- Email: [email protected]
Motivation in Learning and Happiness among the Low Science Achievers of a Polytechnic Institution: An Exploratory Study
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
6th International Conference on University Learning and Teaching (InCULT 2012)
Motivation in Learning and Happiness among the Low Science Achievers of a Polytechnic Institution: An Exploratory Study Safiah Omar a , Jasmine Jain b , Fauziah Noordin c b
a,c Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40200, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA, InTEC Campus Section 17, 40200, Sha h Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
Abstract Happiness among students has long been forgotten due to the emphasis of achievements which increase the stress level that led to drop out, unmotivated, and giving up. Motivation of the students in learning science was being emphasized in this study, while associating it with their level of happiness. This exploratory study identifies f whether motivation in learning science has any relationship with happiness among Polytechnic students of a state in Malaysia. This is because it was revealed through the review of the literature that the study about the motivation of students in learning science in other educational levels were being emphasized, sidelining the inclusion of polytechnic students as the subject of study. Samples of this study were derived from low performance students identified by the engineering faculty of the institution. It was revealed that the level of motivation in learning sciences and happiness are moderate among the students. Findings also showed that selff efficacy and active learning strategy are positively correlated to happiness while achievement goal has no significant relationship with happiness. Generally, the level of motivation in learning sciences and happiness are moderate among the students. Implications of this study and recommendation for future studies were discussed. ©2012 TheAuthors. Authors.Published by Elsevier Ltd.access under CC BY-NC-ND license. © 2013 The Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open Selectionand/or and/or peer-review responsibility of theof Faculty of Education, UniversityMARA, Technology MARA, Malaysia. Selection peer-review underunder responsibility of the Faculty Education, University Technology Malaysia. Keyword: Motivation in learning, Happiness
1. Introduction Learning is a process of constructing and reconstructing meanings by associating the input with the experiences in an individuals’ mind (Von Glasersfeld, 1998). It is a rather complex mental activity in which motivation is undeniably a variable which play a major role in developing it. Similarly, emotions play important roles in our daily lives. In learning conditions, emotions “can provide clues about other properties of behavior
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +603-8024 2091; fax: +603-8011 3230. E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Faculty of Education, University Technology MARA, Malaysia. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.143
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
703
episodes” (Ford, 1992: 141). Happiness is one of the elements needed by human and it has been theorized since Socrates’ and Aristotle’s era but only received attention recently, after positive psychology movement became serious (Luthans, 2002; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Wright, 2003; Wright, Cropanzo, & Bonett, In press). Motivation, similarly, is an affective component of learning which has received increasing attention in developing the affective components of learners (Bloom, 1992). The study attempts to undertake the call from the positive psychology movement (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) which encourage studies in human behavior using the positive approaches. This is because too many studies have focused in negative side of human traits and attitudes. For example, Luthans (2002) indicated that a search of contemporary literature in psychology of published articles emphasized more on depression (65,000 articles), treatment of mental illness (200,000 articles), fear (20,000 articles), anger (10,000 articles) but only one thousand articles on positive concepts and human capabilities. Myers (2000) reported that the ratio is about 14:1 of studies that are using negative focus as opposed to positive approach (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). Although developed countries such as United States, United Kingdom, Europe and several Asian countries has started to introduce positive approach in education (Seligman, 2009; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005), education in Malaysia received very limited exposure in higher education especially in polytechnic institutions. Studies in students’ happiness have been sideline because there are implications that those researchers who conduct the studies in positive areas were claimed as not a serious scientist (Segerstrom, 2006). In pursuing greater nation in terms of development and strength, it is no doubt that the foundation of the country’s future lies in its education system. Following this, government’s plan in wanting to upgrade polytechnics as educational institutions which are dynamic and competitive is timely (Kamal, Yunus, Ishak, & Razak, 2010). Considering these needs, this exploratory study focused on investigating the relationships that might exist between student’s motivations in learning and happiness in Malaysia because several studies have proved the existence of the relationships in the west (Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Waterman, Schwarts, & Conti, 2008). 1.1 Happiness Happiness can be referred as the evaluations of both affective and cognitive of an individuals’ life (Diener, 2000). It is the state of emotion felt by individual in the sum aspect of their lives. Diener (2000) mentioned that studies conducted among students across 42 countries showed that students rated their happiness as an integral contribution for their satisfaction in live. This is consistent with Fordyce’s (2005) research where happiness found to be the most important goal in someone’s life. Happiness content is separable by few components which are life satisfaction and on narrower scales such as job satisfaction, satisfaction towards learning institutions and/or satisfaction over a product. This study explored the students’ life satisfaction as a whole because it has received the least attention among satisfactions towards the other aspects of life. Happiness was skeptically viewed as nonviable to be put under psychological construct because it was thought to be not impossible to be measured and studied empirically (Fordyce, 1983). The view has changed as it appears that the reliability and validity of happiness measures has proven to be highly adequate (Diener, 1984). Happiness in terms of life satisfaction is measured by the sum belief of an individual through several series of life events (Diener, 2000). As happiness is classified as positive emotions, studies in this area are essential because they are expected to broaden individual’s thought action based on the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2004). The theory explained that positive emotions such as joy and contentment which are in happiness states enable individual to build and becoming resilience. Several research in education with regards to happiness (Michalos, 2007; Seligman, 2009) and well-being (Khan & Husain, 2010) shows that the trend of studying the positive elements of students are essential. Happiness also has been found to be positively correlated with academic achievement (Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002). This imposed that happy students will obtained good score in their examination and strive for great career when they are graduated.
