Advertisement

The Effects of Instructional Approach and Social Support on College Algebra Students’ Motivation and Achievement: Classroom Climate Matters

  • Lisa C. DuffinEmail author
  • Hannah B. Keith
  • Melissa I. Rudloff
  • Jennifer D. Cribbs
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

College algebra has been noted as a critical course in post-secondary institutions because it serves as a gateway for major selection and college completion. Combinatorial topics like repeatable permutations are often overlooked in K-12 and undergraduate curricula. Likewise, students’ achievement and motivation are affected by the type of classroom climate created in the undergraduate mathematics classroom. Inquiry-based mathematical education (IBME) is a viable instructional approach because of its focus on community meaning-making of the mathematical content. However, lecture-style approaches still dominate post-secondary mathematics classrooms even though they have been criticized for their focus on procedural knowledge and disinviting environment. Therefore, the purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to test the effects of instructional approach (i.e., lecture-style vs. IBME) and social support (i.e., absence or presence) on undergraduate student motivation and achievement of combinatorial mathematics. Findings indicated that intentional social support-building – regardless of pedagogical method – had the strongest effects on students’ perceived autonomy-support, competence and achievement. Although no differing pedagogical effects were discovered (most likely due to the one-time implementation of the lesson formats), the findings provide evidence for the necessity of community-building efforts -- an aspect of education that is often overlooked in the undergraduate mathematics classroom.

