STUDENT MOTIVATION IN INQUIRY LEARNINGLESSONS FROM A SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Monika Birkle, Eva Holmberg and Marina Karlqvist
HAAGA-HELIA University of Applied Sciences, Taidetehtaankatu 1, FIN06100 Porvoo
monika.birkle@haaga-helia.fi
eva.holmberg@haaga-helia.fi
marina.karlqvist@haaga-helia.fi
ABSTRACT
Motivation of students is generally seen as the key to good learning; on the other hand
motivation can also be seen as a result of a suitable pedagogical approach chosen by the
teacher. Motivation and interest are the key elements in inquiry learning, which is the
pedagogical approach implemented on HAAGA-HELIA Porvoo Campus. In inquiry
learning students are supposed to actively create knowledge in real life development
projects, resulting in that they to a large extent should take responsibility for their own
learning process. If students are unmotivated to actively proceed in the project, teachers
have to find tools to enhance the process. Thus a deeper understanding of the factors
influencing the motivation of the students at Universities of Applied Sciences is needed.
The aim of this study was to explore the factors influencing the motivation in a group of
students working in an inquiry learning project, in order to identify the motivational factors
that should be considered in designing successful learning situations. Data was collected
by asking students involved in the project to write essays about their motivation in the
project, as well as by focus group interviews with the students when the project was
finished.
The main results of our study are that the motivation of the students was mainly influenced
by extrinsic motivation such as the other members in the team, the nature of the project,
and feedback from the teachers and the commissioner during the process. Factors related to
intrinsic motivation such as need for self-development as well as eagerness to learn were
on the other hand rarely mentioned in the data analysed.
1
Introduction
Motivation is regarded as a key to success of human beings in fields such as sports, music
and education. Motivation and interest are also the key elements in inquiry learning which
is the pedagogical approach implemented on HAAGA-HELIA Porvoo Campus. In inquiry
learning students are supposed to actively create and share knowledge in real life
development projects, resulting in that they to a large extent should take responsibility for
their own learning process.
During a semester project of the degree program in tourism in autumn 2011 it became clear
that not all students were very interested in the current project, i.e. developing service
experiences for a historical gunboat. The project was challenging due to its historical
setting and its complexity, and from the teachers’ point of view it was recognized that the
motivation of the students was low at certain times. It was realized that there is a need of a
deeper understanding of the factors influencing motivation in inquiry learning. The role of
the teacher or coach is to provide tools and guidance for students who are responsible for
creating the knowledge needed in the project themselves. If students are unmotivated to
actively proceed in the project teachers have to find tools to enhance the process.
The aim of this study is to explore the factors influencing the motivation in a group of
student working in an inquiry learning project, in order to identify the motivational factors
that should be considered in designing successful learning situations.
Inquiry learning as a pedagocial strategy at HAAGA-HELIA University
of Applied Sciences
HAAGA-HELIA University of Applied Sciences is one of the leading University of
Applied Sciences in Finland with the mission of offering high-quality expertise,
regeneration and innovation needed for competitiveness, particularly in the service sector
and entrepreneurship in the Helsinki Metropolitan area, Finland. HAAGA-HELIA is a
university with some 10,500 students and 700 employees on six Campuses: four in
Helsinki, one in Vierumäki and one in Porvoo. The fields of education are business,
tourism and hospitality, information technology, journalism, management assistant
training, sport management and vocational teacher training (HAAGA-HELIA, 2012a).
Porvoo Campus, where this semester project took place, offers six different degree
programmes in tourism and business management in three languages. The Porvoo unit has
approximately 1,000 students and 60 employees (HAAGA-HELIA, 2012a).
HAAGA-HELIA Porvoo Campus’ pedagogical approach
Porvoo Campus is a new kind of learning and competence centre with a new curriculum
established in 2010. The pedagogical method and the new way to work on Porvoo Campus
are based on inquiry learning. Inquiry learning and a joint curriculum work between the six
degree programmes aim at implementing real life projects where cooperation focuses on
the fields of tourism, wellbeing, Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS), and the
creative sector. Learning takes place in projects where learning is facilitated in many
2
different ways: studying literature, participating in lectures, seminars and various
workshops, as well as by looking for solutions individually or through joint efforts (Porvoo
Campus, 2012).
The vision of HAAGA-HELIA Porvoo Campus curriculum is learning together with the
industry. The learning tasks are carried out in conjunction with companies, teacher teams
and students. These tasks will enhance the meta-skills needed in the job market, such as
project management, research and development, coaching, creative problem solving and
innovation (Porvoo Campus, 2012). The aim is that the student should grow into a
proactive and self-driven professional who is motivated to develop on the personal level as
well as to develop his or her job and workplace community. Students set learning
objectives for themselves and also participate in planning their study processes within the
framework of the curriculum. The teacher functions as a planner, enabler, advisor,
motivator and learner, as well as a professional consultant when required. Teachers
cooperate with students, business representatives and other stakeholders, and guide the
learning process. The professional identities of both teachers and students are built via
social interaction in a learning environment. Partners enrich the learning process and also
provide motivation and support for it. Participation in the learning community also
develops the competencies and operations of the chosen partners (HAAGA-HELIA,
2012b).