704
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
Ford (1992) inferred that emotions [happiness] is “an empowering source of information about how to influence motivational pattern” (p.145). On a similar note, the focus of this study is to look at how emotional components, associated with polytechnic students’ happiness influenced by their motivation in learning science. 1.2 Motivation in Learning Science Science literacy has been dominating the goals of science education worldwide for more than a decade (Keiser, 2010). Motivation in learning science, among others, have been listed as one of the important factors that affect students’ interests in science and consequently take up science field as a career later on in life (Juriševič, Glažar, Vogrinc, & Devetak, 2009). It has been reported that there has been a steady decrease of students number who opted for science vocation, as science has been regarded as a difficult subject (Azizul Rahman Ismail, 7th November 2012). Despite the concern about secondary school students’ declining interest in pursuing science for their higher degree, the focus on interest of learning science among the polytechnic students has been sidelined. The motivation to learn science is an pertinent issue to be highlighted as poor motivation in learning science has been revealed as the major culprit leading to poor acheivement (Glynn, Taasoobshirazi, & Brickman, 2007). Realising this crux of learning, many studies has undertaken the studies investigating the motivation among different group of students (Wigfield et al., 2006), developing instruments served as measurement to motivation (Tuan et al., 2005) and identifying other motivational variables that leads to success (Othman Talib et al., 2009). Motivation can be defined plainly as ‘the process whereby goal-directed activity is investigated and sustained (Pintrich & Schunk 1996: 5). Motivation, can be generally be sub-divided to two which are menifested as internal elements known as intrinsict motivation while the external ones is generally termed as extrinsict. The linkages between motivation, process of learning and acheivements have been widely established by Schiefele and Rheinberg (1997) and by a renowned psychologist, Boekaerts (2001). Erb (1996) in his study about the lack of motivation in learning science among the high schools’ students were caused by the lack of responsibility, low self-esteem among the students, and students’ family dysfunction. The extensive researches in this field agreed that highly motivated students are more likely to understand their contents better and perform well in the subjects. In this study, the reseachers are especially interested in looking at the elements constituted by intrinsict motivation, which is believed to be the elements leading to the high cognitive thinking pertinent in constructing ideas about the abstract scientific concepts. Brophy (1998) in his research identifying the scales of motivation in learning revealed that there are four scales that are able to affect an individual’s motivation in learning. This includes self-efficacy, individual’s goals, task value and the learning environment. From a science education perspectives, all these scales were dominant in assisiting a science learner towards the construction of science conceptions (Pintrinch et al., 1993). In a more recent study of developing an instrument to measure students’ motivation in science learning (Tuan et al., 2005), they pointed out that there are numerous scales of motivation. However, the scales that they felt as paramount to be measured specifically in science learners are self-efficacy, active learning strategies, science learning value, performance goal, achievement goal, and learning environment. Due to the limited space for discussion purposes, this paper highlights only on three scales of motivation, which include self-efficacy, active learning strategy and achievement goal. Self efficacy is the belief of the individual on himself or herself in accomplishing any tasks that was regarded as either hard or easy at first (Bandura, 1997). The scale of students’ active role was included to reflect the constructivist’s perspective adopted by this paper. The belief that knowledge is actively constructed and varies from one individual to another is the basic foundation for this theory. Therefore, active learning is necessary as students take charge of their own learning, with the values integrated into science learning (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993). The activities include scientific inquiry, problem-solving and relating the learnt concepts into everyday life. All of these activities and the determination in doing it are very much related to the nature of their motivation. Achievement goal, on the other hand, highlights the desire to accomplish goals through their own intrinsic motivation, and consistently in the dire need to improve their competency in doing it (Deci & Ryan, 1991).
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
705
Positive emotions is associated with students’ reports of their motivation in learning (Turner, Meyer, Midgley, & Patrick, 2003; Turner & Patrick, 2004). Emotions also has been reported as one of the main elements built by student’s motivation towards learning and their relationships with teachers [lecturers] (Meyer & Turner, 2006). Intrinsic motivation has been reported to influence happiness among students in universities and colleges in the US (Waterman, et al., 2008). Study by Nix, Ryan, Manly and Deci (1999) distinguished existence relationship between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation with happiness and vitality. Therefore, this exploratory research is aiming to find out whether the relationships between motivation and happiness existed among the students in that particular polytechnic. 2. Method The quantitative method is used in this study in order to explore whether there is relationship existed between motivation and happiness. It also aimed to measure the relationship (if any) between motivation and happiness based on past researches that has been established in the west which reported on the existence of this particular relationship. 2.1 Participants The samples of this study were selected from a Polytechnic institution of a state in Malaysia with a total number of 40 students participated in this study. All of the respondents were from the science background majoring in Mechanical Engineering (N=15), Civil Engineering (N=12) and Electrical Engineering (N=13). The respondents are in their second semester of their course of study which was regarded by the researchers as suitable for the purpose of this study. This is because the subjects of the study are familiar with the environment of the higher learning institution and are not expected to complete their study very soon. The students involved in this study were the weak students referred personally by their lecturers. They scored from low to average of grade point average (GPA) in their past examination which was below 2.5. This measure was regarded as appropriate as they were only undertaking examinations for science courses. This group of students represented the total of 100 low performance students chosen by the Faculty of Engineering of this institution. 2.2 Measures 2.2.1 Student’s Happiness The instrument used to measure happiness among student was derived by Fordyce’s (1988, 2005) which measure the students’ general happiness. The instrument has two parts. The first part measure the perceive quality of general happiness while the second part measure the estimation of time an individual feel happy, unhappy and neutral. The 10-point scales in the first part was converted to 5-point in order to standardized the results ranging from 1 (very sad) to 5 (extremely happy). The frequency percentage of happiness time in the second part remains unchanged. This instrument is chosen because it is a thorough analyzed wellbeing measure and has been considered as the ‘granddaddy’ of happiness measures (Fordyce, 1988). The statements has been supported by Diener (1984) where among 20 happiness and wellbeing reviewed, Fordyce’s Happiness Measures has the strongest correlations with daily affect and life satisfaction. 2.2.2 Motivation in Learning The instrument used to determine the three scales of motivation in learning science-self efficacy, active learning strategy and achievement goals are adopted form the students’ Motivation Toward Science Learning (SMTSL) instrument, developed by Tuan et al. (2005). This instrument contained 16 items accessing the respondents’ level of motivation, with 5 point Likert’s scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
706
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
agree). The cronbach alpha values derived from reliability tests for this study are .705 (self-efficacy), .720 (active learning strategy) and .847 (achievement goals). 2.3 Analysis The responses obtained from the students in measuring their happiness and motivation in learning were analyzed using SPSS version 17. The data was first analyzed for the means in order to determine the level of the students’ happiness and their motivation in learning. The data was further analyzed for correlation and regression to test the relationships existed between motivation in learning and happiness. 3. Results 3.1 Descriptive Statistics Mean scores for the two dimensions are slightly above average. Total mean for motivation in learning is 3.53. The highest mean score among all is achievement goal (M= 3.88; SD= .60). The lowest score for learning motivation in science’s variable is self-efficacy (M=3.1; SD= 4.61). The lowest score is happiness (M=3.13; SD= .844). The results indicate that these low performer students are moderately happy. Table 1: Mean score for motivation in learning science and happiness No
