The proposed SDT motivational pathways model for informing teachers’
understanding of students’ engagement with learning activities (Figure 4.1) evolved from the three tentative claims to knowledge that emerged from the findings of the MER and the main study (see section 4.4). This has enabled a level of conceptual clarification with regards to the potential pathways between the different types of motivation that influence students’
engagement with learning. This, in turn, has led to the modification of the initial conceptual framework for the MER (Figure 2.3) to form the proposed conceptual framework (Figure 5.3). In addition, as a means of further exploring the findings common to the main study and MER, and as the basis of a more informed overall discussion of such findings, an online survey was conducted. This survey has explored the extent to which the three tentative claims were supported or refuted by the responses of the teacher- researcher’s former students. The survey was used to collect and analyse the perceptions of a much larger sample group than had been accessible during the main study.
5.1.1 The Methodology for the Online Survey
The survey was designed, distributed and analysed using Bristol Online Survey (http://www.survey.bris.ac.uk/) (see Appendix 5.1). The questions were based upon the claims and emergent findings, with wording being based upon two prior-validated SDT questionnaires: Perceived Autonomy Support: The Climate Questionnaire and the Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) [acquired from www.selfdeterminationtheory.org]. The questions and accompanying statements were all designed and tested (by means of a pilot study with a small group of former students) to ensure that they were phrased in such a way that they were not ambiguous, and that they enabled respondents to call upon their opinions through fact-
155
based answers. (The same principles of design and testing of surveys has been applied as in the main study). Questions and statements were included in order to determine:
1. The gender of the respondent;
2. The ranking of five classroom-based factors that respondents regarded as most important to their motivated engagement with learning within lessons, with 1 being ranked as most
important and 5 as the least important;
3. The ranking of five teacher behaviours and perceived teacher behaviours, with 1 being ranked as most important and 6 as the least important;
4. Using a four-point Likert scale, respondents were asked to indicate the strength with which they agreed or disagreed with 5 statements in relation to their own learning and perceptions when they were being taught by a teacher they regarded as motivating their engagement with learning;
5. The ranking of four aspects of teachers’ behaviours and methods were most important to their involvement as an engaged learner during lessons perceived as motivating, with 1 being ranked as most important and 4 as the least important;
6. Using a four-point Likert scale, respondents were asked to indicate the strength with which respondents agreed or disagreed with 10 statements in relation to the factors that informed the perceived quality of the teacher-student relationship, and;
7. Deciding upon the motivational pathway in order of influence, in terms of how each of the psychosocial variables (SDT-related) led to another as the basis for respondents’ motivated engagement with learning. (For example, if the teacher-student relationship led to a
respondent feeling competent and this, in turn, led to feeling more competent or willing to direct their own learning, s/he was asked to rank the statements as 1,2,3).
Participants were recruited by convenience sampling, in that the chosen audience for the online survey were the teacher-researcher’s former students aged 18+ at the time of the survey being made available, of whom he had regular access to approximately 400 through regular e-mail contact and social media. As the former students were all aged 18 or over, they implicitly gave their informed consent by participating in the survey online. Clearly, there is the issue of obvious bias to be considered when one is calling upon former students to reflect upon the positive aspects of teachers’ behaviours. However, this has been addressed by ensuring that the identities of the former students were not known to the researcher and that the participants were not required to name the teacher they were reflecting upon whilst
156
responding to the survey. The survey drew upon their self-reported perceptions within their schooling in general as opposed to within a specific subject, i.e. science.
The Likert scales in questions 4 and 6 enable one of four responses – Strongly Agree, Agree. Disagree and Strongly Disagree. The use of questionnaires in the main study revealed the difficulties of including the midpoint response ‘Neither Agree nor Disagree’ (on a 5-point Likert scale) in that, whilst it allows the respondent to provide a neutral answer it is also ambiguous as a response in that the researcher does not gain an insight as to whether the respondent was skewed more to the Agree or the Disagree side of the scale (Tsang, 2012). The inclusion of the midpoint within the main study questionnaires gave students an opportunity to remain neutral and / or non-committal in their responses. That is, it gave respondents the opportunity to choose a neutral stance when they either cannot or do not wish to make a commitment to one end of the Likert scale or the other. This neutrality can skew both the reliability and validity of the overall responses in terms of ambiguity. However, omitting the midpoint does not necessarily impact upon the internal consistency of the survey (Weems and Onwuegbuzie, 2001) but it does enable greater clarity in that participants are required to choose either a more positive or more negative direction within each of their responses (Tsang, 2012).
