students' motivational traits and preferences for different instructional modes in science...

This article was downloaded by: [Texas State University - San Marcos]On: 04 May 2013, At: 13:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Students’ motivational traits and preferences fordifferent instructional modes in science education‐Part2R. F. Kempa a & Maria Martin Diaz aa University of Keele, Staffordshire, UKPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: R. F. Kempa & Maria Martin Diaz (1990): Students’ motivational traits and preferences for differentinstructional modes in science education‐Part 2, International Journal of Science Education, 12:2, 205-216

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069900120209

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069900120209

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

INT. J. Sci. EDUC., 1990, VOL. 12, NO. 2, 205-216

Students' motivational traits and preferencesfor different instructional modes inscience education-Part 2

R. F. Kempa and Maria Martin Diaz, University of Keele, Staffordshire, UK

The main finding to emerge from the investigation described in this paper is that distinct links existbetween students' motivational traits and their preferences for, or dislikes of, different instructionalprocedures used in science education. These links appear to be particularly pronounced in the case of'curious students', 'conscientious students' and 'sociable students', but are less obvious for 'achieverstudents'. The actual nature of the various links is identified and the educational implications of thefindings are discussed.

Introduction

In a previous article in this Journal (Kempa and Martin Diaz 1990), we reported onthe development of an inventory for the determination of students' motivationaltraits. This work was done as part of a study to examine empirically the relationshipbetween students' motivational traits and their preferences for different instruc-tional modes in science education. The finding then reached was that most studentscan be assigned to one of the four motivational patterns originally described by Adar(1969), on the basis of what—in the case of each student-appears as the strongestmotivational trait.

In this paper, the focus is on the relationship between students' motivationaltraits and their preferences for different modes of instruction in science. Theexistence of a link between these two quantities was originally postulated in generalterms by Adar and subsequently elaborated by Hofstein and Kempa (1985) forinstructional activities in science. Among the predictions made by the latter werethat discovery/enquiry-oriented learning methods would be preferred by studentswith a 'curiosity'-type motivational pattern, but that they might be disliked by'achievers' and 'conscientious' students. They also suggested that the latter twotypes of student would exhibit a strong preference for 'formal* modes of teachingwith emphasis on information and skill transfer. Details of these and other'predictions' are given in Hofstein and Kempa's (1985) paper.

The theoretical position taken by Hofstein and Kempa in their analysis was that themotivating quality of an instructional procedure arises from its interaction with themotivational pattern of the learner. Implicit in this is the notion that, if instructionalprocedures are to generate or sustain motivation on the part of the learner, they mustbe broadly matched to his/her motivational characteristics. Motivation, in thiscontext, is seen as being different from 'interest-arousal': the former arises from, or isinfluenced by, the nature of teachers' pedagogical interventions and teachingstrategies, whilst the latter is associated with the nature and orientation of the subjectmatter that is taught or learned.

0950-0693/90 $3-00 © 1990 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3

2 0 6 RESEARCH REPORTS

The view that students of different motivational orientations respond differentlyto different instructional procedures was also expressed by Orbach (1979). Consider-ing the suitability of simulations and educational games for students in the four traitcategories suggested by Adar, he concluded that these educational approaches aresuitable for 'curious' and 'sociable' students, but not so for 'conscientious' students.

Predictions about the interactions between students' motivational traits and theirpreferences for different instructional strategies, like those of Hofstein and Kempaand of Orbach, follow mainly from theoretical considerations. However, so far, littleempirical work has been done to confirm, or refute, these predictions. The studydescribed here sought to remedy this situation by examining empirically the linkspredicted by Hofstein and Kempa.

The concept of 'instructional procedure'

Several approaches have been reported in the literature to an analysis andarticulation of the characteristics of different instructional procedures. In the main,these have related to studies of interactions between teachers and learners. Theanalysis and classification by Eggleston et al. (1976) is a prominent example of this,with a strong emphasis on the nature of teacher talk and on the talk and activitiesinitiated and/or maintained by pupils.

