انگیزش و تجربه دانشگاه در دانشجویان سال اول: چشم انداز تئوری خودمختاری

The present research examined the influence of motivational profiles on the experience and engagement of first-year undergraduate students at a UK university. In two separate cohorts, three groups of students emerged who varied in their reasons for attending university across autonomous motivation (for knowledge, accomplishment, and stimulation), controlled motivation (to demonstrate intelligence and/or later financial reward), and amotivation (are unsure or do not know). When comparable levels of autonomous motivation and controlled motivation were accompanied by low amotivation, students reported more positive experiences and higher engagement. In contrast, when lower levels of autonomous motivation were accompanied by higher controlled motivation and amotivation, students reported a more negative experience and poorer engagement.

The purpose of study 1 was to identify the motivational profiles evident among a cohort of first-year undergraduate students. After doing so, these groups were compared in terms of their university experience during the first 6 weeks of study. University experience was assessed via emotions associated with study (enjoyment, boredom, and anxiety), perceived academic ability, and satisfaction with university life. The approach to establishing motivational profiles replicated Ratelle et al. (2007). Unlike Vansteenkiste et al. (2009), this entailed using a range of individual motivations to establish motivational profiles, including amotivation. The inclusion of amotivation is particularly important, not only because of the findings of Ratelle et al. (2007) but also because it has proven useful in other domains when seeking to identify groups that are motivationally vulnerable (e.g., Chain & Wang, 2008; Ntoumanis, 2001 and Wang and Biddle, 2001). As the analytical approach used to establish motivational profiles (viz. cluster analysis) is exploratory and heavily reliant on sample characteristics, predicting the motivational profiles that will emerge is difficult. However, based on the findings of Ratelle et al. (2007), tentative hypotheses can be formulated. Specifically, it was expected that three groups with differing motivational profiles would emerge: (1) The first group will have a motivational profile characterised by truly autonomous motivation (high levels of intrinsic and identified motivation in combination with low levels of introjected motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation). (2) The second group will have a motivational profile characterised by a combination of high levels of both autonomous and controlled motivation with low amotivation (high levels of intrinsic, identified, introjected, and extrinsic motivation with low levels of amotivation). (3) The third group will have a motivational profile characterised by a combination of low-to-moderate levels of autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and amotivation (low-to-moderate levels of intrinsic, identified, introjected, and extrinsic motivation with amotivation). Based on the findings of Ratelle et al. (2007) and Vansteenkiste et al. (2009), differences between these groups can also be expected in reported university experience depending on the degree to which more autonomous or more controlled motivation is present. Specifically, in comparison to the other groups, the truly autonomous motivation group would report the most positive university experience (higher levels of perceived academic ability, enjoyment, and satisfaction with university life, as well as lower levels of boredom and anxiety). In contrast, in comparison to the other two groups, the low-to-moderate autonomous, controlled and amotivation group would report the least positive university experience (lower levels of perceived academic ability, enjoyment, and satisfaction with university life, as well as higher levels of boredom and anxiety). Finally, the group characterised by high levels of both autonomous and controlled motivation would report a largely positive university experience (similar levels of perceived academic ability, enjoyment, satisfaction, and boredom to the truly autonomous motivation group but with higher levels of anxiety). 1.1. Method 1.1.1. Participants The sample comprised 116 first-year undergraduate students recruited from those enrolled on sports-related programmes at a UK university (68 males, 48 females; M age=19.27 years, s=2.43 years, range=18–35 years). Students were approached in a research methods module common to sports-related programmes during week 6 of semester 1. Participants completed a consent form and a multi-section questionnaire that contained measures of motivation and measures of their experience on their degree programme (described below). Approval was gained from the University’s Research Ethics Committee prior to conducting the study. 1.1.2. Instruments Motivation for attending university: Students’ motivation was measured using Vallerand et al.’s (1992) Academic Motivation Scale (AMS). This scale measures motivation towards educational activities (“Why do you go to university?”) and is frequently used when examining motivation in university and college students (e.g., Ballman and Mueller, 2008, Ratelle et al., 2007 and Pisarik, 2009). The scale includes three subscales that assess intrinsic forms of motivation: to know (e.g., “Because I experience pleasure and satisfaction while learning new things”), for accomplishment (e.g., “For the enjoyment I experience while surpassing myself in my studies”), and for stimulation (e.g., “For the positive feelings that I experience while reading about different interesting subjects”). The scale also includes three forms of extrinsic motivation: identified (e.g., “Because eventually it will enable me to enter the job market in a field that I like”), introjected (e.g., “To show myself that I am an intelligent person”), and extrinsic (e.g., “In order to have a better salary later on”). The scale does not include a measure of integrated regulation. Finally, the instrument also includes a measure of amotivation (e.g., “I can’t see why I go to University and frankly I couldn’t care less”). The scale includes 28 items (4 items per subscale) and is scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree). Previous research has provided evidence of the reliability and validity of this measure. This includes acceptable levels of internal consistency (α=0.72 to α=0.87), test–retest reliability (r=0.71–0.83), and factor structure (Vallerand et al., 1992). Emotions associated with studying: The emotional experience associated with studying reported by students was measured using an instrument developed by Daniels et al. (2009). The scale assesses enjoyment (e.g., “Some topics are so fun that I look forward to studying them”), boredom (e.g., “The things I have to do for this class are often boring”) and anxiety (e.g., “Before I start studying material in this course, I feel tense and nervous”). The scale contains 18 items (6 items per subscale) and is scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all true for me to 5=very true for me). Previous research has provided evidence of the reliability and validity of this measure. This includes acceptable levels of internal consistency (α=0.75, α=0.90 and α=0.81), and factor structure (Daniels et al., 2009). Perceived ability: Perceived ability was measured using an adapted version of Hall, Kerr, and Matthews’ (1998) perceived ability scale. The scale asks students to rate their ability as a university student (e.g., “In general, how would you rate your ability as a University student?”). The scale includes four items and is scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1=very weak to 7=very strong). Previous research has provided evidence of the reliability and validity of this measure. This includes acceptable levels of internal consistency (α=0.85) (Smith, Duda, Allen, & Hall, 2002). Satisfaction: Students’ satisfaction with university life was assessed using an adapted version of Diener, Emmons, Larsen and Griffin's (1985) Satisfaction with Life Scale. Items were amended to focus on university life, rather than life in general. The scale asks students to indicate the degree of agreement/disagreement with statements that reflect satisfaction (e.g., “I am satisfied with my life at university”). The scale includes five items in total and is scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree). Previous research has provided evidence of the reliability and validity of this measure. This includes acceptable levels of internal consistency (α=0.87) (Diener et al., 1985).

