Motivation and Learning Strategies
in EMI versus non-EMI students
1
Challenges and Opportunities of the International Classroom: A one-day seminar
4th April 2016
Mª José Rivero-Menéndez (CUNEF) Elena Urquía-Grande (UCM)
Mª Mar Camacho-Miñano (CUNEF) Pilar López-Sánchez (UFV)
Structure
• Motivation
• Objectives
• Context
• Sample description & Methodology
• Findings discussion
• Conclusions
• Limitations and Future research
2
Motivation
• The internationalization of the Higher Education and the XXIst century has economic and social needs.
• International academic and professional talent attraction and retention: English as the medium of communication.
• Higher Education Institutions and lecturers need to know about differences in motivation and learning strategies in the use of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) students.
3
Objectives
• The objectives of this paper are:
– First, to analyse if the English as medium of instruction
determine students’ learning strategies and their motivation.
– Second, to evidence whether there is a link between motivated students and their learning strategies.
– A survey designed out of the Motivation and Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) is carried out in a sample of 64 undergraduate students of Business Administration Degree taught in English (32) and in Spanish (32) at the UCM.
4
• There has been much research about the Motivated and Learning Strategies Questionnaire (MLSQ) created by Pintrich et al. (1991) after it has been improved by educational psychologists and researchers (Mckeachie & Pintrich, 1986; Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Pintrich et al., 2001; Pintrich et al., 2003; Duncan & Mckeachie, 2005)
• The MLSQ is a Likert-scaled instrument that was designed to assess motivation and use of learning strategies of College students.
• The section about motivation is divided in three main areas: firstly value including intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation and task value, the expectancy measured by control beliefs about learning and self-efficacy and, thirdly, the affection or test anxiety.
• The learning strategies section is comprised of nine scales which can be distinguished as cognitive, meta-cognitive, and resource management strategies.
– The Cognitive strategies scales include rehearsal, elaboration, organization, and critical thinking.
– Meta-cognitive strategies are assessed by one large scale that includes planning, monitoring, and regulating strategies.
– Resource management strategies include managing time and study environment; effort management, peer learning, and help-seeking.
• All scale reliabilities are robust, and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated good factor structure.
5
Context (I)
Context (II) Therefore several authors have used part of this questionnaire to analyse some
parts within student academic performance research (Bong 2001; Campbell 2001; Loyens et al., 2008)
In addition, the instrument shows reasonable predictive validity to the actual course performance of students demonstrated by several authors (Artino, 2005; Boekaerts and Corno, 2005; Cardozo, 2008)
Other empirical studies using MLSQ with different aims compare motivation and
learning strategies towards different teaching resources Case vs lecture (Barise, 2000);
Multimedia (Liu, 2003)
Computer based versus web based (Eom & Reiser 2000)
On-line teaching (Miltiadou, 2001; Zlatovi, Balaban & Kermek, 2015; Zerbini et al., 2015)
Other researchers test the MLSQ in students in school with the mathematics learning (Matallidou and Vlachou, 2010)
6
Research Questions
• RQ1: Does motivation in students change from EMI students to non-EMI students?
• RQ2: Does learning strategies change in EMI versus non-EMI students?
• RQ3: Does motivation affect learning strategies?
• RQ 4: Which factors determine total motivation in EMI versus non-EMI students?
