Journal of Marketing Education

http://jmd.sagepub.
com
Journal of Marketing Education
DOI: 10.1177/0273475304273346
2005; 27; 25 Journal of Marketing Education
Mark R. Young
The Motivational Effects of the Classroom Environment in Facilitating Self-Regulated Learning
http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/1/25
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Marketing Educators Association
can be found at: Journal of Marketing Education Additional services and information for
http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jmd.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/27/1/25
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
(this article cites 51 articles hosted on the Citations
2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008 http://jmd.sagepub.com Downloaded from
APRIL 2005 JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION
The Motivational Effects of the Classroom Environment
in Facilitating Self-Regulated Learning
Mark R. Young
Students can be proactive and engaged or, alternatively, lack
initiative and responsibility for their learning. Self-regulated
learning involves learning strategies and mental processes
that learners deliberately engage to help themselves learn
and perform better academically. The results of this study
provide empirical support for the theoretical relationships
among cognitive evaluation theory, achievement goal theory,
and self-regulated learning strategies in the context of the
classroom. Superficial learning strategies were linked to
extrinsic motivation, while intrinsic motivation determined
deep cognitive and metacognitive strategy usage. Perceived
autonomy, perceived competence, and task mastery orienta-
tion mediated the classroom environments effect on intrinsic
motivation. These findings suggest that active application-
oriented experience delivered by enthusiastic faculty, who
provide high interaction, supportive feedback, and clear
goals that emphasize learning over grades, will increase
intrinsic motivation and the use of self-regulated learning
strategies. Teaching guidelines and pedagogical examples
for enhancing intrinsic motivation are provided.
Keywords: motivation; self-regulated learning; classroom
environment; goal orientation; cognitive evalua-
tion theory
Assumptions that learning automatically occurs in associ-
ation with simply attending class have largely disappeared.
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Busi-
nesss (AACSB2003) newstandards nowexplicitly include a
student educational responsibility standard stating that stu-
dents have an obligation to actively participate in their educa-
tional experiences, and that learning outcomes should clearly
show evidence of significant student engagement (http://
www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/brc/standards-4-25.pdf, p. 52).
Students increased involvement in their own learning pro-
cess is thought to better prepare them for rapidly changing
technologies and business paradigms by developing their
ability to learn how to learn in preparation for careers that
demand lifelong learning skills. Chonko (2003) suggested
that the most important thing marketing educators can do for
their students is convince them to take complete responsibil-
ity for their education. Taking responsibility for learning
requires active participation by the learners to initiate and
control their learning process along with supportive learning
strategies (Loranger 1994).
Meaningful learning involves the active process of inte-
grating and organizing information, constructing meaning,
and monitoring comprehension in order to develop a sound
understanding of a subject matter (Meece, Blumenfeld, and
Hoyle 1988). Self-regulated learning refers to this active pro-
cess and is defined as the deliberate planning and monitoring
of the cognitive and affective processes that are involved in
the successful completion of academic tasks (Corno and
Mandinach 1983). Self-regulation involves self-monitoring
and self-correction of three general aspects of learning: self-
regulation of behavior, self-regulation of motivation, and
self-regulation of cognition (Zimmerman 1995). Thus, a self-
regulated learner is empowered and able to make sense of the
learning task, to create goals and strategies, and to implement
actions to meet his or her goals within a learning context
(Ridley et al. 1992). Equipping students with self-regulatory
abilities not only contributes to success in formal education
but also promotes lifelong learning (Bandura 1993) and
represents the highest form of cognitive engagement (Corno
1986).
Traditional learning models, where the teacher prescribes
and the students perform, do not support self-regulated learn-
ing and, in fact, can deter it (Boekaerts 1997). Alternatively,
creating classroom environments that actively engage stu-
dents both experientially and cognitively have the potential of
stimulating the development of self-regulated learning.
Existing marketing literature provides numerous examples
of classroomtechniques to actively engage students, such as
student management groups (Lilly and Tippins 2002),
documented course participation (Peterson 2001), student-
25
gfdgf
Mark R. Young is a professor of marketing in the Department of Marketing at
Winona State University, Winona, MN5598; e-mail: myoung@winona.edu.
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 27 No. 1, April 2005 25-40
DOI: 10.1177/0273475304273346
2005 Sage Publications
operated Internet businesses (Daly 2001), Web-based pro-
jects (Siegel 2000), marketing trade shows (Taylor 1998), and
experiential learning exercises (Gremler et al. 2000).
However, the existing literature has not offered a comprehen-
sive model to understand the effects of these changes in the
classroom environment on the development and use of self-
regulated learning skills. The purpose of this study is to
enhance our understanding of how instructor-created
classroom environments affect students motivation to learn,
which in turn facilitates or diminishes the use of self-regulated
learning strategies. Specifically, I address three basic
research questions:
1. Do intrinsically motivated students employ different learn-
ing strategies than extrinsically motivated students?
2. How does a students achievement goal orientation, percep-
tion of competence, and sense of autonomy affect the degree
he or she tends to be intrinsically or extrinsically motivated?
3. Howdo social factors created by the classroom environment
interact with motivational cognitions to facilitate self-
regulated learning?
A relevant conceptual framework for investigating self-
regulated learning and factors that facilitate or diminish the
use of these learning strategies is the social cognitive learning
framework. Banduras (1986) social cognitive learning
framework is based on three primary factors (the social envi-
ronment, personal cognitive factors, and actual behavior) that
interact so that people are both products and producers of
their environments. Learning is viewed as knowledge acqui-
sition through cognitive possessing of information, acquired
both frombeing a part of society and fromindividual thought
processes. Students perceptions of the social environment
(classroomenvironment) and their personal cognitive factors
(self-regulated cognitions and self-regulated motivations) are
hypothesized to affect the extent and nature of their behavior
(self-regulated learning strategies) employed in an academic
setting. Figure 1 presents our conceptual model of the class-
room environment and its effect on motivation and self-regu-
lated learning within the social cognitive framework.
This article begins with a brief review of a continuum of
learning strategies that represents varying levels of self-
regulated learning behavior. Next, hypotheses are developed
using the personal cognitive factors (self-regulated motiva-
tion, self-regulated cognitions) and the social environment
(classroom) antecedents. This is followed by an overview of
the methodology and a presentation and discussion of the
findings. Finally, conclusions and implications are offered to
enhance teaching and learning effectiveness.
Self-Regulated Learning Strategies
Students can be described as self-regulated learners to the
extent that they use metacognitive, cognitive, and motiva-
tional skills as part of their learning process (Zimmerman
1989). Essential to self-regulated learning are the learning
strategies or mental processes that learners can deliberately
recruit to help themselves learn and understand something
new (Brandt 1988). A variety of different taxonomies for
learning strategies exist in the literature (Pintrich and Garcia
1991; Weinstein and Mayer 1986); however, there are three
general levels of learning strategies that are important in
understanding self-regulated learning. First, self-regulated
learning includes strategies, referred to as metacognitive
strategies, that are used for controlling and executing your
own learning process. Metacognitive refers to ones self-
awareness about ones cognitions and includes planning,
monitoring, and regulating cognitions and factors in the
learning process (Pintrich and De Groot 1990; Somuncuoglu
26 APRIL 2005

FIGURE 1: A Social Cognitive Framework for Self-Regulated Learning
NOTE: Arrows represent hypothesized relations.
and Yildirim 1999). Second, cognitive strategies are used to
retrieve, encode, and organize new information and can be
subdivided into two levels. Deep cognitive strategies facili-
tate long-term retention through elaboration, organization,
and critical thinking, resulting in a higher level of cognitive
engagement. Third, superficial cognitive strategies refer to
rehearsal strategies that help encode new information into
short-term memory by repetition, highlighting, and
memorization (Pintrich 1988).
The particular learning strategies that students actuallyuse
are thought to be context-specific traits rather than general
traits (Somuncuoglu and Yildirim 1999). Situational
demands are the initiating factors that shape students cogni-
tive and motivational orientations, which in turn lead to vari-
ance in students use of learning strategies (Ames and Archer
1988). Considerable research indicates that use of self-
regulated learning strategies (metacognitive and deep cogni-
tive) is highly related to quality of learning, performance, and
positive academic outcomes (Ainley 1993; Das, Naglieri, and
Murphy 1995; Hwang and Vrongistinos 2002; Pintrich and
DeGroot 1990; Pintrich and Garcia 1991; Weinstein and
Mayer 1986; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 1986). Aholis-
tic perception of learning suggests that learners must have a
repertoire of various learning strategies and know when to
use each strategy most effectively (Weinstein et al. 1989).
