Relationships Between the Perceived Value of InstructionalTechniques and Academic Motivation

Meera Komarraju and Steven J. Karau

Despite a large volume of research examining instructional strategies and studentleaming, very little research has examined relationships between students' percep-tions of the value of specific instructional techniques and academic motivation. In thecurrent research, college students (172 undergraduates) completed scales assessingthe perceived value of course websites, active learning, and traditional lectures, aswell as the Academic Motivations Inventory (AMI; Moen & Doyle, 1977). Resultsshowed a complex pattern of significant correlations that was simplified when exam-ining the three key factors of academic motivation. Specifically, stepwise regressionanalysis showed that engagement was positively related with the perceived value ofall three instructional techniques, whereas avoidance was not significantly relatedwith any. Achievement motivation was positively related with the perceived valueof traditional lectures. These results suggest that students with different types ofacademic motivation respond differently to specific instructional techniques and thata variety of strategies may need to be activated to reach all students. Implications forfuture research and practice are discussed.Key Words: academic motivation, instructional techniques, course websites

In order to enhance the value of a col-lege education, it is important to identify therelationship between studetits' receptivenessto various instructional techniques and indi-vidual differences in academic motivation.Teachers and scholars have long been atten-tive to how the choice of specific teachingtechniques (such as lectures, assignments,andexperiential exercises) may impact classroomclimate and performance (McKeachie, 1974).However, relationships between specific in-structional techniques and student motivationhave received less attention (Hammer, 2005).In addition, in recent years, many universityfaculty have developed comprehensive coursewebsites that provide access to lecture notes,grades, review sheets, example exam ques-

Meera Komarraju, Department of Psychol-ogy, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.Steven J. Karau, Department of Management,Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Correspondence should be addressed toMecra Komarraju, Department of Psychology,Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL62901-6502. email: meerak@siu.edu.

tions, links, and so on. With the advent of theintemet and increased use of course websites,it is becoming increasingly important to deter-mine the impact of website usage on studentmotivation and leaming (Cox & Rogers, 2005;Roblyer&Knezek, 2003). Indeed, Robinson(2004) reports that as students become moreconnected to the electronic world, facultymembers will find themselves compelledto incorporate technology in the classroom.Similarly, Miller, Martineau, and Clark(2000) conclude that educators have verylittle choice but to incorporate technology aswidespread student computer usage expandsand social, structural, and resource barriersinevitably diminish. Similarly,Grasha (2000)encourages faculty to develop a conceptualframework for incorporating technology inthe classroom, as it is important for facultyto explore the fit between technology andtheir philosophy of teaching and leaming.Thus, it is important to develop an under-standing of how the mix of instructionaltechnologies employed is related to students'motivation, leaming, and perfonnance. Wedesigned the current research to examine the

70

instructional Techniques and Academic Motivation .. /71

relationship between the perceived value ofdifferent teaching techniques and collegestudents' academic motivation. Specifically,we focused on the relationships that coursewebsite usage,traditional lecture,and activeleaming techniques have with distinct aspectsof academic motivation.

Theoretical BackgroundWe propose that instructional techniques

do not impact all students equally, and thatstudents with different profiles of academicmotivation wilt prefer and value differentinstructional techniques. For years, scholarsacross numerous disciplines have analyzedvarious instructional methods and sought toidentify those that are most effective. Thisprior research and theory suggests that peda-gogical choices can have a significant impacton student leaming,eagerness toconsidernewinformation, and ability to apply informationto new situations. First, research has shownthat students leam in many different ways andone method is not enough to reach all students(McKeachie, 1974). For example, researchon individual differences in leaming styles(e.g.. Biggs, 1993) suggests that students tendto adopt either a surface, deep, or achievingleaming style. Similarly.research on multipletypes of intelligence (e.g., Stemberg, Torff,& Grigorenko, 1998) suggests leaming isenhanced when leaming strategies are wellmatched to students' specific abilities. Sec-ond , research has demonstrated that studentsdiffer in their relative levels of intrinsic andextrinsic motivation,such that some studentsare relatively disengaged, whereas othersdisplay intellectual curiosity and a hunger forleaming (Deci & Ryan, 1985).These differ-ences in motivation could lead students tobeeitherwillingorun willing leamers dependingon how they are taught, and students are likelyto differ in the instructional techniques thatthey find most engaging (Sutton & Wheatley,2003).Third,research on integrating technol-ogy into the classroom demonstrates thatit can improve student interest by making

leaming more of an active process (Grasha,2000). Indeed, research examining teach-ers' and students' perceptions regarding theintegration of technology into instmctionaltechniques suggests that the benefits mayoutweigh the costs and barriers involved(Miller, Manineau, & Clark, 2000).