Variable
Mean
SD
1
Happiness
3.13
.844
2
Motivation in Learning (ML) Self-Efficacy
3.17
.461
Active Learning Strategy
3.53
.471
Achievement Goal
3.88
.640
Total average for ML
3.53
Note: 1.00 – 2.99 = low; 3.00 – 3.99 = moderate; 4.00 – 5.00 = high
Another test to measure the students’ happiness is through the allocation of their feelings (out of 100%) into three different categories which are the time they feel happy, unhappy, and neutral. This is an estimation of percentage of time the respondents felt for the three categories of feelings. The average of the percentages of time allocated by the respondents is measured to represent the norm for these particular respondents (low science achievers) as suggested by Fordyce (2005). The results showed that the students felt happy for most of the time (%=52). Although the percentage of being ‘happy’ was at 52%, it cannot be claimed that they are really happy as it was only 2%, which is slightly more out of half of their entire time. The percentage different between ‘unhappy’ (%=22) and ‘neutral’ (%=26) is only at 4%. Table 2: Mean score for the percentage of time of students’ emotions No
Variable
(%)
2
The percent of the time I feel happy
52
3
The percent of the time I feel unhappy
22
4
The percent of the time I feel neutral
26
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
707
3.2 Correlation results Table 3 shows that self-efficacy and happiness is significant and positively correlated with student’s happiness (r= .521) at .01 level. Active learning strategy was also found to be positively correlated with happiness (r= .505) at .01 level. However, achievement goal was found to be not correlated with the student’s happiness (r= .293). Active learning strategy was positively correlated with self-efficacy (r=.377) at a significant level of .05. Achievement goal is positively correlated with active learning strategy (r=.496) significant at .01 level. However, achievement goal is not correlated with self-efficacy (r= .175). The result showed that all relationships were positive. Table 3: Correlation results between happiness, self-efficacy, and active learning strategy and achievement goal No/Item 1. Happiness
1 1
2
2. Self-Efficacy
.521**
1
3. Active Learning Strategy
.505**
.377*
1
.293
.175
.496**
4. Achievement Goal
3
4
1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
3.3 Coefficient for the predictor variables Table 4 shows that there were two model tested for coefficients. This was due to insignificant results for achievement goal during correlation analysis and it was excluded during the test for the second model. In the first model, only self-efficacy is significant (t= 2.247) (p < .05). Active learning strategy and achievement goal were both found to be not significant (p > .05) with students’ happiness. The t value for active learning strategy is 1.570 while achievement goal is at .489. The r square is .354. The model tested is significant at level .002. In the second model for coefficient as achievement goal was removed, both self-efficacy and active learning strategy are significant with student’s happiness where the p value is below .05. The t-value for self-efficacy is 2.250 and active learning strategy is 2.036. The R square for the second model is .349. The result in model 1 showed that self-efficacy, active learning strategy and achievement goal contributed 35.4% to student’s happiness. In model 2, self-efficacy and active learning strategy contributed 34.9% to the students’ happiness. Model 2 was able to explain better significant relationship between motivation in learning science and the students’ happiness at P=.001.
708
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
Table 4: Coefficient result for motivation in learning and happiness Coefficientsa Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
-1.168
.251
(Constant)
B -1.216
Std. Error 1.041
Beta
1
.664 .526 .101 -1.066
.295 .335 .206 .984
.361 .283 .078
2
SelfEfficacy ActiveLearningStrategy AchievementGoal (Constant)
2.247 1.570 .489 -1.084
.031 .126 .628 .286
.657 .292 .357 .600 .295 .323 a. Dependent Variable: Happiness
2.250 2.036
.031 .049
Self Efficacy Active Learning Strategy
3.4 Regression Analyses Table 5 showed the result on regression analysis. The first model tested was significant at .002 with the f value of 6.198. The first model consisted of self-efficacy, active learning strategy and achievement goal as the predictors. The second model tested was significant at .001 and it consisted of only self-efficacy and active learning strategy as predictors. Achievement goal was removed in the second model in order to ensure that this research look for the most accurate relationships between motivation in learning sciences and the student’s happiness. Table 5: Regression analysis for motivation in learning and happiness ANOVAc Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F 1 Regression 9.313 3 3.104 6.198 Residual 17.029 34 .501 Total 26.342 37 2 Regression 9.193 2 4.597 9.382 Residual 17.149 35 .490 Total 26.342 37 a. Predictors: (Constant), Achievement Goal, Self Efficacy, Active Learning Strategy b. Predictors: (Constant), SelfEfficacy, ActiveLearningStrategy
Sig. .002a .001b
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
709
4. Discussion The results indicated that the relationships between motivation in learning and happiness exist. Similar with testing the relationship between two concepts of happiness (hedonic and eudaimonia) with intrinsic motivation (Waterman, et al., 2008), this research found that those who are motivated are happy and those who are happy are motivated to learn. Through the correlation analysis, the results found that self-efficacy and active learning strategy are related to students’ happiness. In contrast with our objective, achievement goal was found to be not significantly correlated with happiness. This research also revealed that only self-efficacy and active learning strategy were significant to happiness in regression analysis. This may be because the achievement goal may be influenced by other external variables and elements that actually affect their achievement goals. This suggested that achievement goal as a partial extrinsic motivation scale where social influence involving rewards and punishment might existed (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). Whereas, self-efficacy and active learning strategy are both fully intrinsic motivation (Nilsen, 2009). In the perspective of science learning, it was found that the more dominant scales of students’ motivation were self efficacy and active roles. They felt more gratified and thus, happy when they are engaging actively in learning science fueled by their own interest in learning new knowledge. The need for engaging the students with active learning sessions in an interactive climate makes them more happy and hence, more motivated to learn science. The motivation involved here, is found to be related very closely with their self efficacy. This finding suggested that science learning in Polytechnic should be made engaging and interesting, while involving not only hands-on, but minds-on activities as well. As this study has found significant positive relationships between these two variables, the institution should now focus on encouraging the students to become motivated as to create healthier life that lead to broaden thought action that will influence the students’ future undertaking such as in program courses and career selections (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Although the motivation towards learning somehow determine and responsible by the students themselves (Higbee, 1996), the social input such as lectures personality and learning facilities do have such impacts (Brewer, 2005). 5. Conclusion Findings of this research indicated that motivation in learning appear to have an influence on students’ happiness. The higher self-efficacy and active learning strategy that they are having, the happier they are which lead to better academic achievement in the future. Motivation in learning associated with students’ happiness is a field still underexplored, especially in the Malaysian setting. An extension of this study in looking at the relationships between motivation in learning science with motivational aspects within the students through a qualitative method, or a blend of both qualitative and quantitative methods can be helpful in providing in-depth understanding of this issue. Thus, more focus should be emphasized on the motivation-variables involved, specifically in studying the motivation of the polytechnic students. The study on students’ motivation and happiness in learning science should be given enough emphasis, or else the objective of science education in Malaysia will certainly fall short. References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990) Retrieved 23 February, 2012, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm#Nature Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. [Editorial]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147-154. doi: 10.1002/job.515 Bloom, J. W. (1992). The development of scientific knowledge in elementary school children: A context of meaning perspectives. Science Education, 76(4), 99-413.
710
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
Boekaerts, M. (2001). Context Sensitivity: Activated Motivational Beliefs, Current Concerns and Emotional Arousal. In S. Volet & S. Jarvela (Eds.), Motivation in Learning Context: Theoretical Advances and Methodological Implications (pp. 17-31). Amsterdam: Pergamon. Brewer, E. W. (2005). Professor's Role in Motivating Students to Attend Class. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 42(3), 23-47. Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating Students to Learn. WI: McGraw Hill. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspective on Motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237-288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43. Erb, M. (1996). Increasing Students' Responsibility for Their Learning Through Multiple Intelligence Activities and Cooperative Learning. Master Thesis. Saint Xavier University. IL. Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Fordyce, M. W. (1983). A Program to Increase Happiness: Further Studies. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 30(4), 483-489. Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research in The Happiness Measures: A sixty second index of happiness and mental health. Social Indicators Research, 20, 62-89. Fordyce, M. W. (2005). A review of research on the happiness measures: A sixty second index of happiness and mental health. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Citation classics from social indicator research: the most cited articles (pp. 373). Berlin: Springer. Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical transactions. Biological sciences, 359(1449), 1367. Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognitive Emotions, 19(3), 313-332. Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007). Nonscience majors learning cience: A theoretical model of motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1088-1107. doi: 10.1002/tea Higbee, J. C. (1996). Ability, preparation, or motivation? Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 13, 93-96. Ismail, A. R. (7 November 2012). Too few science students: DPM, The Sun, p. 2. Juriševič, M., Glažar, S. A., Vogrinc, J., & Devetak, I. (2009). Intrinsic Motivation for Learning Science through Educational Vertical in Slovenia. Paper presented at the Fifth Biennal Self International Conference, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates. Kamal, N., Yunus, Y., Ishak, S., & Razak, A. Z. A. A. (2010). Motivation, empowerment, service quality and polytechnic students' level of satisfaction in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(1), 120-128. Keiser, J. C. (2010). Identifying variations in thinking about the nature of science: A phenomenographic study. Doctoral Dissertation. ProQuest database. Khan, A., & Husain, A. (2010). Social Support as a Moderator of Positive Psychological Strengths and Subjective Well-being. Pschological Report, 106(2), 534-538. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695-706. Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2006). Re-conceptualizing Emotion and Motivation to Learn in Classroom Contexts. Education Psychology Review, 18, 377-390. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9032-1 Michalos, A. C. (2007). Education, Happiness and Well-being. Paper presented at the Is happiness measurable and what do those measures mean for public policy?, University of Rome. Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55, 56-67. Nilsen, H. (2009). Influence on Student Academic Behavior through Motivation, Self-Efficacy and Value-Expecation: An Action Research Project to Improve Learning. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 6, 545-556. Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through Self-Regulation: The Effects of Autonomous and Controlled Motivation on Happiness and Vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 266-284. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91-106. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Application. Englewood, Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determinatioan theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Schiefele, U., & Rheinberg, F. (1997). Motivation and Knowledge Acquisition: Searching for Mediating Processes In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 21-301). Greenwich: JAI Press. Segerstrom, S. C. (2006). Breaking Murphy's Law: How Optimists Get What They Want from Life - and Pessimists Can Too. New York: Guilford Press. Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Positive education: positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293. doi: 10.1080/03054980902934563 Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology. An Introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive Psychology Progress. Empirical Validation of Interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421. Talib, O., Luan, W. S., Azhar, S. C., & Abdullah, N. (2009). Uncovering Malaysian Students' Motivation to Learning Science. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 266-276. Tuan, H.-L., Chin, C.-C., & Shieh, S.-H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students' motivation towards science learning International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639-654.
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
711
Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Midgley, C., & Patrick, H. (2003). Teacher discourse and students' affect and achievement-related behaviors in two high mastery/high performance clasrooms. Elementary School Journal, 103, 357-382. Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106, 1759-1785. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intirinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31. Waterman, A. S., Schwarts, S. J., & Conti, R. (2008). The Implications of Two Conceptions of Happiness (Hedonic Enjoyment and Eudaimonia) for the Understanding of Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 41-79. doi: 10.1007/s10902-0069020-7 Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., S, Schiefele, U., Roeser, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personaliy development (6th ed., pp. 933-1002). New York: Wiley. Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 437-442. Wright, T. A., Cropanzo, R., & Bonett, D. G. (In press). The moderating role of employee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.
ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
6th International Conference on University Learning and Teaching (InCULT 2012)
Motivation in Learning and Happiness among the Low Science Achievers of a Polytechnic Institution: An Exploratory Study Safiah Omar a , Jasmine Jain b , Fauziah Noordin c b
a,c Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40200, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA, InTEC Campus Section 17, 40200, Sha h Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
Abstract Happiness among students has long been forgotten due to the emphasis of achievements which increase the stress level that led to drop out, unmotivated, and giving up. Motivation of the students in learning science was being emphasized in this study, while associating it with their level of happiness. This exploratory study identifies f whether motivation in learning science has any relationship with happiness among Polytechnic students of a state in Malaysia. This is because it was revealed through the review of the literature that the study about the motivation of students in learning science in other educational levels were being emphasized, sidelining the inclusion of polytechnic students as the subject of study. Samples of this study were derived from low performance students identified by the engineering faculty of the institution. It was revealed that the level of motivation in learning sciences and happiness are moderate among the students. Findings also showed that selff efficacy and active learning strategy are positively correlated to happiness while achievement goal has no significant relationship with happiness. Generally, the level of motivation in learning sciences and happiness are moderate among the students. Implications of this study and recommendation for future studies were discussed. ©2012 TheAuthors. Authors.Published by Elsevier Ltd.access under CC BY-NC-ND license. © 2013 The Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open Selectionand/or and/or peer-review responsibility of theof Faculty of Education, UniversityMARA, Technology MARA, Malaysia. Selection peer-review underunder responsibility of the Faculty Education, University Technology Malaysia. Keyword: Motivation in learning, Happiness
1. Introduction Learning is a process of constructing and reconstructing meanings by associating the input with the experiences in an individuals’ mind (Von Glasersfeld, 1998). It is a rather complex mental activity in which motivation is undeniably a variable which play a major role in developing it. Similarly, emotions play important roles in our daily lives. In learning conditions, emotions “can provide clues about other properties of behavior
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +603-8024 2091; fax: +603-8011 3230. E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Faculty of Education, University Technology MARA, Malaysia. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.143
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
703
episodes” (Ford, 1992: 141). Happiness is one of the elements needed by human and it has been theorized since Socrates’ and Aristotle’s era but only received attention recently, after positive psychology movement became serious (Luthans, 2002; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Wright, 2003; Wright, Cropanzo, & Bonett, In press). Motivation, similarly, is an affective component of learning which has received increasing attention in developing the affective components of learners (Bloom, 1992). The study attempts to undertake the call from the positive psychology movement (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) which encourage studies in human behavior using the positive approaches. This is because too many studies have focused in negative side of human traits and attitudes. For example, Luthans (2002) indicated that a search of contemporary literature in psychology of published articles emphasized more on depression (65,000 articles), treatment of mental illness (200,000 articles), fear (20,000 articles), anger (10,000 articles) but only one thousand articles on positive concepts and human capabilities. Myers (2000) reported that the ratio is about 14:1 of studies that are using negative focus as opposed to positive approach (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). Although developed countries such as United States, United Kingdom, Europe and several Asian countries has started to introduce positive approach in education (Seligman, 2009; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005), education in Malaysia received very limited exposure in higher education especially in polytechnic institutions. Studies in students’ happiness have been sideline because there are implications that those researchers who conduct the studies in positive areas were claimed as not a serious scientist (Segerstrom, 2006). In pursuing greater nation in terms of development and strength, it is no doubt that the foundation of the country’s future lies in its education system. Following this, government’s plan in wanting to upgrade polytechnics as educational institutions which are dynamic and competitive is timely (Kamal, Yunus, Ishak, & Razak, 2010). Considering these needs, this exploratory study focused on investigating the relationships that might exist between student’s motivations in learning and happiness in Malaysia because several studies have proved the existence of the relationships in the west (Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Waterman, Schwarts, & Conti, 2008). 1.1 Happiness Happiness can be referred as the evaluations of both affective and cognitive of an individuals’ life (Diener, 2000). It is the state of emotion felt by individual in the sum aspect of their lives. Diener (2000) mentioned that studies conducted among students across 42 countries showed that students rated their happiness as an integral contribution for their satisfaction in live. This is consistent with Fordyce’s (2005) research where happiness found to be the most important goal in someone’s life. Happiness content is separable by few components which are life satisfaction and on narrower scales such as job satisfaction, satisfaction towards learning institutions and/or satisfaction over a product. This study explored the students’ life satisfaction as a whole because it has received the least attention among satisfactions towards the other aspects of life. Happiness was skeptically viewed as nonviable to be put under psychological construct because it was thought to be not impossible to be measured and studied empirically (Fordyce, 1983). The view has changed as it appears that the reliability and validity of happiness measures has proven to be highly adequate (Diener, 1984). Happiness in terms of life satisfaction is measured by the sum belief of an individual through several series of life events (Diener, 2000). As happiness is classified as positive emotions, studies in this area are essential because they are expected to broaden individual’s thought action based on the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2004). The theory explained that positive emotions such as joy and contentment which are in happiness states enable individual to build and becoming resilience. Several research in education with regards to happiness (Michalos, 2007; Seligman, 2009) and well-being (Khan & Husain, 2010) shows that the trend of studying the positive elements of students are essential. Happiness also has been found to be positively correlated with academic achievement (Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002). This imposed that happy students will obtained good score in their examination and strive for great career when they are graduated.