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Self-Regulation of Motivation
Students simply knowing about metacognitive and
cognitive learning strategies are not enough to promote their
active engagement in the learning process and their use of
self-regulated learning. Students must also be motivated to
implement and regulate appropriate learning strategies and
behaviors (Pintrich 1988, 1989). Theories of motivation
attempt to explain factors mediating learning behavior in a
quest for an understanding of background reasons for student
effort and action (Somuncuoglu and Yildirim1999). Motiva-
tion may be defined as a driving force for students learning
goals, the activities they choose to engage in to reach those
goals, and the intensity with which they engage in the activi-
ties (Rothstein 1990; Woolfolk 1990).
Students can be moved to act by very different factors. In
some cases, it may be an inherent interest in the subject, a per-
sonal commitment to excel, or because they value the activity.
These factors contrast greatly with occasions when there is a
strong external coercion, bribe, or fear of failure that drives
behavior. These two basic types of motivational orientations,
intrinsic and extrinsic (Harter 1981), are thought to have
potentially different consequences for self-regulated learn-
ing. Intrinsic motivation refers to the performance of an activ-
ity for the inherent satisfaction of the activity itself, while
doing the activity in order to attain some separable outcome,
is extrinsic motivation. Intrinsically motivated students are
thought to seek out challenges, to extend and exercise their
capabilities, and to explore and learn, compared with extrinsi-
cally motivated students who seek rewards such as grades,
ego enhancement, and social recognition (Ryan and Deci
2000).
Studentsmotivated behaviors regarding choice of tasks as
well as their effort and persistence in academic tasks have
been directly related to their level of intrinsic motivation
(Ferrer-Caja and Weiss 2000, 2002). In addition, Pintrich and
Garcia (1991) reported a very strong relationship (r = .73)
between intrinsic motivation and the use of self-regulated
learning strategies; in particular, students who had high
intrinsic motivation were more likely to use metacognitive
strategies.
Extrinsically motivated students look for social approval
and reinforcement, prefer easy schoolwork, and depend on
the teacher for feedback and direction (Meece, Blumenfeld,
and Hoyle 1988). Empirical studies have supported the con-
tention that students who are mainly motivated by extrinsic
factors tend to engage in academic tasks that require superfi-
cial cognitive strategies (Ames 1992; Dweck and Leggett
1988; Pintrinch and De Groot 1990). Hwang and
Vrongistinos (2002) found both high and low academic
achievers reported frequent use of extrinsic motivations such
as grades and rewards. Therefore, extrinsic motivation may
produce positive academic outcomes but may do so at the
expense of self-regulated learning, making it even more
important to understand the effects of motivation in the learn-
ing process. Therefore, I hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1a: Extrinsically motivated students will use superfi-
cial learning strategies.
Hypothesis 1b: Intrinsically motivated students will use deep
cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
Self-Regulation of Cognitions
The way students perceive and construe meaning fromthe
classroomenvironment that leads to individual differences in
an intrinsic or extrinsic motivational response may be exam-
ined with social cognitive theories of motivation. Two rele-
vant and complementary motivation theories are achievement
goal theory (Nicholls 1989), which focuses on the effect of
task and ego involvement on motivation, and cognitive eval-
uation theory (Deci and Ryan 1985), which examines how
perceived competence (self-efficacy) and autonomy (self-
determination) affect motivation. Perceived competence is
central to both theories. However, achievement goal theory
views competence as either differentiated or undifferentiated
ability, whereas cognitive evaluation theory regards compe-
tence as a human need to be satisfied. These two theories have
extensive application in educational psychology, tend to be
inclusive of other motivational frameworks (Somuncuoglu
and Yildirim1999), and may be the most influential in facili-
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 27
tating our understanding of cognitive factors that mediate
motivated behavior (Ntoumanis 2001), thus forming the the-
oretical foundation for this investigation.
Achievement goal theory postulates that variation in goal
orientations can lead to differences in motivations and behav-
ior (Duda and Whitehead 1998). Goal orientations are
dispositional tendencies, reflecting different ways of
cognitively processing outcomes of a given activity to form
achievement criteria for defining success (Ntoumanis 2001).
Nicholls (1989) proposed two primary goal orientations of
task mastery orientation and ego-social orientation. Situa-
tional cues in the social environment may influence the
degree to which one perceives a differentiation in his or her
competence as the primary achievement criteria. If the situa-
tional cues emphasize competition, normative standards, and
public evaluation, then achievement success is demonstrated
by showing superior ability (differentiated competence) and
an ego-social orientation is prevalent (Ntoumanis 2001). Peo-
ple with high ego-social orientation, focusing on the relative
adequacy of their ability in defining success, demonstrate
extrinsically motivated behaviors (Brunel 1999). Empiri-
cally, Somuncuoglu and Yildirim (1999) found a correlation
of .40 between an ego-social orientation and superficial cog-
nitive strategy usage. However, when the situational cues do
not emphasize differentiated competence but instead
emphasize mastering the task itself (e.g., learning) or self-
improvement, then a task mastery orientation is likely. High
task mastery orientation is assumed to lead to intrinsically
motivated behaviors, regardless of perceived competence,
because these individuals do not judge their success on their
ability to demonstrate superiority. Task orientation has posi-
tively predicted intrinsic motivation in accordance to goal ori-
entation theory (Dorobantu and Biddle 1997; Ntoumanis
2001; Somuncuoglu and Yildirim 1999; Vlachopoulos and
Biddle 1996) and, thus, should enhance the use of deep cogni-
tive and metacognitive learning strategies. Therefore, I pro-
pose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: High ego-social orientation will be positively
associated with extrinsic motivation.
Hypothesis 2b: High task mastery orientation will be positively
associated with intrinsic motivation.
Cognitive evaluation theory focuses on environmental
factors that affect the fundamental needs of competence and
autonomy, which in turn account for the variability in intrin-
sic motivation. Cognitive evaluation theory is a subtheory
within Deci and Ryans (1985) self-determination
metatheory that assumes that people have an inherent intrin-
sic motivation that will be catalyzed when individuals are in
conditions conducive toward its expression. Ryan and Deci
(2000) provided a comprehensive summary of their theories
and reported that intrinsic motivation has been strongly
linked with the satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and
competence. Autonomy is characterized by an internal locus
of control and the perception that behaviors are freely chosen.
Increasing perceived autonomy, by giving students some
control over their learning experiences, tends to increase
intrinsic motivation (Van Voorhis 1995). The perception of
being effective in the things we do and the feeling of mastery
characterizes competence. Harter (1981) reported that chil-
dren who perceive themselves as academically competent
generally develop an intrinsic motivation orientation, com-
pared with children with low perceived competence who
exhibit an extrinsic motivation orientation. Perceived compe-
tence was also found to be positively related to the use of cog-
nitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and persistency in
completing academic tasks (Pintrich and De Groot 1990).
Consequently, I hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2c: High perceived autonomy will be positively asso-
ciated with intrinsic motivation.
Hypothesis 2d: High perceived competence will be positively
associated with intrinsic motivation.
Social Environment
Vallerand (1997) proposed a framework in which the
social environmental factors, cognitive mediators, motiva-
tion, and consequences were separated in an effort to examine
the broader multivariate relationships underlying intrinsic
motivation. Ferrer-Caja and Weiss (2000, 2002) found empir-
ical support for this framework with different student samples
taking courses both as requirements and as electives. Ferrer-
Caja and Weiss specified the relevant social environment as
consisting of factors that created the motivational climate in
the classroom such as the learning climate, the performance
climate, and teaching style. In their structural equation mod-
eling analysis, they concluded that the greatest degree of sup-
port was for the model that separated social environmental
factors from personal cognitive factors, which led to intrinsic
motivation.
Classroom environments that enhance perceived auton-
omy by providing student choices and opportunities for self-
direction have been associated with increased intrinsic moti-
vation, while extrinsic rewards were found to undermine
intrinsic motivation (Deci 1975). Results from a comprehen-
sive meta-analysis (Deci, Koestner, and Ryan 1999) suggest
that offering tangible rewards contingent on task perfor-
mance will undermine intrinsic motivation because of the
external perceived locus of causality and the diminished
sense of self-determination. Evidence also shows that teach-
ers who are autonomy supportive instill greater levels of
intrinsic motivation (Deci, Nezlek, and Sheinman 1981;
Flink, Boggiano, and Barrett 1990), while students taught in a
more controlling environment lose initiative and learn less
effectively (Amabile 1996; Utman 1997).
Recent articles in the marketing education literature pro-
vide examples of designing the classroomenvironment (Lilly
28 APRIL 2005
and Tippins 2002) and using teaching techniques (Peterson
2001) specifically to enhance student autonomy, leading to
greater intrinsic motivation and participation. Creating an
active learning environment, as compared to the traditional
classroom, has been linked to higher student motivation (Gar-
cia and Pontrich 1996; Stipek, Salmon, and Givven 1998) and
enhanced intellectual development (McKeachie 1990).
