TITLE



Running Head: MOTIVATION AND LEARNING STRATEGIES

Motivation and Learning Strategies in a PBL Course Concurrently Taught

with a Lecture-Based Course

Neil A. Knobloch

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

nknobloc@uiuc.edu

Sheila R. Fowler

Chicago High School for Agrisciences

srfowler@cps.k12.il.us

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL

April 10, 2007

Motivation and Learning Strategies in a PBL Course Concurrently Taught

with a Lecture-Based Course

Neil A. Knobloch, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Sheila R. Fowler, Chicago High School for Agrisciences

Abstract

Instructional approaches structure the nature of learning and can influence student motivation and how they learn. This experimental study investigated the effects of concurrent enrollment in a problem-based learning course on college students’ performance, motivation and use of learning strategies in a lecture-based course. The problem-based learning course was designed to apply content taught in the lecture-based course. There were three findings. First, students earned higher grades in the lecture-based course when concurrently enrolled in a problem-based course. Second, students concurrently enrolled in a PBL course were more extrinsically motivated, had higher task value motivation, and felt more responsible of their learning in a lecture-based course compared to their peers who were only enrolled in the lecture-based course. Third, students concurrently enrolled in a complementary PBL courses had higher organization and metacognitive self-regulation learning strategy use in the lecture-based course. Further inquiry should look at student benefits of a PBL course taught concurrently with a lecture-based course.

Statement of the Issue & Purpose

Educational quality for global competitiveness is an emerging concern among leaders, scientists, and educators in the food and health industries. The Committee on the Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (2006) recently reported that “an educated, innovative, motivated workforce” (p. 22) is a nation’s most valuable resource in a global economy. The Committee questioned if higher education is creating the human capital needed in knowledge intensive occupations for America to sustain the quality of life for its citizens and be globally competitive in the sciences.

Building on the need to reform higher education, The Boyer Commission (1998) said it was imperative that colleges prepare the next generation of professionals (The Boyer Commission, 1998), especially in an area of growing societal concerns—the health and food sciences (Institute of Medicine, 1994; National Research Council, 1992). The Institute of Medicine further described “the best undergraduate education programs in the nutrition and food sciences help students understand the interrelationships of nutrition, food, and health and to develop critical thinking and problem solving” (p. 7).

Recently, leaders in agriculture and public health recommended that research is needed to understand effective instructional tools for food and health education, especially to address concerns such as obesity, malnutrition, hunger, food-borne illnesses, and disease prevention (Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2004). If universities are going to be successful in building human capital in the food, nutritional, and health science, they will need to attract highly motivated and performance-oriented students (Institute of Medicine, 1994) and engage them in solving problems with creative and critical thinking. The research university should prepare graduates “equipped with a spirit of inquiry and a zest for problem solving…” (The Boyer Commission, 1998, p. 13). As such, the purpose of this study was to explore the effects of a problem-based learning course on college student performance, motivation, and learning strategies in lecture-based course in the nutritional and food sciences.

Theoretical Framework

Problem-based learning is “an instructional (and curricular) learner-centered approach that empowers learners to conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable solution to a defined problem” (Savery, 2006, p. 12). Students learn through inquiry (Dewey, 1938) driven by solving complex, ill-structured, and open-ended problems (Hmelo-Silver, 2004) that are realistic and relevant to students’ interests and experiences (Oliver-Hoyo & Allen, 2005; Walczyk & Ramsey, 2003). In doing so, students are actively engaged and responsible for their own learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Problem-based learning helps students construct a knowledge base, develop problem-solving (cognitive) skills, develop self-directed and life-long learning (metacognitive) skills, become effective collaborators, and become intrinsically motivated to learn (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).

Problem-based learning is educational strategy that was first used in medical education in the 1960s. Although definitions vary, problem-based learning is “an educational method characterized by the use of patient problems as a context for students to learn problem-solving skills and acquire knowledge about the basic and clinical sciences” (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993). Problem-based learning has five basic components: (a) problem formulation, (b) application of knowledge, (c) self-directed learning, (d) abstraction, and (e) reflection (Koschmann, 2001). In a series of steps, students are presented with a clinical problem and they work in groups to discuss causes, develop hypotheses and strategies to test hypotheses. The professor serves as a facilitator and helps guide the students through the process. In doing so, the professor also presents the students with additional information and students refine their hypotheses and make decisions to solve the problem (Finucane, Johnson, & Prideaux, 1998).