7
Sample description
EMI Non-EMI
AGE mean SD
21.72 (1.25)
22.56 (2.71)
WORK 46.9% 25%
Spanish nationality 71.9% 62%
Parent study level: university
81.3% 53.1%
8
Instrument (I) Survey Motivation and Learning Startegies
Questionnaire Part I: Motivation Scales Nº items Part II: Learning Strategies Nº items
1. Intrinsic Goal Orientation 4 1, Rehearsal 4
2. Extrinsic Goal Orientation 4 2. Elaboration 6
3. Task Value 6 3. Organization 4
4. Control of Learning Beliefs 4 4. Critical Thinking 5
5. Self Efficacy for Learning & Performance (8) 8 5. Metacognitive Self-Regulation (12) 12
6, Test Anxiety 5 6. Time study Environmental Management (8) 8
7. Effort Regulation (4) 4
8.Peer Learning 3
9. Help Seeking 4
Total number of items 31 50
9
Instrument Validity (II) Survey MSLQ
Survey Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
internal consistency estimates of reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)
10
Motivation Scales Items Alfa Cronbach
1. Intrinsic Goal Orientation 1,16,22,24 0,74
2, Extrinsic Goal Orientation 7,11,13,30 0,62
3. Task Value 4,10,17,23,26,27 0,90
4. Control of Learning Beliefs 2,9,18,25 0,68
5. Self Efficacy for Learning & Performance 5,6,12,15,20,21,29,31 0,93
6, Test Anxiety 3,8,14,19,28 0,80
Learning Strategies Scales Items Alfa Cronbach
1, Rehearsal 39,46,59,72 0,69
2. Elaboration 53,62,64,67,69,81 0,71
3. Organization 32,42,49,63 0,64
4. Critical Thinking 38,47,51,66,71 0,80
5. Metacognitive Self-Regulation 33r, 36, 41, 44, 54, 55, 56, 57r, 61, 76, 78,79 0,79
6. Time study Environmental Management 35,43,52r,65,70,73, 77r, 80r 0,76
7. Effort Regulation 37r, 48, 60r, 74 0,69
8.Peer Learning 34, 45, 50 0,76
9. Help Seeking 40r, 58, 68, 74 0,52
Instrument MLSQ Advantages and Disadvantages
11
Advantages
Survey already run since 1985, hundreds of researchers
Different points of view
• Cross cultural
• Different subjects, different learning strategies, different motivation
It can be shortened
Disadvantages
Long questionnaire 81 questions
31 Questions of Motivation
50 of Learning Strategies
19 of Student Management of Resources
31 of Cognitive and Metacognitive strategies
20-30 minutes to complete
Reverse questions difficult to measure
Findings Discussion (I)
Motivation MSLP
(Self-efficacy for learning and performance)
12
M1 0,801
M2 0,734
M3 0,668
M4 0,752
M5 0,838
M6 0,737
M7 0,809
M8 0,788
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrix
Factor Analysis
8 Learning Strategies factors Effort (EFF)
Self-Regulation (SR) Time-Study Management (out of class)
TSME Time-Study Management (TSMI)
Methodology (MTHD) Focus Difficulty (FD) Perseverance (PRSV)
Reflective (RFX)
Rotated Component Matrixa,b
Component
EFF SR TSME TSMI MTHD FD PRSV RFX
LE1 ,420 -,070 ,311 -,254 ,105 ,685 ,129 ,076
LE2 ,067 -,001 ,063 -,088 ,837 ,285 ,057 ,073
LE3 -,215 ,207 ,813 ,111 -,025 -,019 ,067 ,021
LE4 ,810 ,209 -,019 -,103 ,079 ,263 ,147 -,024
LE5 ,218 ,140 ,375 ,403 ,556 -,265 ,180 ,016
LE6 ,078 ,027 ,078 ,041 ,110 -,003 ,936 -,087
LE7 -,338 ,637 ,046 -,185 ,510 ,012 ,174 -,137
LE8 ,130 ,289 ,722 ,116 ,297 ,008 ,259 -,002
LE9 ,792 ,037 ,103 -,039 ,137 -,037 ,096 -,126
LE10 ,047 ,184 ,047 ,287 ,774 ,091 -,076 ,098
LE11 -,561 ,211 ,192 ,016 ,188 ,020 ,210 -,410
LE12 ,176 ,823 ,251 -,097 ,296 -,069 -,042 -,113
LE13 -,183 -,240 ,102 ,307 ,261 ,557 ,003 -,224
LE14 -,395 -,222 ,059 ,137 ,375 -,114 -,522 ,289
LE15 ,057 ,038 ,093 ,870 ,026 ,047 -,184 -,148
LE16 -,067 -,018 ,202 ,616 ,117 ,385 ,325 ,364
LE17 -,285 ,200 ,160 ,642 ,149 ,125 ,289 ,084
LE18 ,258 ,659 ,310 ,365 -,143 ,150 ,077 ,088
LE19 -,041 ,743 ,311 ,193 -,032 ,115 ,129 ,398
LE20 ,285 ,261 ,209 -,530 -,166 -,032 ,405 ,327
LE21 ,425 ,017 -,406 ,205 -,063 ,509 ,225 ,126
LE22 ,148 ,153 ,765 ,088 ,068 ,287 -,110 ,182
LE23 -,073 ,084 ,121 -,078 ,171 -,128 -,114 ,809
LE24 ,066 ,283 ,041 ,198 ,125 ,844 -,093 -,150
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a,b
a. Rotation converged in 15 iterations.
b. Only cases for which subject = 1 are used in the analysis phase.