A somewhat different classification was proposed by Heathcote et al. (1982) whodistinguished between the following dimensions:

(i) Mode of knowledge acquisition (e.g., through discovery learning orexpository teaching),

(ii) Nature of learning experiences [e.g., experiential or non-experiential(theoretical)],

(iii) Control of learning activities (e.g., by the teacher or by the student—thelatter would involve a distinct degree of 'independent' or 'resource-based'learning),

(iv) Control of learning outcomes (by the teacher or the students, respectively; inthe case of the control by the latter, 'open-endedness' in learning results).

For the purpose of the present study, the first three of these dimensions wereregarded as relevant, together with two further dimensions: 'working arrangements'and 'evaluation of students' achievement'. This led to the classification of 'instruc-tional procedures' as given in table 1. It should be noted that, unlike all othersubdimensions, that entitled 'general dislike of being tested' concerns a preferencefor instructional situations in which students are not subjected to tests or otherassessments.

Experimental details

Questionnaires and inventories used

For the purpose of probing into students' preferences for different instructionalprocedures and features, an 80-item Likert-type 'preference inventory' was drawnup, covering all the various dimensions and subdimensions listed in table 1. Nopretesting of the inventory was undertaken, but an extensive post hoc analysis was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3

MOTIVATIONAL TRAITS OF SCIENCE STUDENTS* 2 0 7

Table 1. Dimensions and subdimensions of instructional proceduresconsidered in the present study.

A. Mode of knowledge acquisitionA.I Formal teaching with emphasis on input from teacherA.2 Use of books and other material as a source for obtaining informationA.3 Note-taking as a means of obtaining an accurate record of informationA.4 Discovery learning procedures

B. Working arrangementsB.I Pursuit of study through individual workB.2 Involvement in group learning activities

C. Practical work in scienceC.I Carrying out practical work (as opposed to 'non-experimental' learning)C.2 Experimental work based on precise instructions given by teacher

D. Organization of teachingD.I Provision of opportunity to pursue one's own interests

E. Evaluation of progressE.I Regular assessment by teacherE.2 General dislike of being tested

carried out in order to establish the validity and reliability of the scales incorporatedin it. The techniques used for this were reliability analysis and factor analysis.

The results of the validation study are not shown here but have been reportedelsewhere (Martin Diaz 1989). Suffice it to say that during the post hoc analysis nineof the original 80 items were eliminated because of unsatisfactory performance. Theresulting revised scales had Cronbach-alpha reliabilities in the range 0-75 to 0-50 (thelatter applied to two scales with only four items per scale).

The factor analysis broadly confirmed the original input scales, but led to theidentification of one new scale which was subsequently called 'risk-taking inclassroom situations'. Items in this scale appeared to relate to students' willingness toengage in classroom activities in the course of which self-exposure might result, or inwhich one's ignorance could be revealed, etc.

A potential danger in developing any preference inventory is that items areincluded about which students cannot make a reasoned judgement, due toinexperience or unfamiliarity with the situation described. In order to overcome thisdifficulty, a 'familiarity questionnaire' was developed by which students' actualfamiliarity with different instructional situations and features was estimated. Itrequired students to indicate, on the customary 1-5 rating scale, the extent of theirprevious experience of different instructional situations and approaches.

Student sample

This was the same as that described in our previous paper. It consisted of 390secondary school students, aged 15 years.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3

208 RESEARCH REPORTS

Data analysis

As was reported in our previous paper, it is possible—in principle as well as inpractice-to assign the majority of students to particular motivational categories, onthe basis of their highest scores on the 'motivational patterns' questionnaire.However, the assignment of a student to one motivational category does not imply atotal absence, in the same student, of motivational leanings that would normally beassociated with another motivational category. All it does mean is that these latterleanings are less pronounced in the student than the ones on the basis of whichhis/her motivational trait is determined.

In the light of the foregoing argument and also in view of the fact that previouslysome statistically significant correlations between certain motivational patterns hadbeen found (cf. table 3 in Part 1), it was decided that analysis of covariance wouldform the best procedure for probing into the relationship between students'motivational traits and their preferences for instructional procedures in science. Forthe purpose of the evaluation, students' scores on the various nrotivational trait scales('achiever', 'curious', 'conscientious' and 'sociable') were taken as measures of theextent to which they possessed the various motivational characteristics. For eachmotivational trait measure, four score ranges were selected, as shown in table 2,together with the number of subjects per score group.