Students learn through inquiry (Dewey, 1910) driven by solving complex, ill-structured, and open-ended problems (Hmelo-Silver, 2004) that are realistic and relevant to students’ interests and experiences (Oliver-Hoyo & Allen, 2005; Walczyk & Ramsey, 2003). In doing so, students are actively engaged and responsible for their own learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Problem-based learning helps students construct a knowledge base, develop problem-solving (cognitive) skills, develop self-directed and life-long learning (metacognitive) skills, become effective collaborators, and become intrinsically motivated to learn (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Using these five goals of problem-based learning as a framework, the researchers of this study specifically explored the influence of problem-based learning on college students’ cognition, metacognition, collaborative learning, and motivation. However, complex, ill-structured, open-ended problems that require problem-solving and higher-order thinking can have a negative effect on students’ motivation. Young (2003) found that the challenging tasks, the autonomy, and lack of exams can be overwhelming to college students who are familiar to more structured classrooms. Because learning strategies, goals, beliefs, self-efficacy, and motivations contribute to learning (Svinicki, 1999), the researchers informed themselves with various perspectives.

Self-regulated learning involves students using an array of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to manage and direct their learning (Pintrich, 1999; Zimmerman, 2001). Self-regulating students are assumed to be cognizant of their actions and able to control them in order to reach learning goals (Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). As students self-regulate, they are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally dynamic within their personal process of learning (Zimmerman, 1994). Eccles and Wigfield (2002) support this view by identifying three characteristics that self-regulated learners possess, such as cognitive strategy use, high levels of self-efficacy, and a variety of goals.

Motivational beliefs affect students’ self-regulation of their learning, thereby affecting motivation and achievement outcomes (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Meece, 1994; Pintrich, 1999; Zimmerman, 1990, 1994). Several research studies have investigated the role of motivation beliefs and self-regulated learning in the classroom (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991; Pintrich, 1999; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998).

Expectancy-value and goal orientations were two motivation theories that informed the researchers’ perspective. Expectancy-value theory has aspects of self-efficacy expectancies, outcome expectancies, and task-values (Breen & Lindsay, 2002). Modern expectancy-value theories tie performance, persistence, and choice to one’s expectancy-related and task-value beliefs (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Expectancy-value theories have shown that one’s perception of the outcomes and likelihood for success combined with their task-value beliefs can predict performance (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000).

Self-efficacy concerns an individual’s confidence in their ability to perform some type of task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pintrich, 1999). Self-efficacy beliefs determine whether or not an individual will engage in some task, and whether or not they will persevere to finish that task (Bandura, 1986; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Tollefson, 2000). Moreover, research studies have shown that students’ perceived self-efficacy was positively related to their use of learning strategies (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; VanZile-Timesen & Livingston; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). Self-efficacy is a predictor of students’ use of learning strategies (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich, 1999) and academic achievement (Schunk, 1994,1996; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1994). Task value relates to the comparative worth that a person places on engaging in a particular activity rather than the reasons behind why that person engages in the activity (Stefanou & Salisbury-Glennon, 2002). Students work harder and longer to complete a particular task when they have high task value beliefs (Eccles & Wigfield, 1992). Task value beliefs have been shown to affect students’ use of learning strategies and classroom achievement (Pintrich 1989, 1999; Wigfield, 1994).

Goals are fundamental in determining motivation to learn (Ames, 1992). Goals are distinct from reasons, which are considered to be more general and dictated by emotions (Elliot & Thrash, 2001). Mastery goals, often called task-involved or learning goals, are characterized by an orientation to master new problems and skills (Ames, 1992; Pintrich, 1999), and an intrinsic motivational orientation (Meece, 1994; Wigfield, 1994). Mastery goals are usually accompanied by persistence, varied approaches to problem solving, and engagement in challenging tasks (Eppler & Harju, 1997; Schunk, 1994). In contrast, performance goals, often called ego-involved or extrinsic goals, are characterized by a focus on outcomes instead of processes. Performance goals are accompanied by the desire to appear competent and outperform others (Ames, 1992; Eppler & Harju, 1997). Adopting a performance goal generally leads to a preference for avoiding difficult tasks, low persistence, and a decline in performance when difficulty arises (Eppler & Harju, 1997; Meece, 1997). Mastery goal orientation and students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies are linked (Ames, 1992; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). Mastery goal orientations tend to be adopted within the context of real-life collaborative situations, where the emphasis is on learning rather than performance (Ames & Ames, 1984; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Stefanou & Salisbury-Glennon, 2002). Mastery goal orientations are likely to promote deep, long-term, and quality engagement in learning (Ames, 1992; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1994).

