journal of management education 2011 mcevoy 468 503

http://jme.sagepub.com/Education

Journal of Management

http://jme.sagepub.com/content/35/4/468The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1052562911408098May 2011 2011 35: 468 originally published online 11Journal of Management Education

Glenn M. McEvoyClasses

Increasing Intrinsic Motivation to Learn in Organizational Behavior

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators

can be found at:Journal of Management EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jme.sagepub.com/content/35/4/468.refs.htmlCitations:

at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on August 30, 2012jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from

What is This?

- May 11, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jun 23, 2011Version of Record >>


Journal of Management Education35(4) 468 503

The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1052562911408098http://jme.sagepub.com

408098 JME35410.1177/1052562911408098McEvoyJournal of Management Education The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

Corresponding Author:Glenn M. McEvoy, Department of Management, Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, 3555 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-3555, USA Email: [email protected]

Increasing Intrinsic Motivation to Learn in Organizational Behavior Classes

Glenn M. McEvoy1

Abstract

This article describes my experiences redesigning a masters-level organizational behavior (OB) course. The course was delivered to two different audiencesMBA and MS-HR studentstwo different times. The redesign employed several unique features designed to increase and enhance student intrinsic interest in the subject matter. Two measures of intrinsic motivation were col-lected along with measures of perceived usefulness of the OB course content, student satisfaction, and student learning. Also, follow-up focus groups were conducted with a subset of the students after the courses were over to gain insight on student reactions. Results provide partial support for the notion that MS-HR students were more intrinsically interested in the subject mat-ter of the course than were MBA students, but outcomes with satisfaction, perceived usefulness, and student learning were mixed. Results are discussed in terms of which specific aspects of the course redesign seemed more effective at eliciting student interest and motivation and which proved prob-lematic. Implications for both teaching and research are provided.

Keywords

intrinsic interest, student motivation, organizational behavior, MBA education


McEvoy 469

I have been teaching the topic of organizational behavior (OB) for more than 35 years. The subject is my first love, one I remain as passionate about today as when I first discovered OB was a real academic discipline back in the early 1970s (I was an engineer then, so, perhaps can be forgiven for my igno-rance!). And even though I steel myself every Fall Semester for the inevitable disappointment, I continue to be frustrated anew every year when I discover that not all my students share the same passion and interest in OB that I have. A recent sabbatical leave occasioned the opportunity to think more deeply about this perceived lack of student interest in the topic of organizational behavior; the musings that follow are the result of that investigation.

I am not the first academic to comment on this issue (see, e.g., Rynes, Trank, Lawson, & Ilies, 2003). Others have noted that there seems to be a persistent problem with student motivation in the college classroom in gen-eral (e.g., Debnath, Tandon, & Pointer, 2007). In this journal and its prede-cessor (Organizational Behavior Teaching Review), there have been, over the years, a smattering of articles related to the topics of student interest and motivation (e.g., Hiller & Hietapelto, 2001; Levy, 2007; Robbins, 1988; Vaill, 2007).

Some have suggested the problem is with grades and grading (e.g., Edwards & Edwards, 1999; Levy, 2007; Van Seters & Field, 1989). Hiller and Hietapelto (2001), for example, noted that students too often assume a performance ori-entation rather than a mastery orientation in class. In the former case, stu-dents focus not on learning but on earning the grades that will allow them to maintain their images of competence (p. 661). Students with a mastery orien-tation, on the other hand, are more intrinsically motivated and more interested in what they learn. Others suggest that classroom activities and approaches need to be targeted at preexisting student interests to get them intrinsically involved and motivated (Levy, 2007) or that we need a better balance of theory and practice in order to demonstrate the relevance of our subject to students (Vaill, 2007). Debnath et al. (2007) suggested designing classroom approaches that increase intrinsic motivation by using the lessons from the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). The common thread in these articles is that student motivation and interest is low, and we need to take a different approach if we are to enhance student intrinsic involvement and commitment to our subjects, particularly organizational behavior.

ThePeculiarCaseofOrganizationalBehaviorInterestingly, surveys of employers typically find that soft skills such as communication, leadership, interpersonal, and team skills (behavioral skills)


470 JournalofManagementEducation 35(4)

are rated as very important in the evaluation of job candidates, and, in par-ticular, in the decision to hire recent college graduates (e.g., Alsop, 2004, Cappelli, 1995; Merritt, 2004; Porter & McKibbon, 1988). Such preferences for soft skills would seemingly elevate the importance of OB classes in college programs, but both students and recruiters (not to mention our col-leagues in finance, marketing, operations, and accounting) seem perennially skeptical about the value and applicability of OB courses (Rynes & Trank, 1999; Van Seters & Field, 1989).

For illustration purposes, consider a recent study by Rynes et al. (2003). They found that although recruiters say they want to hire for behavioral skills, they often hire students who have technical specialties in their MBAs rather than those who have taken more organization behavior or general man-agement courses. There are several possible explanations for this difference between what recruiters say they want versus what they really hire. One pos-sible explanation is that although recruiters may genuinely want to hire grad-uates with good behavioral skills, they may be unconvinced that graduate schools are up to the task of actually developing these skills. Many scholars over the years have expressed the view that genuinely changing communica-tion and interpersonal approaches of adults is extraordinarily difficult, pri-marily because these approaches are deeply embedded in the behavioral and habitual repertoires of individuals and have been practiced over the course of a lifetime (e.g., McGregor, 1960). Compared with changing someones com-puter skills or knowledge of quantitative techniques, for example, changing behavioral skills is potentially much more difficult.

Rynes et al. (2003) suggested that the credibility gap in OB courses in business schools might be reduced by systematically evaluating and improv-ing the quality of those courses. As part of this process, they recommended comparing and contrasting the relative effectiveness of different pedagogical approaches with imparting behavioral knowledge and skills to students. The exploration reported in this article represents movement in that direction.

BackgroundTwo years ago I decided to undertake a thorough redesign of the masters-level OB course that I teach each Fall Semester. I teach basically the same course to two different audiences: MBA students and students in our MS-Human Resources (HR) program. It has been my general experience over the years that the course evaluations are lower for the MBAs than for the MS-HR students. (My historical average in the MBA class is 5.0 on a 6-point scale; for the MS-HR class it is 5.4.) My working hypothesis had


McEvoy 471

always been that students pursuing a career in human resources might be more intrinsically interested in the subject matter of OB, and that this differ-ence in interest might account for the differences in student course ratings. In my course redesign, I wanted to make the course as intrinsically interest-ing and motivating as possible to all students and then measure the differ-ences in outcomes and reactions from the two different student audiences.

InterestandIntrinsicMotivationThere is a plethora of evidence that high student interest is related to positive student learning outcomes (Bergin, 1999; Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996; Hidi, 1990; Schiefele, 1991, 1996). Perhaps, Dewey (1913) is the genesis of the interest in the topic of student interest among educational psychologists. Dewey speculated that external attempts to make a subject interesting would lead only to compliance and temporary effort (motivation) whereas genuine internal interest would lead to internalization and identifi-cation with the material. In a series of experiments, Schiefele (1991) found that interest was strongly correlated to time and effort invested in learning, and that highly interested students spent more time in elaboration, critical thinking, and seeking additional information whereas uninterested students spent more time in rehearsal (memorizing). In summarizing the results of his research, Schiefele argued that the causal chain he observed was as fol-lows: Interest in a subject leads to an intrinsic motivational orientation for learning, which in turn leads to specific learning strategies (such as elabora-tion, critical thinking, etc.), which, finally, lead to learning depth and com-prehension. Other research supports this basic causal chain from interest to intrinsic motivation to learning outcomes (Weber & Patterson, 2000; Young, 2005).

