Gender, Motivation, and Pedagogy in the STEM Classroom: A Quantitative Characterization

This research paper examines students’ situational, or activity-level, motivations in STEM classrooms, with a focus on gendered patterns of motivation in different pedagogical environments. The dataset includes over 5000 unique responses to the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS), an instrument that measures four types of motivation (intrinsic, identified regulation, external regulation, and amotivation) based on Self-Determination Theory (SDT). The SIMS was administered weekly to undergraduate students enrolled in a diverse range of undergraduate STEM courses across multiple institutions. Variable-based quantitative analysis reveals significant differences in motivations across traditional, mixed, and non-traditional course pedagogies. Students report the most internalized or autonomous motivations in nontraditional settings such as discussionor project-based courses, and the most externalized or controlled motivations in traditional courses. Quantitative analysis also reveals significant gendered patterns in students’ situational motivational responses. For the motivation subscale measures and self-determination index (SDI), the strongest gender-based differences appear in traditionally taught courses, with women reporting lower autonomous motivations and higher controlled motivations compared to men. The motivations of men and women are both more similar, and more positive overall, in STEM courses that employ non-traditional and mixed pedagogies. Introduction and Research Background Learner motivation, the psychological intention and energetic drive to do something [1], is a critically important aspect of the learning process. While learner motivations are complex and multifaceted, a simplified model positions motivational processes between personal and contextual factors as antecedents, and learning engagement, behaviors, and outcomes as consequences (Figure 1). Research shows that positive forms of motivation, such as valueor interest-based drive, are linked to deeper learning approaches, better performance, and outcomes such as critical thinking, pro-social behavior, and self-regulation [2]-[5]. By contrast, less positive motivations, such as rewards-based drive, relate to surface-level learning, poorer performance and persistence, and negative emotions [3], [6]. These relationships are not simply correlational: path models illustrate causal links between different types of motivations and specific learning outcomes [7]-[10]. Furthermore, research shows that instructors have agency in shaping motivations through course design decisions: factors such as autonomy support and goal framing can have an important effect on student motivations [6], [11], [12]. Conceptualizing student motivation as a dynamic variable in our larger system enables educators to move beyond the inaccurate and unconstructive portrayals of motivation as a fixed, all-or-nothing construct (e.g., she’s motivated but he isn’t, or students at my school are unmotivated, or all my students care about are grades), and toward a model that empowers instructors to understand motivations more deeply and intervene more intentionally through curriculum design. In this study, we use quantitative methods to characterize the connections between pedagogical practices in undergraduate STEM courses and students’ situational motivations, with a particular focus on the ways women and men express different motivations in different pedagogical environments. Self-Determination Theory for Motivation One theoretical model for motivation that has gained traction in education over the past few decades, and that has helped educators understand the forms and processes of motivation, is SelfDetermination Theory (SDT) [3], [13], [14]. A central concept of SDT is that there are different types of motivation that may be described along a continuum that ranges from internal (autonomous) to external (controlled) motivations [13]. At one extreme is intrinsic motivation, a state described by interest, enjoyment, inherent satisfaction, and personally valuable goals. At the other extreme of the continuum is amotivation, a condition that occurs when learners find no value in the learning activity and expect no desirable outcomes. Between the two extremes lies extrinsic motivation, a state in which initiative and regulation of action may be prompted by a range of inputs, from external rewards and punishments (external regulation) to an identification of value in the learning activity (identified regulation). The SDT-defined types of motivation considered in this study are summarized in Table 1. Research shows that not all types of motivation are equally effective for learning: in general, autonomous motivations (identified regulation and intrinsic motivation) bear positive relationships to desirable learning outcomes and healthier engagement with learning, while controlled motivations (external regulation and amotivation) do not [7], [15]-[17], [20]. Figure 1. Simplified model for motivation in learning. Adapted from social-cognitive theoretical frameworks and motivation theoretical frameworks, e.g., [7], [18]-[21]. Table 1. Four types of motivation measured by the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS), ordered from most selfdetermined (top) to least self-determined (bottom) [13]. Motivation Type Description Intrinsic Motivation Deeply internalized engagement based on interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, or passion in an activity Identified Regulation Internal drive that is congruent with an internal sense of self, and based on perceived value, importance, or usefulness of a task External Regulation Engagement based on a sense of compliance, external pressure, punishment avoidance, or contingent reward Amotivation Impersonal or non-intentional action described by perceived lack of control and a disconnection between actions and outcomes motivational processes autonomous or controlled CONTEXT APPRAISAL DRIVE ACTIONS OUTCOMES environmental factors e.g, course climate, institutional culture, role stereotypes, pedagogy personal factors e.g, prior experience, goals, values, identity learning strategies: cognitive, social, behavioral, affective interpretations of the environment perceived need satisfaction mastery, performance, achievement As a needs-based motivation theory, SDT argues that individuals will adopt internalized forms of motivation when three basic needs are satisfied: competence, the development of a sense of mastery or self-efficacy; relatedness, a sense of positive and supportive connections to others; and autonomy, a sense of choice and control [14]. Addressing these needs in the classroom enables students to more easily internalize learning goals and shift their motivations from extrinsic to intrinsic [3]. When students internalize learning, they see the value in these goals and gradually accept them as their own. Over time, the learning goals become part of their own identity, and thus much easier to maintain and endorse [13]. Individuals’ motivational responses in real-world situations, however, do not typically appear as either internalized/autonomous or externalized/controlled. That is, the different types of motivation do not exist in isolation; rather, individuals can simultaneously express multiple forms of motivation in a given activity [22]-[25]. For example, a student may feel external pressure to perform well on a learning task (external regulation), but simultaneously find a sense of personal value or importance in the activity (identified regulation). In this case, the student would express a combination of controlled motivations and autonomous motivations. Examining the ‘quality’ of learner motivations with a multidimensional characterization can provide additional diagnostic information as well as practical insights to guide motivation interventions through course design. Motivation and Pedagogy Self-determination theory translates well to practice, as its proposed relationships among basic needs satisfaction, motivations, and learning outcomes are readily applied and tested in academic environments. Based on SDT, we expect to observe autonomous motivations and desirable learning outcomes in settings that promote a sense of success and progress (competence), build positive interpersonal connections (relatedness), and support choice and control (autonomy). Conversely, settings that thwart learners’ basic needs should lead to controlled motivations and less desirable outcomes. Research across a range of settings clearly demonstrates the importance of autonomy support to motivation (e.g., [6], [12], [26], [27]). In addition, intrinsic goal framing, supportive communication styles, efficacy-building experiences, peer support, and emotional sensitivity lead to internalized forms of motivation and positive engagement [11], [28]-[30]. On the contrary, controlling teacher behaviors have been shown to lead to negative motivation types and restricted engagement [31], [32]. Using structural modeling, Fortier et al. (1995) demonstrate the positive influence of perceived competence and self-determination on autonomous motivations and academic performance [7]. Greene et al. (2004) illustrate linkages between autonomy support and self-efficacy, mastery goals, strategy use, and achievement [33]. Walker et al.’s path model shows that self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation can predict meaningful cognitive engagement, while extrinsic motivations predict shallow cognitive engagement [8]. Although empirical research that directly links different pedagogical approaches with motivation types is limited, active and student-centered pedagogies appear to be well aligned with the principles of self-determination and intrinsic motivation [34]. For example, Stefanou et al. (2013) reported high levels of perceived autonomy support among students in problemand project-based courses [35]. Stolk and Harari (2014) illustrated connections among positive motivations and high-level cognit