Three hypotheses were developed based on the literature. First, students concurrently enrolled in the PBL course would earn higher grades in the lecture-based course than their peers who were only enrolled in the lecture-based course because they would be more motivated by the PBL applications of the lecture-based knowledge and the development of learning strategies in the PBL course that would be used in the lecture-based course. Several researchers have found that motivational beliefs affect students’ self-regulation of their learning, thereby affecting motivation and achievement outcomes (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Meece, 1994; Pintrich, 1999; Zimmerman, 1990, 1994). Second, students concurrently enrolled in the PBL course would have higher task value, self-efficacy, and mastery goals in the lecture-based course because of the collaborative learning (Ames & Ames, 1984; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Stefanou & Salisbury-Glennon, 2002), real-life career applications (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992), and self-directedness that is facilitated in solving problems (Ames, 1992; Eppler & Harju, 1997; Pintrich, 1999; Schunk, 1994) learned through PBL. Third, students concurrently enrolled in the PBL course would have higher use of learning strategies in the lecture-based course due to the higher motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Meece, 1994; Pintrich, 1999; Zimmerman, 1990, 1994), task value of career applications (Pintrich, 1999; Wigfield, 1994), development of self-efficacy (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich, 1999; VanZile-Timesen & Livingston; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000), and mastery goal orientation (Ames, 1992; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990).

Connection to the Literature

The focus in undergraduate education is shifting from teaching to learning (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Higher education needs to improve teaching and learning in college classrooms by placing a greater emphasis student learning and instructional methods that help students solve problems, think critically, work as teams, and effectively communicate (Menges & Astin, 2001; NASULGC, 2001). Teaching in college classrooms remains predominately a traditional lecture-based, teacher-directed model of student assimilation and recitation of factual information (Gardiner, 1994). Yet, a body of literature in teaching and learning supports the notion that a learner-centered paradigm for teaching that incorporates student engagement in the learning process is effective. In their report on the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, Chickering and Gamson (1987) presented that good practice encourages student-faculty contact and active learning among other factors.

Student-centered learning is based on the assumption that the most effective way for students to acquire knowledge is to apply information or instruction to assessing and resolving problems that are common to the student’s experience (Robertson, 2005). Problem-based learning is grounded on constructivism (Savery & Duffy, 1994) and is one of several different instructional approaches that is based on the principles of learner-centered teaching (Hmelo & Evensen, 2000). Learner centered is defined as a two-fold perspective that couples a focus on individual learners’ interests, abilities, experiences, and needs with a focus on learning and using the most effective teaching strategies to motivate and help all learners learn and achieve (McCombs & Whisler, 1997). From a college persepective, Weimer (2002) defined learner-centered teaching as focusing the instructor’s attention on learning. She clarified that being focus on student learning is, “what the student is learning, how the student is learning, the conditions under which the student is learning, whether the student is retaining and applying the learning, and how current learning positions the student for future learning” (p. xvi). In learner-centered teaching, the action is on what the students are doing while the instructor plays the role as a facilitator.

In contrast, college classrooms and courses are designed in ways that do not encourage students to be engaged with the material they are supposed to master (Harris & Alexander, 1998). Instead, instructors disseminate a selected amount of knowledge, measure students’ passive reception of this knowledge, and focus on stimulus-response relationships (Leonard, 2002). The lack of active engagement with the material often leads to lower levels of thinking and a decrease of motivation to actually learn the material (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). The absence of motivation leaves students unable, or unwilling, to regulate their individual learning (Pintrich, 1999). Thus, one comes to the phenomena of graduates being unprepared to enter their chosen profession. Instructional approaches are linked to student performance and motivation (Van Berkel & Schmidt, 2000). Studies have shown that when students are engaged with the material they are learning, they are more likely to perform well and also be motivated to learn (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Schunk, 2001).

