Assessing VMI Engineering Majors’ Motivation Perceptions: A Program-Level Investigation
Lee Rakes
Director of Assessment & Evaluation, Virginia Military Institute
&
Brett D. Jones
Educational Psychology, Virginia Tech
Abstract: The primary purpose of this investigation was to assess the motivation perceptions of
VMI cadets majoring in one of three engineering programs at the Institute (n = 421). The MUSIC
Model of Academic Motivation Inventory (MMAMI) was adapted and employed as the diagnostic
tool for assessing cadets’ academic motivation perceptions (Jones, 2009; Jones & Skaggs, 2012).
Results indicated that Civil Engineering (CE) majors rated their motivation significantly higher
than Mechanical Engineering (ME) majors on all five facets of the MMAMI. CE majors rated only
one MUSIC model component, caring, significantly higher than Electrical and Computer
Engineering (ECE) majors. There were no statistical differences detected on any scale or items
between ECE and ME majors. Implications for assessing and diagnosing potential motivation
deficiencies at the program-level are discussed.
Introduction
Learning and academic motivation are inextricably linked (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2014). The nature of this
relationship deems it necessary that instructors not only take seriously the factors that contribute to academic
motivation but also understand and be able to assess their students’ motivation. The MUSIC Model of Academic
Motivation (Jones, 2009) was designed with this purpose in mind: to help instructors understand how to apply
current motivation research and theories to instruction.
The MUSIC model is a social-cognitive theory that can be used to guide instructors in their teaching efforts. It
combines five theoretical constructs into one useful model: eMpowerment, Usefulness, Success, Interest, and
Caring. Empowerment refers to the amount of perceived control that students have over their learning. For example,
providing students with meaningful choices with the topics they can study, the materials they can use, the strategies
they can implement, and/or the students with whom they can work can promote a sense of empowerment.
Usefulness perceptions are concerned with the relevance and value of course materials and tasks. Success
perceptions refer to beliefs about whether students can be successful at a particular task. If students believe they can
be successful at a task, they are likely to put forth effort into accomplishing that particular task. Interest is a
psychological state that consists of an affective component of positive emotion (the liking) and a cognitive
component of concentration. The more interested students are in a subject, the more likely they are to engage with
its content in meaningful ways. Caring refers to the need for satisfying relationships between students and/or
between students and the instructor. For example, instructors who show concern for students’ successes and failures
and listen to and value students’ opinions and ideas are likely to be perceived as caring. Instructors who address all
five components in their design of course pedagogy are more likely to be successful at motivating their students
(Jones, 2009, 2010).
The MUSIC model and associated inventory were selected for this assessment for three reasons: (a) the MUSIC
model has been used successfully with samples of engineering students (Jones, Epler, Mokri, Bryant, & Paretti,
2013; Jones, Osborne, Paretti, & Matusovich, 2012; Jones & Wilkins, 2013), (b) the MUSIC Model Inventory is a
validated instrument with acceptable statistical properties (Jones & Skaggs, 2012), and (c) the inventory, unlike
other validated instruments, parsimoniously combines five key motivational components into one model, which
makes measuring several motivational factors at one time easier to achieve (e.g., there is no need for multiple scales
with different anchors).
Methodology
We addressed four research questions in this investigation: (a) Are cadets' scores on the MUSIC Model Inventory
scales statistically different between VMI's three engineering programs? (b) Is there a statistical difference between
the three programs with how cadets rate their identification as an engineer? (c) Is there a statistical difference
between the three programs with how cadets rate their career goals? and (d) Is there a statistical difference between
the three programs with how cadets rate their engineering major goals?
A list of current students in each of the three engineering programs at VMI was populated using a Colleague
Database query in late spring semester of 2014. Those students (n = 421) received an email invitation to participate
in the survey. Cadets were informed of the purpose of the survey in the email and asked to complete the survey
approximately two weeks from the invitation date. Four reminder emails were sent approximately one week apart.
The response rate was 46%. The investigation received IRB approval.
Analysis
To determine statistical differences between the programs, we conducted ANOVAs, along with Tukey analyses for
any necessary post-hoc tests. Additionally, we calculated effect sizes using Cohen’s d to determine the magnitude of
any differences between mean ratings. The larger the effect size, the more substantial the difference is to be
considered. Effect sizes of .2 to .4 would be considered small, moderate would be .5 to .7, and large would be .8 and
greater. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations were reported for the MUSIC Model Inventory scales and the
other three scales.
Results and Discussion
Each of the four research questions sought evidence for a statistical difference in response patterns among cadets
majoring in VMI’s engineering programs. Evidence of such differences was discovered for research question one,
but not two, three, or four. Specifically, CE cadets rated each component of the MUSIC model significantly higher
than ME cadets, and one component, caring, significantly higher than ECE cadets. Using effect size estimates, the
magnitude of those differences was substantial in each case. There were no differences between the programs on the
three additional scales. As a result, intervention efforts can be directed solely at MUSIC model components.
Furthermore, because this assessment occurred at the program-level, addressing motivational deficiencies across the
program curriculum might be more likely to occur. That is, the design of instruction to include motivational
pedagogy has a greater chance of being integrated systematically, rather than selectively.
References
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Jones, B. D. (2009). Motivating students to engage in learning: The MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 272-285.
Jones, B. D. (2010). An examination of motivation model components in face-to-face and online instruction.
Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(3), 915-944.
Jones, B. D., Epler, C. M., Mokri, P., Bryant, L. H., & Paretti, M. C. (2013). The effects of a collaborative problembased learning experience on students’ motivation in engineering capstone courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-based Learning, 7(2). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1344
Jones, B. D., Osborne, J. W., Paretti, M. C., & Matusovich, H. M. (2012, April). Relationships among students’
perceptions of a first-year engineering design course and their identification with engineering, motivational beliefs,
course effort, and academic outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Jones, B. D., & Skaggs, G. (2012, August). Validation of the MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation Inventory: A
measure of students’ motivation in college courses. Research presented at the International Conference on
Motivation 2012. Frankfurt, Germany.
Jones, B. D., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2013). Testing the MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation through confirmatory
factor analysis. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 33(4),
482-503.