The general procedure used for the covariance analysis was to focus, at any onetime, on one of the motivational traits as the independent variable, with the threeother motivational traits as covariables. Preferences for instructional proceduresformed the dependent variables.

Results and discussion

An initial analysis of the students' responses to the 'familiarity questionnaire'showed that all students had had adequate experience of the various instructionalfeatures referred to in the 'preference inventory'. Inevitably, the actual levels offamiliarity were varied for different instructional procedures. The highest levels of

Table 2. Grouping of students for the covariance analyses. Score rangesand number of subjects per group (in parentheses) are given.

Motivationalpattern

Achiever

Curious

Conscientious

Sociable*

Bottom

100-1-99(61)

1-75-2-55(26)

2-24-2-92(21)

2-46-3-62(80)

Group

Bottom-middle

2-00-2-99(143)

2-56-3-36(136)

2-93-3-62(109)

3-63-3-94(83)

Top-middle

3-00-3-99(119)

3-37-4-19(151)

3-63^-29(175)

3-95-4-30(101)

Top

4-00-5-00(21)

4-20-5-00(29)

4-30-5-00(37)

4-31-5-00(78)

* In the case of this motivational pattern, an approximate quartile-based grouping was used because of ahighly skewed distribution of scores towards the top end.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3


familiarity were reported for the following procedures: 'evaluation by teacher' (E.I),'formal teaching with emphasis on input from teacher' (A.I), 'experimental workwith precise instructions' (C.2). In contrast, 'involvement in discovery learningsituations' (A.4), provision of 'opportunity to pursue one's own enquiry' (D.I) and'evaluation by classmates' (E.2) had featured only to a limited extent in students'experiences.

The main part of the data evaluation involved the analyses of covariance ofstudents' responses to the preference inventory. The results of these analyses arenow presented and discussed for each motivational variable in turn.

(i) Achievement motivation

Table 3 gives the results of the covariance analysis for achievement motivation as theindependent variable. As is seen, statistically significant variations with levels ofachievement motivation are in evidence for three instructional preference variables,viz., 'discovery learning' (A.4), 'the opportunity to pursue one's own enquiry' (D.I)and 'formal teaching' (A.I).

Table 3. Analysis of covariance for different achiever student groups.

Instructional procedure

A.I

A.2

A.3

A.4

B.I

B.2

C.I

C.2

D.I

E.I

E2

RT

Formal teaching

Use of reference books forfinding information

Note-taking

Use of discovery learning

Individual work

Involvement in group work

Doing practical work

Experimental work with instructions

Opportunity to pursue one'sown enquiry

Evaluation by teacher

General dislike of being tested

Risk-taking

Mean preference rating

Bottomgroup

2-58

2-24

4-18

3-80

2-67

3-95

3-61

3-95

3-73

3-73

3-45

3-93

Bottom-middlegroup

2-53

2-29

4-07

3-99

2-79

3-88

3-65

3-80

3-89

3-87 .

3-29

3-93

Top-middle-group

2-49

2-36

41-5

405

2-81

3-88

3-65

3-84

408

3-95

3-39

400

Topgroup

2-17

2-34

4-25

4-14

250

4-21

3-96

356

4-17

3-95

3-39

3-82

F-ratio(p-value)

3-49(002)0-45(NS)0-65(NS)4-27

(001)1-33(NS)1-33(NS)1-48(NS)1-62(NS)3-44

(002)1-44(NS)2-78(NS)0-72(NS)

The mean preference ratings are based on a five-point scale, ranging from 5=high preference to 1 = lowpreference.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3


In the case of the first two of these preference variables, a fairly linear trend isnoted: students' preference for discovery learning and for being allowed to pursuetheir own enquiry evidently increased with the degree of achievement motivationdisplayed by them. In relation to the 'formal teaching' variable, no trend across thefour achievement motivation groups was observed. Instead, a major gap appearedbetween the top achiever student group and the rest. With respect to otherinstruction variables, no significant variations or trends in preference were inevidence.