For the students the new way of learning means a change from being an object to
becoming a subject. This changes the role of the student from an individual learner to a
team member with a role that varies depending on the learning task. As all the learning
takes place in real-life projects, the versatile learning outcomes require the students to
actively seek different roles in order to gain the knowledge and skills expected from a
graduate. They can be reached in various ways and the student is expected to take initiative
in reaching them. There are individual aims but the students are also responsible for
collective achievement and the success of the whole team (Ritalahti & Lindroth, 2010).
Inquiry based learning
Collaborative inquiry based learning, often organized as project work in schools, plays an
increasingly prominent role in education nowadays. This new form of learning differs from
traditional settings in several ways. Instead of learning individually through short and
specific subject-related tasks, students have to work with others in teams and therefore the
learning outcomes depend not only on individual efforts but on group collaboration.
Instead of learning with goals defined by the teacher, the students have to cope with many
uncertainties in their inquiry processes and often have to determine their own goal (Chow
& Law, 2005).
Inquiry based learning is student-centered and based on John Dewey’s philosophy that
education begins with the curiosity of the learner. It is an approach to learning whereby
students find and use a variety of sources of information and ideas to increase their
understanding of a problem, topic, or issue. It incorporates the experience, thinking and
actions of the student. Education is not an affair of telling and being told but an active and
constructive process (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari 2007, 14).
Motivation and interest are the key elements in inquiry learning. The inquiry learning used
on Porvoo Campus has borrowed most of its ideas from the theory presented by Finnish
3
education specialists Hakkarainen, Lonka and Lipponen in the late 1990s (Ritalahti, 2012).
The main ideas are learning together, shared expertise and reflection. Students form their
own understandings through conversations and writing. During the process students gain a
sense of ownership and accomplishment in the work they are producing that gradually
leads to development of competence and expertise. Existing research shows that active
learning is a powerful tool. The benefits for students are the development of abilities that
are crucial for lifelong learning such as critical thinking, team work and tools for
information search. Inquiry learning encourages students to be self-directed which is an
important skill that students need in order to be successful in the future work environment.
Inquiry based learning can improve students’ enthusiasm and motivation for learning.
(Kuhlthau et al., 2007).
In traditional classroom learning situations the goals of the learning are often clear,
concrete and mainly set up by the teacher. In an inquiry learning class, students have to
self-generate their learning agenda and are also responsible for setting up goals.
Consequently the learning task may not be clearly defined but rather complex and open.
Such responsibility could cause problems for those students who are used to a teacherdirected learning process. Therefore it is significant that the students know the model and
the process of inquiry learning in order to gain the most advantages out of it.
(Hakkarainen, Bollström-Huttunen, Pyysalo & Lonka, 2004a).
All courses on Porvoo Campus are tied to projects planned by the teaching staff and
implemented in collaboration with students and work life representatives. All projects
should comprise the following six steps (Porvoo Campus, 2012):
1. Defining the development task and problem
2. Constructing the aims and content of the implementation plan
3. Agreeing on theoretical framework
4. Working together to build knowledge
5. Reflection
6. Knowledge sharing
In the projects, the teaching staff, the participating company and organisational
representatives and the students are all learners. The methods intended to enhance learning
are used in a versatile way, taking into account the current state of studies and capabilities
of individual students (Porvoo Campus, 2012).
The core of the learning activity is collaboration. Collaboration between the different
actors in the project enhances equality, respect and creativity. The prerequisites for
successful learning are trust between the actors involved in the project and commitment to
the common goals. Everyone involved in the project is expected to facilitate the process.
This is not only about aiming at joint goals, but also about adopting an active and
entrepreneurial role to support the aims of the process (Porvoo Campus, 2012).
Learning in inquiry learning is often independent of time and place and allows for
individual decisions and interpretations which support the students’ ability to cope in
challenging projects as graduates. The learning tasks are supposed to be challenging, in
order to awaken the students’ curiosity and interest in the topic in question (Porvoo
Campus, 2012).
4
The Gunboat project
Suomenlinna, a historical maritime fortress, is one of the most important cultural heritage
sites in Finland and is situated on a group of islands off Helsinki. Today, it is a UNESCO
World Heritage Site and it attracts about 700,000 visitors every year. Suomenlinna was
built during the Swedish era as a maritime fortress to fortify defenses at the eastern part of
the Swedish Empire. Work on the fortress began in the mid-18th century (Suomenlinna,
2012a). Suomenlinna has played a key role in many turning points in Finland’s history. It
has been the property of three sovereign states. The majority of its buildings date from the
late 18th century, the end of the Swedish era. From the early 19th century to the early 20th
century, Suomenlinna was part of Russia along with the rest of Finland. When Finland
became independent the fortress was used as a garrison until the 1970s (Suomenlinna,
2012b).
In the 18th century, Swedish shipbuilder and scientist Fredrik Henrik af Chapman invented
a new boat for the battles against the Russians. It was a gunboat that could be rowed as
well as sailed. Designed for the narrow straits of the Finnish coast the gunboats with their
massive firepower changed the tactical way of thinking about naval warfare (Tykkisluuppi,
2012b; Wikipedia, 2012).
