Student Retention Versus Student Drop-Out:
A Self-Determination Approach to Motivational Profiles, Motivational
Vulnerability, Engagement and Pedagogies in HE Sport Students within an FE
College
Jo Tyssen
Higher Education Business Development Manager
Leeds City College
In the last academic year, 31,755 full-time higher education students dropped out of study
(Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2012). But is there a common cause? Students have
been found to typically demonstrate mixed motives for enrolling onto a higher education
programme and the wrong motives may lead to the development of a sense of helplessness
and incompetence, leading to disengagement and performance difficulties (Hill, 2011). Such
students then become motivationally vulnerable and at risk of drop-out.
It is fair to assume that some students may enrol on a programme of study for controlled
(extrinsic) motivation-, or in some cases amotivation-, related reasons. Such students, are
likely to have poorer engagement and lower levels of performance (Hill, 2011), becoming
vulnerable to dropout. Studies have shown that controlled motivation or amotivation leads
to negative outcomes such as drop out (e.g. Ryan and Deci, 2000, and Vallerand, et al.,
1997), whereas those with high autonomous and high controlled motivation report the
most positive experience, highest level of enjoyment, and lowest levels of boredom and
anxiety (Hill, 2011), leading to adaptive outcomes such as achievement (e.g. Deci and Ryan,
2002, and Guay and Vallerand, 1997). In order to encourage movement from amotivation /
extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation, students will need to feel they satisfy the need
for competency, relatedness and autonomy. This is best achieved through a positive
experience and programme engagement, leading to better conceptual learning (Grolnick and
Ryan, 1987), more positive affective experiences (Black and Deci, 2000), perceptions of
competence (Trouilloud, et al., 2006), and lower drop-out (Vallerand et al., 1997).
Methodology
Students, enrolled on Higher Education Sport Programmes within an FE college, were asked
to complete a series of questionnaires that contained measures of motivational regulation
and measures of their experience on the programme of study. Student engagement was
measured through correlating calculations of average attendance and online activity, with
regards course views on the virtual learning environment (Moodle). Finally, a 5-question
questionnaire (all open questions) was sent to participants to explore their opinions,
thoughts and values.
Discussion
At the time of enrolment, 53% of Year 1 (Level 4) and 63% of Year 2 (Level 5) students
were externally motivated, whilst 81% of BA Top-Up (Level 6) students were motivated by
identified regulation (relatively autonomous).
Figure 1: Motives for student enrolment onto programme of study
Motivational regulation did not appear to change significantly within the first semester of
study, however there is a suggestion that Yr1 and Yr2 students may gradually become more
identified regulated (autonomous) and BA’s even more intrinsically motivated. Motivational
regulation did significantly change with progression from Year 2 to BA (year 3), suggesting
that as students become engaged with the course, their autonomy, relatedness and
competence increases, resulting in levels of autonomy and control of motives increasing.
Motivational regulation and the student experience and engagement
Results indicated that as students become more identified regulated and intrinsically
motivated (year 2 and 3), their satisfaction with college life increases. This may also link to
the increase in autonomy, relatedness and competence expected by Year 3. This is
supported by Hill (2011), who suggests that groups of first year students with lower levels
of autonomous motives and higher external regulation have poorer student experience, as
seen here. A suggestion could be that FE colleges delivering HE programmes of study should
attempt to maximise on “HE-ness” and strategies developing autonomy, relatedness and
competence in the early stages of the programme, encouraging more autonomous
motivational regulation, increased satisfaction with college life, and increased engagement.
What should remain of focus, however, is that many FD students prefer non-university
based provision for the actual teaching and learning process, as is supported by the findings
relating to learning strategies, but university-style independent study and social spaces.
Although findings were inconclusive, some data supports the correlation between
motivational regulation and satisfaction with the experience, with the dominant items being
within intrinsic goal orientation, task value, and control of learning beliefs. Furthermore, the
BA (year 3) group showed a relationship between learning strategies and satisfaction with
life, with rehearsal, elaboration, and effort regulation the dominant strategies. As expected,
in Level 6 study, these strategies are more appropriate, as autonomy, relatedness and
competence, and intrinsic motivation and /or identified regulation have increased.
Figure 2: Preferred learning strategies experienced on programme
Practical Implications
Strategies and pedagogies to enhance the student experience and improve retention should
be implemented and the impact of such investigated. These strategies should consider the
generic preferred learning styles relating to motivational regulation, with rehearsal,
elaboration, and effort regulation being key features when students have developed the skills
to do so. Therefore, FE colleges delivering HE programmes of study should attempt to
maximise on “HE-ness” and learning strategies that encourage more autonomy, relatedness,
and competency, increasing autonomous motivational regulation, satisfaction with college
life, engagement, and retention.
References
Black, A. E., and Deci, E. L., (2000). The effect of instructors’ autonomy support and
students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination
theory perspective. Science Education, 84; 740-756.
Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M., (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic
dialectical perspective. In E.L. Deci and R.M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination
research. Rochester, New York: University of Rochester Press, pp. 431-441.
Grolnick, W.S., and Ryan, R.M., (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental
and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52; 890898.
Guay, F., and Vallerand, R.J., (1997). Social context, students’ motivation, and academic
achievement: Toward a process model. Social Psychology of Education, 1: 211-233
Hill, A.P., (2011). Motivational Vulnerability in First Year Undergraduates: A selfdetermination perspective. Final Report to the Higher Education Academy Network for
Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Network Pedagogical Research and Development.
Higher Education Statistics Agency, (2012).Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education
Institutions - 2010/11
Ryan, R.M., and Deci, E.L., (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25: 54-67
Trouilloud, D., Sarrazin, P., Bressoux, P., and Bois, J., (2006). Relation between teachers’
early expectations and students’ later perceived competence in physical education classes:
Autonomy-supportive climate as a moderator. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98; 75-86.
Vallerand, M., Fortier, M.S., and Guay, F., (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a
real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school drop-out. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72: 1161-1176