It is appropriate at this stage to examine the extent to which the present findingssupport the predictions found in the literature. For example, Hofstein and Kempa(1985) suggested that achiever students should display a distinct preference forexpository modes of teaching/learning, with the goals and objectives of their learningwell defined, and for regular evaluation by the teacher. Similarly, Orbach (1979)argued that 'an ideal situation for the stimulation of the motivation to learn inachiever students is one in which the students are faced with a set of well-definedtasks...'.

It is evident that none of the present findings supports these predictions. Severalpossible explanations may be given for this. One is that the predictions themselves,which are largely based on theoretical considerations, are inappropriate and, hence,untenable. Another is that the research tools used in the present study provedinadequate for the detection of genuine differences in preference in relation to certaininstructional variables. A third explanation is that actual differences in preferencesare masked by other factors prevalent in the school system, for example, theexistence of a highly competitive ethos in the school environment or school system ingeneral.

Of these possibilities, the second one seems to us to be the least likely, for thesimple reason that - as will be seen - agreement between the present empirical resultsand predictions is quite good for the other motivational trait variables. As far as thefirst possibility is concerned, a number, of researchers (e.g., McCelland et al. 1953,Schneider and Posse 1982, Clifford 1988) have, between them, argued that achieverstudents prefer learning tasks and situations which, at the same time, minimize riskof failure and maximize the probability of success. If this is the case, judgementsabout the desirability of a particular instructional procedure would be influenced bythe raters' perception of the nature of a learning task. This aspect was, alas, notconsidered in the design of the present study, and may be one explanation of theunexpected findings for achiever students.

Notwithstanding the foregoing possibility, we believe the school ethosfactor, suggested as the third possible explanation, to be significant in the presentcase. The Spanish school system is a fairly competitive one and students involved init develop a keen commitment to any instructional procedure that, in their view,enhances the chance of success. If this is the case, a student's internal achievementmotivation may well become subordinated to, and is hence masked by, the generalcompetitive ethos of the school environment. As a result, it would fail to show up in astudy like the present one.

(ii) Curiosity motivation

The results of the covariance analyses with curiosity motivation as the independentvariable, are shown in table 4. Altogether seven of the instructional preference variables

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3

MOTIVATIONAL TRAITS OF SCIENCE STUDENTS* 211

Table 4. Analysis of covariance for different curious student groups.


A.I

A.2

A.3

A.4

Bl

B2

C.I

C.2

Dl

E.I

E.2

RT

Formal teaching


Note-taking


Individual work







Risk-taking


Bottomgroup

2-64

208

4-14

3-59

2-76

3-86

3-45

4-23

3-55

4-05

3-39

3-74

Bottom-middlegroup

261

2-12

4-18

3-84

2-72

3-96

3-51

403

3-87

3-83

3-27

3-82

Top-middlegroup

2-41

2-43

410

4-12

2-78

3-83

3-74

3-68

405

3-90

3-40

4-03

Topgroup

2-33

2-90

3-99

4-42

2-82

4-13

404

3-32

419

3-74

3-47

4-23

F-ratio(p-value)

4-26(001)

12-85(0001)

0-56(NS)

19-62(0001)

019(NS)207(NS)610

(0001)10-67(0001)

4-30(0001)

1-34(NS)0-79(NS)3-84(001)

The mean preference ratings are based on a five-point scale,preference.

ranging from 5=high preference to 1 =low

show statistically significant variations with levels of curiosity motivation. They are,in order of the respective .F-ratios: 'discovery-learning' (A.4), 'use of reference booksfor finding information' (A.2), 'experimental work with instructions' (C.2), 'oppor-tunity to pursue one's own enquiry' (D.I ) , 'practical work in general' (C.I), 'formalteaching' (A.I) and 'risk-taking' (RT). For two of these variables (experimental workwith instructions and formal teaching), a decrease in preference with increasing levelof curiosity motivation is noted; for the other variables, a direct proportionality isfound.