There is discouraging evidence that business majors may be less inter-ested in the content of their subject matter than other students. For instance, DeMarie and Aloise-Young (2003) found that business majors, when com-pared with education majors, were significantly less likely to say they chose their major because of interest in the area or interest in the classes and significantly more likely to say they picked their major because it would help them find a job easily and lead to a high salary. This suggests more exter-nal motivation than internal motivation for business majors.

There is also evidence that student motivationparticularly intrinsic motivationis related to important learning outcomes (Love, Love, & Northcraft, 2010; Svinicki, 1998) and that it may have a greater influence on learning than even cognitive skills (Lepper & Chabay, 1985). In a study of



grade-school students, Lepper, Corpus, and Iyengar (2005) found that intrinsic motivation to learn dropped steadily between third and eighth grades. The drop was dramatic enough that the authors characterized eighth graders as having disturbingly low levels of motivation (p. 184). Lepper et al. (2005) also found that extrinsic motivation to learn remained relatively stable during these 6 years, but that it was negatively related to both grades and standard-ized test scores. A positive correlation between intrinsic motivation and course grades and no correlation between extrinsic motivation and course grades has also been observed among college students (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993).

Intrinsic motivation to learn is important. Such motivation increases free-choice persistence in learning and self-reports of interest in the subject (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). There is also some evidence that intrinsically moti-vated students become more fully dedicated and more genuinely engaged in the materials to be learned (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004), and that they report a greater sense of well-being and psychological health (Deci et al., 1999).

RedesigningtheOrganizationalBehaviorCoursePrior to 2008, I used a relatively standard approach to teaching OB to graduate students. I used a text and some supplemental readings, and had developed an extensive set of discussion questions that went with the read-ings. Class periods consisted of asking students to reflect on discussion ques-tions and relate the materials to their own experiences. I also used a set of experiential exercises to gain class involvement. Finally, there were four cases that students read and we discussed in class. All four were organiza-tions that were experiencing serious problems with their human resources. Students were evaluated using both a learnings paper to summarize key take-aways from readings, class discussions, and experiential exercises, and an in-class open-book case analysis to assess their ability to apply course concepts to a real situation. My course evaluations had always been pretty good (see above), but I was dissatisfied with the level of involvement I sensed in these classes and hoped to improve it.

In the course redesign, I relied heavily on a widely cited book that reports best practices on teaching at the college level (Bain, 2004). This book reports the results of research that has been conducted over the years on deep learning in college classes. Evidence suggests that students who study only to get a good grade do not achieve as much as those who learn because they are intrinsically interested in the topic. They do not think as critically,


McEvoy 473

analyze problems as thoroughly, reason as logically, or synthesize data and information as systematically. Extrinsically motivated students usually opt for easier problems whereas those with intrinsic motivation will seek out more challenging tasks, display greater innovation and creativity, take rea-sonable intellectual risks, make fewer errors, and perform better under diffi-cult conditions (Edwards & Edwards, 1999; Lepper, 1988; Pittman, Emery, & Boggiano, 1982). Students may become what some have called strategic learners, focusing primarily on doing well (i.e., getting good grades) in school, avoiding challenges that would be uncomfortable or potentially dam-aging to their academic reputations, and, thus, often fail to develop deep and real understanding of the subject matter of their courses. To avoid this problem, according to Bain (2004), the literature on best practices in college class-rooms suggests the following strategies for instructors:

Create an environment where students: (a) learn by confronting intriguing and important problems, engage in authentic tasks, and examine their own mental models of realitytry to force students into a significant emotional event where they disprove their own theories-in-use (p. 18) and (b) feel a sense of control over their education, work collaboratively with others, and receive feedback in advance of any summative judgment of their learning (p. 18)

Make examinations comprehensive, giving students multiple oppor-tunities to demonstrate competence (p. 36)

Help students keep the larger questions of the course constantly in the forefront (p. 38)

Teach students how to read the materialfor example, how to examine and analyze a book before they read it (p. 88)

Expect and assess both intellectual and personal development (pp. 189-190): (a) intellectual developmentunderstanding a sizeable body of material; learning how to learn, to reason from evi-dence, to employ abstract concepts, to engage in conversations about that thinking (including the capacity to write about it), and to ask sophisticated questions and (b) personal developmentunderstanding ones self (ones history, emotions, dispositions, abilities, insights, limitations, prejudices, assumptions) and what it means to be human, the development of a sense of responsibility to ones self and others, the capacity to exercise compassion, and the ability to understand and use ones emotions.



In addition to Bains (2004) book, I relied on other sources as I thought about how to redesign my courses to increase intrinsic motivation. An impor-tant second source was an area in cognitive psychology known as cognitive evaluation theory (CET). The most widely cited proponent of this theory is Edward Deci (e.g., Deci et al., 1999; Gagne & Deci, 2005). In a nutshell, the theory explains why three decades of research has demonstrated that intrinsic motivation may be seriously undermined by extrinsic rewards. That is, when extrinsics are offered up as rewards for doing something that a person was originally intrinsically motivated to do, the person loses interest in the task and must be further coerced through the use of more extrinsics to continue to engage in the task over time.

From Deci et al.s (1999) work on CET, I noted the following:

As with Bain (2004), real learning occurs when students are genuinely and intrinsically interested in solving a problem.

In terms of the extent of undermining, CET predicts that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation most when a subject receives less than the maximal reward possible (e.g., if one receives any grade lower than A).

Finally, I reviewed other research on intrinsic motivation in learning. For example, Bergin (1999) argued that interest in the subject matter could be enhanced by including hands-on activities, increasing novelty and narrative, and helping students see the relevance of the material to their own situations. Lepper (1988) offered 4Cs for enhanced student intrinsic motivation: con-trol, challenge, curiosity, and contextualization. Young (2005) argued that intrinsic motivation could be increased by using application-oriented exer-cises, high interaction, supportive feedback, and clear goals that emphasized learning over grades. Last, Hiller and Hietapelto (2001) argued for more student voice in the evaluation process as a way to increase intrinsic motivation.

The flow presented in Figure 1 shows how this course redesign was envisioned.

Specific changes in the OB course that were designed to be responsive to prior research on intrinsic motivation are summarized in Table 1. Details on some of these design features are provided in Appendix A.

In summary, my interest in undertaking this study was to attempt to enhance the intrinsic interest of students in my OB courses, determineif


McEvoy 475

possiblewhich features of a major course redesign contributed to increasing intrinsic interest, and to assess differences in intrinsic motivation that might be present in MBA students compared with MS-HR students.

MethodThe course redesign was first implemented in both an MBA class and MS-HR class in Fall 2008. The sample for this study was the four classes I taught in Fall 2008 and Fall 2009. In Fall 2008, there were 35 students in the MBA class (30 males) and 13 in the MS-HR class (7 males). In Fall 2009, there were 48 students in the MBA class (36 males) and 25 in the MS-HR class (15 males). Entry requirements into all graduate programs in my col-lege are the same, and the GMAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of MBA and MS-HR students are comparable. The average age for students in both programs is 28 years. All four classes met for 3-hour blocks on a semester schedule (15 class periods) and all four met in the afternoons. In Fall 2008,

Ken Bain (2004): What the Best College Teachers

Do

Deci et al. (1999) Bergin (1999) Lepper (1988) Young (2005)

Hiller & Hietapelto (2001)

Significant Changes in Graduate Organization Behavior Courses (2)

Student Reactions to 1st Redesign

Changes in MBA Version of the Course

Student Reactions to 2nd Redesign

Figure 1. Model of course redesign



I taught both classes in basically the same manner; in Fall 2009, I taught the MS-HR class the same way as in Fall 2008 but made several changes for the MBA class based on feedback that will be discussed below.