Two organizations recently active at Suomenlinna, the Ehrensvärd Society and the the
Viapori Dockyard Society decided a few years ago that the time had come to rebuild the
traditional gunboat. After public obtained funding for the project, the gunboat is now being
built in Suomenlinna according to the drawings made by F. H. af Chapman. The gunboat
will be equipped with sails and 15 pairs of oars and the length of the hull is 20 meters. The
main aims of the shipbuilding project are to employ and instruct young people, maintain
and revive skills for building traditional wooden ships and liven up the history of the
maritime fortress. The gunboat will be ready for operating cruises in the surroundings of
Suomenlinna in spring 2013 (Uolamo, 2011; Tykkisluuppi, 2012).
The commissioners of the project carried out by the students at HAAGA-HELIA were the
Ehrensvärd Society and the Viapori Dockyard Society. The aim of the project was to
develop authentic tourism products for different customer groups interested in going on a
cruise with the gunboat. A significant part of the development task was related to creation
of tourism packages that could give the customers unique historical experiences.
Moreover, authentic narratives related to the Swedish time of Suomenlinna were to be
developed in order to provide potential tourists a deeper insight into the historical time of
the gunboat.
The project was carried out as a semester project for a group of second year tourism
students. The project started in August 2011 and was finished in March 2012. At the
beginning of the project, the group of 20 students were divided by the teachers into groups
of 4-5 students all focusing on developing their own tourism product for a certain segement
of tourists such as seniors, school children, and Russian tourists. The final stage of the
project was the arrangement of a fair at the Campus through which the different gunboat
experience was sold. Figure 1 shows the timeframe of the project as well as its main stages
according to the phases of an inquiry learning project.
5
August
September
October
November
December
Project
starts
Visit to
Suomenlinna,
commissioners
presentation
Preliminary
ideas are
developed
and
presented to
the group in
Haaga unit
Kim
Gustafsson,
freelance
teacher and
theatre
director
helps with
the
narratives
The
developed
products are
presented
internally
Students
are divided
into groups
Problem
definition
The aims of
the project are
identified
Construction of
aims
Theoretical
framework
Building
knowledge
January
-February
Preparation
of
marketing
tools and the
fair for
selling the
products
Reflection
March
Fair at
Porvoo
Campus
Knowledge
sharing
Figure 1. The main stages of the project and stages in inquiry learning
Motivation and inquiry learning
Many contemporary authors have defined the concept of motivation. As a concept the
word motivation comes from Latin where it means ‘moving on’ (Hamjah, Ismail, Rasit &
Rozali, 2011). Motivation is generally seen as something causing people to act in a certain
way (Schwartz, 2003).
Drivers of motivation were explored by Freud as early as at the beginning of the 20th
century. According to Freud the main motivational drivers of human beings are sex and
aggression. It is a general tendency to believe that motivation is a personal trait. Some
people have it and others do not. In practice, some are labeled to be lazy because they do
not display an out-ward sign of motivation. However, individuals differ in their basic
motivational drives. It also depends upon their areas of interest. The concept of motivation
is situational and its level varies between different individuals and at different times. If you
understand what motivates people, you have at your command the most powerful tool for
dealing with them (Deci & Ryan, 2004).
During the late 1950s a paper stating that human beings in fact have an ability to deal with
the environment that is not driven only by external impulses was published. This idea was
described as energy of the ego. This energy of the ego is often referred to as intrinsic
motivation. According to the view of many researchers the roots to the intrinsic motivation
of human beings is the need for being competent and self-determining (Deci & Ryan,
2004). The opposite of intrinsic motivation driven by an individual need for fulfillment is
extrinsic motivation. This means that people are seen as being motivated by mainly
external stimuli such as rewards or punishments (Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000).
Motivation and learning
When there is no motivation to learn, there is no learning (Wlodowski, 2008; Järvelä &
Niemivirta, 1999; Hamjah et al., 2011). Moreover, motivated students are prepared to put
more time into completing their courses and are more likely to graduate (Wijnia, Loyens &
6
Drous, 2011). From a ‘simple’ point of view the motivation of a student is related to the
two things; the fact that the student perceives that the topic is important and valuable to
learn and that the task is challenging but not too difficult to learn with the existing
capabilities (Ylänne, Nevgi & Kaivola, 2002).
The self- regulated theory is the most commonly used theory for explaining the motivation
of students to learn (Lin, McKeachie & Kim, 2003). According to this, theory selfregulated students are successful and have the ability to apply different learning strategies
(Hakkarainen, Lonka & Lipponen, 2004b; Järvelä & Niemivirta, 1999). These students are
characterized by intrinsic motivation, which means that students perceive that the activities
are rewarding by themselves. Thus the students are prepared to work for instance in
projects in order to develop themselves without external drivers such as rewards
(Hakkarainen et al., 2004; Lin et al., 2003). Extrinsic motivation means, on the other hand,
that the student is regulated by rewards and/or punishment, i.e. the aim of the studying is to
gain something concrete like credits or an exam (Lin et al., 2003). These students can also
perform well in traditional ways of studying by for instance learning a lot of facts before an
exam.
Deep learning takes places when students are able to use the knowledge gain in the long
term. In order to reach deep learning, students have to be able to create motivation for
themselves, since as long as the motivation to learn is extrinsic, the learning will stay at a
superficial level. Students themselves have the responsibility to create intrinsic
motivation, since this kind of motivation is not something you are born with. On the other
hand these issues have to be reflected upon at educational institutes, and those who are
working with students have found strategies for how students can be inspired in order to
develop such an interest that the students’ intrinsic motivation becomes strong enough.