The results clearly indicate that, the higher the degree of curiosity motivation instudents, the greater is their liking for discovery learning situations (which includethe use of books as a source of information); they also like to be involved in practicalwork (as opposed to non-experiential work), but take a dislike to such work if it isassociated with precise instructions. Likewise, formal teaching is disliked by them.These observations, taken together, point to curious students having a preference forbeing actively involved in learning activities that require them to discover, to seekinformation and to make decisions. They evidently do not like to be simple'receptors' of information which places them in the role of passive learners.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3

212 RESEARCH REPORTS

A further conclusion to be drawn concerning students with a high degree ofcuriosity motivation is that they have a general leaning towards 'open-ended'learning. The pattern of responses to variables C.2 and D.I brings this out. Finally, itis of interest to note that curious students appear willing to engage in a higher degreeof risk-taking in their learning than other students. A possible explanation for this isthat curious students have a high failure tolerance (Clifford 1988).

Overall, the present findings provide strong support for Hofstein and Kempa's(1985) predictions for curiosity-motivated students. These were that curiousstudents have a 'strong preference for discovery learning and problem-solvingactivities; at the same time, they prefer learning tasks which are open-ended andallow them to control, or at least significantly influence, the nature of the learningtasks'.

(iii) Conscientiousness motivation

The results of the analyses of covariance, with conscientiousness motivation as theindependent variable, are shown in table 5. Statistically significant relationships withlevels of conscientiousness (as motivational factor) are observed for the followinginstructional procedure variables: 'evaluation by teacher' (E.I), 'experimental work

Table 5. Analysis of covariance for different conscientious student groups.


A.1

A.2

A.3

A.4

B.I

B.2

C.I

C.2

D.I

E.I

E.2

RT

Formal teaching


Note-taking


Individual work







Risk-taking


Bottomgroup

2-23

2-72

3-81

407

304

3-72

3-93

3-12

4-27

3-20

3-46

3-69

Bottom-middlegroup

2-49

2-34

406

3-96

2-65

3-79

3-64

3-81

3-92

3-70.

3-33

3-82

Top-middlegroup

2-52

2-28

419

3-98

2-77

3-94

3-62

3-86

3-92

3-98

3-35

4-02

Topgroup

2-63

209

4-26

409

2-87

4-21

3-65

4-14

400

4-26

3-35

406

F-ratio(p-value)

2-29(NS)3-88(001)200(NS)0-98(NS)1-93(NS)3-46(002)1-23(NS)7-68

(0001)1-64(NS)

12-86(0-001)

0-15(NS)2-49(NS)

The mean preference ratings are based on a five-point scale, ranging from 5=high preference to 1 = low •preference.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3


with (precise) instructions' (C.2), 'use of reference books as a means of obtaininginformation' (A.2) and 'involvement in group work' (B.2). In addition, the trend forthe variable 'formal teaching' (A.I) is fairly close to the 5% significance level. Itshould be noted that for all these variables, except 'use of reference books for findinginformation', the trend with levels of conscientiousness is positive.

On the basis of the foregoing results, it appears that students with a high degree ofconscientiousness motivation exhibit a distinct preference for formal modes ofteaching, with clear and precise instructions to be followed. They also have apronounced desire to have their progress and achievement monitored by theirteachers. In the overall sense, this suggests that conscientious students are more'teacher-dependent' than students in the other motivational categories.

The last point is also supported by the negative relationship observed betweenpreference scores for the use of reference books as a source of information and level ofconscientiousness motivation. Such use of books constitutes a method of 'indepen-dent' learning, i.e., learning without teacher influence or control: it is evidentlydisliked by the conscientious student.

The 'discovery learning' variable turns out to be invariant with levels ofconscientiousness motivation. Consequently, discovery learning situations must beregarded as appropriate for conscientious students, provided that they are linked toclear objectives and supported by adequate guidance.

The foregoing findings concerning the preferences of conscientious students arein good agreement with the predictions by Hofstein and Kempa (1985) and alsosupport the views advanced by Good and Power (1976) and by Orbach (1979).

A finding not foreseen by these authors is the apparent preference of conscien-tious students for group learning activities (cf. variable B.2). Our explanation for thisrelates to the general desire of conscientious students to receive feedback on theirprogress: it may well be that fellow-students are seen as a valuable source of suchfeedback.