Several different types of measures were used in this study. Measures were developed using adaptations of the Intrinsic Value subscale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire or MSLQ (Pintrich &

Table 1. Organization Behavior Course Redesign: Major Featuresa

1. On Day 1 add an exercise to show how graduate students should read a textbook, another to determine student expectations of instructor; assign students to permanent learning partnerships; identify and communicate six major course themes (a, c, e)

2. Incorporate current, stimulating, fun readings (HarvardBusinessReview, Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, 2005) to challenge assumptions and theories-in-use, and to highlight subject relevance (a, c, d)

3. Incorporate casespositive and negativethroughoutb (a, c, d, e) 4. Require significant self-reflection. Submit a self-awareness diary that

summarizes major self-insights gained in the course and what students should do differently going forward now that they have gained that insight. Students are in control of what they learn about themselves and the importance of personal development is stressed throughout the course, including on the first day (a, b, e)

5. Require a group learning project on a self-chosen OB topic of interest and teach the rest of the class what was learned. Groups have complete autonomy in topic selection as long as the topic is OB-related (a, b, c, d, e)

6. In partnerships, occasionally present one-page summaries of portions of the assigned text (a, b, d)

7. Student participation in helping the instructor design learning assessments through the Advisory Committee on Student Assessment or ACSA. A complete description of the ACSA process is given in Appendix A, but, in short, it is an attempt to provide student volunteers a voice in the design of learning evaluation methods (b, c, f)

8. Early assessments of learning count much less than later (comprehensive) ones, so low-risk feedback occurs early in the course (at 10%, 20%, and 30%) (a, e)

a After each course redesign feature, the major theoretical and research underpinnings that support this revision are identified using the following key: a = Bain (2004), b = Deci et al. (1999), c = Bergin (1999), d = Lepper (1988), e = Young (2005), and f = Hiller and Hietapelto (2001).bConsistent with prior research on increasing intrinsic interest, cases are a hands-on activity that increase novelty and challenge while demonstrating the relevance of the course materials to students. One student, on the course evaluations, referred to the SAS case as life changingI never really understood how the way you treat people can make that much of a difference to organization success. My earlier courses also had cases, but they were all negative examples (unlike SAS) showing organizations with significant human resource problems. In the redesign, an equal number (two) of positive and negative cases were included.


McEvoy 477

DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich et al., 1993), interest in the subject matter scales developed by Schiefele (1991), and the Learner Empowerment Scale or LES (Frymier et al., 1996; Weber, Martin, & Cayanus, 2005). The latter is a mea-sure of student interest and includes subscale measures of subject meaning-fulness, topic impact, and student feelings of competence.

As one measure of intrinsic motivation and interest in the course material, I adapted five questions from the MSLQ. All five are listed in Appendix B, as are questions for all other measures. The coefficient alpha for this scale was .83. A second measure of intrinsic interest in the subject matter was obtained by averaging the scores on two questions adapted from Schiefele (1991). In a preliminary test of the scales used in this research, I had achieved a coefficient alpha of .79 for this measure. However, with this sample the alpha was just .33. As a result, supplementary analysis using these questions was conducted and is discussed below.

I also measured the perceived usefulness of course subject matter using variations of three questions from the LES (Weber et al., 2005). The coeffi-cient alpha for this three-item scale, provided in Appendix B, was .83.

Student satisfaction with the course was measured two ways. First, the results of five questions adapted from the MSLQ (see Appendix B) were averaged together ( = .87). The other way student satisfaction was measured was with the universitys standard course evaluation instrument. It has two summative statements: The overall quality of this course was . . . and The overall effectiveness of the instructor was . . . Students are given a 6-point response scale ranging from 6 = excellent to 1 = very poor. The university average on each of these scales is around 5.0. For the purposes of this study, I averaged these two summative responses to get a measure of student satis-faction. Course evaluations were filled out independently from the rest of the measures, and only course means were available for this measure of satisfac-tion. Overall evaluations of instructor and course were used to demonstrate relative student satisfaction with the redesign of the OB course.

I also measured and compared student learning performance in three ways. In both 2008 and 2009, I included assignments for a self-awareness diary (see course redesign point #4 in Table 1 and the detailed description in Appendix A). Furthermore, the final exam in both years, which was cumula-tive, had two components that were consistent across years and classes: a written essay exam taken in class and a take-home integrative cases analysis. The in-class essay questions varied but were similar in level of difficulty; the take-home case was the same for all classes.1

Student questionnaire data were gathered at the end of both MBA and MS-HR classes in December, 2008. After analysis of the questionnaires, the



instructor conducted follow-up focus group interviews with a convenience sample of students from both classes to better understand the nature and meaning of the comments received on course evaluations. Based on both the quantitative results from the questionnaires and the qualitative insights from the interviews, the MBA coursebut not the MS-HR coursewas partially redesigned yet again. The courses were taught again in Fall 2009 and the same questionnaires administered at the end of the course. Results from both waves of data analysis are reported below. After discussing the results from the Fall 2008 redesign, I will also provide information on the partial redesign undertaken in the second MBA course for Fall 2009.

Analysis and ResultsTable 2 reports sample sizes, means, and standard deviations of the major dependent variables measured in both Fall 2008 and Fall 2009. The statistical significance of the differences between the MBA and MS-HR classes each year are also provided (t tests of mean differences). As noted above, on a percentage basis there were more male students in MBA classes than MS-HR classes. So I first checked to see if there were any gender or age difference effects on performance (learning) outcomes, and there were none. I also checked to see if there were any differences in final grades between MBA and MS-HR classes, and again there were none (the class average in all four cases was B+).2

It is clear in Table 2 that the redesign implemented in Fall 2008 was con-siderably better received by the MS-HR student group than it was by the MBAs. MS-HR students reported significantly higher intrinsic interest on one of the two measures, greater perceived usefulness, and higher levels of satisfaction with the course. MS-HR students also outperformed the MBA students on measures of learning, though in only one of three cases did the difference approach significance (p < .10).

It can also be seen by looking at the standard deviations that there was considerably more variation among MBA students on the perceptual mea-sures than there was among MS-HR students though this is not the case on the three learning measures. The differences in the universitys overall course evaluations are particularly striking, and were, in fact, the impetus to call together convenience samples of students from both groups in the Spring of 2009 to see why and how the same course design would be received so dif-ferently by the two groups of students.

Three different focus groups of students were gathered in the Spring, one of MS-HR students and the other two of MBA students. Focus group


Table 2. M

eans and

Stand

ard Deviatio

ns fo

r Depende

nt Variables in

the Study

Usefulness

Satisfaction

Motivation

Performance (Learning)

n

3-Item

5-Item

Cou

rse

Evaluatio

nsIntrinsic

5-Item

Intrinsic

2-Item

Self-Awareness

Diary

Final E

ssay

Exam

Final Take-

Hom

e Case

2008

Fall 20

08 M

BA

353.91

(.74)

3.65

(.73)

4.3

3.93

(.58)

2.71

(.84)

87.8 (3.47

)87

.0 (3.58

)88

.7 (3.44

)

Fall 20

08 M

S-HR

134.59

(.34)

4.26

(.34)

5.5

4.31

(.54)

2.77

(.56)

90.1 (4.88

)87

.5 (4.75

)89

.3 (4.94

)

Mean differences

significant?

p = .003

p = .006

NA

p = .046

nsns

ans

ns

2009

Fall 20

09 M

BA

484.60

(.55)

4.28

(.68)

5.6

4.16

(.65)

2.55

(.78)

88.5 (2.98

)88

.0 (2.62

)87

.0 (3.68

)

Fall 20

09 M

S-HR

254.23

(.61)

3.98

(.75)

5.3

4.06

(.56)

3.04

(.75)

87.0 (5.20

)89

.1 (2.83

)88

.4 (3.38

)

Mean differences

significant?

p = .010

nsa

NA

nsp = .012

nsa

nsa

nsa

Note. Stand

ard deviations app

ear in parentheses. N

A = N

ot available because taken from

ano

nymou

s end-of-cou

rse un

iversity cou

rse evaluatio

ns.

a These m

ean differences were significant at p < .10, but not at p


discussions lasted about an hour over lunch. Student course representatives from the Fall classes were asked to round up about eight students who would be willing to provide additional feedback on the class over pizza. I asked the assembled students to identify the design features of the class that contributed most to their learning and those that interfered most with their learning. When there was disagreement (e.g., one student said the self-awareness diary was very helpful, another said it was a waste of time), I probed further to attempt to determine the cause of the disagreement. Sample comments taken from both the focus groups, and the open-ended question portion of the university standard course evaluation forms are pro-vided in Table 3. These comments are organized around particular aspects of the course redesign.