Only then deep learning will take place. (Elmgren & Henriksson, 2010). According to
Lindblom-Ylänne, Nevgi & Kaivola (2002) good students mostly possess both intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation.
Many different factors influence the motivation of students. The motivation also varies
from time to time. The seminal study by Turner & Paris (1995) identified six C’s as needed
for a motivating educational situation;
 choice- when students are allowed to choose the tasks themselves according to their
own interest they will put more effort into understanding and executing the task
 challenge- the tasks given to the students should be challenging but not too
complex
 control- the students should be allowed to control the learning themselves
 collaboration- interaction in order to solve a task is enhancing inspiration and
offers the possibility consider several perspectives
 constructing meaning – if the students perceive the knowledge they are acquiring as
important it will improve their motivation to learn
 consequences- feedback from others, reflection and information sharing support
students motivation to perform
The above list of motivational factors indicate that the way students are motivated varies,
also students who normally are intrinsically motivated can sometimes be unmotivated due
to for instance that they find a certain class or a certain project uninteresting. The teacher
has the responsibility to find strategy for enhancing the intrinsic motivation of the students
by for instance being inspiring, enthusiastic and by trying to find such solutions that the
working atmosphere of the students becomes as positive as possible.
7
Motivation in inquiry learning
Due to the nature of inquiry learning as a pedagogical approach in which students are
supposed to actively look for solutions themselves, students with intrinsic motivation
usually take a more active role in the projects. All projects will not be interesting for all
students, however it is important to try to find strategies for developing the intrinsic
motivation also of the students showing little interest, otherwise they will easily take a
strategy to perform the minimum in order to pass. Such a strategy will though not result in
deep, long term learning that can be applied also after graduation.
Motivation of students and strategies to enhance the motivation of unmotivated students is
not discussed very extensively in literature on inquiry learning. Highlighted is though that
students who are learning oriented, i.e. have intrinsic motivation, tend to have a more
active cognitive engagement in learning activities. For instance a study by Tapola et al.,
(2001) shows that low learning oriented students produce less knowledge in an inquiry
learning project. The challenge of the teacher is thus to consider how the motivation of low
learning oriented students can be improved. According to existing knowledge at least the
following factors could be considered; the project itself and the commitment and support
of teachers and team members involved.
Nature of the project
Generally it is perceived that the more interesting a task or assignment is, the more it will
support students’ process of knowledge construction, and it is more likely that intrinsic
motivation will develop (Järvelä & Niemivirta, 1999). Compared for instance to projects
solved in project based learning, the challenge of finding a suitable project for inquiry
learning is more demanding. The starting point is that it should be possible to define
interesting and deepening research questions, since otherwise the key features of inquiry
learning cannot be met. The team of teachers considering the project has to consider the
age of students, the timetable, the curriculum as well as internal and external resources
related to for instance knowledge, money and skills. It is important that the nature of the
project inspires the students not to study only for the school, instead the projects should be
real life projects which are important to be solved for instance from a scientific, cultural or
human point of view (Hakkarainen et al., 2004).
The role of the teacher
Even though students are supposed to actively search for new knowledge in an inquiry
learning project, the importance of teachers guiding the process should not be
underestimated. (Hakkarainen et al., 2004b). Especially students with low motivation will
need structured supervision and feedback in order to complete the project successfully
(Tapola et al., 2001). Moreover, for students with weak self-regulation ability it might be
completely destructive if they are left alone in the learning situation. Thus, shared control
between teachers and students is often recommendable in inquiry learning. Teachers also
have to put time into getting an understanding of self-regulation of the different students in
the group in order to be able to give a suitable support during the learning process
(Hakkarainen et al., 2004b).
Team members
In all active learning paradigms interaction between students is seen as a major
contribution to learning, since by discussing and problem solving by collaboration it is
8
possible to work with complex issues from different angles (Elmgren & Henriksson, 2010;
Järvelä & Niemenvirta, 1999). The starting point of inquiry learning is also that the work
is done by the whole group or then the group is divided into smaller teams. The teams
should be created in such a way that they comprise students with different types of
knowledge and capabilities, since then the team can create something that a single student
could not come up to by himself. On the other hand it is recommendable that the more
mature the students are the more they should be allowed to influence at least to some
extent with whom they work (Hakkarainen et al., 2004b).
Repo-Kaarento & Levenader (2002) identify several prerequisites for a successful outcome
of a group working with a cooperative learning task. First of all the group members should
be positively interdependent on each other at the same time as all group members have
individual accountability. This means that when all group members work together and take
responsibility for the proceeding of the project they will realize that by working together
they will gain more. Moreover, the task to be solved must be such that all group members
have equal possibilities to contribute. This will reduce the risk for free-riders which is a
common challenge in all group work. Finally, the students should be in open and direct
interaction with each other.
Methods
Qualitative research seeks out the ‘why’, not the ‘how’ of its topic through the analysis of
unstructured information. Typical data collected and analyzed in a research project
conducted by qualitative research methods are interview transcripts, emails, notes,
feedback forms, photos and videos (Silverman, 2005; Veal, 2006).
In this research project two different kinds of data were collected and analyzed. First of all
students participating in the project wrote essays reflecting on their own motivation.
