The Effect of Course Type on Engineering Undergraduates' Situational Motivation and Curiosity

This exploratory study investigated situational intrinsic and two types of extrinsic motivation, amotivation, and curiosity and how they were differentially impacted by 62 engineering undergraduates’ participation in an IDEAS studio course and a comparison course (designated Course X). All IDEAS studio courses are small with an interdisciplinary mix of students. Students voluntarily register for these courses that include the creation of a physical artifact, a real problem and broad perspectives in class work, and an open process to create solutions. Participants in an IDEAS course were asked to select a comparison course that was the least like the IDEAS course. Three times throughout the semester situational motivation and curiosity were assessed for both courses using 21 questions selected from existing instruments. Results showed that at each of the three times during the semester when students completed the assessment, there was a significant difference between their situational motivation and curiosity for the IDEAS course and Course X. When evaluating the IDEAS course, students consistently had higher scores in intrinsic motivation, identified regulation and curiosity than Course X with large effect sizes. When considering Course X, they consistently had higher scores in external regulation and amotivation than the IDEAS course with large effect sizes. Introduction and Background As we move forward in the twenty-first century, there is a need for individuals who can see new possibilities, are curious about problems that arise, and dare to risk failure to solve those challenges with innovative solutions. Engineering is one discipline where there has been a call for innovation, fueled by the entrepreneurial spirit. Some have even proposed that innovation is the key to the “entrepreneurial mindset” . However, innovative thinking and the “entrepreneurial mindset” are not automatic outgrowths of current engineering programs. What fuels innovative solutions? What makes one person risk embarking on a new endeavor while another does not? Self-Determination Theory (7) can provide some insights. Self-Determination Theory involves the perception of options, a sense of considering oneself free to do what one has decided to do. It incorporates a continuum of levels of motivation which include intrinsic motivation, multiple types of extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. When individuals are intrinsically motivated, behaviors are influenced by internal reasons such as personal enjoyment . By contrast, when extrinsically motivated, individuals are influenced by external factors, such as a grade or a paycheck. Amotivation is when individuals are neither intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated. As noted by Guay et al., amotivated individuals have, “...no sense of purpose and no expectations of reward or possibility of changing the course of events” (p. 177) . Each level of motivation is correlated with different results . Intrinsic motivation is associated with more positive learning outcomes, such as higher academic achievement (3, 7, 15) and is believed to be key for an “entrepreneurial mindset” in engineering students (11, . By contrast, amotivation is associated with the most negative effects . Since intrinsic motivation is related to positive learning outcomes and an “entrepreneurial mindset” , its promotion in undergraduate classrooms is important and should naturally result in its increase. However, a complex relationship exists between the encouragement of intrinsic motivation and that outcome. Cognitive Evaluation Theory, a sub-theory within SelfDetermination Theory (7) provides some clarification. This theory, developed in order to identify variables that could clarify differences in intrinsic motivation, explains intrinsic motivation through individuals’ needs for competence and autonomy , both identified as crucial for educational attainment and a sense of well-being . Competence has been explained as, “...the need to experience satisfaction in exercising and extending one’s capabilities” (p. 68) . By itself, competence does not enhance intrinsic motivation; a feeling of autonomy has to go with it . Autonomy has been described as a being able to make choices and to do things for individual rather than external reasons . Ryan and Deci (18) further described autonomy as, “...the feeling of volition that can accompany any act, whether dependent or independent, collectivist or individualist” (p. 74). Students who have more of their need for autonomy fulfilled seem to have a stronger performance and more intrinsic motivation than those who do not . A need for autonomy has also been identified as necessary for productive entrepreneurs. “Entrepreneurs desire the ability to resolve their problems and to bring activities to a successful end on their own” (p. 257) . Therefore, educational environments need to be developed that satisfy students’ needs for autonomy as well as competence . While some believe that extrinsic motivation excludes autonomy, Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), another sub-theory within Self-Determination Theory, hypothesizes that there can be varying amounts of autonomy within extrinsic motivation . Ryan and Deci illustrated a range of levels of extrinsic motivation extending from external regulation through introjected regulation and identified regulation to integrated regulation. Each style varies by controllability and pertinent regulatory procedures . Within the extrinsic motivation continuum, external regulation refers to behaviors that have the least autonomy. Behaviors are, “regulated by rewards or in order to avoid negative consequences” (p. 177) . Individuals with high external regulation believe that the causality of outcomes is external . This type of extrinsic motivation was frequently compared with intrinsic motivation in early research . While introjected regulation is considered closer to external regulation, with identified regulation, individuals are starting to believe the causality of outcomes is slightly internal . Integrated regulation, the closest to intrinsic motivation and therefore a highly self-directed type of extrinsic motivation , refers to appreciating a goal or activity as important but still being motivated by external reasons. In an educational setting, students high in integrated regulation would select and value courses related to their major but view them as a means to achieve a degree in a specific discipline or to acquire a particular job. In addition to a sense of autonomy and competence, students need to be interested in course content and the problems they are trying to solve. Interest is another factor believed to facilitate learning (13, . It has been broadly viewed as a mental state that arises from an individual’s transactions with an activity (4, . However, educational researchers have further categorized interest into personal and situational . Personal interest is an individual’s internal inclination for an activity or action . Situational interest is the interaction between features of an activity and the person’s perceptions of the activity or action . Deci connected intrinsic motivation to situational interest, proposing that it is a multi-dimensional concept . Deci argued that situational interest can be viewed as a trio of interactive groupings involving the individual and the activity: characteristics of the activity, mental inclinations of the person, and the interaction between the activity and how it is viewed (4, . It is known that external influences such as competition, deadlines and restrictions can impact a person’s situational motivation for a specific activity ; all are factors to consider in educational environments. Hidi and Renninger proposed a four-phase model of interest development that suggested a dynamic relationship between curiosity and interest . If curiosity is satisfied, then interest and engagement can occur. Furthermore, curiosity has been associated with a need for competence in Deci’s theory of intrinsic motivation . As Arnone, Small, Chauncey, and McKenna noted, “When curiosity is ignited, the interest component can then enter into the dynamic” (p. 188) . Alternatively, interest can reactivate curiosity . “It is the curious child that becomes tomorrow’s innovator...” (p. 195) . Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as articulated by Self-Determination Theory, as well as situational interest and curiosity may play important roles in promoting both learning and innovation, ultimately facilitating an “entrepreneurial mindset”. However, there is a need for comparison environments to explore whether certain settings or classes are better at promoting these precursors of the entrepreneurial spirit. Researchers have indicated that motivation can vary for individuals when they are involved in an activity. This situational motivation has been has referred to by Vallerand as the “here-and-now” of motivation . Previous research has also noted a need for comparable situations with analogous activities with high and low interest so they can be distinguished . Investigations of motivation and interest need to occur in varied courses or classroom settings to provide further insights. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this exploratory research was to investigate how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as articulated by Self-Determination Theory, and curiosity were differentially impacted by engineering undergraduates’ participation in two contrasting courses, an IDEAS studio course and a self-selected comparison course (designated as Course X). For the purposes of this study, amotivation, two measures of extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, and curiosity (operationalized as situational interest) were examined. These variables were measured by the Situational Motivation Scale (12) and five questions from the Situational Interest Scale . The IDEAS studio course was a university-specific class designed to encourage an en