Thus,a variety of perspectives convergeto suggest that there are individual differencesin students'academic motivation, that differ-ent students may value different instructionaltechniques, and that website and technologyusage should be considered in the mix ofinstmctional techniques that may influenceacademic motivation. Stated differently, thestrength of the relationship between instruc-tional techniques and academic motivationwill depend on what aspect of motivationis examined, such that students' academicmotivation should be enhanced when thereis a good fit or match between the specificaspects of a student's academic motivationand the instructional environment.

In the current research, we endeavor totake the vital first step of documenting therelationship between instructional techniquesand academic motivation, but do not aimto disentangle the causal direction of thisrelationship. We acknowledge that these in-fluences are likely to be reciprocal in nature,and may develop recursive properties overtime due to the interactive process of teach-ing and leaming.Thus, specific instructionaltechniques could certainly influence motiva-tion as a function of student preferences foreducational environments. Yet, at the sametime, student differences in types and levelsof academic motivation could also drivetheir preferences for specific instructionaltechniques.

Prior ResearchWeb-Based Instructional Techniques.

A number of researchers have focused onthe ability to supplement traditional lecture-based courses with computer technology.Professors now have access to computers at

721 Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 4

home and at work, ans wer emails, fX)st coursematerial on the web, and research resourceswith which to link, in addition to preparinglectures. Similarly, college students are nowvery comfortable using computers, emailingassignments, responding to online quizzes,participating in electronic chats, exploringlinked information, and so on (e .g., Forsyth &Archer, 1997; Gardner, 2002). For example,Cox and Rogers (2005), Keane (2002). andLeuhold (1999) suggest that computer andinternet access provides teachers with theability to go beyond traditional offerings andsupplement them with on-line lectures, tests,simulations and games,on-line group discus-sion, audio and video links, problem-solvingactivities, and providing real-time feedbackon post-lecture quizzes. Driver (2002) foundthat MBA students perceived an online courseas superior to both a traditional or televisedcourse, and felt that there was greater socialinteraction and a greater sense of communitythan in a traditional course. Similarly, Beetsand Lobingier (2001) found that studentleaming and attendance was highest whenthe presentation mode matched the students'preference. Most educators (Rother, 2004;Iding, Crosby, and Speital, 2002; Witt, 2003;Peluchette & Rust, 2005) believe that incor-porating technology Into teaching is likelyto add significant value to their teaching,enhance teaching effectiveness and increasestudents' academic performance.

However, there are some pros and consspecific to web-based teaching techniquesand academic motivation. AI-Bataineh andBrooks (2003) suggest that although tech-nology is moving in the direction of virtualleaming via the intemet it is important notto lose the interpersonal contact betweenteachers and students and amongst studentsthemselves. Teachers will need to adopt in-structional strategies that maintain a fine bal-ance between the use of technology and othermodes of teaching that address the social andpsychological needsof students (e.g.,Becker& Ravitz, 1999; Hung, 2001; Mioduser,

Nachmias, Lahav, & Oren, 2000).Instructional Techniques and Learn-

ing. Prior research and theory suggests thatpedagogical choices can have a significantimpact on various aspects of student leaming,such as eagemess to consider new informa-tion and ability to apply information to newsituations. Thus, students' preferences forvarious instructional techniques (which couldbe influenced by their academic motivation)need to be taken into account when consid-ering student learning. Indeed, research hasshown that students leam in many differentways and one method is not enough to reachall students (e.g.. Biggs, 1993; Stemberg etal. 1998). Indeed, a number of scholars haveemphasized the importance of deploying a va-riety of teaching sU^ategies and incorporatingmore active techniques into one's repertoire.For example, Astin (1984) suggests thatfaculty members who are able to increasestudent involvement, both physically andpsychologically, are more likely to enhancestudent learning and motivation. Similarly,Diaz-Lefebvre (2004) cautions against teach-ing methods that encourage rote memoriza-tion as they are likely to lead to low motiva-tion, poor performance, and an inability toapply course material to real life.

Further highlighting the importance ofdifferent student approaches to leaming,Bransford and his colleagues (Bransfordet al., 1982; Bransford, Sherwood, Vye, &Rieser, 1986; Schwartz & Bransford, 1998)have emphasized the active role students cantake in their own leaming. They highlight therole teachers can play in enhancing students'metacognition or awareness of themselves asleamers. Teachers who help students under-stand the strategies they use and how thesecan be improved are more likely to engagestudents more effectively in the classroom.Teachers using instructional techniquesthat encourage students to reflect on theirown leaming, provide them with feedback,give them a chance to review material, andencourage them to take responsibility for

Instructional Techniques and Academic Motivation. .1 73

their own leaming tend to increase learning.Bransford et al. {1998) recommend a problembased approach to teaching and leaming thatconnects classroom activities to underlyingconcepts and builds scaffolds by deepeningunderstanding, providing contrasting sce-narios, and using narratives that end in openquestions. In relation to the current research,students' relative involvement with or attrac-tion to specific instructional techniques (asinfiuenced by their academic motivation)could well impact their actual leaming.

Similar conclusions about the impor-tance of using a variety of teaching techniquesto enhance student leaming have also emergedfrom a number of studies done in variousacademic disciplines. For example. Reeves& Francis (2002) found that a problem-basedleaming technique, though not as structurallyefficient as a lecture, tended to make pharmacystudents more inquisitive, and also increasedtheir retention of material, their ability to ap-ply material to new contexts,and their abilityto solve problems. In examining how familytherapy is taught, Maynard (1996) reportedthat a student-centered experiential methodinvolving video material, presentations, writ-ing.and askingquestions encouraged leamingand critical thinking. Chanson (2004) foundthat including fieldwork as amethod of teach-ing hydraulic engineering topics to Australianundergraduates enhanced both the value ofthe fieldwork to students and its relevance toemployers. In the healthcare field, Vaughn,Gonzalez del Rey, and Baker (2001) haveadvocated an instructional technique calledmicroburst leaming that combines role-plays,experiential activities, group discussions,and simulations into one session, with eachsegment presented in a short burst. Vaughnet al. report that microburst leaming helpsin maintaining students' attention span, ac-commodating various leaming styles, andmotivating students.

Instructional Techniques and AcademicMotivation. The choice of specific instmc-tional techniques can also have a high degree

of relevance to students' academic motiva-tion. For example, McKeachie's (1987;Pintrich, McKeachie, & Lin, 1987) researchon teaching effectiveness and teacher trainingsuggests that it is possible to motivate studentsto be excited about ieaming by creating ac-tive leaming experiences. Students who areable to see a connection between conceptsfrom lecture and real life situations are morelikely to become curious and eager to knowmore. Further, McKeachie, Lin. Moffett,& Daugherty (1978) compared four teach-ing styles (Expert, Authority, Facihtator,Person) in relation to students' thinking,motivation, and attitudes towards leaming.They found that students whose instmctorsused a student-centered style (Facilitator,Person) were more motivated to participatein class and were more likely to register foradditional psychology courses relative tostudents whose teachers used the Expert orAuthority styles. Similarly, Hammer (2005)explains how showing concem for students,having a positive attitude, and communicat-ing concem for their leaming and successcan be very motivating (see also Sutton &Wheatley, 2003).

Dunn & Dunn (1979) describe a bodyof work demonstrating the importance ofmatching teaching methods to various studentcharacteristics to enhance academic motiva-tion and achievement. They emphasize theimportance of training teachers in the use ofa wide variety of instructional techniques soas to reach a larger number of students. Forexample, a teacher who typically uses thelecture method can leam to use the small groupdiscussion or case analysis techniques. Theirresearch suggests that students who may notbe initially motivated can become motivatedwhen taught in a way that complements howthey leam.

It is especially important to considerstudent differences in levels of intrinsic andextrinsic motivation when selecting instruc-tional techniques. Deci and Ryan (1985)identify three major motivational drives:

741 Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 4

intrinsic motivation,extrinsic motivation andamotivation. Intrinsically motivated studentsare likely to be energized, persistent, andgenuinely interested in leaming. Intrinsicmotivation can be maintained and also in-creased if students are given experiences inthe classroom that make them feel competentand capable of accomplishing tasks. Teacherswho use instructional techniques that fosterintrinsic motivation are more likely to beeffective. Vallerand & Bissonnette (1992)describe how intrinsic motivation can beincreased when students engage in activitiesthat are self-determined and that they find tobe creative, interesting, and associated withpositive emotions. On the other hand, studentscan become demotivated when faced withsituations or experiences that make themfeel incompetent, not in control, threatened,and pressured. For example, Bransford etal. (1982) compared successful and unsuc-cessful students and noted that successfulstudents tended to spontaneously take onan active role in leaming by elaborating ongiven information and relating it to previousexperiences.

Similarly, Grasha ( 1994) provides a con-ceptual framework of various teaching styles(expert, formal authority, personal model,facilitator, and delegator) and emphasizes theimportance of varying these styles to matchstudents ' knowledge and motivation in orderto promote student interest and leaming.He explains that the expert/formal author-ity style is most suitable when students arenot familiar with the content of the courseand the teacher is willing to manage all theclassroom activities. On the other hand, whenstudents are knowledgeable, and motivatedto take initiative and responsibility for theirleaming, a teacher could use a combinationof expert/facilitating/delegating styles. Suchmatching of teaching strategy to students'preferences is more likely to result in studentengagement in the classroom. Similarly,Miller (1991) underscores the importanceof taking into account student differences in

personality, motivation, and leaming stylesand adjusting teaching techniques so as toappeal to a broader range of students.

The Current ResearchPrior research has highlighted a number

of potential positive and negative attributesof course website usage and has also identi-fied a number of potential linkages betweenspecific instmctional techniques and vari-ous student outcomes. However, very littleresearch has directly examined how prefer-ences for various instructional strategiesare related with individual differences instudents' academic motivation. The currentresearch was designed to directly examinethe linkages between the perceived value ofvarious instructional techniques and indi-vidual differences in academic motivation.Given the dearth of prior research on thisissue,ourresearch was exploratory in nature.Thus, we did not make specific predictionsahout the likely relationships between eachof the 16 AMI subscales and each of the threeinstructional techniques. Instead, we adoptedthe general reasoning that students would bemost receptive to those teaching techniquesthat overlap with the elements of academiclife that they find most motivating, and thatthe resulting pattem of relationships would beamenable to a motivational fit explanation.

MethodWe collected data from a sample of 172

undergraduates at a large, public, Midwestemuniversity who participated to receive extracredit points or to complete a course require-ment. The current research was part of a largerstudy examining academic motivation in rela-tion to a variety of personality and situationalfactors. A previous article reports the resultsfor relationships between academic motiva-tion and the Big Five personality dimensions,and also presents a principal componentsfactor analysis of the sixteen AMI subscales(for details see Komarraju & Karau, 2005).The current paper focuses on relationships

Instructional Techniques and Academic Motivation ..175

between the AMI and specific instructionalstrategies. The instmctional strategies dataand analyses are new and previously un-published. All participants were enrolled incourses in psychology or business. Nearly allofthecourses in both departments maintainedwebsites that provided details about the syl-labus, contact information and hours for theinstmctor and teaching assistants, lecturenotes, and grade information. In addition,many of the websites included additionalresources such as sample tests, review sheets,course-related assignments (e.g., statistical,spreadsheet, or case assignments), feedbackabout items missed on exams, links to pub-lisher-provided support information (e.g.,quizzes, intemet links), or links to full-textarticles. Very few course websites incorpo-rated online discussion.

To measure perceptions of differentinstructional techniques, we created scales as-sessing the perceived value of course websites(6 items), active leaming (4 items), and tradi-tional lectures (2 items, see Table 1 ). We also

included additional items to assess computeraccess, computer usage, frequency and typeof course website usage, and perceptions ofoverall course website usefulness (see Table2). Students were also asked to complete theAcademic Motivations Inventory (Moen &Doyle, 1977) that consists of 90 items andincludes 16dimensions of academic motiva-tion. The sixteen dimensions are thinking,persisting, achieving, facilitating anxiety,debilitating anxiety, grades orientation, eco-nomic orientation, desire for self-improve-ment, demanding, influencing, competing,approval, affiliating, withdrawing, dislikeschool, and discouraged about school (seeTable 3 for Alpha levels).

ResultsWe first examined descriptive informa-

tion to obtain a profile of students' computeraccess and usage (see Table 2). The datarevealed that a large majority of studentshad readily available computer access andused the computer to contact the instmctor as

Table IItems Used To Measure Three Instructional Techniques: Website Usage,

Active Learning, and Traditional Lecture

Instmctional Techniques and itemsCourse Websites

ncreased my leamingIncreased my interest in the courseIncreased my involvement in the courseIncreased my satisfaction with the courseIncreased my information about the courseIncreased my motivation in the course

Active Leamingn-class debates

In-class casesIn-class group discussionIn-class role-playing exercisesIn-class group presentations

TraditionalLecturesLectures with examples

No. of items6

Alpha.87

.77

.69

761 Jourrial of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 4

well as fellow students, and to access coursematerials. These results also showed that thevast majority of courses maintained websites,and students used websites most commonly toget course information, check grades, accesssample tests, and download notes. Finally,93% of students reported finding websitesuseful, and 91% said they would like to seemore classes make information availablevia websites.

We then conducted correlation analysesto examine relationships between the 16 AMIsubscales and the three instructional strate-gies . As shown in Table 3, a complex pattemof statistically significant correlations ofmodest magnitude (ranging from .17 to .32)emerged, suggesting that students' prefer-ences for specific instructional strategies areindeed related to their profiles of academicmotivation. Specifically, the perceived valueof traditional lectures was positively relatedwith thinking, persisting, achieving, facili-tating anxiety, grades orientation, desire forimprovement, and affiliation motives, and

negatively related with disliking school.The perceived value of in-class activitieswas positively related with thinking, desirefor improvement, influencing, approval, andaffiliation motives, and negatively relatedwith withdrawal. Finally, the perceived valueof course websites was positively relatedwith thinking, grades orientation, desire forimprovement, influencing, approval, andaffiliation.

In order to clarify these relationships ina more parsimonious manner, we examinedthe relationship between the instmctionalstrategies and three key components of theAMI that we had identified in our previousarticle (Komarraju & Karau, 2005). Specifi-cally, we had previously found that principalcomponents factor analysis of the sixteensubscales of the AMI produces three factors(with eigenvalues of 4.94, 2.79, and 1.71)explaining 59% of the variance. Engagement(alpha = .79) includes six subscales fromthe original instrument; thinking, facilitat-ing anxiety, desire for self-improvement.

Table 2Student Profile of Computer and Course Website

Factor

Computer AccessOwn a computerHave access to a computer at homeUse a computer on campus

Computer Usage Email InstructorEmail other students or friendsGo online at least once per day

Course Website Do courses have websites?Check course information on the web?Check grades online?Access sample tests?Download lecture notes?Use website for discussion groups?

Overall view of course websitesFind website usefulWould like to see more classes with websites

Usage

Percentage

81%92%79%86%98%84%98%94%94%92%69%19%

93%91%

Instructional Techniques and Academic Motivation .. I 77

influencing, approval, and affiliating. Avoid-ance (alpha = .75) includes six subscales:debilitating anxiety, demanding, economicorientation, withdrawing, disliking school,and discouraged about school. Achieve-ment (alpha = .80) includes four subscales:persisting, achieving, grades orientation, andcompeting. Thus, in the current analyses, weexamined correlations between instructionalstrategies and these three broader dimensionsof academic motivation. As shown in Table4, engagement was positively related withthe perceived value of all three instructionaltechniques. Achievement motivation waspositively correlated with the perceived valueof traditional lectures and course websites,but had no relationship with experiential exer-cises.Finally.avoidance was not significantlyrelated with any of the three instructionaltechniques.

Finally, to further understand how themix of these three instructional techniquesinfluenced engagement, avoidance, andachievement motivation, we conducted aseries of stepwise, forward regression analy-ses. For each analysis, gender was includedin the first step of the analysis as a possiblecontrol variable, but was not significant inany of the analyses. As shown in Table 5.engagement and achievement motivationwere each influenced by a different pattemof significant predictors. Specifically, whenlooking at engagement motivation, 19%of the variance was explained by all threeinstructional techniques (Course Websites,Active Leaming. and Traditional Lecture),F(3,129)= 10.08,p<.001,adjusted R^= .17.Course websites emerged as the strongestpredictor, explaining 10% of the variance inengagement motivation. For achievement

Table 3Correlations Between AMI Subscales and Three Instructional Techniques

Motive

ThinkingPersistingAchievingFacilitating anxietyDebilitating anxietyGrades orientationEconomic orientationSe If-improvementDemandingInfluencingCompetingApprovalAffiliatingWithdrawingDisliking schoolDiscouraged about school

*p<.05**p<.01

Alpha

.76

.68

.88

.54

.72

.78

.55

.68

.53

.63

.66

.82

.45

.69

.77

.71

WebsiteUsage

.23**

.12

.11

.15

.1224**.10.23**.0123**.0922**30**-.07-.12-.03

ActiveLeaming

22**-.02.16.15.01.06-.02.23**.03.32**.00.17*.17*-.32**-.05.04

TraditionalLecture

.23**

.21**

.32**

.18*

.14

.23**-.09.20*.03.16.01.1630**-W-.20*-.03

781 Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 4

motivation,only one instructional technique(Traditional Lecture) was a significant predic-tor explaining 7% of the variance,F (1,133)=9.79, p<.01, adjusted R^= .06.

DiscussionThe results of our study clearly sug-

gest that various teaching techniques aresignificantly associated with distinct aspectsof students' academic motivation. This isan important finding, considering that therelative match between leaming preferencesand academic environments has been foundto play an important role in student leaming(e.g., Bransford et al. 1982; Grasha, 2000,Pintrich,McKeachie,&Lin,1987).By under-standing relationships between instructionaltechniques and various elements of academic

motivation, teachers may be able to enhancestudent involvement, retention, and applica-tion. Indeed, our results clearly suggest thatstudents enter the classroom with differenttypes of academic motivation and drives thatmake them differentially receptive to specificinstructional techniques.

Our factor analysis revealed threeprofiles of académie motivation, each as-sociated with unique leaming preferences:engagement, avoidance, and achievementmotivation. Specifically, engagement waspositively associated with all three instruc-tional techniques. The perceived value ofwebsites, active learning, and traditionallectures all explained significant variance inengagement motivation, with perceived valueof websites explaining the greatest variability.

Table 4Correlations Between Three subscales of Academic Motivation and Three Instructional

Perceived value of Academic Motivation SubscalesInstructional Techniques Engagement Avoidance AchievementCourse Websites .32** .01Active LeamingTraditional Lecture

.28**

.27**-.07

.21*

.08

.26**

. N ranges from 132 to 139.

Table 5Forward Multiple Regression Results With Instructional Techniques Regressed

"actor

Engagement

Achievement

p̂ <.O5

Step

1231

on Academic Motivation Factors

Predictor

Course WebsitesActive LearningTraditional LectureTraditional Lecture

Beta

.26**21**.19*.26**

.10

.16

.19

.07

Change in R-

.10

.05

.03

.07

Instructional Techniques and Academic Motivation../ 79

From ateaching standpoint,engaged studentsappear to be ideal and seem to be motivatedby a variety of strategies. Thus, in relation totheAMl subscales, students who enjoy think-ing about what they are leaming and desireself-improvement are likely to respond to alarger variety of teaching strategies.

In contrast, avoidance was not signifi-cantly associated with any of the instructionaltechniques. Thus, avoidant students posea special challenge to effective teaching.They are more likely to experience anxietyand worry about not doing well, to dislikeschool, to feel discouraged about their stud-ies, and to be withdrawn or disengaged fromthe leaming process. These are the studentswho seem least likely to respond to any of theteacher's instructional techniques, whether itis the traditional lecture, in-class activities orweb-based leaming.

Interestingly,achievement was positive-ly correlated with the perceived value of bothtraditional lectures and course websites, buthad no relationship with the perceived valueofactive leaming. However, in ourregressionanalysis, the perceived value of traditional lec-tures was the only instructional technique thatemerged as a significant predictor of achieve-ment motivation, with the perceived valueof course websites no longer a significantpredictor when controlling for the other twoinstructional techniques. This suggests thatachievement-oriented students —who tendto be more persistent, competitive, achieve-ment focused, and grades oriented—seemto prefer leaming via traditional lectures.Perhaps they prefer a more structured andpredictable leaming environment and arenot comfortable with leaming opportunitiesinvolving role-plays, ease studies, and smallgroup discussions.

One important implication of these re-sults is that the inclusion of course websitesis most likely to appeal to students who arehigh in engagement. Another important impli-cation is that the lecture method does appealto students who are motivated to leam (i.e..

students who are either engaged or achieve-ment motivated).This is heartening to note,asmany courses are stiil based primarily on thelecture method due to its structural efficiency.Teachers who are aware of these differencescould combine various teaching strategies toconnect with a wider range of students andbe more sensitive to the advantages of tryingnew instructional techniques. These resultssupport existing research that highlights theimportance of a good fit between a student'smotivation, personality, leaming style andhow he or she is taught (e.g.. Biggs, 1993;McKeachie et al. 1978).

Our study also sheds further light onhow computers are actually being used inuniversity courses. Consistent with otherrecent research (e.g., Mioduser et al. 2000),we found that students have widely availableaccess to computers and use them frequentlyto contact the instructor and other students,to access the intemet, to check grades, and todownload course materials and lecture notes.It seems that the typical course website, atleast at the university studied, presents basiccourse information and serves as a resourcefor getting course materials as needed. Theuse of more interactive technologies, such asonline discussion groups is far less common.Nevertheless, nearly all of our student samplefound the websites useful and would like tosee more classes with websites.

We should also acknowledge that ourstudy had some limitations that might beaddressed in future research. Most impor-tant, the AMI had low to moderate levelsof intemal consistency on several subscales(see Table 3). Hence, conclusions on thosespecific subscales should be consideredtentative. Although the AMI is useful forexamining many aspects of academic motiva-tion, the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS;Vallerand, Pelletier, Biais, Briete, Senecal,& Vallieres, 1992) provides an alternativemeasure with good psychometric properties.Also, although we have established a numberof significant relationships between instruc-

801 Journal ot Instructional Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 4

tional techniques and academic motivation,we note that a nutnber of these relationshipswere fairly small in magnitude, particularlywhen examined at the level of the 16 AMIdimensions. Our measures of instructionaltechniques, created specifically for thisstudy, were also fairly basic in nature. Morecomprehensive measures could be developedto address additional aspects of instructionaltechniques.

It will also be important for futureresearch to examine the relative contribu-tion of academic motivation on studentleaming in light of other key variables suchas cognitive ability, thinking styles, leam-ing styles, cultural factors, and personality(e.g.. Church & Katigbak, 1992; Schmeck& Geisler-Brenstein, 1991; Zhang, 2002).In particular, the work of Bransford and biscolleagues (Bransford et al., 1982, Bransford,Sherwood, Vye, & Rieser, 1986, Schwartz &Bransford, 1998) emphasizes the potential forteachers to enbance student leaming throughthe use of problem-based leaming and othertechniques. We also acknowledge that ourstudy eannot establisb the causal directionof the relationships between instructionaltechniques and academic motivation. It mightalso be desirable for future research to ex-amine a wider variety of students to allowstronger conclusions about generalizability.Nevertheless, we take the vital first step ofdocumenting interesting linkages that varyacross different types of academic motiva-tion. Future research could seek to shed ad-ditional ligbt on the nature of the complexand dynamic relationships between academicmotivation and other components of teachingand leaming.

In summary, our results suggest thatstudents do differ in terms of their preferencesfor various instmctional techniques and thisappears to be related to their level and typeof academic motivation in the classroom.Teachers could capitalize on tbis knowledgeby seeking to match instmctional techniquesto specific types of students, although tbis

may be difficult, especially in large classes.Altematively, teachers could employ multipletechniques in order to ensure that all studentsare being reached, at least some of the time.Motivating students wbo typically do notrespond to certain strategies (lectures, in-classactivities, or use of web based teaching) andcapturing their attention and interest probablyis a teacher's greatest challenge. Our resultssuggest that, by attending to the relativematch between instmctional techniques andthe pattems of academic motivation exhibitedby specific students, teachers may be able tosupport and enhance student engagement andachievement.

ReferencesAl-Bataineh, A. & Brooks, L. (2003).

Challenges, advantages, and disadvantages ofinstructional technology in the community col-lege classroom. Community College Journal ofResearch and Practice. 27, 473-484.

Astin,A.W. (1984). Student involvement: Adevelopment theory for higher education.yourrto/of College Sludem Development. 40, 5\%-529.

Becker, H. J. & Ravitz, J. ( 1999). The influ-ence of computer and intemet use on teachers'pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journalof Research on Computing in Education, 31,356-385.

Beets, D, & Lobingier, P. G. (2001). Peda-gogical techniques: Student performance andpreferences. Journal of Education for Business,76,231-235.

Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories ofstudents' leaming processes really measure? Atheoretical reviewandcIariñcation.Srí/ííAyouma/of Psychology, 63, 3-19.

Bransford, J.D., Sherwood, R., Vye, N.,Rieser, J, (1986). Teaching thinking and problemsolving research foundations. Amer/cün/'i>c7io/o-gwi. 47,1078-1089.

Bransford, J. D., Stein, B, S., Vye, N. J.,Franks, J. J., Auble, P. M., Mezynski, K. J., &Perfetto, G, A. ( 1982). Differences in approachesto leaming: An owervisw .Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: General. Ill, 390-398.

Chanson, H. (2004). Enhancing students'motivation in the undergraduate teaching of hy-draulie engineering: Role of field works. Journal

Instructional Techniques and Academic Motivation .. / 81

of Professional Issues in Engineering Education& Practice, 130,259-26^.

Church,T.A.,&Katigbak,M.S.(l992).Thecultural context of academic motives. Journal ofCross Cultural Psychology. 23,40-58.

Cox, J. R. & Rogers, J. W. (2005). Enter:The (Well-Designed) Lecture. The TeachingProfessor. Î9, 1-2.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. ( 1985). Intrinsicmotivation and self-determination in human be-havior. New York: Plenum Press.

Diaz-Lcfebvre, R. (2004). Multiple intelli-gences, leaming for understanding, and creativeassessment: Some pieces to the puzzle of leaming.Teachers College Record. ¡06.49-57.

Driver, M. (2002). Investigating the benefitsof web-centric instruction for student leaming -Anexploratory study of an MBA course. Journal ofEducation for Business. March/April, 236-245.

Dunn, R. S. & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Leam-ing styles/Teaching styles: Should they ...canthey... be matched? Educational Leadership, 36.238-244.

Forsyth. D. R. & Archer, C. R. (1997).Technologically assisted instmction and studentmastery, motivation, and matriculation. Teachingof Psychology. 24. 207-213.

Gardner, E. (2002). It's new, it's improved, it'stime. University Business, December, 39-42.

Grasha, A. F. (1994). A matter of style: Theteacher as expert, formal authority, personalmodel, facilitator, delegator. College Teaching.42(4), 12-19.

