiste et al., 2004) were measured before and after the experiment.

5. Results and Conclusions
The influence of tutor communication on students’ motivation was limited, when controlling for interest and prior motivation. Tutor communication had a marginally significant effect on students’ controlled motivation after the experiment, in which the students in the “must” (M = 2.38, SD = .08) and “for your own good” condition (M = 2.38, SD = .08) experienced more pressure than the students in the “can” condition (M = 2.13, SD = .08), F (2, 88) = 2.91, p = .06, η² = .06 (medium effect size). However, tutor communication did not affect students’ autonomous motivation, F (2, 88) = 1.37, p = .26, η² = .03. Covariate topic interest influenced autonomous motivation, F (1, 88) = 52.68, p < .001, r = .63. Covariate prior motivation influenced controlled motivation, F (1, 88) = 39.20, p < .001, r = .60. These results suggest that the tutor’s influence in PBL seems less important than students’ topic interest and motivation.

6. Scientific Significance
This study shows that students’ topic interest and prior motivation has an important influence on students’ motivation to participate in tutorial meetings. Although, tutor’s influence on motivation seems to be minimal, the medium effect size for tutors on controlled motivation suggests that tutors’ communication can influence the amount of pressure students experience.

Authors