Students who perceived their classroom environment as
emphasizing competition and norm-referenced criteria
reported adopting a social comparison as a means to assess
their success. In contrast, students who perceived their
classes focused on learning used self-improvement criteria
(task mastery) as their success indicator (Ferrer-Caja and
Weiss 2002). This same study also reported that teachers per-
ceived as being flexible in allowing students to set their own
goals and organize their activities were viewed as enhancing
students self-determination. Data from this study, and their
previous study (Ferrer-Caja and Weiss 2000), support a
model in which goal orientation, perceived autonomy, and
perceived competence mediate the influence of social factors
on motivation. The mediating influence of personal cognitive
factors on the classroom-environments effect on motivation
is consistent with the two social cognitive motivation theories
presented above, in addition to the social cognitive learning
framework modeled in Figure 1. Therefore, I hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 3a: The effect of classroom-environmental factors
on motivation will be mediated by achievement goal
orientation.
Hypothesis 3b: The effect of classroom-environmental factors
on motivation will be mediated by perceived autonomy and
competence.
METHOD
Data Collection
The data were collected midway through spring semester
2003 by administering an in-class survey to each section of
Principles of Marketing, Market Analysis, Marketing Plan-
ning, and Marketing Management, which are the required
core courses in the marketing curriculum at a midwestern 4-
year public university. The sequence of courses is designed to
systematically expose students to a variety of instructional
methods and cover the traditional marketing curriculumin an
integrated manner. Market Analysis is structured around
group research projects, Marketing Planning uses Internet
research to analyze cases, and Marketing Management is
structured around decision making based on computer simu-
lations. In addition, all classes require written communica-
tions and oral presentations. Class size for Principles of Mar-
keting is approximately 45 students per section, while the
other three courses are limited to 25 students per section and
are team taught.
A typical absenteeism rate on the day of the survey pro-
duced a response rate of approximately 88%, yielding an
effective sample of 257. The four-course sequence prevented
duplicative responses since students may take only one of the
four classes in a given semester. The distribution of the com-
pleted sample across classes was Principles of Marketing
(four sections), n = 168 (65%); Market Analysis (two sec-
tions), n = 36 (14%); Marketing Planning (two sections), n =
38 (15%); and Marketing Management (one section), n = 15
(6%). Demographically, the sample can be described as tradi-
tional undergraduates, 49% female, 31% marketing majors,
and 23% marketing minors. In addition, the Principles of
Marketing students closely mirrored the College of Busi-
nesss distribution of majors (accounting 19%, business
administration 42%, marketing 18%, and other business
21%). The grade point average for the sample was 3.0, and the
number of credit hours completed ranged from 19 to 128,
with the average number of credits of 70. The researcher/
author was not an instructor in any of the courses comprising
the sample. In summary, the sample seems to represent typi-
cal undergraduate students at various stages of completing a
traditional marketing curriculum.
Measures
Students responded to a four-page self-report question-
naire with scales for each of the major variables grouped
together with individual items randomly ordered within the
scale. A variety of response anchors, scales, and number of
response points were used to reduce halo effect and
multicollinearity. For consistency, scales were modified so
they were presented in the first person and referenced the spe-
cific marketing class being taken.
Self-regulated learning. Self-regulated learning is defined
and measured as a composite index (a linear sum of a set of
measurements) composed of three levels with seven
substrategies. Aformative indicator specification was chosen
for the measurement model to represent the causal priority
running from the measured indicators to the latent construct
self-regulated learning. If any one of the seven subscales
increases, self-regulated learning would increase; conversely,
if a students self-regulated learning increases, this would not
be accompanied by an increase in all seven subscales.
The construction of the index first proceeded with a clear
specification of the scope of the latent variable. Self-regulated
learning is conceptualized as three general types of learning
strategies with seven substrategies: (a) superficial cognitive
(rehearsal), (b) deep cognitive (elaboration, organization, and
critical thinking), and (c) metacognitive (planning, regulat-
ing, and monitoring) (Hwang and Vrongistinos 2002;
Somuncuoglu and Yildirim 1999). Next, items used as indi-
cators for each of the substrategies were specified to ensure
coverage of the entire scope of self-regulated learning. The
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich
and De Groot 1990), the College Students Self-Regulated
Learning Questionnaire (Hwang and Vrongistinos 2002),
and items from Somuncuoglu and Yildirms (1999) Self-
Regulated Learning Questionnaire formed the pool of items
for specifying the domain of the construct. Items were elimi-
nated that pertained to subscales not included in our defini-
tion of self-regulated learning such as test anxiety, effort man-
agement, and persistence, as well as duplicative items across
scales. The remaining items were categorized into the seven
subscales of self-regulated learning. Nonredundant items
were then selected, by researcher judgment, in an effort to
ensure that each subscale was adequately defined. Each of the
more commonly used substrategies (rehearsal, organization,
and elaboration) were measured with 3 items, while the
higher level learning strategies were composed of 2 items,
each creating a 17-item index, which is presented in Table 1.
The 17 items defining self-regulated learning strategies were
randomly ordered, and a 5-point scale (never, rarely, some-
times, often, and always) was used to indicate how often the
student used a given learning strategy in his or her specific
marketing course. The above process seems consistent with
Diamantopoulos and Winklhofers (2001) index creation
guidelines. In addition, from a practical data collection
demand perspective, this process also reduced an excessive
number of indicators to a more manageable level.
The suitability of this formative index was then examined.
First, the issue of multicollinearity among the items was
assessed. Each indicator should provide a unique influence
on the latent variable with minimal redundancy since the for-
mative measurement model is based on a multiple regression.
This is in contrast to the traditional internal consistency mea-
sures used with reflective measures, which are inappropriate
for assessing indices (Bagozzi 1994). Examining the
pairwise correlations did identify one relatively high correla-
tion; however, both the correlated items were retained for
conceptual reasons. In addition, the variance inflation factors
ranged between 1.2 and 1.8, suggesting the degree of
multicollinearity is acceptable based on the less-than-10
threshold suggested by Kleinbaum, Kupper, and Muller
(1988).
The next issue is to assess the external validity of the index
by examining the theoretical relationships of the construct
with other constructs in its nomological net. The relationship
between self-regulated learning and academic performance
has been previously established in the literature (Ainley
1993; Das, Naglieri, and Murphy 1995; Hwang and
Vrongistinos 2002; Pintrich and DeGroot 1990; Pintrich and
Garcia 1991; Weinstein and Mayer 1986; Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons 1986). In this study, seven different measures
of self-reported performance were significantly correlated (r
= .19 to .36, p < .00) with the self-regulated learning index,
thus suggesting a degree of external validity.
The final analysis of this index examined the usefulness of
the subscales within the overall self-regulated learning index.
If the intrasubscale item correlations are systematically
higher than the intersubscale itemcorrelations, it suggests the
justification of subscales (Clark and Watson 1995).
Intrasubscale correlations (.36 to .44) were substantially
30 APRIL 2005
TABLE 1
Measures of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies
Strategy Subscale Formative Indicators
Superficial Rehearsal I try to memorize everything that might be asked on the exam.
I memorize lists of important terms and concepts.
I read my class notes and the course readings over and over again so I will remember them.
Deep cognitive Organization I go over my class notes and make an outline of important concepts and ideas.
I organize the information from all my class notes and the readings into simple charts,
diagrams, or tables.
I write brief summaries of the main ideas and concepts from the readings and the lectures
Elaboration I try to make connections between the readings and the concepts from lectures in order to
comprehend the course as a whole.
I try to relate concepts and ideas from this course to those in my other courses whenever
possible.
I try to apply ideas fromcourse readings to other class activities such as lecture and discussion.
Critical Thinking I think about possible alternatives whenever I hear an assertion or conclusion in this class.
I try to decide if there is supporting evidence for conclusions, interpretations, or theories that
are presented.
Metacognitive Planning I set goals for myself in order to direct my study activities.
I skim through the chapter to see how it is organized before I read it thoroughly.
Monitoring If I become confused about something I read, I go back to my previous notes and sort it out.
I try to determine which concepts I dont understand well.
Regulating I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material.
I try to determine the way I study according to the course requirements and the instructors
teaching style.
NOTE: All items scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
higher than intersubscale correlations (.13 to .22), with the
exception of the Planning subscale, suggesting the usefulness
of subscales within the overall self-regulated learning
construct.
Motivation. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations were also
conceptualized and measured as formative indicators com-
posed of 4-item composite indices. Intrinsically motivated
behaviors are driven by satisfaction, enjoyment, excitement,
and/or challenge of engaging in the activity and tap Deci and
Ryans (1985) definition of intrinsic motivation to know, to
accomplish things, and to experience stimulation. The Aca-
demic Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al. 1992) provided the
indicators (Table 2) for intrinsic motivation. The indicators
allowed each of the above definitional aspects to be repre-
sented in the index. The interitemcorrelations (r = .43 to .65)
of this index are relatively high; however, the variance infla-
tion factors (1.7 to 2.1) are below the cutoff of 10. Even with
some redundancy among indicators, conceptual consider-
ations suggest all four items remain part of the intrinsic
motivation index.