Secondly, the teachers involved in the project conducted focus group interviews during
which the project and the ups and downs in motivation were discussed. The interviews
were tape recorded and transcribed as suggested in literature on qualitative interviewing
(e.g. Trost, 2005; Veal, 2006 ).
The data collection of this project was done in two phases. In December 2011 the students
were asked to write the essays on motivation and analyse the factors influencing their own
personal motivation and that of their team in projects. The students were asked to focus
especially on the importance of teachers, team members and team leader as factors
influencing their motivation in the gunboat project. Ten essays were analysed for this
article. At this point, the first part of the project was finished, and the theory part and the
product development phase were concluded.
The second data collection took place in March 2012, after the more practical part of the
project where students focused on promoting and selling the products they had developed
during the previous semester. The second part of the empirical study was performed in
form of focus group interviews with team members (3 groups of 4-5 students). The
students were first asked to visualize the process from a motivational point of view. They
were given a timeline to fill in and the sheet was divided into a positive and a negative
field (picture 1). Thereafter, the students were asked to reflect on feelings at the beginning
of the project, what critical turning points (both positive and negative) the process
9
included, what kind of drawbacks they faced and how they solved the problems. Finally
they were asked to discuss their learning and insights.
Motivation of students in the Gunboat Project
The analysis of the learning stories identifies which factors influence students’ motivation
positively and which negatively. The analysis also reveals that the extrinsic motivation
plays a much more important role in the project work than the intrinsic motivation. The
main issues highlighted by the students as key issues for their motivation were the extrinsic
factors; the team, the nature of the project, the teacher, the other team working with the
same project, technical factors as well as some few intrinsic factors.
Functionality of the teams
The most discussed topic in the learning stories were the role of the teams. The support by
other team members, group meetings, the feeling of working effectively together, taking
responsibility, hardworking and positive attitude, good communication and solving
problems together were factors influencing the motivation in a positive way.
Issues related to teamwork that had negative influence on students’ motivation were
personal conflicts and lack of conflict management skills to solve these, absence of team
members, lack of team spirit, lack of interest and concentration, some team members
having difficulty in receiving negative feedback from peers.
“The motivation of our group was very low at the beginning of the project. All
group members were seldom present at the meetings and we had difficulties in cooperating. The problems were caused by different personalities and different ways
of working.” (Learning story 2)
In the learning stories a majority of the students felt that the division into groups was not
successful, because it was made by the teachers and did not correspond to the level of
ambition of the different students in the group. The students also felt that disciplinary
actions towards students often absent should have taken place at an early stage on behalf of
the teachers to ensure a fair treatment towards those who did their work.
“After a while the motivation sank and in some groups the team leader was
replaced and little later the motivation rose again because some really
unmotivated students were replaced and some students who didn’t do anything
were excluded from the project. This was good for the whole class and motivation
returned because you knew that those who remained did their tasks properly.”
(Learning story 5)
The commission and task
The commission itself and the project to be fulfilled did influence the students’ motivation
both in a positive and negative way. The aim of the project was to create historically
authentic experiences around the gunboat at the Suomenlinna fortress, which is one of the
Unesco World tourism heritage sites. The fact that this project required research in the
history, culture and military history of the 18th century influenced the motivation in a very
negative way. Most of the students had a negative attitude towards history and the few
10
students who did have an interest in the topic could not inspire their team members. The
project was characterized by a ‘fuzzy front end’, meaning that many things were unclear in
the beginning and the starting point was quite abstract. What clearly increased the students’
motivation was the visit to Suomenlinna fortress where the gunboat plan was presented and
the students saw a miniature model of the boat and the construction hall were the boat was
being built. The meeting with the commissioners helped the students to clarify the task and
this influenced all students’ motivation very positively.
“When we went to Suomenlinna and met the commissioners and got to ask
questions and heard what they had to say about the task and what they expected
from us, then the task became suddenly much clearer. The visit to Suomenlinna
gave us a lot of ideas and we got a lot of valuable information that we could make
use of when we started working with the project.” (Learning story 6)
The fact that the project was a real life case with external commissioners helped the
students to realize the importance of professional reporting. At the beginning of the project
they also had the feeling they were doing something valuable and meaningful, they thought
that their input was of great importance.
“The three of us in our group who were motivated realized that it is important to
do a good job because we have a real commissioner and it’s good for us to put a
report together, to mark the sources properly, correct the texts of others and to
receive feedback.” (Learning story 2)
In addition, the students were motivated by the fact that they could influence the process
and could, within the given framework, freely come up with and develop their ideas. Later
on, however, the lacking contact to the commissioner thereby the shortage of feedback
resulted in low motivation. The commissioner was hard to reach and there were
communications problems along the way, this was a major factor for the students’ lack of
motivation at certain points in the project. Especially the lack of key information led to
anxiety and frustration among the students.
Role of teacher / advisor
There were several teachers involved in advising and counselling the students during the
gunboat project. The role of the teacher in motivating the students was seen as important
by the students. In their learning stories the students mention as positive factors influencing
their motivation acknowledgement, encouragement, a positive attitude towards the project,
positive feedback, helpfulness, and providing needed information. Some students
mentioned that the teachers reminded the students about the importance and the learning
possibilities of the project and this helped them go on in the work.