As can be seen, comments varied from favorable to negative on several critical aspects of the course redesign. The most successful part of the rede-sign seemed to be the inclusion of unique, unusual readings (Blink, Harvard Business Review [HBR], etc.) to stimulate student interest. As one can tell from the comments, MS-HR students were a bit more positive about this feature than were MBAs, but both groups were generally favorable. The least well-received aspect of the redesign was the self-awareness diary. In the MBA class in particular, many students seemed highly concerned about how the instructor would be able to grade self-insights objectively. In a poll of the MBA class taken at the end, fully one third of the class said I should eliminate the assignment next year. In both classes, there was concern about how students put the assignment off to the end, partially defeating the pur-pose of a diary that should be kept continuously. In general, it appeared that students failed to connect the assignment with at least one of the assigned readings from HBR that argued that self-awareness is the single most impor-tant trait for successful organizational leadership (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007). Despite the relatively negative evaluation of the diary by the 2008 students, I kept it as an assignment in 2009, but I moved the George et al. (2007) reading from the back of the course to the front in the hope that students would warm up to the importance of self-awareness.

Comments in Table 3 dealing with the Advisory Committee on Student Assessment (ACSA) were generally negative for the MBAs and only mod-estly positive for the MS-HR students. The most frequent concern expressed was that the instructor manipulated the process so that students only felt like they were having input when in fact the instructor was calling the shots. (This was not, in fact, the case, as assessments were much different than I had used in the past without student input, and assessments were different in the MBA class compared with the MS-HR class.) The second most often expressed


McEvoy 481

Table 3. Sample Student Comments After Fall 2008 Course Redesign (From Course Evaluations and Student Focus Groups)

Course Design Feature MS-Human Resources MBA

Self-awareness diary to encourage personal development

I am not a fan, but I understand its value

Loved the class; it helped me realize the importance of becoming more self-aware

Was tedious Though a good idea, poorly designed because we didnt know how many self-insights we had to have to get an A

I didnt like the self-awareness diary; instead do learning discussions in class

Everyone puts this off to the end; if you want it to work, give us 10 minutes at the end of class to write it each day

Would like to turn it in half-way through for feedback

Much of the grade relies on teachers opinion of journalnot good!

Not a fan; thats what my notes are for

Journal too subjective

Not as impactful as it could be; needs to be due multiple times throughout semester to limit procrastination

Self-assessments were usually pretty interesting, but the diary needs greater structure for grading

I grumbled about many of the self-assessments, only to have learned a great deal from most of them

Enjoyed the idea of the diary and thought it was a great assignment, but need more direction on what is expected (e.g., one self-insight per class?)

The diary gets tiresome, but hopefully will be of greater relevance after graduation

Blink and HarvardBusinessReview [HBR] articles to encourage interest in topic

Loved the HBR articles Found Blink to be outside the scope of the class and did not contribute to learning

(continued)




Blink was great, should include more

Too many articles to read, so we just skim them

Blink very interesting; not the typical assigned reading

Very interesting but sometimes couldnt see the connection with the class

Enjoyed the Blink articles and believe they were impactful

Some readings were quite good

The extra reading outside the main text gave us a broader more in-depth look at the subject

Enjoyed Blink excerpts

Readings were very relevant to course objectives and enhanced in-class lectures

Especially enjoyed the HBR articles

Use of class time Liked asking us to identify major take-aways from readings

Why did you ask us to read a whole article if there were only a couple major take-aways in it?

Used well to cover subjects

I expected the instructor to be my primary source of the information I had to know; instead I had to study a lot outside class

Class time was always productive

The course was headed in too many different directions at once

Liked two of the four cases Instructor focused too much on tests

I didnt think the cases were always helpful

Seems like we move at 100 mph in this class

Did not see the point in the outdoor activity

There were many opportunities for great discussion that were steamrolled because we have to move on

Enjoyed the group activities, especially the outdoor one

Cases and exercises good

(continued)

Table 3. (continued)


McEvoy 483


The cases were a little vague as to what exactly we needed to do

Loved the SAS case; life changing

There was a lot of material I would have liked to discuss further and in greater depth

Small group project on other OB topic to provide choice

Good to research another topic to develop expertise

Learned a lot; helped to become an expert in one area

Didnt like these projects coming at the end

I liked the student projects, but didnt like them coming at the end

Advisory Committee on Student Assessment or ACSAstudents involved in designing learning assessments, to encourage involvement and provide control

Involving students was a great way to gain buy-in

I appreciated your willingness to give students a voice but was embarrassed when some students interpreted this allowance as a right to determine how they should be graded

Liked this because we had the opportunity to decide how we would gauge our knowledge; that was effective for me

Only those on the ACSA thought this was fair

ACSA was a good opportunity to be fair

I consider the ACSA a complete failurestudents on first ACSA didnt have enough information and relied too heavily on instructor; subsequent assessments were minor variations of the first

(continued)





Student involvement in ACSA was not so great

The instructors request for student input was impressive

The fact that I was able to affect the test construction was a positive

Instructor didnt really listen to students

I felt the learnings papers for the exam were extremely helpful

The instructor accepted very little of the committees feedback, wasting many precious hours of students time

Would not recommend; I felt instructor had already determined what the exams would entail

Instructor goes through the motions of trying to get input from the class, but the method did not seem sincere, and it was frustrating rather than helpful

Student input on testing was good

Class felt like you asked for input to make us feel ownership, but then did whatever you wanted

ACSA was a good idea, but no matter what they offered the test would be tweaked to become not what was intended

Classic pizza-ordering problem: If you invite friends and the pizza is already ordered, everyone will be happy its there; but if you ask for input, they dont agree and some end up unhappy


concern by the MBAs was that since only a handful of students could serve on each of the three ACSAs (one for each assessment), the rest of the class really did not have any input. (This despite the fact that anyone could vol-unteer and each ACSA group typically surveyed the class regarding its


McEvoy 485

evaluation preferences and tried to represent those preferences in discussions with me.)

RedesignforMBAs2009Based on this feedback and the very low satisfaction scores for MBA stu-dents in 2008, I made two revisions to the way in which the MBA class was structured for Fall 2009. For this group, I did away with intermediate learning assessments (5th and 10th classes) and the ACSA process (student involve-ment in the design of exams; In other words, I eliminated redesign points 7 and 8 in Table 1). Instead, I gave one final that was designed in approxi-mately the same format that students and I had worked out for Fall 2008. The elimination of the first two learning assessments freed up course time so that the small group projects could be presented throughout the semester, rather than having them all come due at the end. I was not sure how this redesign would be received by the MBAs because throughout the Fall 2009 semester, I had a few students who would frequently inquire about the final exam and express concern about having so much of the grade dependent on a single assessment. I asked them to try to focus on learning as much as possible rather than studying for an exam, but I was not sure how this advice was being received by the class.

