Leading view papers – Days 1 to 7

Problem Based Learning: can it improve student motivation?

 

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of using a Problem Based Learning (PBL) approach on student motivation. Two year 9 Information and Communications Technology classes (students aged 14 to 15 years) were taught using different mixes of traditional teacher-centred instruction and PBL. The students (48 in total) completed the Student Motivation Scale (SMS, Martin 2001) three times throughout the year (terms 1, 2 and 4) and the results were analysed to compare student responses. Students reported an improvement in their ‘motivation boosters’ and a decrease in three out of four ‘motivation guzzlers’ when they changed from a traditional teaching approach to a PBL approach.

Introduction

Educational research advocates the benefits of co-operative learning environments that encourage groups of students to  work together to achieve a common goal, by observing each other, actively participating and contributing to the group (Webb, 1989), developing communication skills, showing leadership, and solving conflicts. These groups enable the adolescents to interact with others and share their ideas outside of their friendship group, hence ‘improving their liking for school and self-esteem, increasing their belief that they can learn from other students and decreasing their feelings of competitiveness’ (McManus & Aitken, 1996).

There is also a gradual shift from a teacher-centred to a more student-centred approach, where students are encouraged to rely less on the teacher and be responsible for their own learning (Victorian Curriculum Reform, 2004). The Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS) express the goal that students develop their personal and interpersonal skills so that they can become independent, lifelong learners. This is supported by Principals of Learning and Teaching No. 2, that is, ‘The learning environment promotes independence, interdependence and self motivation’ (Victorian Department of Education and Training).

Tomlinson (2004) suggests that students should be involved in decision-making about what and how they learn and should be encouraged to take responsibility for their learning.

PBL is a cooperative learning strategy in which students confront open-ended, ‘authentic ’  (Stepien & Gallagher, 1993 ), ill-structured real world problems and strive to find meaningful solutions (Rhem, 1996). Students work in small groups, acting as professional teams to define the problem, using appropriate learning resources, determining solutions, analysing different alternatives, evaluating data, and developing and justifying their choice of solution. The problems should develop student independence and enhance self-esteem through positive interaction with their peers (Heaven, 1994, Duch, 1996b). This allows students to think together to find a solution, build upon previous knowledge, adapt their knowledge into a variety of situations and develop social skills (Duch, 1996a; Jones, 1996, Rhem, 1996).

Information technology can be used as an authentic tool in PBL to aid students in their research, collation, evaluation and presentation.

In PBL, the teacher does not provide ‘the facts’. Teachers negotiate with students and help them to set goals, time lines, assessment criteria or specific skills that they or their team might need. They:

• encourage students to explore multiple possibilities challenge students’ thinking
• help the students to persevere through difficult times and manage workloads
• encourage students to present their best solution.

PBL empowers students to be part of a constructive group through which, it is hoped, they will develop a sense of self-worth as they encourage each other to focus on the skills that they have, share this knowledge with others, and focus on improvement.

Motivation, which was defined by Martin (2001) as the ‘students’ energy and drive to learn and work hard at school’, requires an environment that allows students to make choices, work with peers and exercise responsibility (Cooper & McCaslin, 2006; Boekaerts, 2001; Hanoch & Siccone, 2001). Martin suggests that, from a practical point of view, we can view motivation as thoughts and behaviours that either enhance motivation - ‘boosters ‘ -  or reduce motivation – ‘guzzlers’.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the introduction of PBL into year 9 Information and Communications Technology classes on student motivation, as measured by the Student Motivation Scale developed by Martin (Martin 2001).

Methodology

All 48 students (12 girls and 36 boys) in two year 9 Information and Communications Technology classes participated in this study. During terms 1, 2 and 3, the classes were taught using either a teacher-centred approach or PBL. In term 4, students were able to choose either of these approaches (see Table 1). In term 4, all students chose PBL.

Table 1: Class size and teaching approach for each term for the school year.

*Note: The Student Motivation Scale questionnaire (Martin 2001) was completed by students at the end of terms 1, 2, and 4.

The Student Motivation Scale (SMS) used to survey students was developed and used by AJ Martin Research and has undergone confirmatory factor analysis (Martin, 2001 ). The questionnaire is a series of statements that students respond to, using a Likert scale, indicating that they ‘disagree strongly’ through to ‘agree strongly’.

The statements on the SMS are grouped into clusters that represent 10 facets of motivation; six ‘motivation boosters’ and four ‘motivation guzzlers’ (Martin, 2002 ), that are suggested as being important thoughts and behaviours influencing students’ motivation to learn. The six motivation boosters are:

• self belief
• value of schooling
• learning focus
• planning and monitoring
• study management
• persistence.

The four motivation guzzlers are:

• anxiety
• low control
• avoidance
• self-sabotage.

Each cluster on the SMS had four statements related to it that were randomly distributed on the questionnaire form, so that statements for one cluster were not arranged together and there was no pattern to the arrangement of statements. There were no negatively worded items.