“The motivation of the teachers has been good, they didn’t give up on us” (Learning story 1)
“During the project I think that the teachers were helpful and gave a lot of counselling. It
was of great importance how the teacher gave support when we stacked” (learning story 5)
On the other hand some of the students felt confused by contradictory information and
advice by the different teachers and this at least did not contribute to increased motivation.
Follow-up meetings and presentations of different phases in the process organized by the
teachers mainly supported the students in their work. What increased motivation was time
for discussions about personal conflicts in the teams and help of the teacher in solving
11
these issues. Developmental discussions with tutor teachers were mentioned by some
students and they helped to clear the thoughts and to find new motivation. During the
project, several presentations were held to share the knowledge and get feedback on ideas.
This was mainly helpful for the students and it often resulted in higher motivation. But
some of the students thought that these presentations were organised too often and the
teams had not had time to deliver anything new to the next meeting. This resulted in
decreased motivation for these students. On the other hand the second year students were
also aware of their own responsibility for the success of the project as one of the students
highlighted during the interview;
“The teachers are not supposed be our mums” (interview 1)
Role of the team leader
The role of the team leader was discussed in the learning stories. The stories show that the
students were not satisfied with the team leaders and the leaders themselves felt that they
could not motivate their teams. The team leaders were seen as insecure, passive, unable to
organize and delegate the work, unable to acquire needed information and lacking
motivation. Some students mentioned that the team leader herself had a negative attitude
towards the whole project and it had an impact on the team. There was also some
confusion about who the actual team leader was, since the official leader did not take the
responsibility of leading the group. The challenge of a team leader incapable of leading the
team was in the essays described as:
“Our team leader had difficulties in delegating and in planning of team meetings. This resulted in
that the rest of the team became frustrated and another student had to take responsibility for
dividing the work between the members in the group. (Learning story 2)
The team leader did not at all act as a team leader is supposed to do. He did not take any action
for the project to proceed, he did not delegate and he did not put himself into the project and the
information needed to finish it. (learning story 3)
The influence of other teams
The role of other teams was significant for students’ motivation. The eagerness to perform
at least as well as the other teams was a trigger to work harder and get things done. Also
the feedback given by other teams was considered valuable. Almost all students mention
the meeting with the other degree programme on another campus working on the same
project as a milestone. They compared their performance with that other student group and
felt somewhat ashamed of their presentation and were inspired by that experience to do
even better.
“In this project I received a lot of motivation of all the members in our group, not only those in my
team. I realized that we are all in the same situation and facing the same challenges which gave me a
lot of support” (Learning story 1)
12
Other extrinsic factors
Students mention also other external factors influencing their motivation positively such as
deadlines, getting credits and in the final end a degree with good grades. As one student
clearly states:
“The fact that I knew that I will receive credits for the project and thereby able to graduate
in a shorter time was motivating me” (Learning story 8)
Some students also mentioned that the will to just get the whole thing done and over with
motivated them to go on. The breaks were also important, almost the whole group went to
Lisbon in October, and of course the Christmas break also divided the project into two
parts. It was also difficult for some of the students to continue with the same project in
spring which they already had worked with the whole fall. On the other hand the character
of the project changed, after writing the report describing the whole tourist package
including the narrative the focus was now on more practical issues:
“In spring we were planning a fair for selling our products, it was nice” (interview 3)
The huge workload both in the project as well as in some other courses and lack of time
were mentioned as external factors influencing motivation negatively.
Intrinsic factors
In the instructions for the essays on motivation given to students, the focus was on the
external factors such as the role of the teacher, team and team leader, but still the learning
stories also show a few internal factors driving the students to better performance. A few
students mentioned the mental satisfaction of getting things done and the rewarding feeling
when you do well in different phases. The overcoming of difficulties is also mentioned as a
form of inner factor influencing the motivation positively. Understanding the task, “getting
the whole picture” and learning new things were also mentioned by the students. The
possibility of being creative can also motivate students for instance:
“When the theory was written and we were allowed to be more creative the project was more
meaningful” (learning story 7)
The feeling of being under stress and pressure were internal factors that influenced
motivation negatively.
Central turning points influencing motivation during the project
These above mentioned factors emerged in different phases of the project. In the interviews
done in March the students visualized the ups and downs (figure 2) in motivation on a
timeline stretching from September 2011 to March 2012. The interviews and the timelines
show where the critical points are and can be helpful to teachers when planning the process
of advising students.
13
Figure 2. Students’ perception of motivation during the Gunboat Project, example of focus
group 1.
In the interviews all students agreed that in the beginning the motivation was high and it
was even strengthened by the visit to Suomenlinna at an early stage of the process. The
idea phase and brainstorming phase are described as fun and creative, which had a positive
impact on motivation.
Some of the students, however, had difficulties in coming up with new ideas and felt stuck
at the early stage of the process. After the brainstorming phase the lack of information and
unclearness were the main reasons for a big loss of motivation. The majority of the
students felt totally lost and had big difficulties in motivating themselves and their team
members. At this stage the commissioners were also hard to reach and could not offer any
support and the lack of information led to frustration and decrease in motivation.
In October a mid-term presentation was held on another Campus together with students
from another degree programmes and the student group in focus of this study felt that they
failed and were very self-critical about their performance. For some students this event
decreased their motivation, whereas other students were triggered by this and got new
motivation to perform better.