However, as can be seen from the Fall 2009 results in Table 2, the course as modified was well-received by the MBAs. Interestingly, the general recep-tion of the course by the MS-HR students declined slightly from Fall 2008 to Fall 2009, despite making no changes in the course design. As shown in Table 2, MBAs in Fall 2009 rated the course significantly more useful than did MS-HR students. They also registered higher levels of satisfaction though this difference was significant only at the p < .10 level. MBAs indicated slightly higher levels of intrinsic interest as measured by the five-item scale (not significant), but MS-HR students were significantly higher on the two-item measure of intrinsic interest. In terms of learning performance, MS-HR students scored higher on two of three learning measures with MBAs doing better on the self-awareness diary. These differences were significant only at the p < .10 level.

As noted in the methods section above, the second intrinsic motivation measure (the one that averaged the responses on two questions) had low internal consistency reliability ( = .33). Therefore, I took a closer look at the two questions that made up this measure. This was the only measure in the study that included a reverse-coded question. The idea was that intrinsically motivated students would rate themselves high on the question, In this



course, understanding the concepts is more important to me than the grade I get. Conversely, extrinsically motivated students were expected to score high on the question, An important reason why I do my assignments in this course is because I want to get better grades. But, in fact, almost a third of all students scored exactly the same on these two questions. In analyzing the questions separately, the second one, reverse coded to indicate intrinsic moti-vation, failed to correlate with the other five-item measure of intrinsic moti-vation. In contrast, the first question correlated at .31 with the five-item measure. When the analyses in Table 2 were repeated using only the single positively worded question, the results remained approximately the same as those shown in the column for the two-item measure.

On a year-over-year comparison within groups, the MBAs showed dra-matic and significant improvements on both satisfaction measures, the use-fulness measure and one of two intrinsic interest measures. They showed modest improvements in two of three learning measures and a modest drop in the other. MS-HR students, on the other hand, in year-over-year differences, showed declines in satisfaction, usefulness, one of two intrinsic interest mea-sures and two of three learning measures. These were not statistically signifi-cant declines, though the drops in perceived usefulness and scores on the self-awareness diary approached significance at p < .10.

To help further understand student reactions in Fall 2009, I consulted the comments on university course evaluations. These comments are summa-rized in Table 4.

As can be seen from these comments, the tone in the 2009 MBA class was significantly more positive than in the previous year. The self-awareness diary seemed to be better accepted by both groups, perhaps suggesting that moving the George et al. (2007) article to the front of the course made a dif-ference. The inclusion of unique readings was, again, well-received by stu-dents in both groups. MS-HR students showed moderately less favorable attitudes toward the use of cases and the possibility of being called on in class. At least one MBA student provided a grade-oriented comment: I dont think a lot of points are necessary, but some reward for the [case] work would be nice. But, under the ACSA row (which did not apply to MBAs in 2009), MS-HR students provided several grade-oriented comments: If grades really dont matter, there sure seemed to be a great deal of focus on them, Thought the essays were way too specific, and Test questions seemed very vague. Comments on the ACSA process itself were mixed (from thought it was excellent to seemed like simply extra meetings). Overall, it appears that the 2009 MBA class found the primary features of the course redesign (Design Points 1-6 in Table 1) kept the topic interesting and


McEvoy 487

Table 4. Sample Student Comments After Fall 2009 Partial Course Redesign (From Course Evaluations)


Self-awareness diary to encourage personal development

Personal awareness diary was a positive experience

Increase the minimum length of the diary to 4 pages

Eliminate self-awareness diary; its a waste of time and energy

I appreciated very much the focus on self-awareness

A lot of self-awareness tests are interesting and helped us know ourselves better

Learned a lot about myself through this assignment (and the completion of self-awareness exercises)

The diary is a very useful tool to let me think about myself, understand myself, and make continuous improvements

Blink and HarvardBusinessReview (HBR) articles to encourage interest in topic

I really liked the additional assigned readings; they brought things into context

The readings were good, especially Level 5 Leadership and Blink

Most of the readings were really useful

I really enjoyed the use of Blink and other outside sources besides just the textbook

Loved the Blink articles Readings were very good; cases and real-life examples were great

Readings were very engaging

Some of the readings were really interesting, but some did not relate to the course or the material we were learning at the time

I really liked the HBR and Blink readings

The extra readings were especially helpful for me to understand current issues

(continued)




Use of class time I never understood the purpose of the cases

Case discussions were lively, and they developed on each previous one

Use of experiential learning was most effective; case learning was particularly helpful

Liked how discussions/topics were changed every 30 minutes or so; easier to focus

The cases really impacted my learning

Appreciated the early delivery of key course themes and the continued reference to them

It is stressful trying to prepare to be called on for each assigned article

Four great case studies; I never focused so hard on assignments that I was not being graded on, but I did in this class

I liked the combination of learning activities; gave a good variety

Time was very well used

The cases were very good; I wish we had spent more time on them

Good use of class time; I liked how upbeat and intense the class was

Possibly add a guest lecture or field trip

I enjoyed the cases but feel like I did the work for nothing if my study was not used in class; I dont think a lot of points are necessary, but some reward for the work would be nice

This is the only class I took which I find it easy not to get distracted by my computer

Very good use of class time; very efficient

Speed of covering topics so quickly distracted from the effectiveness; feeling rushed all the time was stress inducing

Class is like bullet points and lacks learning in depth; I feel like it was always way too rushed

(continued)



McEvoy 489


Small group project on other organizational behavior (OB) topic to provide choice

Group project was good Liked the groups; got to know students better

Group projects and group presentations were good

Implement a measure of student involvement in group projects such as peer evaluation

I would prefer projects completed for a specific client rather than one based on research and explanation

Student projects were good, great

For group projects, its better to provide how to find resources

I enjoyed the group reports but it would have helped to have them all out of the way before finals week

Enjoyed working in the group, especially for the last project

Learned a lot about subjects that otherwise wouldnt be covered

Projects kept things interesting

I thoroughly enjoyed participating in the group project and felt that the interaction within the group was more educational than the research performed

I would have preferred another case or two and less time spent on group presentations

I liked having groups and projectsAdvisory Committee on Student Assessment or ACSAstudents involved in designing learning assessments, to encourage involvement and provide control

If grades really dont matter, there sure seemed to be a great deal of focus on them; I obsessed about grades all semester

Not applicable to this class

(continued)





Liked doing essays for exams, but thought the essays were way too specific

At times test questions seemed very vague; perhaps less ambiguity with tests and more exactness

ACSA fun and helpful aspect of assessments

Loved the ACSA format Enjoyed working in a

group to help design exams (ACSA)

The ACSA was a nice way to vary the assessment, but I felt like the expectations werent as clear for the first assessment as they were for the second and third

Im not convinced the ACSA was needed; seemed like simply extra meetings

Ive never had an ACSA experience before and thought it was excellent


contributed to their satisfaction whereas the 2009 MS-HR students were a bit more ambivalent about their version of the course, which retained Design Points 7 and 8.

Discussion and ConclusionAs noted at the start of this article, I have taught OB to both MBA students and MS-HR students for years and have almost always received higher stu-dent evaluations from the latter group compared with the former. My working


McEvoy 491

hypothesis has been that MBA students have a much more instrumental relationship with their courses in general, and with the OB course in particular, than do the MS-HR students. That is, MBA students are in the program to get the certification rather than because they are intrinsically drawn to the pro-gram and its courses (DeMarie & Aloise-Young, 2003). The MS-HR program is a professional degree and students are no doubt drawn to it because of the prospects of employment afterwards. However, if it were only job opportuni-ties they were looking for, rather than an interest in the subject matter of HR, they would more than likely pursue the MBA degree (same entrance require-ments, but shorter, less expensive program on my campus).