(iv) Affiliation motivation

Table 6 presents the results of the analyses of covariance for affiliation motivation asthe independent variable. According to the table, statistically significant variationswith level of affiliation motivation appear for the following instructional procedurevariables: 'opportunity to pursue one's own enquiry' (D.I), 'individual work' (B.I),'general dislike of being tested' (E.2), 'involvement in group work' (B.2), 'formalteaching' (A.I), 'discovery learning' (A.4) and 'doing practical work' (C.I). Inaddition, a marginally significant effect for the 'use of reference books' variable (A.2)was also noted.

As would be expected, students' preference for involvement in group workincreases significantly with increase in affiliation motivation; this trend is paralleledby an equally significant decrease in liking for individualized work. Indeed, thisfinding is fully in accord with the predictions of not only Hofstein and Kempa(1985), but also a number of other authors (e.g., Good and Power 1976, Dodge 1978,Orbach 1979). The general dislike of being tested which appears as another strongtrend in the present data, likewise is in accord with expectations and predictions:sociable students, i.e., students with a high degree of affiliation motivation, areopposed to a competitive learning environment-regular testing is usually thehallmark of such an environment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3


Table 6. Analysis of covariance for different sociable student groups.


A.I

A.2

A.3

A.4

B.I

B2

C.I

C.2

D.I

E.I

E.2

RT

Formal teaching-

Use of reference books for. finding informationNote-taking


Individual work







Risk-taking


Bottomgroup

2-72

2-31

4-02

3-82

316

3-63

3-44

3-95

3-54

3-94

302

3-93

Bottom-middlegroup

2-54

2-17

407

3-99

2-81

3-78

3-68

3-82

3-79

3-98

319

3-94

Top-middlegroup

2-38

2-45

413

408

2-64

4-05

3-66

3-84

4-17

3-77

3-46

406

Topgroup

2-36

2-27

4-33

405

2-45

416

3-82

3-70

4-28

3-81

3-69

3-79

F-ratio(p-value)

7-79(0001)

3-02(003)2-44(NS)5-32

(0001)11-60(0001)

9-80(0001)

4-20(001)1-36(NS)

16-48(0-001)1-96(NS)

1016(0001)2-13(NS)

The mean preference ratings are based on a five-point scale,preference.

ranging from 5 =high preference to 1 =low

The moderate preferences for discovery learning (A.4) and involvement inpractical work (C.I) shown by the more sociable students may be explained in termsof the opportunities that these two instructional modes generally provide forpersonal/social interactions between students. As is well known, discovery andpractical activities in science education are frequently organized in the form of groupwork. Hence, the response pattern for these two instructional variables could be seenas confirming that for the 'involvement in group work' variable.

Finally, the trends observed for the 'opportunity to pursue one's own enquiry'variable (D.I ) and for the 'formal teaching' variable (A.I) merit comment. Bothsuggest that, with increasing affiliation motivation, students' preference for a non-authoritarian learning climate increases, something that was predicted by Adar.Hofstein and Kempa's (1985) predictions in relation to sociable students was that'their only major characteristic, compared with other groups, is their preference forgroup learning activities and for the evaluation of their performance by their peers'(as opposed to their teachers). The present findings suggest that the preferencepattern of social students is more complex than was assumed by these authors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3

MOTIVATIONAL TRAITS OF SCIENCE STUDENTS* 215

Conclusions and educational implications

The study reported here, and in our previous article (Kempa and Martin 1990),represents an attempt to examine empirically the proposition that students'motivational orientations have a significant influence on their preferences for, ordislikes of, different instructional approaches used in science education. The mainfindings are summarized in table 7 and show the existence of distinct links betweenmotivational traits and instructional preferences. These links are well pronouncedfor all but 'achiever students'. In relation to this group of students, the predictionspreviously made are not substantiated, but possible explanations for this have beenadvanced.

In order to recognize the educational implications and potential applications ofthe findings reported here, we must go beyond the immediate scope of the presentstudy and examine how the findings might relate to (i) the process of learning and (ii)the organization of instruction. With reference to the first, we may hypothesize that,if students are exposed to instructional procedures which are in accord with theirmotivation-based preferences, enhanced learning should result. This hypothesis

Table 7. Summary of the relationships between students' motivationaltraits and preferences for instructional procedures.