As the understanding of the task and the goal became clearer, also the motivation grew
stronger. The support of other team members, a good team spirit, positive feedback from
teachers and other teams and regular presentations and deadlines kept the teams working
during the autumn. Personal conflicts, negative attitudes towards the project, absent
students, lack of leadership in the teams and difficulties in communication with the
commissioner were the most important negative factors mentioned in the interviews.
14
At the beginning of November the students did some cooperation with a theatre director to
develop stories for their products. This was an important turning point in the process where
the students felt relieved and got on with one of the most challenging tasks, to create a
story based on authentic, historical facts.
The motivation rose towards the end of term because of the approaching deadline, the
upcoming Christmas break, and for some students a strong will to get things completed.
After the Christmas holidays the motivation went down, because some of the students had
not realised that the project’s second phase was to be introduced in the spring term. These
students had expected to start with a new project and were disappointed to hear that this
was not the case.
During the spring term there were several factors that boosted the motivation, for example
the visit to the annual travel fair in Helsinki and the learning task connected to this. The
students also found it very challenging and interesting to arrange a Gunboat Fair on
Campus to present their products. This was clearly a more concrete and practical part of
the project, including creating brochures and planning their market stalls for the fair and
this was very motivating for most students. One thing that caused loss of motivation was
the fact that the plans the students had completed for the Gunboat Fair had to be revised
several times.
The fair was successful and the commissioners were satisfied with the end results and the
way of presenting them. The students would have wanted more feedback and confirmation
of the commissioners about the next steps. Some students commented in the interviews that
it would be nice to know what happens to their ideas, whether these are put into action or
did they do the whole project for nothing.
As closing comments some students stated that they felt proud of being part in a project
that sought to animate history, and others thought that the given framework, the history of
the 18th century made it easier to find the focus of the product. During the fair the students
realised that they knew a lot of things about the history of the gunboat, Suomenlinna and
life in the 18th century and they were glad to be able to answer the questions posed by the
visitors.
Conclusion and key learning points
Which are then the main issues related to motivation that teachers and supervisors have to
reflect upon when they are working with students in inquiry learning projects?
First of all it is important to consider how the teams should be formed. Both literature and
the results from this study show that it is more likely that students are more motivated if
they are allowed to work with such team members they have chosen themselves. This
project involved a group of heterogeneous students and in the planning phase it was
perceived that there is a need to deliver several good ideas to the commissioner. Thus the
groups were planned in such a way that they comprised at least one student who had
performed very well in earlier projects. Accordingly the students who had committed
themselves weakly to previous projects were supposed to work in separate teams. The
outcome of this thinking was five rather good product ideas delivered to the commissioners
but on the other hand it contributed to a lot of frustration among the students eager to
produce good results and thereby being able to gain a good grade.
15
Secondly, it is important to find real-life projects which really interest the students and are
challenging but not too difficult to manage from the students’ point of view. The gun boat
project was challenging since the boat was being built when the project took place and it
was difficult for the students to get an idea of how it could really work as a tourism product
in practice. Moreover, even if the commissioners of this project were interested in cooperation from start, they were too busy for actively commit themselves to the product
development process. Students perceived that there motivation could have been improved
if they had got more feedback on their ideas of the commissioners during the process. On
the other hand students appreciated that they were allowed to work with external
commissioners with development of real tourism products.
Thirdly, the role of the teacher(s) is also important in these kinds of projects. The challenge
is to be actively supportive but not to give too much guidance limiting the students’
possibilities for creative solutions. In this project students were given rather clear
information on what kind of models they were supposed to use in the product development
process and rather strict advice related to how the report should look like. Some students
perceived these strict instructions demotivating, on the other hand most students were
happy to receiving clear advice on how the project should proceed.
The fourth key issue to think about is the appointment of the leader of the teams. In this
project students were divided into five teams all having their own leader with the main
responsibility for the success of the product development process as well as the reporting
of the process. The students in each team were allowed to choose the team leader
themselves, with the starting point that such students who had been team leaders in earlier
projects should not be the first choice. All students managed to choose a leader for
themselves at the beginning of the project but the leaders did not commit themselves to the
project at the same extent. The lack of commitment resulted in that two teams had to
change team leaders in the middle of the project. From the point of view of the supervisor
it is important to acknowledge that some students are less suitable as team leaders in
certain projects. Moreover, it is important to discuss and clarify the responsibilities of a
team leader at the very beginning of the project. At the same time the team members could
prepare guidelines for what is expected of the other members in the team.
The fifth issue that has to be considered is the knowledge sharing between the teams. In
projects like the Gunboat Project in which several teams are developing new tourism
services for the same commissioner, it is important that the different teams meet and get
the possibilities to both share their ideas but also their feelings with the other students in
the group. Especially in this project it became clear that the fact that all teams were
struggling with the same challenges such as low commitment to the project by some team
members, as well as a lack of view of what the final product could be, helped many
students to proceed. On Porvoo Campus Mondays are usually so called project days during
which students are allowed to rather independently work on their projects. It would be
important to collect all students to class for instance every second week in order to let them
discuss their feelings and their progress in order to increase the peer support.
