SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 2

Motivation, Strategy Use and Academic Achievement of University Students with a View to Domain, Gender and Year of Study

Berrin UÇKUN
Gamze KÜLEKÇİ ALMACIOĞLU
Pages
73–86
Publication Date
2014-10-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Contextual reasons and pedagogical implications of these results are discussed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Öz This study examines the correlational and predictive relations between motivational constructs and levels of self-regulatory strategy use in university students representing three subject domains – two social science departments and one natural science department.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Multivariance analyses were run to examine main effects and interactive relations between gender, year of study and subjects’ mean levels of motivations and strategy use.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Contextual reasons and pedagogical implications of these results are discussed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anahtar Kelimeler motivation · self-regulated learning · strategy use

Özet

Öz This study examines the correlational and predictive relations between motivational constructs and levels of self-regulatory strategy use in university students representing three subject domains – two social science departments and one natural science department. Gender and year of study were used as categorizations variables. Multivariance analyses were run to examine main effects and interactive relations between gender, year of study and subjects’ mean levels of motivations and strategy use. Strong correlational ties among some of the motivational components were common to all three departments, while departmental differences did exist pertaining to the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and resource management. Analyses of the predictive power of motivational components on strategy use levels established intrinsic goal orientation as the single most significant determiner of strategy use, however levels of motivation and strategy use were not predictive of achievement for all departments. Contextual reasons and pedagogical implications of these results are discussed.

🔖

Cite This Article

UÇKUN, B., ALMACIOĞLU, G. K. (2014). Motivation, Strategy Use and Academic Achievement of University Students with a View to Domain, Gender and Year of Study. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 2, 73–86. https://ajindex.com/articles/73485

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Altun, S., & Erden, M. (2006). Öğrenmede motive edici stratejiler ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Yeditepe Üniversitesi, Edu7, 2(1), 1-16.
  2. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
  3. Arias, J de la F. (2004). Recent perspectives in the study of motivation: Goal orientation theory. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2(1), 35-62.
  4. Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved toward the integration of theory and practice in self-regulation? Educational Psychology Review, 18, 199–210.
  5. 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).
  6. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: What’s the purpose? Educational Psychology Review, 20, 477-484.
  7. Lin, Y-G., McKeachie, W. J., & Kim, Y. C. (2003). College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 251-258.
  8. Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 119-137.
  9. McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., & Lin, Y. G. (1985). Teaching learning strategies. Educational Psychology, 20, 153-160.
  10. McWhaw, K., & Abrami, P. C. (2001). Student goal orientation and interest: Effects on students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 311-329.
  11. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.
  12. Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., & Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 50-61.
  13. Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom, In C. Ames, & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivation-enhancing environments (pp.117-160).
  14. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  15. Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Continuities and discontinuities: future directions for research in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 29, 37-148.
  16. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in pr