I am interested in how motivation influences cognitive processes such as attention and learning. The project I completed with adult college students investigated several aspects of motivation and learning. There were three groups included in the study: adult college students at Empire State College, adult college students at SUNY Brockport, and traditional-aged students at SUNY Brockport. I was interested in how the different learning environments in these two settings would influence the motivation goals and affective outcomes of learning for the adult college students. I was also interested in comparing the differences in motivation goals and study strategies for adult students versus traditional-aged students. I presented on a portion of this research work (the comparison of the two environments) at the International Self-Directed Learning Symposium in February 2006 and on the comparison of adult versus traditional-aged students at the Human Development Conference in April 2006. Below you will find a sample of some of the results I presented. If you would like to know more, please contact me (Lorraine.Lander@esc.edu).
Adult Achievement Motivation Goals – Statistical Results
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results:
ESC students are significantly more likely to report Mastery Approach Goals compared to either adult students at Brockport or traditional-aged students at Brockport (F(2, 202)=7.58, p<.01)
ESC students are significantly more less likely to report Performance Avoidance Goals compared to either adult students at Brockport or traditional-aged students at Brockport (F(2, 201)=14.88, p<.001)
ESC students are significantly more likely to report Challenge compared to either adult students at Brockport or traditional-aged students at Brockport (F(2, 201)=7.23, p<.01)
Adult Students at Brockport are significantly more likely than traditional-aged students at Brockport to report Performance Approach Goals (F(2, 200)=19.79, p<.001)
Adult Students at Brockport are significantly more likely than traditional-aged students at Brockport to report Intrinsic Motivation (F(2, 201)=3.80, p<.03)
Adult Students at Brockport are significantly less likely than traditional-aged students at Brockport to report appraisals of Threat (F(2, 201)=13.04), p<.001)
ESC Students are significantly more likely to report Deep Processing compared to either adult students at Brockport or traditional-aged students at Brockport (F(2, 199)=11.23, p<.001)
ESC Students are significantly less likely to report Surface Processing compared to either adult students at Brockport or traditional-aged students at Brockport (F(2, 197)=7.67, p<.01)
ESC Students are significantly more likely to report Persistence compared to traditional-aged students at Brockport (F(2, 200)=3.6, p<.03)
ESC Students are significantly less likely to report Disorganization compared to traditional-aged students at Brockport (F(2, 201 )=5.96, p<.01)
Correlational Results for Motivation Goals and Study Strategies:
Mastery Approach Goals – Competence Expectance, r =.42***
Challenge, r =.73***
Intrinsic Motivation, r = .64***
Deep Processing, r = .44***
Persistence, r = .56***
Effort, r = .50***
Disorganization, r = -.29***
Threat, r = -.22**
Performance Approach Goals – Threat, r = .29***
Surface Processing, r = .34***
Disorganization, r = .16*
Intrinsic Motivation, r = -.17*
Performance Avoidance Goals – Threat, r = .34***
Surface Processing, r = .44***
Disorganization, r = .31***
Intrinsic Motivation, r = -.26***
Deep Processing, r = -.14*
Note: n was approximately 202 for these analyses
***p<.001
** p<.01
*p<.05