The last important extrinsic factors clearly influencing the motivation in inquiry learning
projects is the load of work in other projects and/or courses during the semester. The
students in the Gunboat Project felt that when there were a lot of other deadlines coming
up, the motivation for proceeding with the projects was low. This is a challenge that has
been seen also during other semesters and some discussion about how much time the
16
students are supposed to invest in the project compared to other more traditional learning
assignments must be discussed. Typically students receive between six and twelve credits
for a semester project at Porvoo Campus. If the project is as extensive as 9 or 12 credits the
other workload during the semester must be adjusted to the huge work with the project.
Only a limited number of students discussed their intrinsic motivation during the Gunboat
Project in their essays or during the group interviews which is not surprising taking into
consideration that the project as a whole was perceived as boring. Some students though
stated that they found it interesting to learn more about product development in tourism
and that they really felt relieved and rewarded when they got things done. For the teachers
it is a challenge to influence the intrinsic motivation of the students, especially when it
comes to students with low ability for self-regulation. This challenge is probably related to
the nature of the project, if students are allowed to work with projects and tasks they are
really interested in they are more likely to find strategies to motivate themselves. On the
other hand if the purpose of inquiry learning is to prepare students for working life, they
also have to learn strategies to force themselves to finish demanding and sometimes even
in their opinion boring projects.
17
Bibliography
Chow, A., & Law, N. (2005). Measuring motivation in collaborative inquiry-based
learning contexts. Proceedings of The 2005 Conference on Computer Support For
Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: the Next 10 Years! (Taipei, Taiwan, May 30 June 04, 2005). International Society of the Learning Sciences, 68-75.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester.
Univerisity of Rochester Press.
Elmgren M., & Henriksson, S-F. (2010). Universitetspedagogik. Nordsteds.
HAAGA-HELIA. 2012a. Retrieved from http://www.haaga-helia.fi/en/about-haagahelia/haaga-helia-in-a-nutshell
HAAGA-HELIA 2012b. Retrieved from http://www.haaga-helia.fi/en/studentsguide/welcome-to-haaga-helia/pedagogical-strategy?searchterm=Pedag
Hakkarainen, K., & Bollström-Huttunen, M., & Pyysalo, R., & Lonka, K. (2004). Tutkiva
oppiminen käytännössä. Matkaopas opettajille. Porvoo: WS Bookwell Oy.
Hakkarianen, K., & Lonka, K., & Lipponen, L. (2004). Tutkiva oppiminen Järki, tunteet ja
kulttuuri oppimisen sytyttäjänä. Porvoo: WSOY.
Hamjah, S. H.,& Ismail, Z., & Rasit, R.M., & Rozali, E. H. (2011). Methods of Increasing
Learning Motivation among Students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 138-14.
Järvelä, S., & Niemivirta, M. (1999). The changes in learning theory and the topicality of
the recent research on motivation. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1, 5765.
Kuhlthau, C., &Maniotes, K., & Caspari, A. (2007). Guided Inquiry Learning in the 21st
Century. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
Lin, Y-G., & McKeachie, W. J., & Kim, Y. C. (2003). Colleage student intrinsic and/or
extrinsic motivation and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 251-258.
18
Lindholm-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A., & Kaivola, T. (2002). Opiskelu yliopistossa in
Lindholm-Ylänne S., & Nevgi, A. (eds.) Yliopisto- ja korkeakoulu opettajan käsikirja,
117-138. Helsinki: WSOY
Porvoo Campus 2012. Retrieved from http://porvoocampus.fi/en/learning-on-porvoocampus
Repo-Kaarento, S., & Levander, L. (2002). Oppimista edistävä vuorovaikutus in
Lindholm-Ylänne S. &. Nevgi, A. (eds.): Yliopisto- ja korkeakoulu opettajan käsikirja,
140-170 Helsinki: WSOY.
Tapola, A., & Hakkarainen, K., & Syri, J., & Lipponen, L., & Palonen T., & Niemivirta,
N. (2001). Motivation and participation in inquiry learning within a networked learning
environment, Retrieved from htttp://Helsinki.fi/science/networkedlearning/texts/
tapolaetal2001.pdf
Turner, J., & Paris, S. G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children's motivation for
literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48(8), 662-673.
Ritalahti, J. & Lindroth, K. (2010). Porvoo Campus – Living Lab for Creativity, Learning
and Innovations. Proceedings of the New Zealand Tourism and Hospitality Research
Conference 2010.
Repo-Kaarento, S. & Levander, L. (2002). Oppimista edistävä vuorovaikutus in Yliopistoja korkeakoulu opettajan käsikirja 140-170. Helsinki: WSOY.
Sanosone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The
Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance. San Diego, LA: Academic Press.
Suomenlinna 2012a. Retrived from http://www.suomenlinna.fi/visitors_guide
Suomenlinna 2012b. Retrived from http://www.suomenlinna.fi/en/fortress
Schwartz, A. E. (2003). Motivation- Linking Perfomance to Goal. USA
Tykkisluuppi 2012a. Retrived from http://www.tykkisluuppi.fi/
Tykkisluuppi 2012b. Retrived from http://www.tykkisluuppi.fi/lyhyesti-tykkisluupeista/
Uolamo, T. (2011). Presentation of the Tykkisluuppi project. 3.9.2011, Suomenlinna,
Helsinki.
Wikipedia (2012). Retrived from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat.
19
Wlodowski, R. J. (2008). Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive Guide
for Teaching All Adults. San Fransisco, LA: Jossey-Bass.
20