Problem-based learning has been documented to motivate students, construct their knowledge, help them develop learning and decision-making strategies, and become self-directed learners (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). In light of promising results regarding the development of problem-solving skills, self-directed learning, and technical knowledge in a given area (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Savin-Baden, 2000), research is needed to understand the effects problem-based learning has college students, especially in the nutritional and food sciences (Duffrin, 2003), and more empirical evidence is needed regarding student learning and outcomes (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). In a meta-analysis of 43 studies, Dochy et al. (2003) found problem-based learning had a positive, robust effect on students’ skill acquisition, but it had no effect on knowledge acquisition. Duffrin suggested food science education needs to improve the way content is organized and learned, and argued problem-based learning is an alternative to the conventional teacher-directed lectures used in college classrooms. Duffrin found that students in an introductory food science course were interested and engaged in solving problems using a PBL approach. Duffrin recommended further study of student outcomes be explored.

Mode of Inquiry & Sources of Data

This was a non-equivalent post-only control group design. Sixteen of the 18 students, who were concurrently enrolled in FSHN 320 and FSHN 329, provided consent to participate in the treatment of the study, and 18 of the 30 students who were only enrolled in FSHN 320 provided consent to participate in the control for the study. Although the number of participants was small, this study was strengthened because all participants were enrolled in the two courses during the same semester: problem-based learning course (experiment), and lecture-based course (control). Both the lecture-based course and the problem-based learning course were upper-level courses in the discipline area of food science and human nutrition. The treatment was the instructional approach (problem-based and lecture-based vs. lecture-based) while concurrently enrolled in a lecture-based course, and the three dependent variables were (a) academic performance, (b) student motivation, and (c) learning strategies.

A pretest was conducted in September 2003 to determine selection characteristics of the participants’ demographics. The researcher also obtained the GPA of the participants. Because the students were not randomly assigned to the treatment and control, the two groups were compared on three selection variables using ANOVA and Cohen’s (1988) d to determine if the groups were different. There were no differences between the two groups of students on their opinion of the course at the beginning of the semester, expected course grade, grade earned in a course prerequisite (Introduction to Biochemistry), and overall grade point average.

Regarding the students who were concurrently enrolled in FSHN 320 and 329, all of the students were female. Fourteen of the students were seniors (87.5%). One student was a graduate student (6.3%) and one student identified their class level as “other” (6.3%). Fourteen students were Caucasian (87.5%), one was Asian (6.3%), and one reported her race as other (6.3%). Thirteen of the students were majoring in dietetics (81.3%), while three students were majoring in nutrition (12.5%) and food (6.3%) sciences. Students had an average grade point average of 3.50 (SD = .30) and earned an average grade of 3.00 (SD = .56) in the introduction to biochemistry (prerequisite) course. The students had a favorable attitude toward the course before it began (M = 2.56, SD = .51), and they expected to earn an A-minus grade in the course (M = 1.44, SD = .51).

Regarding the students who were only enrolled in FSHN 320, 20 students (77%) were female. One student was a junior (4%), 10 students were seniors (38%), and 15 were graduate students (58%). Eighteen students were Caucasian (72%), three were Asian (12%), two were Hispanic (8%), one was African American (4%), and one reported her race as other (4%). Ten of the students were majoring in nutrition science (38%), six were majoring in animal science (23%), five were majoring in biology (19%), two were majoring in dietetics (8%), one was a pre-medical student (4%), and two were in other majors (8%). Students had an average grade point average of 3.43 (SD = .33) and earned an average grade of 2.86 (SD = .73) in the introduction to biochemistry (prerequisite) course. The students had a favorable attitude toward the course before it began (M = 2.73, SD = .53), and they expected to earn an A-minus grade in the course (M = 1.27, SD = .45).

A posttest questionnaire was administered to assess students’ motivation and learning strategies. Final grades for each student were used to determine academic performance. The posttest (O2) was administered in December 2003 to the students who were concurrently enrolled in both FSHN 320 (lecture-based course) and FSHN 329 (problem-based course). The dependent variable of student motivation was measured using an existing instrument, the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991). The MSLQ was chosen because it is a reliable and valid instrument used to measure college students’ motivation and learning strategies within a specific context of a course. The researchers used 26 of the 54 items to measure participants’ motivation in relation to expectancy-value beliefs and goal orientations (Pintrich et al.). Posthoc reliability of the motivation constructs were assessed using Cronbach’s (1951) alpha: (a) 0.80 (4 items) for mastery goal orientation; (b) 0.68 (4 items) for performance goal orientation; (c) 0.82 (6 items) for task value; (d) 0.84 (4 items) for control of learning beliefs; and (e) 0.88 (7 items) for self-efficacy for learning and performance. The researchers used 28 of the 54 items to measure participants’ use of self-regulated learning strategies. Posthoc reliability of the self-regulated learning strategies was assessed: (a) 0.57 (4 items) for organization; (b) 0.55 (3 items) for peer learning; (c) 0.75 (4 items) for effort regulation; (d) 0.82 (12 items) for metacognitive self-regulation; and, (d) 0.75 (5 items) for critical thinking. All items on the MSLQ were measured using a 7-point scale, with anchors at: (1) not at all true of me, (2) not very true of me, (3) somewhat true of me, (4) quite true of me, (5) mostly true of me, (6) almost always true of me, and (7) very true of me.

The treatment consisted of enrollment in a problem-based learning approach that was utilized as the predominant teaching method in FSHN 329 to apply the content taught in a concurrently taught lecture-based course. The courses were taught independently of each other although Dr. Talley was an instructor in both courses. The PBL course was characterized by students working cooperatively within the same groups throughout the course of the semester on various case studies. The groups were small with approximately four students in each group. The two instructors (Dr. Fletcher & Dr. Talley) served as facilitators for the case studies. Three class sessions were devoted to each case study. Each classroom session was one hour and 20 minutes in length. During the first class period, students received the case study. The case would typically involve a patient with a nutritionally related health problem that needed to be solved by a dietician. Students discussed the areas related to the case in which they had knowledge and also areas in which they were lacking knowledge. Based upon this discussion, students developed questions that needed to be addressed. Each member of the group was responsible for researching some area in which the group knowledge was deficient.

During the second class period, the students reported the results of their research, generated hypothesis, and addressed questions. The instructors also prepared a short lecture for this class period to delineate, together with the students, the known facts surrounding the case. Before the third class period, students continued to conduct their personal research into the problem. During the third class period, the group of students assembled their collective knowledge and developed their final diagnoses of the problem, along with the chosen solution. The solution was presented to the class in the form of a soap note. Dieticians in the field are required to write soap notes that address the problems of their patients. Therefore, students were completing a real-life, pertinent task. After the group presentation, which rotated from case to case, the students and the professor would discuss the soap note. These discussions centered upon other possible recommendations for the soap note and why one group chose a solution that other groups did not.

Students were graded as a group on the basis of the soap note they developed. In addition, there was a mid-semester nutrition assessment project and a final exam, which students completed individually. There were no quizzes or tests, aside from the final exam. Throughout all class periods, the professor would move from group to group to see how the students were doing on the case. The professor did not provide the students with direct answers, rather they would ask questions and provide comments that served to advance students’ thinking. Both professors in FSHN 329 took on a facilitative role. They were not the central focus of the classroom. Instead, the group process of learning was the focus.

The control consisted of enrollment only in a traditional university classroom and teaching method utilized to provide instruction in FSHN 320. All of the participants in this study were enrolled in FSHN 320. The students in FSHN 320 met for a class session three times per week. Each class session was 50 minutes in length. The students sat in rows and took notes as the professor lectured. Both professors in FSHN 320 generally utilized PowerPoint and the chalkboard to present information to the students. The general format of FSHN 320 was teacher-centered. The professor was at the front of the room and the students listened as they were provided information on various topics related to nutrition and disease. At some points, the professor would ask questions. However, students did not always answer readily, and these questions did not generally lead to any discussions.

The students were not involved in learning with one another. Rather, they sat as individuals and completed tests and quizzes as individuals. The students worked as individuals to complete a diet project. This was the general format of FSHN 320. However, one professor (Dr. Talley) used active learning in her teaching approach than the other professor. While the overall structure and function of the classroom was still teacher-centered, this professor worked to incorporate more student involvement into the course. This professor asked more questions, and provided some opportunities for student interaction and discussion. Therefore, this professor added a learner-centered aspect to the course. Dr. Talley took the focus away from lecturing, to an extent, which caused an implementer effect for the study. However, the typical class session in FSHN 320 was still grounded in a lecture-based instructional method. The professor was the focus and the knowledge to be learned was delivered by the professor.