Motivational trait

Instructional procedure Achiever Curious Conscientious Sociable

Knowledge acquisition mode

A.I Formal teaching — — +A.2 Use of reference books for

finding information + + —A.4 Use of discovery learning 4- + + (+)

Working arrangements

B.I Individual workB.2 Involvement in group work (+) + +

Practical work

C.I Doing practical work + + ( + )C.2 Experimental work with instructions + +

Organization of teaching

D.I Opportunity to pursue one'sown enquiry + + + +

EvaluationE.I Evaluation by teacher - + +E.2 General dislike of being tested + +RT Risk-taking +

Strong preference trends are indicated b y ' + + ' ; ' ' denotes the opposite. Moderate preference trendsare indicated by ' +' , with'—' denoting moderate dislike. ( + ) indicates a moderate preference trend dueto an indirect, rather than a direct relationship between preference and motivational trait.

Note: Subdimension A.3 (note-taking as a means of obtaining an accurate record of information) hasbeen omitted since it produced no significant differences between motivational trait groups.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3


corresponds broadly with the concept of learning/teaching that derives fromdifferential psychology. This is that teaching strategies should match students'learning styles.

The present study does, of course, not shed any light on the correctness (orotherwise) of this hypothesis, neither was it intended to do so. It must therefore beleft to another study to establish empirically whether a matching of teachingstrategies to students' preferences for instructional procedures does, in fact, promotelearning.

What the present study has clearly established is that students have differentmotivational traits and that these result in different preferences for, or dislikes of,certain instructional procedures as they are used in science education. We believethat this finding itself is sufficiently important to be taken into consideration in thedesign and planning of learning experiences and teaching interventions. As a firststep in this direction, teachers and curriculum developers should take cognizance ofhow students' motivational traits manifest themselves in learning behaviour andpreferences. The current research findings provide a foundation for this.

We are aware that it is difficult in practice for teachers to respond to theirstudents' individual differences, but we would ask teachers to use as wide a range ofinstructional procedures as possible, instead of limiting themselves to the use of oneor two. To do so requires skill in a variety of teaching methods as well as a high levelof managerial competence to implement them in the classroom. This clearlyrepresents a major inservice challenge for teachers and teacher educators.

References

ADAR, L. 1969, A Theoretical Framework for the Study of Motivation in Education (TheHebrew University School of Education, Jerusalem) [in Hebrew].

CLIFFORD, M. M. 1988, Failure tolerance and academic risk-taking in ten to twelve year oldstudents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 15-27.

DODGE, B. J., 1978, Towards a conceptual framework for motivational design. NSPI Journal,Vol. 17, pp. 8-10.

EGGLESTON, J. F., GALTON, M. J. and JONES, M. E. 1976, Processes and Products of ScienceTeaching (Macmillan Education, London).

GOOD, T. L. and POWER, C. N. 1976, Designing successful classroom environments fordifferent types of student. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 8, pp. 45-60.

HEATHCOTE, G., KEMPA, R. F. and ROBERTS, I. F. 1982, Curriculum Styles and Strategies (DES,Further Education Curriculum Review and Development Unit, London).

HOFSTEIN, A. and KEMPA, R. F. 1985, Motivating strategies in science education: Attempt atan analysis. European Journal of Science Education, Vol. 7, pp. 221—229.

KEMPA, R. F. and MARTIN DIAZ, MARIA 1990, Motivational traits and preferences fordifferent instructional modes in science—Part 1: Students' motivational traits. Intern-ational Journal of Science Education, Vol. 12, pp. 194-203.

MARTIN DIAZ, M. 1989, Students' motivational patterns and preferences for differentinstructional modes in science education (MA dissertation, University of Keele).

MCCELLAND, D. C., ATKINSON, J. W., CLARKE, R. W. and LOWELL, E. L. 1953, TheAchievement Motive (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York).

ORBACH, E. 1979, Simulation games and motivation for learning. A theoretical framework.Simulation and Games, Vol. 10, pp. 3-40.

SCHNEIDER, K. and POSSE, N. 1982, Risk taking in achievement oriented situations: Do peoplereally maximize affect or competence information? Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 6,pp. 259-271.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 1

3:57

04

May

201

3

students' motivational traits and preferences for different instructional modes in science...

Documents