Baku, Azerbaijan| 307
ESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 1. January, 2011, Part I
that intrinsic motivation for education drops from grades 3-9 though the exact cause cannot be ascertained. Also, inyounger students it has been shown that contextualizing material that would otherwise be presented in an abstractmanner increases the intrinsic motivation of these students
(Susan1981, Diana &Mark, 1995).
2.2. Extrinsic Motivation
Extrinsic motivation is initiated by outside stimulus. Group competition, reward from teacher, the opportunityfor participation in planning and decision making seems to have very beneficial effect upon learning. As a matter of facts, students readily become interested in things, which are new, or exciting, in things for which they can perceivepractical value (Kumar, 2006).Extrinsic motivation
comes into play when a student is compelled to do something or act a certain waybecause of factors external to him or her (like money or good grades).Whyte (1979) and Whyte & Lauridsen (1980) researched and reported about the importance of locus of control and academic achievement. Students tending toward a more internal locus of control are moreacademically successful, thus encouraging curriculum and activity development with consideration of motivationtheories.
3. MOTIVATION IN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING
Problem-based learning environment provides both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Many younger students seek to achieve stars, group points, and teacher’s approval, all of which are forms of rewards. Older students need to reflect on the motivational influences on their lives and learning. Problems provide opportunity tothe students to take risks, to apply knowledge, to adopt new understanding, and to experience the thrill of beingdiscoverers. Success at school and in examinations, as well as social influences, all is strong factors to motivatethem (Overall and Sangster, 2006).
4. THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The study sought to examine the impact of motivation in problem based learning environment on theacademic achievement of High achievers and Low achievers in the subject of mathematics.
5. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
1. There is no significa9nt difference between the mean scores of high achievers of experimental and controlgroups.2. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of the low achievers of experimental andcontrol groups.
The study was experimental in nature hence a pre-test post-test equivalent group design was used in thisstudy.
6.1. Population and Sampling Procedure
The students of class 8th of Government High /Middle Schools of district Bannu constituted the populationof the study. This was an experimental study, therefore only one school was selected for the experiment. Thesample of the study was 38 students comprising of two sections A and B of 8
class of Government Girls Higher Secondary School Ghoriwala, Bannu (Pakistan). Sample students were divided in to two groups, i.e. theexperimental group and the control group. Both the groups were equated on the basis of pre-test scores .Eachgroup comprised 38 students.
A researcher made pre-test was administered before the allocation of students to the experimental andcontrol groups .Immediately after the treatment was over , a researcher made post-test was administered to boththe groups. The purpose of pre-test tests was to equate the control and experimental groups, while the purpose of post-test was to measure the achievement of students constituting the sample. Both the pre-test and post-test werealmost parallel with same difficulty level.
The test included 8 questions containing multiple choice questions,matching questions, fill in the blanks with correct answer and practical solutions to mathematical problems tomeasure students 'academic achievement and performance skills respectively. All the items in the test based onthe 8
grade mathematics syllabus in the area of Set, Information Handling and Geometry. The test was written inthe form to cover the areas of knowledge, comprehension and application level. The same mathematicsachievement test was used for post-test treatment but the numbers of questions were changed from the pre-test.The validity of the items was assessed by the doctoral committee and two mathematics education experts.
6.3. Data Collection Procedure
Experimental group (n = 19) were taught set, information handling and geometry using problem basedlearning as a teaching method while control group (n = 19) were taught the same topics with traditional method.The experiment lasted for four weeks and it was expected that this period was long enough as not to permit thepre-test to affect the post-test scores and the items were rearranged before administering the post-test.
7. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The data collected were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, and t-test and the results are presentedin the following tables