The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science Personal Computer version (SPSS/PC+). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the metric data from the pretest and posttest closed-ended questionnaires. Means and standard deviations were reported for motivation and learning strategy variables. ANOVA was used to determine tests of significance, however, caution should be used in interpreting the results because of the small number of participants. Therefore, effect sizes were calculated for mean differences using Cohen’s (1988) d. A decision was made a posteriori after analyzing both the qualitative and quantitative data that an observable difference between students was evident at d = 0.35.

Results & Conclusions

Student Performance

The students’ overall mean grade in FSHN 320 was 2.91 (SD = .88) for those only enrolled in FSHN 320 (lecture-based). The students’ overall mean grade in FSHN 320 was 3.20 (SD = .74) for those who were concurrently enrolled in FSHN 329 (PBL). Although the difference was not significant (p = .252), the effect size for student performance was medium (d = .35). Therefore, the students who were concurrently enrolled in the PBL course had an overall mean grade in the lecture-based course than their peers only enrolled in the lecture-based course. On average, students enrolled concurrently in the PBL course earned an “A-” grade in the lecture-based course, whereas their peers earned a “B+” grade in the lecture-based course. This study found that knowledge acquisition can be impacted by problem-based learning when concurrently enrolled with a lecture-based course. This finding did not support Dochy et al.’s (2003) finding that problem-based learning had no effect on knowledge acquisition. Dochy et al.’s study was a meta-analysis of PBL courses, whereas this study shows that PBL can contribute to knowledge acquisition when used concurrently with a lecture-based course.

Student Motivation

Students concurrently enrolled in the PBL course had higher extrinsic goal orientation, task value motivation, and control of learning in the lecture-based course than their peers only enrolled in the lecture-based course (Table 1). Students concurrently enrolled in a PBL course that helped them apply the content they learned in a lecture-based course had higher task value motivation in the lecture-based course. The additive effects of PBL made the learning tasks in the lecture-based course were interesting, important, and useful, and students shared that they saw the value of the content in the lecture-based course because they were applying it in the problem-based learning course. This supported other researchers’ findings that real-life career applications of content knowledge has a positive effect on student motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).

Furthermore, the students concurrently enrolled in the PBL course were more extrinsically motivated and felt more responsible for their learning in the lecture-based course than their peers who were only enrolled in the lecture-based course. The responsibility and self-directedness developed by students in the PBL course impacted their motivation in the lecture-based course. This supported other studies responsibility (Hmelo-Silver, 2004) and self-directedness that is facilitated in solving problems (Ames, 1992; Eppler & Harju, 1997; Pintrich, 1999; Schunk, 1994) learned through PBL.

Although Duffrin (2003) found that students were interested and engaged in solving problems using the PBL approach in food science, this study adds a new dimension of human and social capital built when students are concurrently applying lecture-delivered knowledge in a problem-based learning course. Regardless of being concurrently enrolled in a PBL course, students were highly intrinsically motivated and self-efficacious in the lecture-based course. This was likely because the students were successful upper-level undergraduate and graduate students who were familiar with the lecture-based delivery of the course.

|Table 1. |

|College Students’ Motivation in FSHN 320 (N = 18 in lecture course, N = 16 in lecture and PBL courses) |

|Motivation Variable |Lecture |Lecture & PBL |p |D |

|Intrinsic Goal Orientation |M = 4.89 |M = 5.27 |.351 |.32 |

| |SD = 1.20 |SD = 1.14 | |Small |

|Extrinsic Goal Orientation |M = 3.92 |M = 5.28 |.010 |.94* |

| |SD = 1.46 |SD = 1.43 | |Large |

|Task Value Motivation |M = 5.32 |M = 6.38 |.006 |1.02* |

| |SD = 1.28 |SD = .67 | |Large |

|Control of Learning |M = 4.92 |M = 5.50 |.150 |.50* |

| |SD = 1.15 |SD = 1.18 | |Medium |

|Self-Efficacy Motivation |M = 5.17 |M = 5.38 |.524 |.21 |

| |SD = .85 |SD = 1.11 | |Small |

Note. Observable differences between students was evident at d = 0.35.

Student Learning Strategies

Students had higher organization learning strategies in the lecture-based class when concurrently enrolled in a PBL course, which means that students selected appropriate information to learn and they built connections among information to be learned (Table 2). The additive effects of students concurrently enrolled in PBL that applied knowledge and concepts from a lecture-based course supports other studies that PBL helps construct knowledge and develop learning strategies (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). The lecture-based course provided them with foundational knowledge that was applied in the PBL course. Students were selected appropriate information from the lecture-based course and used it to help them solve problems in the PBL course. Furthermore, students had higher metacognitive self-regulation in the lecture-based course while they were concurrently enrolled in the problem-based learning course. Students enrolled in the PBL course did more planning for learning, monitoring their comprehension, and evaluating progress toward completing the learning tasks in the lecture-based course. The nature of solving the dietician problems likely developed organization and self-regulation strategies that were used in the lecture-based course. This finding supported other studies that PBL develops self-regulation learning skills (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Hmelo-Silver, 2004).

Students had similar peer learning, effort regulation, and critical thinking learning strategies in the lecture-based course regardless if they were concurrently enrolled in a PBL course. This was likely because these upper-level undergraduate and graduate students were mature and successful in their development as college students. In further support of this notion, students reported they frequently used organization, effort regulation, and metacognitive regulation strategies to help them learn in the lecture-based course.

|Table 2. |

|College Students’ Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in FSHN 320 (N = 18 in lecture course; N = 16 in lecture and PBL courses) |

|Learning Strategy Variable |Lecture |Lecture & PBL |p |d |

|Organization |M = 4.40 |M = 5.05 |.115 |.56* |

| |SD = 1.12 |SD = 1.2 | |Medium |

|Peer Learning |M = 3.20 |M = 3.42 |.708 |.13 |

| |SD = 1.62 |SD = 1.66 | |Negligible |

|Effort Regulation |M = 5.31 |M = 5.19 |.722 |.13 |

| |SD = .71 |SD = 1.17 | |Negligible |

|Metacognitive Self-Regulation |M = 4.40 |M = 4.66 |.284 |.38* |

| |SD = .58 |SD = .80 | |Medium |

|Critical Thinking |M = 3.50 |M = 3.55 |.890 |.05 |

| |SD = 1.02 |SD = 1.07 | |Negligible |

Note. Observable differences between students was evident at d = 0.35.

Scale: 1 = Not at all true of me, 2 = Not very true of me, 3 = Somewhat true of me, 4 = Quite true of me, 5 = Mostly true of me, 6 = Almost always true of me, 7 = Very true of me.

Education & Scientific Significance

The curriculum design of teaching a PBL course to help students concurrently apply content taught in a lecture-based course had a positive impact on students’ performance, motivation, and learning strategies. Typically, university courses are designed independently by individual courses. The practice of concurrently offering knowledge acquisition and skill development courses looks promising. There appears to be two pairs of motivation and learning strategy variables that may be mutually beneficial to students. First, students benefited most from task value motivation and the organization learning strategy. When students see the application and relevance of the knowledge they are being taught, they are more likely to focus on appropriate information to learn and build connections among the knowledge and concepts they are learning. Second, students also benefited from feeling responsible for their learning and using a metacognitive self-regulation strategy. Students who feel that they are in control and responsible for their learning are likely to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning. Although it appears these two sets of variables may have been reciprocally beneficial, further study should look at the relationship between control of learning and the organization learning strategy.

Further investigation should look at why PBL did not contribute to students using peer learning strategies in the lecture-based course. This may be explained by the lecture-based course did not expect students to learn interdependently and they were not given opportunities to use peer learning strategies. Further study should investigate students’ learning processes and determine if some students had a greater learning benefit based on beliefs about learning. Freshmen and sophomore students should be studied when they may be more vulnerable early in their college careers. This study is the beginning of research that is needed to understand the effects problem-based learning has college students, especially in the nutritional and food sciences (Duffrin, 2003), and provided more empirical evidence regarding student learning and outcomes (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). This study provides support for food science and nutrition education to change the way its content is organized and learned in college classrooms (Duffrin, 2003). College curricula should be designed to engage students to learn in courses with complementary instructional approaches to help develop human capital for careers in a global economy.

References

Albanese, M.A. & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.

Ames, R., & Ames, C. (1984). Introduction. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (pp. 1-11). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 3-25.

Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources. (2004). Exploring a vision: Integrating knowledge for food and health. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Bonwell, C.C. & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Breen, R., & Lindsay, R. (2002). Different disciplines require different motivations for student success. Research in Higher Education, 43(6), 693-725.

Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Committee on the Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: a metaanalysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568.

Duffrin, M. W. (2003). Integrating problem-based learning in an introductory college food science course. Journal of Food Science Education, 2, 2-6.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(3), 109-132.

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchal model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 139-156.

Eppler, M. A., & Harju, B. L. (1997). Achievement motivation goals in relation to academic performance in traditional and nontraditional college students. Research in Higher Education, 38(5), 557-573.

Finucane, P. M., Johnson, S. M., & Prideaux, D. J. (1998). Problem-based learning: Its rationale and efficacy. Medical Journal of Australia, 168, 445-448.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gardiner, L. F. (1994). Redesigning higher education: Producing dramatic gains in student learning (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 442)

Harris, K. R., & Alexander, P. A. (1998). Integrated, constructivist education: Challenge and reality. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 115-127.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.

Hmelo, C. E., & Evensen, D. H. (2000). Problem-based learning: Gaining insights on learning interactions through multiple methods of inquiry. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-Based Learning: A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions (pp. 1-18).

Institute of Medicine. (1994). Opportunities in the nutrition and food sciences: Research challenges and the next generation of investigators. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Koschmann, T. (2001). Dewey’s contribution to a standard of problem-based learning practice. Retrieved July 28, 2006 from:

Leonard, D. (2002). Learning theories A-Z. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publication Group, Inc.

McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meece, J. L. (1994). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 25-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Menges, R. J. & Austin, A. E. (2001). Teaching in higher education (pp. 1122-1156). In V. Richardson, (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.), Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

National Research Council. (1992). Agriculture and the undergraduate. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. (2001).Returning to our roots: Executive summaries of the reports of the Kellogg Commission on the future of the state and land-grant universities. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Oliver-Hoyo, M., & Allen, D. (2005). Attitudinal effects of a student-centered active learning environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(6), 944-949.

Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In C. Ames & M. Maehr (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivation-enhancing environments (Vol. 6, pp. 117-160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459-470.

Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V., (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

Pintrich, P. R., & García, T. (1994). Self-regulated learning in college students: Knowledge, strategies, and motivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie (pp. 113–133). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A .F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Post-Secondary Teaching.

Pintrich, P.R., & Schrauben, B. (1992).  Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in clasroom academic tasks.  In D.H. Schunk & J.Meece (Eds.), Student Perceptions in the Classroom (pp. 149-179).  Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Robertson, D. L. (2005). Generative paradox in learner-centered college teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 181-194.

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1994). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design, Educational Technology Publications Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories. Buckingham: The Society for Research in to Higher Education & Open University Press.

Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 75-99). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories: An educational perspective (pp. 283-335). In D. H. Schunk (Ed.), Motivation (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 125-151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeider (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631-646). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Stefanou, C. R., & Salisbury-Glennon, J. D. (2002). Developing motivation and cognitive learning strategies through an undergraduate learning community. Learning Environments Research, 5(1), 77-97.

Svinicki, M. D. (1999). New directions in learning and motivation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 5-27.

Tollefson, N. (2000). Classroom applications of cognitive theories of motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 63-83.

Van Berkel, H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Motivation to commit oneself as a determinant of achievement in problem-based learning. Higher Education, 40(2), 231-242.

VanZile-Tamsen, C., & Livingston, J. A. (1999). The differential impact of motivation on the self-regulated strategy use of high and low achieving students. Journal of College Student Development, 40(1), 54-59.

Walczyk, J. J., & Ramsey, L. L. (2003). Use of learner-centered instruction in college science and mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 566-584.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five keys to changes in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wigfield, A. (1994). The role of children’s achievement values in the self-regulation of their learning outcomes. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 101-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265-310.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000).  Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.

Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26(1), 27-47.

Young, A. J. (2003). The challenge to challenge: Shifting the motivational climate of the college classroom for enhanced learning. College Teaching, 51(4), 127-130.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1-37) . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1994). Investigating self-regulatory processes and perceptions of self-efficacy in writing by college students. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie (pp. 239-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

NEIL A. KNOBLOCH is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource Development in the Department of Human and Community Development at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 139 Bevier Hall, MC-180, 905 South Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL, 61801. E-mail: nknobloc@uiuc.edu.

SHEILA R. (SETTLE) FOWLER is an Agriscience Teacher at the Chicago High School for Agrisciences of the Chicago Public Schools, 3857 W. 111th Street, Chicago, IL 60655. E-mail: srfowler@cps.k12.il.us.

Acknowledgments. This material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Project No. ILLU-793-331. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download