The questionnaire forms were designed to be answered individually and were distributed during normal Information and Communications Technology classes at the end of terms 1, 2 and 4. If a student was absent on the day the questionnaire was completed, then they were asked to complete it during the next class. Students were told that the researcher was interested in their ideas on Information and Communications Technology classes and asked to complete the questionnaires individually, not in consultation with other students. Questionnaires were collected as they were completed.

Analysis of questionnaires

Scores were determined for each item, as defined by the SMS and data were analysed using Microsoft Excel. The raw scores were added, so that each student ended up with a score for each item and a score for each cluster. Each cluster had a possible score of 28. This score was converted to a percentage.

Statement means were graphed, and data was analysed using Mann-Whitney non-parametric statistics (using Microsoft Excel and SPSS) to compare the results of Group 1 and Group 2 students for each motivation cluster.

From the pattern of student responses, using the seven-point Likert scale, it was evident that some students used the whole scale, while others did not use the extreme values at all. There was no certainty that ‘strongly agree’ through to ‘strongly disagree’ meant the same thing for all students. Hence, the Likert scale was consolidated to three points: ‘agree’, ‘uncertain’, ‘disagree’ and these were used to determine the percentage of students in each category.

Results: Motivation boosters

Figure1: Comparison of motivation booster means: term 1

At the beginning of the study the means were analysed (Figure 1).  There were no statistically significant differences between the two student populations, Group 1 and Group 2, for any of the motivation boosters. 

Figure 2: Comparison of motivation booster means: terms 1, 2 & 4

The SMS was repeated, for all students, at the end of term two, after PBL had been used for Group 2 for one term and Group 1 students had had traditional teaching. Motivation boosters for both groups showed an increase in overall mean and percentage of positive responses at the end of term two. However, Group 2 students showed a greater positive response than for Group-1 students (Figure 2).

The SMS was repeated again, for all students, at the end of term four, after PBL had been used for Group 1 for two terms and Group 2 for three terms. Motivation boosters for Group 1 continued to show an increase in overall mean and percentage of positive responses and reached the level shown by Group 2 at the end of term two (Figure 2). Group 2 students continued to show an increase in positive responses but they were smaller than those recorded during term two (Figure 2).

For Group 1 (PBL approach in term 3 and 4), the largest increase for the mean occurred between terms 2 and 4, and for Group 2 (PBL approach used in terms 2, 3 and 4) the largest increase occurred between terms 1 and 2. Hence, for both groups, the largest increase in the mean values of motivation boosters occurred after the introduction of PBL.

Group 1, which had continued with the teacher-centred classroom, had no statistically significant shifts in any of the booster clusters, or their component statements, between terms 1 and 2. However, Group 1 recorded statistically significant increases (0.05 level) for Self Belief and Study Management over the year

Between terms 1 and 2, Group 2 had statistically significant increases at the 0.05 level, in three out of the six motivation boosters: Self Belief, Value of Schooling, and Learning Focus. The trend of increased positive outlook for these items continued throughout the year and resulted in significance figures at 0.001 level by the end of term 4. For Self Belief, Value of Schooling, and Learning Focus, the significant shift in opinion occurred across all component statements. However, for Value of Schooling and Learning Focus, the boys were shown to have a more significant influence on this focus than the girls.

Group 2 students also recorded a significant shift in opinion for Planning and Monitoring at the 0.05 level, by the end of the year. The shift in behaviour for these focus areas came about because of significant improvement in the boys’ responses towards planning an assignment before starting it (statement 24); studying in a place where they could concentrate (statement 3); persisting with schoolwork that they did not understand (statement 1) and difficult homework (statement 8).

Overall summary of results for motivation guzzlers

Figure 3: Comparison of motivation guzzler means: term 1

Comparing the initial responses for Group 1 and Group 2 students for motivation guzzler items (Figure 3), it can be seen that the two populations were not similar at the start of the study and, for Avoidance, the populations are shown to be significantly dissimilar, at the 0.005 level . For all motivation guzzlers, Group 1 showed the more positive responses with lower levels of Anxiety, Low Control, Avoidance and Self Sabotage. 

Figure 4: Comparison of motivation booster means: term 1

Group 1 had very little change in responses between terms 1 and 2 or terms 1 and 4 (Figure 4). There is no clear pattern in improvement of responses, that is, a decrease in scores of these motivation guzzlers, for either girls or boys.

For all motivation guzzler items for Group 2, there was an increase in positive responses (decrease in values) throughout the year (Figure 4). The largest decrease for the mean occurred between terms 1 and 2 for Anxiety, Low Control, and Avoidance. However, for Self Sabotage, the largest decrease for the mean occurred between terms 2 and 4. Hence, for Group 2, the largest decrease in the mean values occurred after the introduction of PBL for all guzzlers but  it took longer to decrease scores for Self Sabotage.

