Article 2012

Designing contributing student pedagogies to promote students' intrinsic motivation to learn

Computer Science Education
Journal · Vol. 22 · Issue 4 · pp. 369-388
Abstract

In order to maximize the effectiveness of our pedagogies, we must understand how our pedagogies align with prevailing theories of cognition and motivation and design our pedagogies according to this understanding. When implementing Contributing Student Pedagogies (CSPs), students are expected to make meaningful contributions to the learning of their peers, and consequently, instructors inherently give students power and control over elements of the class. With this loss of power, instructors will become more aware that the quality of the learning environment will depend on the level of students' motivation and engagement rather than the instructor's mastery of content or techniques. Given this greater reliance on student motivation, we will discuss how motivation theories such as Self-Determination Theory (SDT) match and support the use of CSP and how CSP can be used to promote students' intrinsic motivation (IM) to learn. We conclude with examples of how we use principles of SDT to guide our design and use of CSP. We will particularly focus on how we changed the discussion sections of a large, required, sophomore-level class on digital logic and computer organization at a large, research university at relatively low-cost to the presiding class instructor. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Keywords

Author Keywords

motivation computer architecture Intrinsic motivation theory contributing student pedagogies

Index Keywords

Author Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States
Funding & Acknowledgements
National Science Foundation, NSF
Grant: 1140554, DUE-1140554
Thank you to the class instructors who gave us access to their classes and the IM section TAs who did such an excellent job in teaching their students. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant DUE-1140554. The opinions, findings, and conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the author’s institution.
National Science Foundation, NSF
Thank you to the class instructors who gave us access to their classes and the IM section TAs who did such an excellent job in teaching their students. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant DUE-1140554. The opinions, findings, and conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the author’s institution.
References 10 References
1 Ames, Carole, Classrooms: Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation, Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 3, pp. 261-271, (1992)
2 Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, (2007)
3 Ben-Ari, Mordechai (Moti), The concorde doesn't fly anymore, Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE 2005, (2005)
4 Black, Aaron E., The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective, Science Education, 84, 6, pp. 740-756, (2000)
5 Clement, John M., A call for action (research): Applying science education research to computer science instruction, Computer Science Education, 14, 4, pp. 343-364, (2004)
6 Chase, William G., Perception in chess, Cognitive Psychology, 4, 1, pp. 55-81, (1973)
7 Chi, Michelene T.H., Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cognitive Science, 5, 2, pp. 121-152, (1981)
8 American Educator, (1991)
9 Denny, Paul C., The PeerWise system of student contributed assessment questions, Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology Series, 78, pp. 69-74, (2008)
10 Mindset the New Psychology of Success, (2006)
Quick Actions
Full Text via DOI
Citation Metrics
28
Times Cited (Scopus)

References 10
Document Identifiers