Does Motivation Matter for Conceptual Change? Developing Effective Qualitative Research Approaches

Amidst the growing spectrum of research focused on understanding the cognitive and motivational factors that impact how students learn, the field of engineering education lacks sound research on the methodological approaches used to study these complex constructs. The current study was intended to highlight some of the current concerns in studying complex ideas through the use of qualitative methodologies. This research lays a foundation for future work by helping us determine what questions to ask participants and how to ask them in order to tease apart their motivational beliefs and learning strategies for specific content-related problem solving. Recommendations include interviewer training on how to ask follow-up questions to motivation-related utterances. Introduction Despite considerable research in engineering education, there is still much to uncover with regard to how students learn, what they learn, and why they learn it. While there is a wealth of data on cognition, metacognition, and teaching strategies (all examples of the how), and misconceptions, conceptual change, and curriculum development (all examples of the what), motivation (example of the why) still remains understudied by comparison. Epistemologically sound qualitative research approaches to study complex learning and motivation interactions are likewise underrepresented in engineering education research 1 . As part of a larger study to understand motivation and conceptual understanding, our current analysis sits at the intersection of the underrepresented topics of motivation for learning difficult concepts and qualitative modes of research. The purpose of our research was to answer the question: How can clinical interview methods elicit both conceptual understanding of engineering concepts and motivation towards learning such concepts? We focused on clinical interview approaches because they are popular modes for examining students’ conceptual knowledge 2 , yet their utility in simultaneously uncovering motivation is not established. Drawing on a theoretical framework for intentional conceptual change 3 , we qualitatively analyzed two different clinical interview approaches to answer our research question. In the first approach, existing clinical interviews, in which the participants were NOT specifically asked questions about motivation, were analyzed with the intent of uncovering the “organic” utterances related to motivation emergent in student self-talk during problem solving; we used open coding of the data to reveal instances of unprompted motivation-related utterances. In the second approach, participants were asked to think aloud while solving a problem and discuss the learning strategies in which they engage. In this second approach, multiple questions drawing on existing motivation constructs (e.g., interest, efficacy, and values) were asked during these thinkaloud interviews, enabling us to use a priori coding to focus analysis on specific motivation constructs. In our results, we compare the two interview/analysis approaches with regard to what each reveals about student motivation towards learning concepts in engineering disciplines.