Grasha, A. F. (2000). Integrating teachingstyles and leaming styles with instructional tech-nology. College Teaching, 48, 2-11.

Hammer, E. Y. (2005). From the laboratoryto the classroom and back: The science of inter-personal relationships infomis teaching. Journalof Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 3-10,

Hung, D. (2001). Theories of leaming andcomputer-mediated instmctional technologies.Education Media International, 55, 281-287.

Iding,M..Crosby,M.E.&SpeiteI,T.(2002).Teachers and technology: Beliefs and practices.International Journal of Instructional Media.29,153-170.

Keane. J. (2002). Where educators standin the technology revolution. T.H.E. Journal,30. 38-40.

Komarraju, M., & Karau, S. J. (2005). Therelationship between the Big Five personality

traits and academic motivation. Personality andIndividual Differences. 39.557-567.

Leuthoid, J. H. (1999). ¡s Computer-BasedLearning Right for Everyone? Annual Proceed-ings of the Hawaii Intemational Conference onSystem Sciences.

Maynard, P. E. (1996). Teaching familytherapy: Do something different. American Jour-nal ofEamily Therapy, 24, 195-205.

McKeachie, W. J. (1974). InstructionalPsychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 25,161-194.

McKeachie, W.J.(1987).Teaching,TeachingTeaching, and Research on Teaching. Teaching ofPsychology, 14, 135-139.

McKeachie,W.J.,Lin,Y.,Moffett,M.M.,&Daugherty,M. (1978). Effective teaching: Facilita-tive vs. directive style. Teaching of Psychology,5, 193-194.

Miller, A. (I99I). Personality types, leam-ing styles, and educational goals. EducationalPsychology. 11,217-239.

Miller, J. W., Martineau, L. P. & Clark, R.C. (2000). Technology infusion and higher educa-tion: Changing teaching and leaming. InnovativeHigher Education, 24, 227-241.

Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Lahav, O., &Oren, A. (2000). Web-based leaming environ-ments: Current pedagogical and technologicalstate. Journal of Research on Computing inEducation, 33,55-11.

Moen, R., & Doyle, K. O., Jr. (1977).Constmction and development of the academicmotivations inventory (AMI). Educational andPsychological Measurement. 37,509-512.

Peluchette, J. V. & Rust, K. A. (2005).Technology use in the classroom: Preferences ofmanagement faculty members.Journal of Educa-tion for Business, March/April, 200-205.

Pintdch, P. R., McKeachie, W. J., & Lin, Y.(1987). Teaching a course in leaming to leam.Teaching of Psychology, 2, 81-86.

Reeves, J. A. & Francis, S. (2002). Com-parison between two methods of teaching hos-pital pharmacists about adverse drug reactions:Problem-based leaming versus a didactic lecture.Pharmacy Education, 1,25-35.

Robinson.P. (2004). Individualized trainingbrings mainstream faculty on board. DistanceEducation, 8, 1-3.

Roblyer,M.D.&Knezek,G.A.(2003).Newmillennium research for educational technology: A

82/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 4

call for a national research agenda. Journal of Re-search on Technology in Education, 36,60-70,

Rother, C. (2004). Evaluating technology'srole in the classroom. T.H£. Journal, 32, 185-190.

Schmeck,R.&Geisler-Brenstein,E,(1991),Self-conceptandleaming:The Revised-Inventoryof Learning Processes. Educational Psychology,77.343-363.

Schwartz. D.L,,& Bransford, J.D. (1998).A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16,475-522.

Sternberg,R.J.,Torff,B.,&Grigorenko,E.L.(I998).Teachingtriarchically improves schoolachievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,90. 374-384.

Sutton, R. E. & Wheatley, K. F. (2003).Teachers' emotions and teaching: A review ofthe literature and directions for future research.Educational Psychology Review, 15,327-358.

Vallerand. R. J,. Pelletier. L, G.. Biais, M.R-, Briere, N. M.. Senecal, C . & Vallieres, E.F. (1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: Ameasure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivationin education. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement. 52. 1003-1017,

Vallerand. R. J. & Bissonnette, R. (1992).Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivatlonal stylesas predictors of behavior: A prospective study.Journal of Personality, 60.599-620.

Vaughn,L.,Gonzalez del Rey, J.,&Baker,R.(2(X)I).Microburst teaching and leaming. Mft/icfl/Teacher, 23,39-43.

Witt, P. L. (2003). Enhancing classroomcourses with internet technology: Are course websites worth the trouble? Community College Jour-nal of Research and Practice. 27,429-438.

Zhang, L. (2(X)2). Measuring thinking stylesin addition to personality traits? Personality andIndividual Differences, 33,445-458.