Compared with intrinsic motivation, extrinsically moti-
vated behaviors are undertaken for reasons other than the
activity itself, such as external rewards, benefits, punish-
ments, or obligations (Deci and Ryan 1985). This study
defined extrinsic motivation as externally regulated behav-
iors performed to satisfy an external demand or reward con-
tingency. Indicators for extrinsic motivation were also
selected from the Academic Motivation Scale with an item
representing each of the four external reasons specified
above. Correlations and variance inflation factors among
these items were low(.05 to .35), indicating multicollinearity
should not be an issue.
Perceived Autonomy is the degree to which students
believe they have control and choice of their behaviors (Deci
and Ryan 1985). Zhou (1998) presented three dimensions of
autonomy: choice, process, and outcome. The present study
focuses on the more global level of autonomy, the outcome
dimension, involving students perception of the control they
have over factors that affect their final grade in the course.
This notion of perceived autonomy is conceptualized as hav-
ing reflective indicators and, therefore, a multi-item scale is
used to measure the construct. Students responded to the fol-
lowing two items on a 7-point strongly agree/disagree scale:
My marketing grade is determined by things I cannot control
(luck, other students, instructor) (reversed coded), and My
marketing grade reflects my ability and effort, and I can con-
trol how well I do in this class. Coefficient alpha for these
two items is .69.
Perceived Competence represents the perceived confi-
dence students have in their competence or their ability to
accomplish some behavior. The judgment of ones capability
to execute given types of performances is central in the mea-
surement of the construct. Banduras (2001) guide for con-
structing self-efficacy scales was used to develop this scale
for general classroom activities.
The scale was patterned after examples of efficacy scales
provided in Banduras guide with the inclusion of items rep-
resenting the classroom domain. Five items sample the
domain of typical classroom performancerelated behaviors
and are presented in Table 3. Students indicated confidence
they could perform each of the behaviors on a 10-point scale
anchored with cannot do at all to certain can do. The instruc-
tions were the following: Rate your degree of confidence
that you have the ability to successfully complete . . . on a reg-
ular basis throughout this Marketing course. Bandura (2001)
recommended assessing the scales internal consistency with
itemanalysis and Cronbachs alpha. This analysis produced a
Cronbachs alpha of .81, and the item analysis indicated the
removal of any itemwould reduce the overall alpha level, sug-
gesting good internal consistency. In addition, the scales
external validity should provide evidence that people who
score high on perceived competence differ in distinct ways, as
specified by theory, from those who score low (Bandura
2001). Perceived competence in ones ability to successfully
perform classroom tasks and behaviors is theoretically asso-
ciated with actual classroom performance (Gist and Mitchell
1992). A strong positive correlation (r = .43, p < .00) was
found between the sum of the five-item Perceived Compe-
tence Scale and the sum of the seven-item performance mea-
sures. In addition, statistically significant positive correla-
tions were observed between each of the individual
competence items and the performance measures. The above
analysis indicates that higher perceived competence is related
to higher classroom performance, which is consistent with
theory, therefore suggesting a degree of external validity.
Achievement Goal Orientations represent a students
achievement criteria or what he or she desires from taking a
course. Two contrasting goal orientations, conceptualized by
Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle (1988), represent task
TABLE 2
Measures of Motivation
Formative Indicators
Your reasons for participating in this Marketing course . . .
Intrinsic motivation
I will have the satisfaction of improving my personal knowledge
and skills.
I will have a sense of personal accomplishment.
I will have completed exciting and challenging class activities.
I will have enjoyed learning about an interesting subject.
Extrinsic motivation
I think the required time will have a negative effect on my social
life and other grades.
I will have simply completed a required course, nothing more.
I will receive a good grade that will help my GPA.
I will make other people proud of me.
NOTE: All items scored on a 10-point completely agree/disagree
scale. GPA = grade point average.
mastery orientation and ego-social orientation. Task mastery
orientation represents achievement as mastery and under-
standing with an emphasis on learning or self-development.
Ego-social orientation emphasizes achieving high grades and
outperforming others for social approval and/or ego enhance-
ment. A 7-point strongly agree/disagree scale was used for
students to respond to items adapted from the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich and De Groot
1990) and are similar to items found in scales used by Park
(1992), Meece and Holt (1993), and Nolen (1986).
In the beginning of the questionnaire, students were asked,
Success in this class: Think of when you feel most success-
ful in this Marketing class, and indicate your degree of agree-
ment or disagreement with each of the following statements.
Table 3 presents the six items representing the two goal orien-
tations along with factor loadings and coefficient alphas.
Although the coefficient alphas are lower than desired, the
two dimensions were produced with principal components
factor analysis, and each item loaded on its respective
dimension.
The three items for the ego-social subscale were reverse
coded, and then all six items were summed, creating one mea-
sure for achievement goal orientation. High scores represent
task orientation that was defined as scoring high (agreeing
with the three task items) on task statements and low (dis-
agreeing with the three ego-social items) on ego-social items.
Ego-social orientation represented those students who scored
high on ego-social items and low on task-oriented items and
are represented by low scores on this Goal Orientation Scale.
Approximately 20% of the sample would be considered high
task mastery, 20% high ego-social orientated, 58% as high
on both orientations, and the remaining 2% as low on both
orientations.
1
Classroom Environment was conceptualized based on the
Learning and Performance Orientations in Physical Educa-
tion Classes Questionnaire (Papaioannou 1994) to assess the
perceived motivational climate. Items from the above scale
were selected and modified to represent the contrasting learn-
ing climates conceptualized as the tradition paradigm (pas-
sive learning approach) versus the new paradigm (active
learning approach) (Wright, Bitner, and Zeithaml 1994).
Three general subcategories for classroomenvironment, con-
sisting of the learning climate, the performance climate, and
the instructor climate, were created similar in categorization
to those reported in the study by Ferrer-Caja and Weiss
(2002). A7-point semantic differential scale format was used
to present pairs of statements representing the two
contrasting paradigms for the classroom environment.
Learning climate, performance climate, and instructor cli-
mate were considered as three separate scales as presented in
Table 4. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation
produced three factors with the expected loadings and 67%of
the variance explained. In addition, the intrascale correlations
(.40 to .64) were substantially higher than the interscale cor-
32 APRIL 2005
TABLE 3
Measures of Cognitions
Standardized Coefficient Variance
Construct and Scale Items Loadings Alpha Extracted
Perceived Autonomy .69 .67
My marketing grade is determined by things I cannot control (luck, other students, instructor).
(reverse coded) .816
My marketing grade reflects my ability and effort, and I can control how well I do in this class. .816
Perceived Competence .81 .58
Rate your degree of confidence that you have the ability to successfully complete the following
on a regular basis throughout this Marketing course.
In-class activities, discussions, and attendance .669
Group work or team assignments .770
Individual requirements, papers, or assignments .820
Formal evaluations like quizzes and exams .771
The understanding of marketing concepts and applications .774
Achievement Goal Orientations
Success in this class: Think of when you feel most successful in this Marketing class
Task Mastery Orientation .75 .66
I feel most successful in this course, when I learn new skills. .867
To me, comprehending the course content well is more important than the grade I get. .755
I want to learn and understand as much as possible in this course. .818
Ego-Social Orientation .58 .52
I aim at accomplishing this course with a high grade because I want to improve my GPA. .703
If I finish this course with a high grade, I will have shown my ability to others. .748
It is important to me to do better than other students in this class. .704
NOTE: Perceived Competence scored on a 10-point certain can/cannot do at all scale, Perceived Autonomy and Goal Orientation scored on 7-
point strongly agree/disagreescales, and Goal Orientations scoredon a 10-point completely agree/disagreescale. GPA=grade point average.
relations (.05 to .12), supporting the treatment of separate
scales. The mean interitem correlations for each of the three
scales (.64, .44, .40) seem appropriate for these constructs,
even though the coefficient alphas were .78, .65, and .67,
respectively. Clark and Watson (1995) argued that the mean
interitem correlation is a more useful index for internal con-
sistency than coefficient alpha, especially if one is to avoid
the attenuationparadox in which high itemredundancy is at
the expense of the breadth of the construct.
Method of Analysis
The proposed model and the hypothesized relationships
were examined with path analysis. Path analysis is a method
that allows the study of both direct and indirect effects of
independent variables on dependent variables (Dillion and
Goldstein 1984). In this case, the classroom environment is
hypothesized to indirectly affect self-regulated learning
behaviors through its direct effect on motivational cognitions.
Direct effects are estimated with standardized regression
coefficients, and indirect effects are the product of the respec-
tive direct path coefficients.
Given that the proposed model includes multiple depend-
ent variables that are significantly correlated as seen in Table
5, performing separate regression analyses would not incor-
porate the information provided by the interrelationships
among these dependent variables. Therefore, multivariate
multiple regression analysis was performed using the general
linear model multivariate procedure in the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences software. First, the dependent vari-
ables were examined for departures from multivariate nor-
mality by performing Kolmogorov-Smirnovs (Lilliefors sig-
nificant correction) test of normality and by examining
normal Q-Qplots. The results (all significant values were p =
.000) of these tests suggest no departures from normality. In
addition, Boxs test of equality of covariance matrices of the
dependent variables across groups (p = .661) and Levenes
test of equality of error variances across groups for each of the
dependent variables (all greater than p = .05) could not be
rejected; therefore, it seems reasonable to proceed with the
multivariate analysis.
Scatter plots of independent variables versus dependent
variables revealed no departure fromthe linearity assumption
of path analysis. Error terms are assumed to be uncorrelated,
which is reasonable in this analysis based on Durbin-Watson
statistics (1.92 to 2.02) and visual examination of standard-
ized residual plots (Dillion and Goldstein 1984). Typically,
variance inflation factors greater than 10 and tolerance limits
less then .1 would indicate multicollinearity (Mendenhall and
Sincich 1996). No evidence of multicollinearity was discov-
ered by examining the variance inflation factors (highest was
1.5) and the tolerance limits (lowest .66) for each of the
regression equations. In summary, the data appear to meet the
conditions and assumptions for effective use of path analysis.
Previous research has provided mixed results for the
effects of gender and its relationship with goal orientation and
motivational tendencies. Ferrer-Caja and Weiss (2002)
reported that women have higher task mastery orientation
TABLE 4
Measures of the Classroom Environment
Construct and Scale Items Standardized Coefficient Variance
Loadings Alpha Extracted
Instructor Climate .67 .61
Enthusiastic instructor versus apathetic instructor .783
High student-instructor personal interaction versus low student-/instructor interaction .777
Informative, supportive positive feedback versus graded comparative corrective feedback .775
Learning Climate .78 .82
Traditional learning, lecture, and readings versus active learning, hands-on experiences .91
Textbook focused, exam oriented versus real-world focused, application oriented .91
Performance Climate .65 .56
Individual performance determines grades versus group performance determines grades .833
Clear course goals and expectations versus unspecified course goals and expectations .793
Learning the material is emphasized versus earning a grade is emphasized .596
NOTE: Seven-point semantic differential scale format.
TABLE 5
Correlations Among Self-Regulated Learning Strategies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Rehearsal
2. Organization .409
3. Elaboration .347 .362
4. Critical thinking .245 .414 .319
5. Planning .291 .389 .335 .364
6. Regulating .248 .331 .550 .378 .394
7. Monitoring .350 .386 .468 .268 .368 .463
M 10.15 8.83 10.67 5.22 6.26 6.59 7.25
SD 2.41 2.03 1.89 1.42 1.49 1.39 1.41
Number of items 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
NOTE: N = 257. All coefficients are significant at the .000 level.
than men; however, Ntoumanis (2001) and Cokley et al.
(2001) did not find significant effects of gender. In our study,
gender (130 men and 127 women) was included as a control
variable in each of the regressions. I found a significant coef-
ficient for gender in predicting goal orientation, suggesting
that women are higher in task mastery goal orientation; how-
ever, no relationship was found with intrinsic or extrinsic
motivation.
In addition to controlling for gender, grade point average
and total completed credit hours were used to control for gen-
eral intelligence and academic achievement. Prior research
has suggested that goals and orientations may be related to
school performance (Hagborg 1992; Licht and Dweck 1984).
Higher grade point averages were found to be related to
higher levels of perceived competence and higher levels of
ego-social orientations in our analysis. This may indicate that
obtaining higher grades is a type of feedback that raises ones
perception of competence and that students who focus on
grades (ego-social oriented) actually do accomplish their
goals and outperform those students who are task mastery
oriented. Higher credit hour completion was related to task
mastery orientation and intrinsic motivation. This relation-
ship probably reflects that students with higher credit hours
are taking elective courses in their major compared with
underclassmen taking Principles of Marketing as a required
course.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The path analysis diagram and coefficients are displayed
in Figure 2, and the total effects of the independent variables
are presented in Table 6. All paths included in the model are
significant at the .05 level. The first set of hypotheses speci-
fies the relationships between extrinsic and intrinsic motiva-
tion and self-regulated learning strategies. As hypothesized,
extrinsic motivation has a direct path to rehearsal (superficial
learning strategies) and has no paths to deeper cognitive learn-
ing or metacognitive learning strategies; therefore, Hypothesis
1a is supported. Significant direct path coefficients between
intrinsic motivation and each of the self-regulated learning
strategies provide support for Hypothesis 1b. The above find-
ings are consistent with the literature (Meece, Blumenfeld,
and Hoyle 1988; Nolen 1988; Pintrich and De Groot 1990)
and provide a very significant insight for marketing educators
and our efforts to instill self-regulated learning skills. If stu-
dents are highly motivated by external rewards and competi-
tion, it may result in the use of short-term rehearsal strategies
that focus on rote memorization and minimally meet the
requirements necessary for the rewards at the expense of inte-
grating material and higher order learning. However, when
students believe the subject matter is interesting and impor-
tant, they are more likely to use higher level learning strate-
gies and become more cognitively engaged.
34 APRIL 2005

FIGURE 2: Path Diagram of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies
NOTE: N= 257, all coefficients are significant at the .05 level. For diagramclarity, correlations among the seven learning strategies are presented
in Table 5.
The direct path coefficients to each of the deep cognitive
and metacognitive strategies are about the same magnitude
(.33 to .36), indicating the relatively equal importance of
intrinsic motivation to each of these learning strategies. It is
also noteworthy that the coefficient from intrinsic motivation
to the superficial rehearsal strategy is significantly smaller
(.20) than all of the deeper learning strategy paths. The per-
centage of variance explained, or adjusted R
2
, ranged from
.12 to .28. The variance explained in these regressions was
relatively small; however, it is consistent with similar studies
such as Ntoumanis (2001), who reported an average R
2
of .16
for predicting motivation with goal orientations and per-
ceived competence, and Pintrich and De Groots (1990)
reported R
2
of .22 obtained when predicting academic perfor-
mance with self-efficacy and self-regulation. Thus, the
answer to our first research question is that intrinsically moti-
vated students do use different learning strategies than extrin-
sically motivated students, and, clearly, intrinsic motivation
is the key for meaningful learning by facilitating the use of
self-regulated learning strategies.
Goal orientation directly affects extrinsic motivation with
a negative path coefficient (.32) and positively affects intrin-
sic motivation (.29). Recall that the Goal Orientation Scale
represents task mastery with high scores, indicating that high
task mastery leads to high intrinsic motivation and that low
scores represent high ego-social orientations leading to high
extrinsic motivation. Thus, Hypotheses 2a and 2b are
supported.
An R
2
of .32 was estimated for intrinsic motivation with
perceived autonomy and perceived competence as the signifi-
cant independent variables with positive regression coeffi-
cients, thus supporting Hypotheses 2c and 2d. Perceived
autonomy has the greater direct effect (.27) on intrinsic moti-
vation as compared with perceived competence (.22), which
is consistent with self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan
1985). Students who perceived they had the capability to per-
form well showed higher intrinsic motivation and reported
greater use of self-regulating strategies, which corresponds
with Pintrich and De Groots (1990) findings.
These results provide insight into our second research
question regarding factors that influence the tendency to be
intrinsically motivated versus extrinsically motivated. Stu-
dents who are task mastery oriented and have a high sense of
perceived autonomy and perceived competence tend to be
intrinsically motivated and, thus, make greater use of self-
regulated learning strategies. This is in sharp contrast to stu-
dents who have a high ego-social orientation, which leads to
extrinsic motivation and superficial learning strategies.
Next, I examined the factors that help explain the environ-
mental conditions and personal cognitions that lead to extrin-
sic and intrinsic motivation. It should be noted that the above
analysis established the existence of direct path coefficients
between the three proposed mediating variables (goal orien-
tation, autonomy, and competence) and the dependent vari-
ables (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation). In addition, signifi-
cant path coefficients were calculated between the classroom
environment variables and the three proposed mediating vari-
TABLE 6
Total Effects on Self-Regulated Learning and Motivation
Dependent Variables
Independent Variables Rehearsal Organize Elaborate Critical Monitor Plan Regulate
Extrinsic motivation .13
Intrinsic motivation .20 .33 .36 .33 .36 .33 .35
Goal orientation .19 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10
Autonomy .05 .09 .10 .09 .10 .06 .10
Competence .04 .07 .08 .07 .08 .07 .21
Instructor .05 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
Learning .02 .04 .05 .04 .05 .15 .07
Performance .03 .09 .05 .09 .05 .20 .07
R
2
.26 .14 .21 .12 .23 .16 .28
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Goal orientation .32 .29
Autonomy .27
Competence .22
Instructor .07 .07
Learning .05 .13
Performance .13
R
2
.16 .32
NOTE: N = 257. All coefficients are significant at the .05 level.
ables as seen in Figure 2. Finally, no significant direct path
coefficients between the classroom environment variables
and the dependent motivation variables were observed when
the above paths were controlled. These results meet the crite-
ria for establishing the functioning of mediating variables
(Baron and Kenny 1986) and indicate that achievement goal
orientation mediates the effect of instructor climate and learn-
ing climate on both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, provid-
ing support for Hypothesis 3a. In addition, perceived auton-
omy and perceived competence mediate the effect of
classroom-environmental factors learning climate and per-
formance climate (no direct paths to intrinsic motivation) on
the dependent variable intrinsic motivation, supporting
Hypothesis 3b.
To address the third research question, I examine the indi-
rect effects of the classroomclimate variables on the learning
strategies. The superficial learning strategy rehearsal is indi-
rectly influenced by all three climate variables through both
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Students reported less use
of superficial learning strategies (overall indirect effect of
.05) when they were taught by enthusiastic instructors who
providedsupportive feedback. Inaddition, anactive application-
oriented learning climate also reduces the use of superficial
learning strategies as indicated by an indirect effect of .02.
However, an increased use of superficial learning strategies
(total indirect effect of .03) was found in performance cli-
mates where there were clear learning goals and where grades
were determined by an individuals performance. This may
be due to an overemphasis on performance expectations and
goal accomplishment, thereby focusing too much on narrow
performance requirements.
Given that intrinsic motivation has approximately the
same direct effect on each of the deep cognitive and
metacognitive learning strategies, I discuss the indirect
effects of the classroom climate on intrinsic motivation. The
enthusiastic, supportive, and highly interpersonal instructor
increases task mastery orientation and provides an indirect
effect of .07 on intrinsic motivation. An active learning envi-
ronment positively affects goal orientation, perceived auton-
omy, and perceived competence, thereby indirectly affecting
intrinsic motivation (.13). The performance climate also pro-
vides a total indirect effect on intrinsic motivation of .13.
These findings indicate that to maximally affect the use of
self-regulated learning strategies, a combination of active
learning experiences with clear learning expectations, deliv-
ered by a supportive instructor, are required. This combina-
tion appears to decrease superficial learning strategies in
addition to increasing intrinsic motivation, leading to the use
of higher level learning strategies.
In addition to the above expected paths, several
nonhypothesized direct paths to learning strategies were also
significant. The metacognitive strategy planning had a direct
path from performance climate and a negative direct path
from perceived autonomy. It may be that when there is a
highly structured performance climate, in terms of clearly
defined goals and expectations, it assists students in setting
their goals and planning their own learning activities. How-
ever, the more students feel they can control how well they
can do in the class, the less they feel they need to set goals to
direct their studies. The path from perceived competence to
regulated learning indicates that students with a high sense of
competence can adjust their learning strategies to fit the
instructor and course requirements, and the students also take
steps to make sure they understand the material. Not surpris-
ing is a negative direct path fromgoal orientation to rehearsal
strategies that complements the indirect path through extrin-
sic motivation and emphasizes the relationship between high
ego-social orientation and rehearsal strategies.
The interpretation of these findings is that classrooms fea-
turing real-world active learning, providing clear learning
goals, and emphasizing individual performance will enhance
students perception of their perceived autonomy and compe-
tence and, thus, increase intrinsic motivation and use of self-
regulation learning strategies.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The results of this study provide empirical support for the
theoretical relationships within and between cognitive evalu-
ation theory, achievement goal theory, and self-regulated
learning strategies in the context of the classroom. Superficial
learning strategies were linked to extrinsic motivation, while
intrinsic motivation determined deep cognitive and
metacognitive strategy usage. In accordance with cognitive
evaluation theory, intrinsic motivation was enhanced when
students perceived they were competent and when they had
control over their performances. All three aspects of the
classroomenvironment indirectly influenced the use of learn-
ing strategies through the motivational components. The
results suggest that active application-oriented experience
delivered by enthusiastic faculty members who provide high
personal interaction, along with supportive feedback, clear
goals, and expectations emphasizing learning over grades
will increase intrinsic motivation and the use of self-regulated
learning strategies. These findings are supportive of market-
ing educations trend toward active experiential learning
(Frontczak 1998). In addition, the results are consistent with
the American Association for Higher Educations statement
of principles for good undergraduate education. These seven
principles assert that good educational practice (1) encour-
ages active learning, (2) encourages student-faculty contact,
(3) gives prompt feedback, (4) communicates high expecta-
tions, (5) emphasizes time on task, (6) encourages
cooperation among students, and (7) respects diverse talents
and ways of learning (Chickering and Gamson 1987).
From a marketing educators perspective, the theories and
empirical findings lead to the following guidelines for
enhancing teaching effectiveness. First, instructors must be
36 APRIL 2005
aware that all aspects of the classroom affect motivation and
learning strategies. Therefore, careful planning must be done
to ensure the overall desired effects. For example, providing
active learning exercises that stress competitive performance
(e.g., computer simulations) may result in an unexpected
overall effect that increases extrinsic motivation and superfi-
cial learning. Ferrer-Caja and Weiss (2002) suggested struc-
turing the class in such a way as to emphasize the importance
of the learning process, to encourage participation, and to
incorporate effort and improvement in the evaluation.
Second, metacognitive strategies may be specifically
emphasized by incorporating self-study or self-regulated
course activities that raise the students awareness of plan-
ning (set learning goals), monitoring (self-testing), and regu-
lating (determine best way to learn) (Somuncuoglu and
Yildirim 1999). Examples of classroom assignments consis-
tent with these recommendations are Celuch and Slamas
(1998) consumer behavior critical thinking assignments that
are designed to stimulate self-regulated learning. The learn-
ing benefits of these assignments have been favorably
assessed with student surveys (Celuch and Slama 2000) and
experimentally controlled feedback (Celuch and Slama
2002).
Third, intrinsic motivation may be enhanced by increasing
perceived autonomy, perceived competence, and/or task mas-
tery goal orientation. Stressing the importance of the learning
process, providing choice and allowing opportunities for
self-direction have been found to enhance intrinsic motiva-
tion by increasing the feeling of autonomy (Deci and Ryan
1985). Providing numerous opportunities to practice, learn,
and master the task at hand will enhance intrinsic motivation
by developing students competencies (Ferrer-Caja and
Weiss 2002). Kilpatrick, Hebert, and Jacobsen (2002) used
the concepts from self-determination theory to develop the
following guidelines to assist in creating programs that will
influence both the intensity and direction of effort to help
facilitate increased participation in motivated behaviors.
Implementing these guidelines in the classroom should
increase students intrinsic motivation and lead to greater use
of self-regulated learning strategies. Following each guide-
line are specific examples from the marketing education
literature of pedagogies that could be used to implement that
particular guideline.
Give positive feedback that supports the development of
competence and task mastery orientation, whereas negative
feedback can reduce the sense of competence.
Examples of assignments that incorporate performance-
enhancing feedback are provided by Celuch and Slama
(1998). Their assignments clearly state comprehensive crite-
ria and standards for judging the elements of critical thinking
assignments along with explicit performance levels for
assigning grades. Students ability to assess and continuously
improve their own thinking is enhanced by receiving timely
and continuous feedback based on these standards, as well as
participating in the evaluation process themselves. In addi-
tion, they stress the relevance of the assignments and the
thinking process and allow opportunity for students to make
choices in the examples they chose to write about in the
individual and group assignments.
Provide activity choice and rationale to support the develop-
ment of self-determination and the need for autonomy.
Student management groups are presented as a method to
enhance students autonomy in class governance (Lilly and
Tippins (2002). Factors ranging from content coverage to
grading policies are submitted to the student management
group for input. In addition, the group collects feedback on
many aspects of the course such as understanding of the mate-
rial, assignment difficulty, and even professor-student
interaction.
Course participation assignments (Peterson 2001) have
been successfully used to increase student responsibility for
their own learning behavior. Documenting the tasks and pro-
cess of learning is thought to support autonomy development
and task mastery goal orientation. The course participation
assignments also allow students to select their own ways of
class participation (autonomy) based on what the students
feel would benefit their learning the most. Both verbal and
written feedback was provided throughout the semester, as
well as student input in assigning value to the various
participation activities.
Encourage social connections in learning that support the
need for relatedness.
To enhance social connections, team learning can be
incorporated. To stimulate positive interdependence and indi-
vidual accountability among students, cooperative learning
structures may be used (Hernandez 2002). Implemented at
the Principles of Marketing level, the teamlearning pedagogy
presented by Hernandez is designed to facilitate higher level
thinking and active learning. Central in this pedagogy is the
instructional activity sequence that is initiatedwith individual
study and assessment, followed by team assessment and
instructor feedback, and then finished with application-
oriented activities.
Use rewards carefully and sparingly because rewards contin-
gent on task performance do reliably undermine intrinsic
motivation and can promote ego-social goal orientations.
Avoid threats, deadlines, directives, pressured evaluations,
and imposed goals because they foster an external locus of
causality and thus diminish intrinsic motivation (Ryan and
Deci 2000).
Students will be intrinsically motivated only for activities
they find intrinsically interesting. These are activities that
have the appeal of novelty, challenge, or aesthetical value
(Ryan and Deci 2000) and are primarily found in upper level
elective courses that students select within their majors. For
required courses, such as Principles of Marketing, and activi-
ties that do not have such appeal, some degree of extrinsic
motivation will be operative. However, Miller (2000) found
almost any activity can be made intrinsically interesting by
selecting challenges that match a learners perceived capabil-
ities, combined with feedback on their progress. The most
important variable is the feedback, which is necessary to
maintain a learners level of interest.
As seen in the above pedagogical examples, feedback on
learning and performance is central to the classroomenviron-
ment and has important implications for promoting different
types of motivation. Feedback may provide positive informa-
tion on performance leading to enhanced perceived compe-
tence, or it may be construed as controlling and reduce the
sense of autonomy (Ryan and Deci 2000). Delivering feed-
back in an informational style does not impose the feedback
givers demands but suggests the recipient is in control of his
or her own behaviors and offers informative supportive feed-
back. Informational feedback maintains the sense of per-
ceived autonomy and increases intrinsic motivation. In con-
trast, a controlling style of feedback stresses the particular
outcomes that should or must be achieved and makes the
external forces salient. As a result, the individual may no lon-
ger feel he or she is the cause of his or her own actions,
thereby reducing perceived autonomy and intrinsic
motivation (Ryan 1982).
Teaching style can also be described as autonomy support-
ive or controlling. In an experimental setting, Reeve, Bolt,
and Cai (1999) found that autonomy-supportive teachers and
controlling teachers both engage in many of the same instruc-
tional behaviorsgaining students attention, asking ques-
tions, giving feedback, encouraging persistence, and demon-
strating skills. However, autonomy-supportive teachers
sought student initiative, listened more, resisted giving solu-
tions, verbalized fewer directives, responded to more student-
generated questions, allowed time for independent work, and
volunteered more perspective-taking statements. This is con-
trasted by controlling teachers who sought students compli-
ance in activities by introducing consequences and verbal
directives, talked more, communicated with should state-
ments, used frequent praise and criticism, asked controlling
questions, stated deadlines, and generally created an environ-
ment characterized as pressure. Cognitive evaluation theory
predicts that providing a classroom environment with high
task autonomy, together with positive feedback in an
informational style, will maximally increase intrinsic
motivation (Zhou 1998).
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
Although this article provides clear empirical support for
the proposed model, overcoming the potential limitations of
this study provides guidance for further research. First, this
study was based on a sample from one university, suggesting
that replication in alternative educational settings is needed
for greater generalization. Second, refinement of the
psychometric properties of the measures, by adding items to
each variables index, could also increase the diagnostic value
of the measures. In addition to enhancing existing variables,
many other aspects of the classroom environment could be
examined along with the interactions among these social-con-
textual factors. The scope of this study involved a relatively
holistic framework that integrated two motivation theories,
several classroom-environmental factors, and seven self-
regulated learning behaviors that required a general level of
analysis. Additional insight may be gained from examining
many of the relationships presented in the framework in a nar-
rower, more focused detail. In particular, the degree to which
different aspects of the classroom environment fulfill cogni-
tive evaluation theorys basic needs of competence and
autonomy could provide valuable insights into instructional
design.
Integrating these two theoretical models of motivation
within the social cognitive framework provides a more com-
prehensive understanding of classroominfluences on motiva-
tion and self-regulated learning and, it is hoped, provides a
framework for assisting researchers in the analysis of pro-
posed learning pedagogies. Great opportunities exist for fac-
ulty to develop classroom learning environments that facili-
tate students needs and motivations, leading to proactive and
engaged learners using self-regulated learning skills.
NOTE
1. The single goal orientation index does not distinguish between the
jointly high or jointly low orientations; however, the index retains interval
scale properties allowing regressions of the antecedent environmental vari-
ables. Given the small percentage of jointly low orientations, this trade-off
was preferredover categorizingthe variable into four categories. However, to
check the robustness of the results, the equations of the path analysis that
couldincorporate goal orientations as categorical were estimated. The results
were essentially the same as those obtained with the single variable index
except for an additional direct path from joint high goal orientation to the
planning learning strategy.
REFERENCES
Ainley, M. D. 1993. Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional
assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achieve-
ment. Journal of Educational Psychology 85:395-405.
Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. New York: Westview.
Ames, C. 1992. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology 84:261-71.
38 APRIL 2005
Ames, C., and J. Archer. 1988. Achievement goals in the classroom: Stu-
dents learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology 80 (3): 260-67.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. 2003. Proposed
draftEligibility procedures and standards for business accreditation.
http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/brc/standards-4-25.pdf, p. 52
(accessed July 2003).
Bagozzi, Richard P. 1994. Structural equation models in marketing research:
Basic principles. In Principles of marketing research, edited by R.
Bagozzi, 317-85. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social-
cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy on cognitive development and func-
tioning. Educational Psychologist 28 (2): 117-48.
. 2001. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. http://
www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Bandura/Index.html#guide
(accessed November 2002).
Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator vari-
able distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy 51 (6): 1173-82.
Boekaerts, M. 1997. Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by
researcher, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning
and Instruction 7 (2): 161-86.
Brandt, R. 1988. On learning research: Aconversation with Lauren Resnick.
Educational Leadership 46 (4): 12-16.
Brunel, P. 1999. Relationship between achievement goal orientations and
perceived motivational climate on intrinsic motivation. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 9:365-74.
Celuch, Kevin, and Mark Slama. 1998. Critical thinking as an integrative
theme for teaching lifelong learning skills in marketing. Marketing Edu-
cation Review 8 (3): 1-12.
. 2000. Student perceptions of a marketing course taught with the crit-
ical thinking approach. Marketing Education Review 10 (1): 57-64.
. 2002. Promoting critical thinking and life-long learning: An experi-
ment with the theory of planned behavior. Marketing Education Review
12 (2): 13-22.
Chickering, Arthur W., and Zelda F. Gamson. 1987. Seven principles for
good practice in undergraduate education. Wingspread Journal 9 (2): 1-
16.
Chonko, Lawrence B. 2003. A look to the future of marketing education:
Observations of one teacher-researcher curmudgeon. Marketing Educa-
tion Review 13 (1): 1-20.
Clark, Lee Anna, and David Watson. 1995. Constructing validity: Basic
issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment 7 (3):
309-19.
Cokley, Kevin O., Naijean Bernard, Dana Cunningham, and Janice Motoike.
2001. A psychometric investigation of the academic motivation scale
using a United States sample. Measurement and Evaluation in Counsel-
ing and Development 34 (2): 109-19.
Corno, L. 1986. The metacognitive components of self-regulated learning.
Contemporary Educational Psychology 11:333-46.
Corno, L., and E. B. Mandinach. 1983. The role of cognitive engagement in
classroomlearningandmotivation. Educational Psychology 18:88-108.
Daly, Shawn B. 2001. Student-operated Internet businesses: True experien-
tial learning in entrepreneurship and retail management. Journal of Mar-
keting Education 23 (3): 204-15.
Das, J. P., J. A. Naglieri, and D. B. Murphy. 1995. Individual differences in
cognitive processes of planning: A personality variable? Psychology
Record 45 (3): 355-71.
Deci, Edward L. 1975. Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Deci, Edward L., R. Koestner, and Richard M. Ryan. 1999. A meta-analytic
review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on
intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125:627-68.
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, William R., J. Nezlek, and L. Sheinman. 1981. Characteristics of the
rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 40:1-10.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, and Heidi M. Winklhofer. 2001. Index con-
struction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development.
Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2): 269-77.
Dillion, William R., and Matthew Goldstein. 1984. Multivariate analysis:
Methods and applications. New York: John Wiley.
Dorobantu, M., and S. J. H. Biddle. 1997. The influence of situational and
individual goals on the intrinsic motivation of Romanian adolescents
toward physical education. European Yearbook of Sports Psychology
1:148-65.
Duda, J. L., and J. Whitehead. 1998. Measurement of goal perspectives in the
physical domain. In Advances in sport and exercise psychology measure-
ment, editedby J. L. Duda, 20-47. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology.
Dweck, C. S., and E. L. Leggett. 1988. A social-cognitive approach to moti-
vation and personality. Psychological Review 95:256-73.
Ferrer-Caja, Emilio, and Maureen R. Weiss. 2000. Predictors of intrinsic
motivation among adolescent students in physical education. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 71:267-79.
. 2002. Cross-validation of a model of intrinsic motivation with stu-
dents enrolled in high school elective courses. Journal of Experimental
Education 71 (1): 41-66.
Flink, C., A. K. Boggiano, and M. Barrett. 1990. Controlling teaching strate-
gies: Undermining childrens self-determination and performance. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:916-24.
Frontczak, Nancy T. 1998. A paradigm for the selection, use and develop-
ment of experiential learning activities in marketing education. Market-
ing Education Review 8 (3): 25-34.
Garcia, Teresa, and Paul R. Pontrich. 1996. The effects of autonomy on moti-
vation and performance in the college classroom. Contemporary Educa-
Gist, Marilyn E., and Terrence R. Mitchell. 1992. Self-efficacy: Atheoretical
analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management
Review 17:183-211.
Gremler, Dwayne D., K. Douglas Hoffman, Susan M. Keaveney, and Lauren
K. Wright. 2000. Experiential learning exercises in services marketing
courses. Journal of Marketing Education 22 (1): 35-44.
Hagborg, W. J. 1992. Grades and motivational orientationamonghigh school
students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 10:355-361.
Harter, S. 1981. A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orienta-
tion in the classroom: Motivational and informational components.
Developmental Psychology 17:300-12.
Hernandez, Sigfredo A. 2002. Team learning in a Marketing Principles
course: Cooperative structures that facilitate active learning and higher
level thinking. Journal of Marketing Education 24 (1): 73-85.
Hwang, Young Suk, and Konstantinos Vrongistinos. 2002. Elementary in-
service teachers self-regulated learning strategies related to their aca-
demic achievements. Journal of Instructional Psychology 29(3): 147-54.
Kilpatrick, Marcus, Edward Hebert, and Dee Jacobsen. 2002. Physical activ-
ity motivation: A practitioners guide to self-determination theory. Jour-
nal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 73 (4): 36-42.
Kleinbaum, D. G., L. Kupper, and K. E. Muller. 1988. Applied regression
analysis and other multivariable methods. 2nd ed. Boston: PWS-Kent.
Licht, B. G., and C. S. Dweck. 1984. Determinants of academic achievement:
The interaction of childrens achievement orientations with skills area.
Developmental Psychology 20:628-36.
Lilly, Bryan, and Michael J. Tippins. 2002. Enhancing student motivation in
marketing classes: Using student management groups. Journal of Mar-
keting Education 24 (3): 253-64.
Loranger, A. L. 1994. The study of strategies of successful and unsuccessful
high school students. Journal of Reading Behavior 26:347-60.
McKeachie, W. J. 1990. Research on college teaching: The historical back-
ground. Journal of Educational Psychology 82:189-200.
Mendenhall, W., and Terry Sincich. 1996. A second course in statistics:
Regression analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Meece, Judith L., Phyllis C. Blumenfeld, and Rick H. Hoyle. 1988. Students
goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroomactivities. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology 80 (4): 514-23.
Meece, Judith L., and K. Holt. 1993. A pattern analysis of students achieve-
ment goals. Journal of Educational Psychology 85:582-90.
Miller, J. W. 2000. Exploring the sources of self-regulated learning: The
influence of internal and external comparisons. Journal of Instructional
Psychology 27 (1): 47-52.
Nicholls, J. G. 1989. The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nolen, S. B. 1986. Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study
strategies. Cognition and Instruction 5 (4): 269-87.
. 1988. Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study
strategies. Cognitions and Instruction 5 (4): 269-87.
Ntoumanis, Nikos. 2001. Empirical links between achievement goal theory
and self-determination theory in sports. Journal of Sports Science 19 (6):
397-427.
Papaioannou, A. 1994. Development of a questionnaire to measure achieve-
ment goal orientations in physical education. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport 65:11-20.
Park, S. H. 1992. Motivational belief, volitional control and self-regulated
learning. PhD diss., University of Michigan. Dissertation Abstracts
International 53 (5): 1456A.
Peterson, Robert M. 2001. Course participation: An active learning approach
employing student documentation. Journal of Marketing Education 23
(3): 187-94.
Pintrich, Paul R. 1988. A process-oriented view of student motivation. In
Improving teaching and learning through research: New directions for
instructional research, Vol. 57, edited by J. Stark and L. Mets, 65-79. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
. 1989. The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in
the college classroom. In Advances in motivationandachievement: Moti-
vation enhancingenvironments, Vol. 6, edited by C. Ames and M. Maehr,
117-60. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pintrich, Paul R., and Elisabeth V. De Groot. 1990. Motivational and self-reg-
ulation learning components of classroom academic performance. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology 82 (1): 33-40.
Pintrich, Paul R., and T. Garcia. 1991. Student goal orientation and self-regu-
lation in the college classroom. In Advances in motivation and achieve-
ment, Vol. 7, edited by M. L. Maehr and P. R. Pintrich, 371-402. Green-
wich, CT: JAI.
Reeve, Johnmarshall, Elizabeth Bolt, and Yi Cai. 1999. Autonomy-support-
ive teachers how they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educa-
Ridley, D. S., P. A. Schutz, R. S. Glanz, and C. E. Weinstein. 1992. Self-regu-
lated learning: The interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and
goal-setting. Journal of Experimental Education 60 (4): 293-306.
Rothstein, R. 1990. Educational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ryan, Richard M. 1982. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere:
An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 43:450-61.
Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and
the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-
being. American Psychologist 55 (1): 68-78.
Siegel, Carolyn F. 2000. Introducing marketing students to business intelli-
gence using project-based learning on the World Wide Web. Journal of
Marketing Education 22 (2): 90-98.
Somuncuoglu, Yesim, and Ali Yildirim. 1999. Relationship between
achievement goal orientations and use of learning strategies. Journal of
Educational Research 92 (5): 267-77.
Stipek, Deborah J., Julie S. Salmon, and Karen B. Givven. 1998. The value of
practices suggested by motivation research and promoted by mathemat-
ics education reformers. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education
29 (4): 465-88.
Taylor, Kimberly A. 1998. The marketing trade show: A new method for
incorporating student projects into large classes. Journal of Marketing
Education 20 (3): 250-57.
Utman, C. H. 1997. Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review 1: 170-82.
Vallerand, R. J. 1997. Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. In Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 29,
edited by M. P. Zanna, 271-360. New York: Academic Press.
Vallerand, R. J., L. G. Pelletier, M. R. Blais, N. M. Briere, C. Senecal, and E.
F. Vallieres. 1992. The Academic Motivation Scale: Ameasure of intrin-
sic, extrinsic, and motivation in education. Educational and Psychologi-
cal Measurement 52:1003-17.
Van Voorhis, Judy L. 1995. Implementing cooperative structures to increase
motivation and learning in the college classroom. Paper presented at the
Lilly Conference on College Teaching, June, Columbia, SC.
Vlachopoulos, S., and S. J. H. Biddle. 1996. Achievement goal orientations
and intrinsic motivation in a track and field event in school physical edu-
cation. European Physical Education Review 2:158-64.
Weinstein, C. E., and R. E. Mayer. 1986. The teaching of learning strategies.
In Handbook of research on teaching, edited by M. Wittrock, 315-27.
New York: Macmillan.
Weinstein, C. E., D. S. Ridley, T. Dahl, and E. S. Weber. 1989. Helping stu-
dents develop strategies for effective learning. Educational Leadership
46 (4): 17-19.
Woolfolk, A. E. 1990. Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Wright, Lauren K., Mary Jo Bitner, and Valerie A. Zeithaml. 1994. Paradigm
shifts in business education: Using active learning to deliver services
marketing content. Journal of Marketing Education 16 (3): 5-19.
Zhou, Jing. 1998. Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and
achievement orientation interactive effects on creative performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (2): 261-76.
Zimmerman, B. J. 1989. A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 81 (3): 329-39.
. 1995. Self-efficacy and educational development. In Self-efficacy
and changing societies, edited by A. Bandura, 202-31. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., and M. Martinez-Pons. 1986. Development of a struc-
tured interviewfor assessing student use of self-regulated learning strate-
gies. American Educational Research Journal 23:614-28.
40 APRIL 2005

Journal of Marketing Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Marketing Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://jmd.sagepub.

You might also like