Research suggests that utilising Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) along with a person-centred approach may be useful when attempting to understand motivational issues in undergraduate students. Adopting this theory and approach, the two studies presented here found that discrete motivational profiles exist among first-year students and that these groups differ in their experience and engagement. In doing so, the current research supports suggestions that the motivation of university students is best captured by combinations of both autonomous and controlling motivation (Ratelle et al., 2007). In addition, although excluded in previous research, the current studies indicate that amotivation contributes to differences between groups and therefore warrants consideration. Differences between the current findings and previous research in terms of the motivational profiles that emerged are to a large degree expected due to the exploratory nature of the analytical approach. However, they also allude to the strong influence of contextual factors. Previous research has found different motivational profiles across educational settings (e.g., high-school versus university; Ratelle et al., 2007). The current findings suggest that motivational profiles may also differ within educational settings (e.g., different universities, programmes, and academic years). Research is therefore required that examines the sources and meaning of variability in the motivational profiles that emerge. 3.1. Autonomous versus controlling motivation The findings are broadly consistent with research in this area that attest to the benefits of autonomous motivation in terms of both emotional experiences and behavioural engagement in students (Black and Deci, 2000 and Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). The findings also provide support for the possibility that autonomous motivation supersedes the impact of controlling motivation for students (Ratelle et al., 2007). In both studies, providing autonomous motivation was present to a similar level as controlling motivation, motivational profiles typically led to more positive outcomes. This was evident in both initial student experience, as well as the manner in which student experience changed across the academic year. It appears that autonomous motivation provides an ongoing source of positive emotional experiences and behavioural commitment not associated with controlling motivation. Consequently, promoting more autonomous motivation for attending university, and fostering more autonomous motivation during university study, is necessary in order to avoid motivational difficulties. Fortunately, Self-Determination Theory offers a useful framework to guide the development of more autonomous motivation. Self-Determination Theory describes a process whereby controlling motivation can become more autonomous when environments are perceived to be autonomy-supportive (Deci et al., 1991). In context of teacher behaviour, autonomy support has been described as a motivational style where students’ needs, interests, and preferences are encouraged to guide learning and activities (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004). Research suggests that instructors can be taught to be more autonomy-supportive relatively easily and that its provision is associated with higher intrinsic motivation and better engagement among students (Reeve and Jang, 2006 and Reeve et al., 2004). A number of practical strategies aimed at promoting perceptions of autonomy support have been identified by Reeve and colleagues (e.g., Reeve and Jang, 2006, Reeve et al., 1999 and Reeve and Halusic, 2009). Briefly, these include offering choices, encouraging independent problem-solving, involving individuals in the decision-making process, minimising the use of pressure, giving rationales when choice is constrained, avoiding the use of controlling language (e.g., ‘you should’ or ‘you must’), and communicating relevance. When systematically applied, these strategies provide a means of improving the quality of motivation, experience, and attainment of all first-year university students. 3.2. Limitations There are a number of noteworthy limitations to the current study. As noted earlier, cluster analysis is an exploratory technique that can create as well as reveal structure (Breckenridge, 2000). Consequently, establishing the validity of the current cluster solution through further replication and alternative analytical strategies is necessary, especially in light of the mixed findings regarding the replication of the three groups. An additional consideration is that due to the design (survey-based and longitudinal) students with higher levels of behavioural persistence (course completors) are likely to be over-represented in the two studies. Consequently, the motivationally vulnerable group, from which those most likely to dropout would belong, may be under-represented (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). Future research should therefore establish motivational profiles as early as possible and include actual course dropout as an outcome variable. The study also employed self-report measures. Future research should consider using alternative sources of measurement, such as observation or other-report scales, to compliment this form of measurement when establishing motivational profiles and university experiences. Finally, motivation was measured in reference to university study, rather than programme specific study. Although it would be expected that motivation would be similar, course-specific measurement may enhance the predictive ability of the motivational profiles and would be advantageous in future research (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992).