The current research provides limited evidence for this working hypothe-sis. In both 2008 and 2009 cohorts, the MS-HR students showed significantly higher levels of intrinsic interest in the subject matter than did MBAs on at least one of two measures used. Furthermore, there are a number of com-ments in Table 3 that suggest MBA students were focused more on grades and less on learning, such as: We didnt know how many self-insights we had to have to get an A, The diary needs greater structuring for grading, Too many articles to read so we just skim them, Why did you ask us to read a whole article if there were only a couple major take-aways in it?, and I expected the instructor to be my primary source of information I had to know, but instead I had to study a lot outside class. MS-HR comments reflected far less of this grade (performance) orientation.

However, in 2009 MBAs rated the usefulness of the course higher than did the MS-HR students and one measure of intrinsic interest actually showed MBAs higher than MS-HR students, though this difference was not signifi-cant. Furthermore, comments in Table 4 suggest a much more positive expe-rience for the MBAs in 2009 compared with 2008, and the 2009 MS-HR students experienced a bit more ambivalence about the ACSA process than those in 2008. Recall that the MS-HR course was basically unchanged from 2008 to 2009 while the MBA course comprised two changes: elimination of the ACSA and the two intermediate learning assessments.

Evidence on learning over the 2-year period was mixed. MS-HR students outperformed MBAs on five of six measures taken but these differences were only significant at the p < .10 level in three instances. If intrinsic interest had indeed been significantly higher among MS-HR students than among MBAs, one would have expected more dramatic differences in learning outcomes. Therefore, the result that MS-HR students are more intrinsically motivated by the subject matter of OB must be interpreted cautiously.

An important finding was that MBAs seemed to be more satisfied when students were not involved in the design of the learning assessments and the



when there was no formative evaluation along the way to provide feedback prior to the summative evaluation at the end of the course. These were the two major changes between 2008 and 2009 in the MBA course. This finding is inconsistent with the recommendations of Bain (2004) and others who maintain that students should be provided multiple opportunities to demon-strate competence and that initial opportunities should allow practice and feedback that contribute favorably to the final demonstration of competence. That was the logic behind my redesign where three learning assessments occurring at 5-week intervals were worth 10%, then 20%, then finally, 30% of the grade (all assessments being comprehensive). In the redesign for MBAs in Fall 2009, the final learning assessment was comprehensive and worth 60% of the grade. This finding is also inconsistent with recommenda-tions for more student voice in the design of evaluation procedures (e.g., Hiller & Hietapelto, 2001).

In seeking a possible explanation for these inconsistencies, CET may be informative (Deci et al., 1999). As noted earlier, CET predicts that tangible external rewards undermine intrinsic motivation in an interesting task. Verbal praise, unlike tangible rewards, is less likely to undermine intrinsic motiva-tion. But, if subjects perceive the verbal praise to be given in a manipulative, controlling manner, it undermines intrinsic motivation. If the verbal praise is given in an informational manner, it does not. CET explains these findings by suggesting that intrinsic motivation is based on two fundamental basic needs, the need for self-determination (autonomy) and the need to feel competent. If rewards are given in a way that increases autonomy and a sense of compe-tence, intrinsic motivation will be enhanced. If rewards decrease the sense of self-determination (true in almost all tangible reward situations because the locus of causality is external), or if rewards are given in a controlling rather than informational manner, intrinsic motivation will suffer (Deci et al., 1999; Mallin & Pullins, 2009).

Grades clearly fall in the category of rewards that can be seen as manipu-lative to students. Expectancy theory predicts that if students are motivated primarily by the desire for higher grades, they will engage in the activities needed to get those grades (i.e., learning) only so long as they perceive that higher grades will be forthcoming based on the activities chosen for comple-tion. If they do not want higher grades, or if the expectation of good grades is subsequently reduced for some reason, students will lose interest in learning-related activities. But CET predicts that the situation is actually worse than this. If subjects engage in an activity where various levels of a reward are offered for various levels of performance (e.g., a range of grades), and if they receive less than the maximum reward (an A), intrinsic motivation suffers


McEvoy 493

an even bigger drop than is typically seen when an extrinsic reward is introduced (Deci et al., 1999).

Therefore, one wonders if the ACSA student involvement process in the design of learning assessments, rather than contributing to the intrinsic moti-vation for the course through student involvement and choice, may actually have diminished it. With the ACSA process, there were virtually daily men-tions of the design of the assessments (Who wants to volunteer for the ACSA? When will we meet? How will you gather input from the rest of the class? Whats our first draft on the assessment design? Whats the final decision for the first assessment? etc.). An MBA student comment in Table 3 supports this possibility: The instructor focused too much on tests (see the Use of class time row). An MS-HR student comment in Table 4 is similarly sugges-tive, If grades really dont matter, there sure seemed to be a great deal of focus on them; I obsessed about grades all semester.

After the first assessment (in Class 5, one third of the way through), grades were distributed. Naturally, there was a high percentage of students who failed to earn the top grade (A), and therefore, according to CET were likely to lose significant intrinsic interest in the subject. This assumes that students perceive grades to be given in a controlling manner rather than in informational manner. The question of how students perceive grades is a matter worthy of further empirical investigation. But, my sense with masters students is that there is generally a relatively high percentage that will inter-pret grades in the negative, controlling way (I didnt really know what you were expecting on the exam, I felt you were just looking for a few specific things that I hadnt studied, etc.). Comments in Tables 3 and 4, particularly those dealing with instructor manipulation of the ACSA process, are sup-portive of this possibility.

ImplicationsforTeachingGoing forward, I plan to keep redesign Features 1 to 6 (Table 1) in my OB classes. The addition of current, fun OB-related readings seemed to be particularly well-received by students, though, of course, we still cover the more serious core materials as well. I use readings from Blink (Gladwell, 2005), for example, as an attempt to force students into a significant emo-tional event where they disprove their own theories-in-use (Bain, 2004, p. 18). And, despite the wide variation in student reactions to the self-aware-ness diary assignment evidenced in Tables 3 and 4, I plan to continue with this course redesign feature. This assignment underscores the importance of self-awareness as the foundational building block for effective interpersonal



behavior, and I have always believed in the importance of writing as a way of solidifying what students think they have learned. I will probably collect the diaries more often during the semester to deal with the problem of stu-dents putting this assignment off to the end of the term.

But, going forward, I will have to reconsider the question of one versus three assessments as well as the ACSA process by which students are involved in the design of learning assessments. Over the 2 years that I have used this approach, I do not believe I have succeeded in moving students in ACSA discussions from a consideration of what is in their own personal best interest to what is in the best interest of the class as a whole in terms of maxi-mizing learning. The process works by having small groups of student volun-teers (4 to 6) meet with me over coffee to discuss how best to evaluate student learning. I emphasize that assessments should be fair (no discrimination against subgroups of students, such as females, minorities, or international students), valid (students who know the most about the subject should score the highest), and motivational (should encourage students to do the right thing and study to learn rather than study to get a grade). Despite this emphasis, I am afraid that most students view their role on the ACSA as lobbying to get the evaluation framed in a way that they can be most successful themselves or to keep the evaluation on the most superficial level (knowledge vs., say, synthesis or evaluation). How else can one explain the persistent recommen-dation that students have made in every instance that at least a portion of the assessment should be multiple choice questions (an approach I have neveruntil 2 years agoused in graduate classes!)?