Group 2 had statistically significant decreases in item values between terms 1 and 2 for Low Control (p=0.036) and Avoidance (p=0.001). The trend of increased positive outlook for these items continued throughout the rest of the year and resulted in significance figures of p=0.002. For Group 2 students, the mean scores for Anxiety, and Self Sabotage both showed an increase in positive responses, but this was only statistically significant for Self Sabotage (p=0.006), where girls appear to have shifted their opinion slightly more than the boys.

From these results, PBL appears to give some students a sense of control over their learning and helps to reduce their avoidance of learning. It also appears that, in this study, the longer the PBL was used, the more likely motivation guzzlers are to be reduced.

Discussion

From these results, it appears that, for this group of students, motivational boosters may improve over the year with, or without, the introduction of PBL, but that the introduction of PBL can facilitate improvements in these areas. It appears that by requiring students to work in small groups and work on real problems that are of interest to them, they are able to build their self-belief and realise their ability to work together to do the work. At year 9, ‘learners begin to see themselves as young adults’ (VELS, 2005, p.7), Hence, working on real problems may also contribute to the students’ belief that what they learn at school has value for their lives and so improves their perceptions of school and their ability to persist.

‘Motivation is a cooperative venture’ (McCarty & Siccone, 2001) and takes time to establish. These results also suggest that the longer students use PBL, the more positive effects are seen. However, starting PBL earlier in the year appears to be more beneficial than waiting until later on. It is possible that, early in the year, when students are adjusting to a new subject and teacher, the introduction of PBL is just seen as part of that adjustment. However, by running a teacher-centred classroom for first semester and then changing to PBL, some of the benefits may be masked by the uncertainty that is caused by change.

For motivational guzzlers, it would appear that it is essential to address these areas as early as possible. It can be seen that when PBL is introduced early in the year, all guzzlers were reduced. However, when PBL was introduced later in the year, there was a reduced and inconsistent reduction of motivational guzzlers. This may indicate that guzzlers, once established, are more difficult to change and the change in teaching method later in the year, although positive, may be counteracted to some degree by the change process.

Conclusions

These results suggest that PBL can be used to increase student motivation by improving the boosters that support student motivation, particularly Self Belief, Value of Schooling, Learning Focus and Planning and Monitoring. PBL may also assist improvement of student motivation by decreasing the guzzlers that work against positive motivation. However, these results show that reduction in guzzlers only occurred for some students and that these reductions may take early intervention and a longer time to establish than for boosters.

References

Boekaerts, M ( 2001). ‘Context sensitivity: activated motivational beliefs, current concerns and emotional arousal’. In Volet, Simone & Järvela, Sanna (Eds) Motivation in learning contexts: theoretical advances and methodological implications. Pergamon: Amsterdam.
Cooper, J & McCaslin, M (2006). An educator’s guide to student motivation. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston.
Department of Education and Training (2006). Student learning: professional learning package. CD. Melbourne.
Duch, B (1996a). ‘About teaching #50’. Retrieved 18 April 2001 from World Wide Web: www.udel.edu
Duch, B (1996b). ‘Problems: A key factor in PBL’. Retrieved 18 April 2001 from World Wide Web: www.udel.edu
Heaven, P (1994). Contemporary adolescence. A social psychological approach. South Melbourne: MacMillan Education Australia.
Jones, D (1996). ‘What is PBL?’ Retrieved 21 August  2001 from World Wide Web: http://edweb.sdsu.edu
Martin, AJ (2001). Student motivation scale. Martin Research NSW.
McCarty, H & Siccone, F (2001). Motivating your students. Allyn & Bacon: Boston.
McManus, MM & Aitken, RM (1996). ‘Teaching collaborative skills with a group lead computer tutor’. In Education and information technologies. 1:75-96.
Rhem, J (1996). ‘Problem Based Learning: an introduction’. Retrieved 24 July 2001 from World Wide Web: www.ntlf.com
Tomlinson, CA (2004). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Hawker Brownlow Education Australia.
Victorian Essential Learning Standards: level 6 (2005). Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, East Melbourne.
Victorian Curriculum Reform 2004, Consultation paper. A framework of ‘essential learning’. See: www.vcaa.vic.edu.au
Webb, NM (1989). ‘Peer interaction and learning in small groups’. International journal of international research. 13(1):21-39.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Dianne Chambers is Assistant Dean (Learning Technologies) with the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne, in Victoria, Australia. Dr Chambers teaches in the area of IT in education in early childhood, primary, secondary and adult education. Research areas include IT in teacher education and professional development, online education (including online testing) and technology-enriched problem-based learning.
Ms Janet Di Pilla is an experienced secondary school teacher in the areas of science and ICT. She is currently undertaking her Doctor of Education through the University of Melbourne. This paper has been drawn from data gathered as part of the research for her doctoral thesis.

 

 Go to top of page      Go to online discussion       Go to Leading views menu