704
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
Ford (1992) inferred that emotions [happiness] is “an empowering source of information about how to influence motivational pattern” (p.145). On a similar note, the focus of this study is to look at how emotional components, associated with polytechnic students’ happiness influenced by their motivation in learning science. 1.2 Motivation in Learning Science Science literacy has been dominating the goals of science education worldwide for more than a decade (Keiser, 2010). Motivation in learning science, among others, have been listed as one of the important factors that affect students’ interests in science and consequently take up science field as a career later on in life (Juriševič, Glažar, Vogrinc, & Devetak, 2009). It has been reported that there has been a steady decrease of students number who opted for science vocation, as science has been regarded as a difficult subject (Azizul Rahman Ismail, 7th November 2012). Despite the concern about secondary school students’ declining interest in pursuing science for their higher degree, the focus on interest of learning science among the polytechnic students has been sidelined. The motivation to learn science is an pertinent issue to be highlighted as poor motivation in learning science has been revealed as the major culprit leading to poor acheivement (Glynn, Taasoobshirazi, & Brickman, 2007). Realising this crux of learning, many studies has undertaken the studies investigating the motivation among different group of students (Wigfield et al., 2006), developing instruments served as measurement to motivation (Tuan et al., 2005) and identifying other motivational variables that leads to success (Othman Talib et al., 2009). Motivation can be defined plainly as ‘the process whereby goal-directed activity is investigated and sustained (Pintrich & Schunk 1996: 5). Motivation, can be generally be sub-divided to two which are menifested as internal elements known as intrinsict motivation while the external ones is generally termed as extrinsict. The linkages between motivation, process of learning and acheivements have been widely established by Schiefele and Rheinberg (1997) and by a renowned psychologist, Boekaerts (2001). Erb (1996) in his study about the lack of motivation in learning science among the high schools’ students were caused by the lack of responsibility, low self-esteem among the students, and students’ family dysfunction. The extensive researches in this field agreed that highly motivated students are more likely to understand their contents better and perform well in the subjects. In this study, the reseachers are especially interested in looking at the elements constituted by intrinsict motivation, which is believed to be the elements leading to the high cognitive thinking pertinent in constructing ideas about the abstract scientific concepts. Brophy (1998) in his research identifying the scales of motivation in learning revealed that there are four scales that are able to affect an individual’s motivation in learning. This includes self-efficacy, individual’s goals, task value and the learning environment. From a science education perspectives, all these scales were dominant in assisiting a science learner towards the construction of science conceptions (Pintrinch et al., 1993). In a more recent study of developing an instrument to measure students’ motivation in science learning (Tuan et al., 2005), they pointed out that there are numerous scales of motivation. However, the scales that they felt as paramount to be measured specifically in science learners are self-efficacy, active learning strategies, science learning value, performance goal, achievement goal, and learning environment. Due to the limited space for discussion purposes, this paper highlights only on three scales of motivation, which include self-efficacy, active learning strategy and achievement goal. Self efficacy is the belief of the individual on himself or herself in accomplishing any tasks that was regarded as either hard or easy at first (Bandura, 1997). The scale of students’ active role was included to reflect the constructivist’s perspective adopted by this paper. The belief that knowledge is actively constructed and varies from one individual to another is the basic foundation for this theory. Therefore, active learning is necessary as students take charge of their own learning, with the values integrated into science learning (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993). The activities include scientific inquiry, problem-solving and relating the learnt concepts into everyday life. All of these activities and the determination in doing it are very much related to the nature of their motivation. Achievement goal, on the other hand, highlights the desire to accomplish goals through their own intrinsic motivation, and consistently in the dire need to improve their competency in doing it (Deci & Ryan, 1991).
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
705
Positive emotions is associated with students’ reports of their motivation in learning (Turner, Meyer, Midgley, & Patrick, 2003; Turner & Patrick, 2004). Emotions also has been reported as one of the main elements built by student’s motivation towards learning and their relationships with teachers [lecturers] (Meyer & Turner, 2006). Intrinsic motivation has been reported to influence happiness among students in universities and colleges in the US (Waterman, et al., 2008). Study by Nix, Ryan, Manly and Deci (1999) distinguished existence relationship between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation with happiness and vitality. Therefore, this exploratory research is aiming to find out whether the relationships between motivation and happiness existed among the students in that particular polytechnic. 2. Method The quantitative method is used in this study in order to explore whether there is relationship existed between motivation and happiness. It also aimed to measure the relationship (if any) between motivation and happiness based on past researches that has been established in the west which reported on the existence of this particular relationship. 2.1 Participants The samples of this study were selected from a Polytechnic institution of a state in Malaysia with a total number of 40 students participated in this study. All of the respondents were from the science background majoring in Mechanical Engineering (N=15), Civil Engineering (N=12) and Electrical Engineering (N=13). The respondents are in their second semester of their course of study which was regarded by the researchers as suitable for the purpose of this study. This is because the subjects of the study are familiar with the environment of the higher learning institution and are not expected to complete their study very soon. The students involved in this study were the weak students referred personally by their lecturers. They scored from low to average of grade point average (GPA) in their past examination which was below 2.5. This measure was regarded as appropriate as they were only undertaking examinations for science courses. This group of students represented the total of 100 low performance students chosen by the Faculty of Engineering of this institution. 2.2 Measures 2.2.1 Student’s Happiness The instrument used to measure happiness among student was derived by Fordyce’s (1988, 2005) which measure the students’ general happiness. The instrument has two parts. The first part measure the perceive quality of general happiness while the second part measure the estimation of time an individual feel happy, unhappy and neutral. The 10-point scales in the first part was converted to 5-point in order to standardized the results ranging from 1 (very sad) to 5 (extremely happy). The frequency percentage of happiness time in the second part remains unchanged. This instrument is chosen because it is a thorough analyzed wellbeing measure and has been considered as the ‘granddaddy’ of happiness measures (Fordyce, 1988). The statements has been supported by Diener (1984) where among 20 happiness and wellbeing reviewed, Fordyce’s Happiness Measures has the strongest correlations with daily affect and life satisfaction. 2.2.2 Motivation in Learning The instrument used to determine the three scales of motivation in learning science-self efficacy, active learning strategy and achievement goals are adopted form the students’ Motivation Toward Science Learning (SMTSL) instrument, developed by Tuan et al. (2005). This instrument contained 16 items accessing the respondents’ level of motivation, with 5 point Likert’s scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
706
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
agree). The cronbach alpha values derived from reliability tests for this study are .705 (self-efficacy), .720 (active learning strategy) and .847 (achievement goals). 2.3 Analysis The responses obtained from the students in measuring their happiness and motivation in learning were analyzed using SPSS version 17. The data was first analyzed for the means in order to determine the level of the students’ happiness and their motivation in learning. The data was further analyzed for correlation and regression to test the relationships existed between motivation in learning and happiness. 3. Results 3.1 Descriptive Statistics Mean scores for the two dimensions are slightly above average. Total mean for motivation in learning is 3.53. The highest mean score among all is achievement goal (M= 3.88; SD= .60). The lowest score for learning motivation in science’s variable is self-efficacy (M=3.1; SD= 4.61). The lowest score is happiness (M=3.13; SD= .844). The results indicate that these low performer students are moderately happy. Table 1: Mean score for motivation in learning science and happiness No
Variable
Mean
SD
1
Happiness
3.13
.844
2
Motivation in Learning (ML) Self-Efficacy
3.17
.461
Active Learning Strategy
3.53
.471
Achievement Goal
3.88
.640
Total average for ML
3.53
Note: 1.00 – 2.99 = low; 3.00 – 3.99 = moderate; 4.00 – 5.00 = high
Another test to measure the students’ happiness is through the allocation of their feelings (out of 100%) into three different categories which are the time they feel happy, unhappy, and neutral. This is an estimation of percentage of time the respondents felt for the three categories of feelings. The average of the percentages of time allocated by the respondents is measured to represent the norm for these particular respondents (low science achievers) as suggested by Fordyce (2005). The results showed that the students felt happy for most of the time (%=52). Although the percentage of being ‘happy’ was at 52%, it cannot be claimed that they are really happy as it was only 2%, which is slightly more out of half of their entire time. The percentage different between ‘unhappy’ (%=22) and ‘neutral’ (%=26) is only at 4%. Table 2: Mean score for the percentage of time of students’ emotions No
Variable
(%)
2
The percent of the time I feel happy
52
3
The percent of the time I feel unhappy
22
4
The percent of the time I feel neutral
26
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
707
3.2 Correlation results Table 3 shows that self-efficacy and happiness is significant and positively correlated with student’s happiness (r= .521) at .01 level. Active learning strategy was also found to be positively correlated with happiness (r= .505) at .01 level. However, achievement goal was found to be not correlated with the student’s happiness (r= .293). Active learning strategy was positively correlated with self-efficacy (r=.377) at a significant level of .05. Achievement goal is positively correlated with active learning strategy (r=.496) significant at .01 level. However, achievement goal is not correlated with self-efficacy (r= .175). The result showed that all relationships were positive. Table 3: Correlation results between happiness, self-efficacy, and active learning strategy and achievement goal No/Item 1. Happiness
1 1
2
2. Self-Efficacy
.521**
1
3. Active Learning Strategy
.505**
.377*
1
.293
.175
.496**
4. Achievement Goal
3
4
1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
3.3 Coefficient for the predictor variables Table 4 shows that there were two model tested for coefficients. This was due to insignificant results for achievement goal during correlation analysis and it was excluded during the test for the second model. In the first model, only self-efficacy is significant (t= 2.247) (p < .05). Active learning strategy and achievement goal were both found to be not significant (p > .05) with students’ happiness. The t value for active learning strategy is 1.570 while achievement goal is at .489. The r square is .354. The model tested is significant at level .002. In the second model for coefficient as achievement goal was removed, both self-efficacy and active learning strategy are significant with student’s happiness where the p value is below .05. The t-value for self-efficacy is 2.250 and active learning strategy is 2.036. The R square for the second model is .349. The result in model 1 showed that self-efficacy, active learning strategy and achievement goal contributed 35.4% to student’s happiness. In model 2, self-efficacy and active learning strategy contributed 34.9% to the students’ happiness. Model 2 was able to explain better significant relationship between motivation in learning science and the students’ happiness at P=.001.
708
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
Table 4: Coefficient result for motivation in learning and happiness Coefficientsa Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
-1.168
.251
(Constant)
B -1.216
Std. Error 1.041
Beta
1
.664 .526 .101 -1.066
.295 .335 .206 .984
.361 .283 .078
2
SelfEfficacy ActiveLearningStrategy AchievementGoal (Constant)
2.247 1.570 .489 -1.084
.031 .126 .628 .286
.657 .292 .357 .600 .295 .323 a. Dependent Variable: Happiness
2.250 2.036
.031 .049
Self Efficacy Active Learning Strategy
3.4 Regression Analyses Table 5 showed the result on regression analysis. The first model tested was significant at .002 with the f value of 6.198. The first model consisted of self-efficacy, active learning strategy and achievement goal as the predictors. The second model tested was significant at .001 and it consisted of only self-efficacy and active learning strategy as predictors. Achievement goal was removed in the second model in order to ensure that this research look for the most accurate relationships between motivation in learning sciences and the student’s happiness. Table 5: Regression analysis for motivation in learning and happiness ANOVAc Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F 1 Regression 9.313 3 3.104 6.198 Residual 17.029 34 .501 Total 26.342 37 2 Regression 9.193 2 4.597 9.382 Residual 17.149 35 .490 Total 26.342 37 a. Predictors: (Constant), Achievement Goal, Self Efficacy, Active Learning Strategy b. Predictors: (Constant), SelfEfficacy, ActiveLearningStrategy
Sig. .002a .001b
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
709
4. Discussion The results indicated that the relationships between motivation in learning and happiness exist. Similar with testing the relationship between two concepts of happiness (hedonic and eudaimonia) with intrinsic motivation (Waterman, et al., 2008), this research found that those who are motivated are happy and those who are happy are motivated to learn. Through the correlation analysis, the results found that self-efficacy and active learning strategy are related to students’ happiness. In contrast with our objective, achievement goal was found to be not significantly correlated with happiness. This research also revealed that only self-efficacy and active learning strategy were significant to happiness in regression analysis. This may be because the achievement goal may be influenced by other external variables and elements that actually affect their achievement goals. This suggested that achievement goal as a partial extrinsic motivation scale where social influence involving rewards and punishment might existed (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). Whereas, self-efficacy and active learning strategy are both fully intrinsic motivation (Nilsen, 2009). In the perspective of science learning, it was found that the more dominant scales of students’ motivation were self efficacy and active roles. They felt more gratified and thus, happy when they are engaging actively in learning science fueled by their own interest in learning new knowledge. The need for engaging the students with active learning sessions in an interactive climate makes them more happy and hence, more motivated to learn science. The motivation involved here, is found to be related very closely with their self efficacy. This finding suggested that science learning in Polytechnic should be made engaging and interesting, while involving not only hands-on, but minds-on activities as well. As this study has found significant positive relationships between these two variables, the institution should now focus on encouraging the students to become motivated as to create healthier life that lead to broaden thought action that will influence the students’ future undertaking such as in program courses and career selections (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Although the motivation towards learning somehow determine and responsible by the students themselves (Higbee, 1996), the social input such as lectures personality and learning facilities do have such impacts (Brewer, 2005). 5. Conclusion Findings of this research indicated that motivation in learning appear to have an influence on students’ happiness. The higher self-efficacy and active learning strategy that they are having, the happier they are which lead to better academic achievement in the future. Motivation in learning associated with students’ happiness is a field still underexplored, especially in the Malaysian setting. An extension of this study in looking at the relationships between motivation in learning science with motivational aspects within the students through a qualitative method, or a blend of both qualitative and quantitative methods can be helpful in providing in-depth understanding of this issue. Thus, more focus should be emphasized on the motivation-variables involved, specifically in studying the motivation of the polytechnic students. The study on students’ motivation and happiness in learning science should be given enough emphasis, or else the objective of science education in Malaysia will certainly fall short. References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990) Retrieved 23 February, 2012, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm#Nature Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. [Editorial]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147-154. doi: 10.1002/job.515 Bloom, J. W. (1992). The development of scientific knowledge in elementary school children: A context of meaning perspectives. Science Education, 76(4), 99-413.
710
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
Boekaerts, M. (2001). Context Sensitivity: Activated Motivational Beliefs, Current Concerns and Emotional Arousal. In S. Volet & S. Jarvela (Eds.), Motivation in Learning Context: Theoretical Advances and Methodological Implications (pp. 17-31). Amsterdam: Pergamon. Brewer, E. W. (2005). Professor's Role in Motivating Students to Attend Class. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 42(3), 23-47. Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating Students to Learn. WI: McGraw Hill. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspective on Motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237-288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43. Erb, M. (1996). Increasing Students' Responsibility for Their Learning Through Multiple Intelligence Activities and Cooperative Learning. Master Thesis. Saint Xavier University. IL. Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Fordyce, M. W. (1983). A Program to Increase Happiness: Further Studies. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 30(4), 483-489. Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research in The Happiness Measures: A sixty second index of happiness and mental health. Social Indicators Research, 20, 62-89. Fordyce, M. W. (2005). A review of research on the happiness measures: A sixty second index of happiness and mental health. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Citation classics from social indicator research: the most cited articles (pp. 373). Berlin: Springer. Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical transactions. Biological sciences, 359(1449), 1367. Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognitive Emotions, 19(3), 313-332. Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007). Nonscience majors learning cience: A theoretical model of motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1088-1107. doi: 10.1002/tea Higbee, J. C. (1996). Ability, preparation, or motivation? Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 13, 93-96. Ismail, A. R. (7 November 2012). Too few science students: DPM, The Sun, p. 2. Juriševič, M., Glažar, S. A., Vogrinc, J., & Devetak, I. (2009). Intrinsic Motivation for Learning Science through Educational Vertical in Slovenia. Paper presented at the Fifth Biennal Self International Conference, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates. Kamal, N., Yunus, Y., Ishak, S., & Razak, A. Z. A. A. (2010). Motivation, empowerment, service quality and polytechnic students' level of satisfaction in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(1), 120-128. Keiser, J. C. (2010). Identifying variations in thinking about the nature of science: A phenomenographic study. Doctoral Dissertation. ProQuest database. Khan, A., & Husain, A. (2010). Social Support as a Moderator of Positive Psychological Strengths and Subjective Well-being. Pschological Report, 106(2), 534-538. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695-706. Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2006). Re-conceptualizing Emotion and Motivation to Learn in Classroom Contexts. Education Psychology Review, 18, 377-390. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9032-1 Michalos, A. C. (2007). Education, Happiness and Well-being. Paper presented at the Is happiness measurable and what do those measures mean for public policy?, University of Rome. Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55, 56-67. Nilsen, H. (2009). Influence on Student Academic Behavior through Motivation, Self-Efficacy and Value-Expecation: An Action Research Project to Improve Learning. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 6, 545-556. Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through Self-Regulation: The Effects of Autonomous and Controlled Motivation on Happiness and Vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 266-284. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91-106. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Application. Englewood, Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determinatioan theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Schiefele, U., & Rheinberg, F. (1997). Motivation and Knowledge Acquisition: Searching for Mediating Processes In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 21-301). Greenwich: JAI Press. Segerstrom, S. C. (2006). Breaking Murphy's Law: How Optimists Get What They Want from Life - and Pessimists Can Too. New York: Guilford Press. Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Positive education: positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293. doi: 10.1080/03054980902934563 Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology. An Introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive Psychology Progress. Empirical Validation of Interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421. Talib, O., Luan, W. S., Azhar, S. C., & Abdullah, N. (2009). Uncovering Malaysian Students' Motivation to Learning Science. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 266-276. Tuan, H.-L., Chin, C.-C., & Shieh, S.-H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students' motivation towards science learning International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639-654.
Safiah Omar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 702 – 711
711
Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Midgley, C., & Patrick, H. (2003). Teacher discourse and students' affect and achievement-related behaviors in two high mastery/high performance clasrooms. Elementary School Journal, 103, 357-382. Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106, 1759-1785. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intirinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31. Waterman, A. S., Schwarts, S. J., & Conti, R. (2008). The Implications of Two Conceptions of Happiness (Hedonic Enjoyment and Eudaimonia) for the Understanding of Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 41-79. doi: 10.1007/s10902-0069020-7 Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., S, Schiefele, U., Roeser, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personaliy development (6th ed., pp. 933-1002). New York: Wiley. Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 437-442. Wright, T. A., Cropanzo, R., & Bonett, D. G. (In press). The moderating role of employee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.