Perhaps Robbins (1988) had it right and that students prefer directive leadership. He argued that many students today have jobs and families (true for graduate students at my university) and therefore do not really have the time to focus on intrinsic satisfaction in learning. They want to know what the requirements are and how they can meet them. To the extent that the ACSA process adds ambiguity to course expectations, it may be seen negatively rather than positively. The MBA student who described the ACSA process as the classic pizza ordering problem in Table 3 provides supportive anec-dotal evidence.

One of the limitations to the present study was the fact that I was unable to control for class size effects. The class with the most negative assessment of the ACSA process was the MBA class with 35 students. In this class, only a minority of students were involved in the ACSA (about 15 of 35), and thus it is possible that the negative reaction to involvement in the determination of assessment procedures was a function of students feeling they could not get their opinion heard. Supporting this possibility is the fact that student


McEvoy 495

reactions to the ACSA among MS-HR students seemed to worsen slightly as the class grew from 13 students in 2008 to 25 students in 2009. Class size may also have affected other aspects of this studys outcomes, but the fact that the most favorable ratings of student satisfaction (5.6) occurred in the largest class (2009 MBA) suggests it was not a major limitation.

Also, going forward, I plan to carefully weigh the prospects of having a single learning assessment at the end of the course (worth 60%) versus hav-ing three (worth 10%, 20%, and 30%). There is no convincing evidence in Table 2 that the intermediate evaluations helped the MS-HR students in 2009 perform any better on the final than the MBAs who had no such intermedi-ate evaluations. And, there is evidence that both the discussion of such evalu-ations and the feedback of any grade lower than A may actually detract from intrinsic interest and motivation in the class. The MBAs, without the intermediate evaluations, even saw the course as more useful than they had in 2008 and more useful than the MS-HR students did in 2009. Perhaps not wasting 2 of 15 classes with formative learning assessments made the course more useful.

ImplicationsforFutureResearchOpportunities for further research in this area abound. Obviously, there may be other approaches to enhancing student interest and intrinsic motivation in college courses. Debnath et al. (2007) argue that principles from the Job Characteristics Model (JCM), such as task variety, task identity, task sig-nificance, autonomy, and knowledge of results may provide instructors with guidance for how to increase intrinsic motivation. Possibilities that come from their analysis of JCMand which are different from the approaches I tookinclude producing a publishable quality term paper, conducting a research project with a real organization, practicing real-world skills and get-ting feedback from practicing managers, providing students with a choice of which major assignments to complete, allowing students to teach and grade each other, providing feedback that is private and offering specific guidance for future efforts, and avoiding social comparisons, such as announcement of highest and lowest scores.

There is also the question of how incoming students may differ and the appropriate compensatory design based on those differences. For instance, there is evidence that students with weak conceptual skills learn more when a class is highly structured whereas students with strong conceptual skills do better in unstructured class settings (Hancock, 2002). Furthermore, some stu-dents may be motivated by the subject itself whereas others are motivated by



a different form of intrinsic motivationthat directed toward more general skills acquisition (Jacobs & Newstead, 2000). Last, there is evidence that students lacking intrinsic interest in the subject matter coming in may be best motivated using extrinsic rewards and that such rewards may at some point lead to greater intrinsic interest (Lepper, 1988; Pierce, Cameron, Banko, & So, 2003). In all three cases, knowing more about incoming students may allow for the design of more intrinsically motivating and personally interest-ing courses.

In the present study, eliminating the ACSA and formative learning assess-ments at 5 and 10 weeks in the semester resulted in significant improvements in satisfaction and perceived usefulness in the MBA course. Future research could attempt to disentangle the effects of these two changes by discon-tinuing one or the otherACSA or intermediate assessmentsbut not both. Furthermore, it was mentioned above that business students appear to have less intrinsic interest in their subject matter than do education majors (DeMarie & Aloise-Young, 2003). It would be valuable to extend this investigation to other subject matters and attempt to determine what it is about other subjects that is potentially more intrinsically engaging than business and then see if any aspects of such engaging topics can be transferred to what and how we teach.

Future research may also benefit from more comprehensive measures of student interest and intrinsic motivation taken at more than one time. For instance, does intrinsic interest in a subject change in some systematic way over the course of a semester? Investigating this would require multiple mea-surements. Also, a frequently used measure of intrinsic interest is to deter-mine how individuals spend their free time given several competing activities. Although an unobtrusive measure of this aspect of intrinsic motivation may be difficult to derive in a college class, at least students could be asked some-thing such as, This semester, how much time did you spend on this topic engaged in activities not required by the instructor or course syllabus? Furthermore, future researchers may want to use the full range of the MSLQ and/or LES items to assess various dimensions of intrinsic motivation as well as other interest instruments such as the Perceived Interest Questionnaire (Schraw, Brunning, & Svoboda, 1995) to develop a deeper understanding of the relationship between interest and motivation in management classes.

ConclusionIt is clear that to be responsive to the needs of employers, more work needs to be done on the development of student soft skills in OB courses.


McEvoy 497

Universities need to be more responsive to the calls for evaluation and accountability in all coursework (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002), but particularly in the arena of behavioral skills and capabilities given the persistent credibility problem that OB courses face. As Vaill (2007) pointed out, we have always cared deeply about what and how we teach in OB. This research represents an attempt to increase the credibility and effectiveness of a graduate-level OB course by focusing on efforts to motivate intrinsic interest on the part of students. My efforts were only partially successful but perhaps may provide inspiration for other instructors to try different approaches with different student audiences.

Appendix AAdditionalDetailsonCourseAssignmentsinTable13

Self-AwarenessDiary. To facilitate personal development, students are to keep a personal diary throughout the course. This diary of discovery should record all major self-insights gained as a result of reading, completion of instruments, class discussion, or any other course-related activity. A possible outline for each entry would be to address (cogently!) the what? the so what? and the now what? of each self-insight. That is, what did you learn about yourself (be as specific as possible here), what are the implications of this learning, and what should you do about this going forward?

This diary is to be typed and turned in to the instructor on the last day of class (Week 15). To save forest resources, please single space and use 10 point Times New Roman font with one-inch margins. To facilitate reading, please organize the diary chronologically and put in headings to show what topics are being addressed by each entry. While there are no hard and fast length requirements or restrictions, past experience suggests that good diary submis-sions usually range from 2 to 4 pages in length.StudentGroupProject. To facilitate intellectual development, Week 14 is set aside for group designed learning modules of 20 minutes length. Students address an OB question they are interested in that is not well covered in the class and teach other students what theyve learned (e.g., what are the out-comes of job stress and burnout?). Whatever the topic chosen, students should address theory, research, and practice related to the topic. At a minimum, there should be visual aids and handouts for each learning module. Also, groups should prepare a bibliography of references used to develop the pre-sentation and provide this to the instructor at the beginning of class.

Group size in this project will be a function of class size. There will be time for seven 20-minute presentations, so there can be no more than seven

(continued)



groups. Group assignments will be made by the instructor no later than Week 2, and as soon as groups have picked a topic they should obtain the approval of the instructor. Any given topic can only be selected once by the class.

While the text may be used as a resource, students are expected to be cre-ative and obtain materials on their chosen topic from a variety of sources. Of interest in this regard is a Recommended Reading List in Organization Behavior that the instructor has prepared and placed on Blackboard under Week 14.ACSA. On the first day of class, the instructor will ask for volunteers to form an Advisory Committee on Student Assessment (ACSA), which will seek input from students and then advise the instructor on how the first student assessment should proceed in Week 5. The goal of this process is to design an assessment of learning approach that is perceived by both students and instructor to be fair, valid, and motivational. There are, of course, a variety of learning assessment approaches available, such as written exams (multiple choice, short answer, fill-in-the-blank), oral exams, role plays, learning papers, cases, simulations, etc.

Students are free to recommend any approach (or combination of approaches) to learning assessment as long as they meet the following criteria:

(a) The approach should try to get at the criteria listed in the section on intellectual development above.

(b) The approach must sample knowledge acquisition from the entire domain of materials covered in the course (versus a limited slice of the materials).

(c) At least half the evaluation must occur during the class time set aside for assessment (i.e., no more than 50% can be a take-home type assignment).

(d) Most of the learning assessed must be individual (not group) learning.

After the first student assessment during Week 5, the ACSA will be reconstituted and the new group will recommend an approach for use in Week 10. The same process will occur again after the student assessment in Week 10. So, there will be ample opportunity for interested students to serve on the ACSA at some point.

Note that these three student assessments are all comprehensive (i.e., they cover all the material in the course up to that point) AND that they become increasingly important in the determination of the final grade. The weights increase over time to give students an opportunity to recover from a slow

(continued)

Appendix A (continued)


McEvoy 499

Appendix A (continued)

start and because more material is covered in each assessment as the course progresses. Also note that at least part of Assessment #3 will be a take-home case.

ClassParticipation. Class participation is encouraged and expected. Students will be called on at random to start case discussions, summarize learnings from assigned readings, or respond to instructor or student questions and inquiries.

One form of participation is the Student Group Report (or SGR). In groups of two (dyads), students will provide a short (5 minutes or less) sum-mary of an assigned reading, focusing in on the most important points made by the author. The dyad will also provide a one-page bulletized summary sheet as a handout with enough copies for everyone in the class.

Another form of participation is serving on the ACSA. See discussion above on how student assessments will be determined. Occasionally, the instructor will collect written work students have been asked to prepare in advance (e.g., see that in Week 2 students are asked to bring a list of stake-holders and key case facts to prepare for the discussion of the days case).

Appendix BScalesUsedinThisStudy

IntrinsicinterestMeasure#1. Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

I find the assigned homework in this course to be really interesting.Understanding the subject matter in this course is important to me.I enjoy the work in this course because Im interested in it.Its important that I improve my skills in the subject matter of this

course.An important reason why I do the work in this course is because I like

to learn new things.

IntrinsicinterestMeasure#2. Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert-type scale from not at all true to very true.

In this course, understanding the concepts is more important to me that the grade I get.

(continued)



An important reason why I do my assignments in this course is because I want to get better grades (reverse scored).

Perceivedusefulnessmeasure. Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

I have learned useful skills in this course.I have gained useful knowledge in this course.I think what I am learning in this course is useful for me to know.

Satisfaction with the courseMeasure #1. Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

I am satisfied with what Ive been learning in this course.I have really enjoyed the subject matter in this course.Taking this class has been a positive experience for me.An important reason I do my assigned work in this course is because

I enjoy it.I would recommend this course to friends and colleagues.

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

FundingThe author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Notes

1. Essay exam questions typically provided students with a situation requiring the application of course conceptssay a worker who is apparently not motivated or a difficult and emotional conflict situationand asked students to recommend ways for dealing with the problem, along with a rationale for the approach taken. The take-home case was roughly 20 pages long and the students had 24 hours to return an analysis of the problem, a delineation of the key human resource issues in question, and a set of detailed recommendations.

2. The questionnaire that assessed intrinsic motivation, satisfaction, and perceived usefulness was anonymous, so no comparison by gender or age was possible. However, after I taught these two classes again in Fall 2010, I administered the same questionnaire and this time collected age and gender data. In this sample,

Appendix B (continued)


McEvoy 501

there was no significant relationship between either of the demographic variables and intrinsic motivation, satisfaction, or perceived usefulness.

3. Note this appendix is verbatim from the course syllabus. Earlier in the syllabus, students are informed, following Bain (2004), that the two overarching course goals are personal and intellectual development.

References

Alsop, R. (2004, September 22). And the winners are . . . WSJ guide to business schools: Recruiters top picks. Wall Street Journal, R1-R10.

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34, 87-98.

Cappelli, P. (1995). Is the skills gap really about attitudes? California Management Review, 37, 108-124.

Debnath, S. C., Tandon, S., & Pointer, L. V. (2007). Designing business school courses to promote student motivation: An application of the job characteristics model. Journal of Management Education, 31, 812-831.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experi-ments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 126, 627-668.

DeMarie, D., & Aloise-Young, P. A. (2003). College students interest in their major. College Student Journal, 37, 462-469.

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Riverside.Edwards, C. H., & Edwards, L. (1999). Lets end the grading game. The Clearing

House, 72, 260-263.Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner

empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181-199.Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A. N., & Mayer, D. (2007, February). Discovering

your authentic leadership. Harvard Business Review, February, 129-140.Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York, NY:

Little, Brown.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.Hancock, D. R. (2002). Influencing postsecondary students motivation to learn in the

classroom. College Teaching, 50, 63-68.Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review

of Educational Research, 60, 549-571.



Hiller, T. B., & Hietapelto, A. B. (2001). Contract grading: Encouraging commitment to the learning process through voice in the evaluation process. Journal of Man-agement Education, 25, 660-684.

Jacobs, P. A., & Newstead, S. E. (2000). The nature and development of student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 243-252.

Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 289-309.

Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Con-flicting views on the role of motivational processes on computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20, 217-230.

Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic moti-vational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184-196.

Levy, S. (2007). An inquiry into motivation using the case of Phaedrus demonstrator. Journal of Management Education, 31, 797-811.

Love, E. G., Love, D. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2010). Is the end in sight? Student regulation of in-class and extra-credit effort in response to performance feedback. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 81-97.

Mallin, M. L., & Pullins, E. B. (2009). The moderating effect of control systems on the relationship between commission and salesperson intrinsic motivation in a customer oriented environment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 769-777.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Merritt, J. (2004, October 18). The best B-schools. Business Week, 63-94.Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than

meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, 78-95.Pierce, W. D., Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & So, S. (2003). Positive effects of rewards

and performance standards on intrinsic motivation. The Psychological Record, 53, 561-579.

Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 82, 33-40.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 810-813.

Pittman, T. S., Emery, J., & Boggiano, A. K. (1982). Intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-tional orientations: Reward-induced change in preference for complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 789-797.

Porter, L. W., & McKibbon, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.


McEvoy 503

Robbins, S. P. (1988). Forget contingency theories in the classroom, or why students like directive leadership. Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 12(4), 77-78.

Rynes, S. L., & Trank, C. Q. (1999). Behavioral science in the business school cur-riculum: Teaching in a changing institutional environment. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 24, 808-824.

Rynes, S. L., Trank, C. Q., Lawson, A. M., & Ilies, R. (2003). Behavioral coursework in business education: Growing evidence of a legitimacy crisis. Academy of Man-agement Learning & Education, 2, 269-283.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299-323.

Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary Educational Psychologist, 21, 3-18.

Schraw, G., Brunning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 1-15.

Svinicki, M. D. (1998). Helping students understand grades. College Teaching, 46, 101-105.

Vaill, P. B. (2007). F. J. Roethlisberger and the elusive phenomena of organizational behavior. Journal of Management Education, 31, 321-338.

Van Seters, D., & Field, R. H. G. (1989). The MBA program: Views from a student and a professor. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 13(3), 59-71.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Moti-vating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260.

Weber, K., Martin, M. M., & Cayanus, J .L. (2005). Student interest: A two-study re-examination of the concept. Communication Quarterly, 53, 71-86.

Weber, K., & Patterson, B. R. (2000). Student interest, empowerment, and motivation. Communication Research Reports, 17, 22-29.

Young, M. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facili-tating self-regulated learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 25-40.

at

journal of management education 2011 mcevoy 468 503

Documents