Findings Discussion (II) ANOVA
Motivation is higher in EMI students compared with non-EMI
Relying in learning basic concepts (6,16 vs 5,38)
Understanding basic concepts (5,13 vs 4,50)
Performing highly in class (5,75 vs 4,65)
13
Findings Discussion (III)
14
ANOVA Instead Learning Strategies are similar in EMI and non-EMI students except for: - Effort where
- EMI students 3,06 versus non-EMI 3,56 (lowest values)
- Time-Study Management where
- EMI students 5,69 versus non-EMI 4,09
Findings Discussion (III)
• Correlation Matrix between motivation and learning strategies with no distinction between EMI and non-EMI students – Motivation correlates with Time-Study Management (TSME) and with
Perseverance (PRSV)
15
• Learning strategies • Time-study management (TMSE) correlates
with methodology (MTHD) and reflectiveness (RFX)
Regression analysis MSLP= f(PAU, TSME,TSMI,PSVR)
16
Findings Discussion (IV)
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) -3,663 2,527 -1,450 ,154
Gender -,280 ,273 -,125 -1,025 ,311
Age ,150 ,096 ,224 1,564 ,125
Nationality ,171 ,204 ,106 ,838 ,407
work ,015 ,224 ,008 ,069 ,946
PAU - Total ,056 ,033 ,226 1,705 ,095
Grant -,021 ,314 -,008 -,067 ,947
Parents Study level ,060 ,173 ,043 ,346 ,731
students -,008 ,012 -,133 -,608 ,546
SR ,111 ,144 ,092 ,772 ,444
TSME ,521 ,141 ,433 3,689 ,001
TSMI ,264 ,141 ,210 1,875 ,067
MTHD ,102 ,133 ,087 ,766 ,448
FD -,174 ,141 -,143 -1,233 ,224
PRSV ,293 ,135 ,248 2,162 ,036
RFX ,113 ,120 ,101 ,943 ,351
subject ,162 ,469 ,079 ,345 ,732
a. Dependent Variable: REGR factor score 1 for analysis 1
Conclusions (I)
• The eight questions about motivation integrated into a variable measuring total motivation in self-efficacy for learning and performance (MSLP)
• The thirty two questions about learning strategies integrated into eight factors: effort, self-regulation, time-study management, methodology focus difficulty and perseverance.
• EMI students have higher motivation than non-EMI although there are not significant differences in learning strategies – EMI students have higher motivation in learning and understanding basic
concepts correctly and performing well in class
– EMI students have better learning strategies when self-regulating, managing their time-studies and their effort (although lowest values in all students)
17
• Students’ motivation correlates highly with self-regulating learning strategies as time-study management and perseverance, in line with Pintrich, 2003, without distinction between EMI and non-Emi students – More motivated students manage better their time studies
– More motivated students are more perseverant
• Total motivation in self-efficacy for learning and performance can be explained by the students’ PAU (mark achieved in the global exam to study in Higher Education), Time-study management and Perseverance
18
Conclusions (II)
Conclusions (III)
• There is a learning strategy about students’ focus capacity that should be encouraged
• Motivation and learning strategies are not static – Motivation is dynamic
– Learning strategies can be developed
• Lecturers can be aware of the students learning strategies, such as self regulation and time management at home, in order to improve teaching procedures and deep learning
19
Limitations and Future Research
• Limitations
– Small sample
– Only one public university
– Only one subject
– Only one academic year
• Future research
– Enlarge the sample and compare data from public and private universities
– Differences by gender, subjects, areas
– Time horizon to observe trend
20
• Thank you for your attention!
• Any suggestions are welcomed!
21