The use of a survey, whether electronic, face-to-face or administered by another means, presents its own advantages and limitations (as discussed in Chapter 3). The advantages of an online survey are that the survey may be distributed quickly and easily to the target sample populations, and reminders may be sent on a regular basis whilst the survey is available online; the responses can remain closed in terms of the range of answers
available, thereby enabling a focus upon testing specific claims to knowledge; responses can include rankings, Likert scales, and ‘yes’ or ‘no’ choices; access is available to a much larger population than one might necessarily have access to face-to face, and; the anonymity of the respondents is assured as they were only asked to indicate their gender. (However, given the focus of the two research questions (Section 1.1), it should be noted that there has not been a specific focus upon gender within the results)). Limitations of an online survey include the need to decide upon the questions and, with Likert scale and multiple-choice questions, the range of answers and / or choices. That is, if the same online survey was used for further research there would be space for respondents to suggest other options if they disagreed with or wished to reject such options. In addition, there would spaces for free responses as the basis for gaining more reflective insights. A further limitation, as discussed in Chapter 3, is that the use of a survey does not enable the exploration of former students’ responses on the
157
basis of the perceptions and experience-informed interpretations of the engaging or
disengaging nature of their learning environment (Cohen et al., 2007). However, this was not a major limitation in the case of this study as the objective was to test the three claims and use the 14 across-study findings as a further means of evolving the proposed SDT
motivational pathway model (see Figures 4.1 and 5.2). The objective of this model is to provide a potential insight into the cognitive and affective impacts of the three SDT basic needs and motivational responses upon students’ engagement with learning, which may be tested through further in-school research (see Section 6.4).
5.1.2 Results
Question 1
There were 191 completed surveys: 84 male (44 %) and 107 female (56 %) respondents. The response rate, based upon a target sample population of 400, was 48 %.
Question 2
Which classroom-based factors were most important to your motivated engagement with learning within lessons led by your chosen teacher? Please rank the following in order of importance (with 1 being the most important and 5 being the least important).
The evidence revealed that with regards to students’ engagement to learning, the most important motivational variables were the teacher-student relationship quality and the
positive feedback that teachers gave, together with the impact that these have upon students’ self-efficacy. On the basis of the 191 responses, the ranking for the factors which act as the perceived motivators of engagement with learning were revealed as:
1. A positive relationship with the teacher;
2. Positive feedback from teachers about students’ achievement / performance; 3. Feeling positive about the ability to make further progress;
4. The need to decide how different concepts are learnt; 5. The need to decide what was being learnt.
158 Table 5.1 Responses to online survey Question 2
CLASSROOM-BASED FACTOR and ranking
1 2 3 4 5
Positive relationship with the teacher 107 (56%) 32 (16.8%) 33 (17.3%) 8 (4.2%) 11 (5.8%) Positive feedback about your achievement /
performance 26 (13.6%) 86 (45%) 63 (33%) 10 (5.2%) 6 (3.1%) Feeling positive about your ability to make
further progress 39 (20.4%) 56 (29.3%) 78 (40.8%) 11 (5.8%) 7 (3.7%) The need to decide what you learnt 12
(6.3%) 6 (3.1%) 13 (6.8%) 68 (35.6%) 92 (48.2%) The need to decide how you learnt different
concepts 7 (3.7%) 11 (5.8%) 4 (2.1%) 94 (49.2%) 75 (39.3%) Question 3
The ranking of five teacher behaviours and perceived teacher behaviours, with 1 being ranked as most important and 6 as the least important.
The results revealed that with regards to students’ perceived competence and enhanced academic self-concept, the need to perceive competence was more important than the need to exercise autonomy during learning. On the basis of 191 responses, the order of ranking for the teacher behaviours and perceived teacher behaviours which act as the perceived motivators of engagement with learning were revealed as:
1. My teacher conveyed confidence in my ability to do well in the lesson / subject; 2. My teacher made sure I really understood what I needed to do to improve; 3. I felt understood by my teacher;
4. My teacher encouraged me to ask questions; 5. The teacher provided me with choices and options;
159 Table 5.2 Responses to online survey Question 3
TEACHER BEHAVIOUR /