Keywords

Autonomy-support College algebra Social support Self-determination theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a Faculty-Undergraduate Student Engagement (FUSE) grant from Western Kentucky University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adams, G. L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle: Educational Achievement Systems.Google Scholar
  2. Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L. Boenens, B., Fontaine, J.R.J., & Reeve, J. (2018). Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivation and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293.
  3. Artigue, M., & Blomhøj, M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 45, 797810.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0506-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329–345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(83)90046-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740–756.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bressoud, D. (2015). Insights from the MAA National Study of college Calculus. Mathematics Teacher, 109, 179–185.Google Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. W. (2015). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments. Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bybee, R. W. (2019). Using the BSCS 5E instructional model to introduce STEM disciplines. Science & Children, 56(6), 8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs: BSCS.Google Scholar
  10. Castellanos, M. (2018). Examining Latinas’ STEM career decision-making process: A psychosociocultural approach. The Journal of Higher Education, 89, 527–552.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1435133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E.L., Van der Kapp-Deeder, J … Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216–236.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1.
  12. Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Moon, L. S. (2012). Experimentally-based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 365–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawkins, P. C. (2017). On the importance of set-based meanings for categories and connectives in mathematical logic. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3, 496–522.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-017-0055-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagan, K. (2016). Becoming more student-centered? An examination of faculty teaching practices across STEM and non-STEM disciplines between 2004 and 2014: A report prepared for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Eizenberg, M. M., & Zaslavsky, O. (2004). Students’ verification strategies for combinatorial problems. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 12–36.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0601_2.Google Scholar
  17. Ellis, J., Kelton, M. L., & Rasmussen, C. (2014). Student perceptions of pedagogy and associated persistence in calculus. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46, 661–673.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0577-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. English, L. D. (2005). Combinatorics and the development of children’s combinatorial reasoning. In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 121–141). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Estrada, M., Eroy-Reveles, A., & Matsui, J. (2018). The influence of affirming kindness and community on broadening participation in the STEM career pathways. Social Issues and Policy Review, 12, 258–297.  https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. European Schoolnet (2018). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education Policies in Europe. Scientix Observatory report. October 2018, European Schoolnet, Brussels.Google Scholar
  21. Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532–538.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111, 8410–8415 www.pnas.org/cgi.doi/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education, 59, 146–164.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903564362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40–53.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haberler, Z., Laursen, S. L., & Hayward, C. N. (2018). What’s in a name? Framing struggles of a mathematics education reform community. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 4, 415–441.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-018-0079-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Hattie, J., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2017). Visible learning for mathematics: What works best to optimize student learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  28. Hayward, C. N., Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2016). Facilitating instructor adoption of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics, 2, 59–81.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-015-0021-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Herriott, S. R., & Dunbar, S. R. (2009). Who takes college algebra? PRIMUS, 19, 74–87.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970701573441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hu, S., Kuh, G. D., & Li, S. (2008). The effects of engagement in inquiry-oriented activities on student learning and personal development. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 71–82.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9066-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, E., Keller, R., & Fukawa-Connelly, T. (2018). Results from a survey of abstract algebra instructors across the United States: Understanding the choice to (not) lecture. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics, 4, 254–285.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-017-0058-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keller, M. M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2016). Teacher enthusiasm: Reviewing and redefining a complex construct. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 743–769.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9354-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kozioff, M. A., LaNunziata, L., Cowardin, J., & Bessellieu, F. B. (2001). Direct instruction: Its contributions to high school achievement. The High School Journal, 84(2), 54–71.Google Scholar
  36. Kranzler, J. H., & Pajares, F. (1997). An exploratory factor analysis of the mathematics self-efficacy scale revised (MSES-R). Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lahdenperä, J., Postareff, L., & Rämö, J. (2018). Supporting quality of learning in university mathematics: A comparison of two instructional designs. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-018-0080-y.
  38. Laursen, S. L., & Rasmussen, C. (2019). I on the prize: Inquiry approaches in undergraduate mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics, 5, 129–146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00085-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laursen, S. L., Hassi, M. L., Kogan, M., & Weston, T. J. (2014). Benefits for women and men of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics: A multi-institution study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 406–418.  https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.4.0406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin, Y., Durbin, J. M., & Rancer, A. S. (2017). Perceived instructor argumentativeness, verbal aggressivness, and classroom climate in relation to student state motivation and math anxiety. Communication Education, 66, 330–349.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1245427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lockwood, E. (2013). A model of students’ combinatorial thinking. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32, 251–265.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lockwood, E., Wasserman, N. H., & McGuffey, W. (2018). Classifying combinations: Investigating undergraduate students’ responses to different categories of combination problems. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics, 4, 305–322.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-018-0073-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? Journal of Higher Education, 73, 603–641.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777170.Google Scholar
  44. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1987). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McDuffie, A. R., & Graeber, A. O. (2003). Institutional norms and policies that influence college mathematics professors in the process of changing to reform-based practices. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 331–344.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18210.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moreno, S. E., & Muller, C. (1999). Success and diversity: The transition through first-year calculus in the university. American Journal of Education, 108, 30–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 133–144.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Niemiec, C. P., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., Bernstein, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college: A self-determination theory perspective on socialization. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 761–775.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.11.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Patrick, H., Ryan, A., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Executive Report). Retrieved from The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-executive-report-final_2-13-12.pdf
  51. Rakes, C. R., Valentine, J. C., McGatha, M. B., & Ronau, R. N. (2010). Methods of instructional improvement in algebra: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80, 372–400.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310374880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rasmussen, C., & Kwon, O. N. (2007). An inquiry-oriented approach to undergraduate mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 189–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rasmussen, C., & Marrongelle, K. (2006). Pedagogical content tools: Integrating student reasoning and mathematics into instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 388–420.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30034860.Google Scholar
  54. Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 225–236.  https://doi.org/10.1086/501484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209–218.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537–548.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Jang, H. (2007). Understanding and promoting autonomous self-regulation: A self-determination theory perspective. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and application (pp. 223–244). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  58. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Communication Yearbook, 10, 574–590.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1987.11678663.Google Scholar
  59. Rockswald, G. K. (2012). Essentials of college algebra with modeling and visualizations (4th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  60. Rodríguez-Meirinhos, A., Antolín-Suárez, L., Brenning, K., Vansteenkiste, M., & Olivia, A. (2019). A bright and dark path to adolescents’ functioning: The role of need satisfaction and need frustration across gender, age, and socioeconomic status. Journal of Happiness Studies. Advanced online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-00072-9.
  61. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  63. Salazar, D.A. (2014). Salazar’s grouping method: Effects on student’s achievement in integral calculus. Journal of Education and Practice, 5, 119–126.Google Scholar
  64. Salazar, D. A. (2015). Razalas’ grouping method and mathematics achievement. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(8), 118–127.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, B. (2015). The evolution of my rapport: One professor's journey to building instructor/student relationships. College Teaching, 63, 35–36.  https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2014.999023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spector, B., Burkett, R. S., & Leard, C. (2007). Mitigating resistance to teaching science through inquiry: Studying self. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 185–208.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9035-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., et al. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in north American universities. Science Education, 359, 1468–1470.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892.Google Scholar
  68. Starcher, K. (2011). Intentionally building rapport with students. College Teaching, 59, 162.  https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.516782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stigler, J. W., Givvin, K. B., & Thompson, B. J. (2010). What community college developmental mathematics students understand about mathematics. MathAMATYC Educator, 1(3), 4–16.Google Scholar
  70. Sun, S., Pan, W., & Wang, L. L. (2010). A comprehensive review of effect size reporting and interpreting practices in academic journals in education and psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 989–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  72. Trusty, J., Thompson, B., & Petrocelli, J. V. (2004). Practical guide for reporting effect size in quantitative research in the “journal of counseling & development”. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 107–110.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00291.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 263–280.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walker, J. T., Martin, T. M., Haynie, L., Norwood, A., White, J., & Grant, L. (2007). Preferences for teaching methods in a baccalaureate nuring program: How second-degree and traditional students differ. Nursing Education Perspectives, 28, 246–250.Google Scholar
  75. Washburn, M. H. (2004). Is your classroom woman-friendly?: Ten strategies for reaching this goal. College Teaching, 52(4), 156–159.  https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.52.4.156-159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Westermann, K., & Rummel, N. (2012). Delaying instruction: Evidence from a study in a university relearning setting. Instructional Science, 40, 673–689.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9207-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767–779.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wright, E. L., Sunal, D. W., & Day, J. B. (2004). Reform in undergraduate science classrooms. In D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright, & J. B. Day (Eds.), Reform in undergraduate science teaching for the 21st century (pp. 137–152). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  79. Yu, S., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Vasteenkiste, M. (2018). Chinese education examined via the lens of self-determination. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 177–214.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9395-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWestern Kentucky UniversityBowling GreenUSA
  2. 2.Oklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations