Motivating Civil Engineering Students:

Self-Determinacy Perspective
Hector Martin, Ph.D., M.ASCE 1; Sapphire Vital 2; Leighton Ellis, Ph.D. 3;
and Charmaine Obrien-Delpesh 4

Abstract: Motivation is a psychological construct shown to influence an individual’s success. Researchers have focused on factors affecting
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

student motivation but have neglected to address the temporal changes in student motivation and the effects of these changes on academic
performance. The purpose of this paper is to answer three main questions: What variables motivate students? Do the motivational variables
change over time? And is there a relationship between the motivational variables that influence students and their academic performance as
measured in grade point average (GPA)? Using a questionnaire survey approach, this study explores self-determinacy theory to evaluate
students’ progression over a three-year enrollment in an undergraduate civil and environmental engineering degree. The evaluation showed
that internal factors are the primary motivators of students with high GPA. Also, students’ quality and the quantity of motivation decreased
with time in pursuit of a constant goal. Gender differences highlighted that females had superior self-regulatory practices to males. By setting
intermediate report deadlines with performance feedback, educators would improve male students’ self-regulatory practices through an im-
provement of their organization and goal setting skills. These findings provide a better understanding of student attrition than previously
acknowledged in the literature. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000374. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Academic performance; Learning motivation; Cognitive theory; Educational philosophy; Student motivation;
Self-determinacy theory.

Introduction involvement and commitment of the students to learn and acquire

Martin et al. (2014) sought to address an alarming trend observed
about students enrolled in an undergraduate civil engineering pro-
gram. The pattern, although abstractly recognized, was more pre-
cisely identified via the following statistics. Sixty percent of the
students enrolled in the graduating class of 2012–2013 failed to
complete the degree in the allotted three years. This trend was again
repeated in the academic years 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 with
approximately 68% of the students in each year graduating at least
in their fourth year of study. As explained by Martin et al. (2014)
this trend of low performance raises numerous questions. Why are
some students performing well while others do not? Is it that the
material to be covered is too difficult for the majority of students?
Alpay et al. (2008), Law and Chuah (2009), and Kolmos et al.
(2013) believed that when innate academic ability fails to explain
the vast differences in academic performance amongst students,
motivation is often the defining quality. Specifically, since all
the students enrolled met the entry requirements, all were thought
to have the basic knowledge, skills, and ability required to succeed
in their program of choice. Motivation to learn is defined as the
1 dents with similar motivational profiles have similar long-term
Lecturer, Construction Management, Univ. of the West Indies,
St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago (corresponding author). Email:
hector.martin@sta.uwi.edu
2
Civil Engineer, Engineering Dept., CEP Ltd., P.O. Box 663, General
Post Office, Roseau, Dominica. Email: sapphirevital@outlook.com
3
Lecturer, Construction Management, Univ. of the West Indies,
St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago. Email: Leighton.ellis@sta.uwi.edu
4
Lecturer, Coastal Engineering, Univ. of the West Indies, St. Augustine,
Trinidad and Tobago. Email: Charmaine.delpesh-obrien@sta.uwi.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 28, 2017; approved on
January 29, 2018; published online on May 25, 2018. Discussion period
open until October 25, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Professional Issues
in Engineering Education and Practice, © ASCE, ISSN 1052-3928.
excellent academic grades that can aid them in their future occupa-
tional career (Ullah et al. 2013, p. 91). Motivation research in
engineering education has focused on the identification of motiva-
tional factors (Alpay et al. 2008; Law and Chuah 2009; Law et al.
2009); disparities based on gender (Kolmos et al. 2013); and
correlations among motivational factors, problem-solving skills,
and knowledge transfer (Benson et al. 2013; Husman and Lens
1999). Despite these proposed interventions, there is an absence
of studies focusing on differences in motivators as an individual
develops and the effects of these differences on academic perfor-
mance. Further, the literature has been inconclusive regarding the
link between these two facets of need for achievement and perfor-
mance in engineering education (Law and Chuah 2009).
In motivation research, context is significant (Pintrich 2003).
Context encompasses classroom interactions, tasks, activities, prac-
tices, and culture. Context can create, shape, facilitate, or constrain
the development of student motivation (Pintrich 2003). The study
by Benson et al. (2013) on bioengineering and mechanical engi-
neering indicates differences between the engineering disciplines
on several motivational factors, reflecting the probability that stu-
goals and therefore tend to choose the same degree. Different
knowledge characterizes each engineering discipline, which alters
the educational context. Hence, motivational research on one type
of engineering cannot necessarily be assumed universal to all
kinds of engineering fields, in the case of the current scope, civil
engineering.
In light of the motivation construct, further questions come to
mind. Are the students who complete their degree at an exception-
ally high standard motivated differently from their other class-
mates? Is this motivation consistent throughout their studies or
does it change? Can educators influence motivation in its stagnant
or dynamic form? Although directional behavior was advocated by

© ASCE 04018005-1 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005

 Schunk and Zimmerman (2008) almost a decade ago, there are lim-
ited studies on directional behavior, which accesses magnitude and
dynamic changes in motivators and reasons supporting these
changes. Martin et al. (2014) explored motivation as a contributor
to academic performance by determining the motivational factors
influencing students in the school year 2013–2014. This study was
cross-sectional and focused on the possible links between motiva-
tion and academic performance as well as establishing the basis for
the changing nature of motivation. The results indicated that intrin-
sic motivational factors had a more positive effect on motivation
compared to that of extrinsic motivational factors. The results, how-
ever, did not yield a significant factor linking motivation to aca-
demic performance, which would be indicative of the probable
impact of educators. Additionally, inferences on changing motiva-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion were made based on year-level differences rather than continu-
ous data on the same group of students. Mapping changes in
motivation are done best via microgenetic studies, which scrutinize
motivation as students develop task expertise over time (Pintrich
2003). Understanding motivational changes should aid researchers
and educators to design systems and programs that seek to reverse
any negative aspects of changing motivation. If motivation is
assumed to be constant over a period, changes in teaching styles
and course content aimed to propel motivation would be shot
off target. Consequently, using a longitudinal design and self-
determination theory, this research aims to provide a better under-
standing of student performance. More specifically, in line with
Pintrich’s (2003) recommendations for future exploration in moti-
vational science, the objective of this paper is firstly to determine
what motivates one continuous group of engineering students to
perform during three consecutive academic years. The second
objective is to evaluate the link between the changing nature of
motivation and academic performance. These analyses will greatly
help the engineering education literature address the present chal-
lenges of student attrition described by Harris and Moll (2015).
A further benefit derived from this study involves an understanding
of the risk factors that promote individual motivational develop-
ment. The findings, therefore, assist educators in ensuring civil
engineering students graduate as well-educated, driven, and inno-
vative professionals.
Exploring Self-Determination Theory
Motivational theories are used to provide explanations and insight
into the direction and energization of human behavior (Pintrich
2003). The many motivational theories that exist can usually be
placed in one of two categories: needs/motive-based theories
and cognitive theories. Needs/motive-based theories approach mo-
tivation by investigating the implicit human necessities that drive
behavioral patterns. They suggest that individuals are motivated by
the desire to achieve or maintain the various conditions upon which
basic satisfactions reside (Maslow 1968). The degree of satisfaction
is goal specific, and the underlying assumption as it pertains to ed-
ucation is that as one changes the goal from bachelors to masters,
and ultimately a doctorate, needs are being progressively satisfied
from lower levels to higher levels. However, at the micro level, for
example, while pursuing a bachelor’s program, students do not
strive to satisfy a need for a lower mark in a course, and then
work toward a higher score in subsequent examinations. At all
times, good students strive toward the highest achievement level.
Achievement goal theory, which provides a framework for under-
standing goals students might have for pursuing particular
academic tasks, supports this concept of motivation (Ciani et al.
2011). However, this theory has its limitations when goals are
© ASCE 04018005-2
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005
unmet, as students may only focus on an outcome without openness
to exploration, growth, or understanding, and thus inhibits implicit
learning (Shalley 1995). Therefore, on their own, these theories
might not be sufficient to explain possible changes in student
motivation, which occurs during a program of study.
Specific to education, need/motive-based theories belong to an
older pool of research, which attempted to use the need to achieve
and the need to avoid failure to explain academic motivation and
achievement. As time passed, research showed that these motives
merely acted as antecedents to the social-cognitive achievement
goals, which then directly influenced academic motivation and
achievement (Elliot and Church 1997). Such findings resulted in
the recognition that needs/motive-based theories and social-
cognitive theories were not dichotomous but complementary to each
other. Cognitive theories seek to reveal the conscious thought proc-
esses, which lead to behavior. Social-cognitive theories reflect the
use of conscious thought, making it suited for the educational con-
text, i.e., educators can positively influence students’ thought proc-
esses. Accordingly, current motivational research focuses on using
theories that at least account for social-cognitive constructs as me-
diators of desired outcomes such as motivation (Pintrich 2003).
Building on the work of Vroom’s (1964) expectancy-valence
theory of motivation, Porter and Lawler (1968) advocated structur-
ing the educational environment so that effective performance
would lead to both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, which would,
in turn, produce academic satisfaction. As such, intrinsic motiva-
tion would occur when an individual is moved to perform a task due
to it being implicitly enjoyable. In contrast, extrinsic motivation is
fuelled by external forces such as rewards and recognition and
presents itself as a means to an end (Singh et al. 2004). Tradition-
ally, intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors have been viewed
as mutually exclusive (Hayenga and Corpus 2010). The simple
dichotomy between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation made the
cognitive theory difficult to apply to educational settings (Gagné
and Deci 2005) because there is a focus on one or the other, that
is, either on promoting intrinsic motivation through participation
and empowerment while minimizing the use of extrinsic factors
or, alternatively, on using rewards and other extrinsic contingencies
to maximize extrinsic motivation while ignoring the importance of
intrinsic motivation. Within this context, intrinsic motivation has
been linked to adaptive learning and high academic achievement
whereas extrinsic motivation has been correlated to negative emo-
tions, maladaptive coping strategies, and poor academic achieve-
ment (Corpus et al. 2009). A study by Ryan and Deci (2000)
has shown, however, that levels of extrinsic motivation do produce
positive outcomes. Ryan and Deci (2000) establish this view in
light of the self-determination theory (SDT). SDT proposes that,
under optimal conditions, people can, at any time, fully integrate
a new regulation, or can integrate an existing regulation that
had been only partially internalized. That is, SDT posits a self-
determination continuum (Gagné and Deci 2005).
Central to SDT is the distinction between autonomous motiva-
tion and controlled motivation (Gagné and Deci 2005). Autonomy
involves acting with a sense of volition and having the experience
of choice. Autonomy means endorsing one’s actions at the highest
level of reflection (Dworkin 1988). In contrast, being controlled
involves acting with a sense of pressure, a sense of having to en-
gage in the actions. The use of extrinsic rewards in the early experi-
ments was found to induce controlled motivation (e.g., Deci 1971).
SDT postulates that autonomous and controlled motivations
differ regarding both their underlying regulatory processes and
their accompanying experiences, and it further suggests that behav-
iors can be characterized in terms of the degree to which they
are autonomous versus controlled. Autonomous motivation and
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.
 controlled motivation are both intentional, and together they stand
in contrast to amotivation, which involves a lack of intention and
motivation. Social-cognitive constructs, as previously stated, medi-
ate between need and behavior and can be grouped into the five
main subsets of self-efficacy, control beliefs, interests, values,
and goals. Self-efficacy, competence, and expectancy relate to stu-
dents believing they have the ability to and the will to achieve a
particular goal. Control constructs reflect students’ beliefs about
their ability to be an influential part of the learning process. Addi-
tionally, in pursuit of a specific goal, students’ interest and appre-
ciation of the value of the information are important. Each concept
can be intrinsic or extrinsic in nature, and research has shown
that adaptive quantities lead to more cognitive learning via self-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
regulatory practices, persistence, cognitive engagement, and thus
higher levels of motivation and academic performance (Bandura
1993; Benson et al. 2013; Pintrich 2003; Pintrich and Schunk
1996). Motivational factors are also seen as precursors to intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation (Alpay et al. 2008; Kolmos et al. 2013;
Law et al. 2009). As such, motivational factors can be considered
an alias of sorts reflecting combinations of students’ self-efficacy
beliefs, control beliefs, interests, values, and goals.
In the work of Ryan and Deci (2000), motivation is presented as
a spectrum from amotivation (lack of motivation) through extrinsic
motivation to intrinsic motivation. Behavior is shown to become
progressively internal and self-determined. The first established
point after amotivation is external regulation. External rewards
and recognition drive students who fall into this category. At the
next level, labelled introjection, students engage in learning based
on a sense of responsibility rooted in the desire to gain approval
from self and others. Thirdly, when students participate in tasks
to achieve goals that are important to them identification comes
into play. In its final and most autonomous state of extrinsic mo-
tivation, integration would occur when students aim toward a goal,
which via internalization has become congruent with their values
and needs. More recent research has confirmed this theory and also
revealed that the quality of motivation is more essential, and thus
more directly associated with positive outcomes than the quantity
of motivation (Corpus and Wormington 2014; Lin et al. 2003;
Vansteenkiste et al. 2009). The quality of motivation refers to
the ratio of intrinsic to extrinsic motivation versus the quantity
of motivation, which is merely concerned with the amount of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Martin et al. (2014), via a cross-sectional study, determined the
motivational factors affecting students enrolled in an undergraduate
civil and environmental engineering degree in 2013–2014.
Although the findings did not provide conclusive evidence relating
intrinsic motivation to academic performance, they illustrate that
different levels of extrinsic motivation do play a salient part in pre-
dicting academic achievement. The factors job/career and perfec-
tionist motivation were found to change from one academic level to
another, providing a basis for further exploration of the varying
nature of motivation. The perfectionist factor associated with the
more autonomous intrinsic constructs was found to decrease from
Level 1 to Level 2 and Level 2 to Level 3. Research has revealed
that motivation, since it is based on cognitive processes, can change
with time (Pintrich and Schunk 1996). Pintrich and Schunk (1996)
stated that working toward a goal, which has both intrinsic and ex-
trinsic value, causes intrinsic motivation to decrease over time. That
is, once an activity becomes a means to an end, intrinsic motivation
automatically diminishes. This behavior should be the case in
educational contexts in which all activities lead to achieving the
external rewards of grades and certificates of accomplishments.
In agreement with results found by Martin et al. (2014), the
trend emerging from studies done on changing motivation is that,
© ASCE 04018005-3
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005
with time, good quality and high quantity motivation decreases
while low quantity and poor quality motivation increases (Corpus
and Wormington 2014; Hayenga and Corpus 2010; Otis et al. 2005;
Spinath and Steinmayr 2008). The quality of motivation identifies
both productive and counter-productive behaviors and creates a
snapshot of an individual’s effectiveness and efficiency toward mo-
tivational regulation strategies used, whereas the quantity of moti-
vation addresses the extent of motivational regulation strategies
used (Engelschalk et al. 2017).
Performance goal adoption leads to nonadaptive, helpless mo-
tivational patterns of achievement behavior (Valentini and Rudisill
2006). Individuals oriented toward performance goals are moti-
vated to seek public recognition, to obtain positive and avoid
negative judgments about their performance, and to compare their
performance and effort with others (Valentini and Rudisill 2006).
Thus, the relationship highlighted by Martin et al. (2014) in which
academic achievement relates to social acceptance may be con-
nected to the formation of performance-related goals in higher
achieving students. The cross-sectional nature of the research by
Martin et al. (2014) limits the drawing of a full conclusion. A lon-
gitudinal study, mapping the motivational factors associated with
the same group of students, could more accurately identify relation-
ships between changing motivational patterns and academic
achievement. The present study fills this gap. Results are expected
to show that over time students are motivated by a combination of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors. Additionally, extrinsic
motivational factors are expected to increase while intrinsic motiva-
tional factors are expected to decrease with time. Also, higher qual-
ity motivation is anticipated to lead to higher cognitive learning,
adaptive skills, and academic achievement.
Research Method and Design
This study consisted of two parts: in the first part a cross-sectional
evaluation (Cohort 1, Cohort 2, and Cohort 3) of the motivation
profile for the students in a three-year program was undertaken,
and the second part, being longitudinal, maps the movement of
Cohort 1 as they develop from Year 1 to Year 3. This work reports
the findings of the longitudinal section of the survey. To achieve the
objectives, a quantitative survey was executed via structured writ-
ten questionnaires. Neither Law and Chuah (2009), Law et al.
(2009), Kolmos et al. (2013), nor Alpay et al. (2008) evaluated
the five key motivational constructs of SDT as expressed by Ryan
and Deci (2000). The work of Martin et al. (2014) makes such a
consideration by adopting the three instruments (Table 1); this
approach increased the criterion validity of the questionnaire used.
They further tested the clarity of the final instrument using the
comments of two lecturers and three students of the Civil and
Environmental Engineering department. This study also uses this
questionnaire.
The questionnaire consists of two main sections. Section 1
called “Demographic Information and Academic Level” inquired
about students’ gender, age, year of study, nationality, and current
GPA. Section 2 consists of nine questions seeking to determine
why the students chose engineering and 22 motivational attributes.
The motivational attributes posed the central question of “What do
you think is driving your desire to complete your degree?” Ques-
tions were geared to evaluate the following motivational factors:
individual aspirations/goals, clear direction, individual attitude, re-
ward and recognition, parental or mentor motivation, punishment,
and social/group motivation. A five-point Likert scale was designed
to answer each statement in which 1 meant strongly disagree and 5
meant strongly agree.
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.
 Table 1. Motivational factors assessed based on literature
Category Question
Why did you choose Engineering?
Intrinsic I am interested in the field of engineering
Extrinsic I want to get a good job and/or make money
Intrinsic I want to be able to design and build things
Extrinsic This program has a good reputation
Extrinsic Family/teachers/careers adviser recommended this program
Extrinsic I want to be like my mother or father
Extrinsic All my friends chose engineering
Intrinsic I enjoy learning about new things
Intrinsic I want to further my education
What do you think is driving your desire to complete your degree?
Reward and recognitiona,b,c
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Studying, learning and achieving something makes my parents/family proud

Clear directiona,d,c I am keen to learn about new aspects of my subject and to explore new ideas
Reward and recognitiona,b,c Completing this degree will help me get a good, well-paying and respectable job
Clear directiona,d,c I get satisfaction from meeting intellectual challenges and pushing my limits
Clear directiona,d,c Studying, understanding and learning increases my knowledge and makes me feel accomplished
Punishmenta,c I don’t want to disappoint my family for fear of the consequences
Social or group motivationa,b,c I enjoy working with my study group/friends and they encourage me
Individual aspirations/goalsa,d,b,c I want to be the top student
Punishmenta,c I want to do well to avoid mistakes (losing scholarship, sponsorship, failing)
Individual attitudea,d,b,c I want to accomplish my own learning goals
Punishmenta If I don’t do well I will be humiliated
Social or group motivationa,b,c All my friends are doing well so I need to do well also
Individual aspirations/goalsa,d,b,c I want to make a difference or contribution to engineering in the world
Group or social pressure/competitiona,b,c I want to outperform my classmates and friends
Individual aspirations/goalsa,d,b,c I want to get good grades and graduate with high honors
Reward and recognitiona,c I just want to get a degree at the end of the day
Parental or mentorb I want to be like my mother or father
Individual attitudea,d,b,c I don’t want to let myself down
Individual attitudea,d,b,c I want to prove something to myself
Individual aspirations/goalsa,d,b,c I believe that what I am learning now will be beneficial to my future job
Parental or mentorb The lecturers are informative, encouraging and good role models
Parental or mentorb My parents/guardians/family encourage me
a
Law and Chuah (2009).
b
Kolmos et al. (2013).
c
Alpay et al. (2008).
d
Law et al. (2009).

Procedure scale items. Separating the variables into positive motivational

Since the nature of the survey was longitudinal, the questionnaires
were administered in three academic years, 2013–2014, 2014–
2015, and 2015–2016, targeting the same group of students as
they moved through each year level. To increase the probability
of maximum response, participants were asked to volunteer to take
the survey during class time. Overall 134 responses were secured.
Of those, 55 students were from Year 1 of the academic year 2013–
2014, 36 were from Year 2 of the academic year 2014–2015, and 43
were from Year 3 of the academic year 2015–2016. Ipsative nor-
malization is essential for longitudinal (repeated-measures) studies,
particularly, to transform the data for individual observations and
remove baseline differences between years (Yarnold 1988). All data
were therefore normalized before further analysis. To evaluate what
motivates students the approach used by Law and Chuah (2009)
was used to identify positive motivational variables (mean response
greater than three) and the amotivational variables (mean response
less than three). Microsoft Excel 2016 and SPSS v19.0 were used
for further analysis.
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Cronbach’s alpha is a widely used construct to show the reliability
of survey instruments. It measures the inter-item correlation of
and amotivational variables and testing the reliability of the positive
motivational variables only increases the unidimensional nature of
the Motivational Attribute scale (Martin et al. 2016; Schmitt 1996).
A measure of 0.7 for Cronbach’s alpha was used to indicate
whether acceptable results were obtained (George and Mallery
2011). Reliability in longitudinal data collection can be addressed
through triangulation, which refers to the verification of data by
multiple reference points (Street and Ward 2012). Theoretically,
triangulation of data sources increases reliability because each type
of data provides a unique but overlapping perspective on the same
phenomenon (Lustick 1996). As such, alpha was determined for
each cohort and the entire study population in the cross-sectional
study, as well as each year group in the longitudinal study. The
former evaluation, as separate students do it, confirms the consis-
tency in the interpretation of the instrument, whereas the latter com-
parison confirms the reliability of the measure of change (Salthouse
and Tucker-Drob 2008).
Some longitudinal case studies do not explicitly recognize time
as a variable within the research design, and it is not uncommon
for time to be only implicitly reflected in research (Schonfeld
and Rindskopf 2007; Saunders and Kim (2007). Reasons for such
assertions by some researchers (Stengers and Gille 1997;
Nandhakumar 2002) involve the regard for time as a social mental

© ASCE 04018005-4 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005

 construct. Within this social domain, time is used to keep track of
what we are doing and where we are, and therefore, time passes at
different rates and with different salience for each individual (Das
1993; Street and Ward 2012). Notwithstanding these views, validity
in this work was improved through consideration of the time unit
and time boundary.
Time unit validity deals with the question of how to segment the
timeline (Street and Ward 2012), be it months, semesters, or years.
To minimize measurement error and inaccurate conclusions when
the time unit is too large or too small, we examined the issue of
whether the selected time unit (years) is appropriately sensitive
for capturing changes in the measured motivational variables.
The unit of one year was deemed suitable because the anticipated
cognitive changes should be recognizable over this period.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Time boundaries validity deals with the question of how long of
a timeline. Time boundaries validity addresses the issue of whether
the beginning and ending points of the total observation window
have been set in such a way as to capture all significant events
or effects that occurred in the process under study. Time boundaries
validity is a form of content validity indicating the degree to which
the domain is accurately reflected in the measure. Time boundaries
validity was assessed by considering the use of a formal protocol
for defining the start and end conditions of the degree.
Relative Importance Index and Spearman’s Coefficient
Analysis
The relative importance index (RII) and Spearman’s coefficient
(rho) were used to conduct a preliminary evaluation to determine
if the responses from the various academic years differed. The RII
was used to rank the motivational variables for each academic year.
Higher values of RII indicate higher levels of importance/
motivation of the incident variable. RII was evaluated in Microsoft
Excel 2016 using the following equation:
P5
w i xi
RII ¼ Pi¼1 5
ð1Þ
i¼1 xi
where wi = weighting to the ith response (wi ¼ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 for
i ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, respectively); and xi = frequency of the ith
response; i = response category index = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Spearman’s coefficient is a nonparametric measure of correla-
tion between two sets of data that can be ranked. Assaf and Al-Hejji
(2006) used the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient to deter-
mine whether there is a degree of agreement between parties
concerning their ranking of factors. For this study, Spearman cor-
relation is used to evaluate the agreement of ranking for motiva-
tional variables between academic years. Spearman’s coefficient
(rho) was calculated using the following formula (Zar 1972)
P year. Motivation in students before the start of an engineering
6 d2
rho ¼ 1 − 3 ð2Þ
n −n
where d = difference between the RII of a motivational variable for
two academic years; and n = number of variables in each of the two
groups being compared.
Spearman’s coefficient (rho) values range from −1 to þ1, where
the magnitude of the value indicates the strength of the relationship
and the direction (negative or positive) reflects the nature of the
relationship. The null hypothesis (H0 ) states that the motivational
variables’ ranking from one academic level to another does not
change. The alternative hypothesis (H1 ) states that the motivational
variables’ ranking from one academic level to another does change.
The significance level used for this test and all other statistical
© ASCE 04018005-5
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005
analyses was p ≤ 0.05. Subsequently, testing was conducted for
each academic year to assess possible differences and explanations
for those differences.
To minimize the likelihood that the cohort under investigation
has a unique experience from another cohort of the same age, cross-
sectional data for the second year and final year students from the
(2013–2014) academic year are used as a comparative reference for
the longitudinal study. The Spearman coefficient was thus deter-
mined for Year 3 as well as Year 2 of the longitudinal study com-
pared to Year 3 and Year 2 of the cross-sectional study.
Differences between Groups
Damci (2015) and Kolmos et al. (2013) have established the im-
portance of demographics on perception to motivation. However,
there is no conclusive evidence on motivators toward the high per-
formance of engineering students. Particularly, with the growing
number of female students in engineering, it becomes critical to
examine any gender differences that may exist in students’ moti-
vation (Marra et al. 2009).
To understand whether there is an interaction between the inde-
pendent motivational variables on year group, gender, nationality,
and GPA, a two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was undertaken. To appraise which motivational variables signifi-
cantly changed with progression and how those changes occur,
a one-way ANOVA was carried out on the variables Age (≤18,
19–20, 21–22, 23–24, >24), and academic performance [Low
GPA (≤1.49), Intermediate GPA (1.50–2.99), High GPA (≥3.00)].
Subsequently, independent sample t-test on gender (male and
female), and nationality (Trinidadian and non-Trinidadian) was
performed.
For all the tests, the null hypothesis (H0 ) states that there is no
significant difference between the means of groups. The alternative
hypothesis (H1 ) states that there is a significant difference between
the means of groups. If a significant difference is observed based on
academic performance, the source of these differences for each aca-
demic year was explored. One-way ANOVA and t-tests were car-
ried out to decipher any significant differences between the GPA
means of the following groups:
• Gender: male and female (independent sample t-test)
• Nationality: Trinidadian and non-Trinidadian (independent
sample t-test)
• Age: ≤18, 19–20, 21–22, 23–24, >24 (one-way ANOVA)
Results
Students’ Motivation
Table 2 highlights the population characteristics for each academic
undergraduate degree can also affect the extent of motivation dur-
ing the degree and might be a possible indicator of academic per-
formance (Dias 2011). Thus, Fig. 1 illustrates the mean score as to
why persons chose engineering as a career.
The reliability of the estimates for the cross-sectional and
longitudinal studies is shown in Table 3. In each year of study,
to address the objective of determining what motivates students,
only the positive motivational variables were considered to contrib-
ute toward students’ motivation. Twenty-one positive motivational
variables contribute toward students’ motivation in Year 1,
whereas in Years 2 and 3, 18 positive motivational variables
defined students’ motivation. The remaining the variables were
amotivational.
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.
 Table 2. Years 1, 2, and 3 demographic information The results of the one-way ANOVA showed that there were sig-
Variable Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 nificant differences between the means for the motivational variable
“I want to be the top student” (F ½2; 131 ¼ 4.536; p ¼ 0.012) and
Age <18 5 2 0
the year groups. Least-square-difference (LSD) analysis (equal var-
19–20 36 15 4
21–22 8 15 18
iances assumed) indicated that there was a significant difference
23–24 4 2 17 between the means for the variable when comparing Year 1 and
>24 2 2 4 Year 3 students, as well as for Year 2 and Year 3 students. A sig-
GPA <1.49 6 3 1 nificant difference also occurred for the motivational variable “I
1.50–2.99 31 23 30 want to do well to avoid mistakes (losing scholarship, sponsorship,
>3 18 10 12 failing, etc.)” (F ½2; 130 ¼ 3.857; p ¼ 0.024). Tamhane analysis
Country of origin Trinidadian 30 21 19 (equal variances not assumed) also showed a significant difference
Other 25 15 24 between the means of this variable for Year 1 and Year 3 students.
Gender Male 38 20 28
Female 17 16 15
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Investigating Positive Motivational Variables versus

Fig. 1. Why students choose engineering.
Investigating Motivational Differences between
Academic Year of Study
Table 4 provides the relative importance and rank of each motiva-
tional variable by year. Spearman’s correlation analysis revealed
that the motivational variables’ ranking did significantly change
from Year 1 to Year 2 (rho ¼ 0.881) as well as from Year 2 to
Year 3 (rho ¼ 0.876). Additionally, the motivational variables’
ranking between Years 1 and 3 also displayed significant change
(rho ¼ 0.878). For the three analyses conducted the null hypothesis
(H0 ) was rejected at the 5% significance level. All the rho values
obtained indicate a very strong positive relationship. A Spearman
coefficient between Year 3 (cross-sectional) and Year 3 (longitudi-
nal) showed strong positive correlation (rho ¼ 0.8184). Similarly, a
Spearman coefficient between Year 2 (cross-sectional) and Year 2
(longitudinal) showed strong positive correlation (rho ¼ 0.902).
Both comparisons nullify the effect of differences existing between
this cohort under investigation and similar cohorts.
Gender for Each Academic Year
For the two-way MANOVA analysis, gender differed significantly
with p ≤ 0.003 when tested with the Wilks’s lambda. As such, sig-
nificant differences between the means for male and female in Year
1 were found for a number of the motivational variables. Firstly, for
the variable “I get satisfaction from meeting intellectual challenges
and pushing my limits” the mean score for males was 4.05
(SD ¼ 0.868), whereas the average score for the females was
4.53 (SD ¼ 0.624). The independent t-test revealed t ¼ −2.036,
degree of fredom ðdfÞ ¼ 53, and p ¼ 0.047. For the variable
“Studying, understanding and learning increases my knowledge
and makes me feel accomplished” the analysis produced a mean
male score of 4.32 (SD ¼ 0.574) and a mean female score of
4.76 (SD ¼ 0.437). The independent sample t-test revealed
t ¼ −2.866, df ¼ 53, and p ¼ 0.006. Similarly, for the variable
“I want to accomplish my learning goals” the mean male score was
found to be 4.08 (SD ¼ 0.749), whereas the mean female score
was 4.53 (SD ¼ 0.800). The t-test results revealed significance
at t ¼ −2.019, df ¼ 53, p ¼ 0.049. For the variable “I want to
make a difference or contribution to engineering in the world”
the mean score for males was 4.13 (SD ¼ 0.875), whereas the
mean female score was 4.71 (SD ¼ 0.470). The independent t-test
results showed that t ¼ −3.155, df ¼ 51.05, and p ¼ 0.003. Lastly,
the variable “I want to get good grades and graduate with high hon-
ors” the male, mean score was shown to be 4.11 (SD ¼ 1.008),
whereas the female score was 4.88 (SD ¼ 0.332). The t-test results
indicated that t ¼ −4.264, df ¼ 50.29, and p < 0.00005.
Four of the five variables that showed a significant difference for
the students in Year 1 also showed a significant difference when
they moved on to Year 2. For the clear direction variable “I get
satisfaction from meeting intellectual challenges and pushing my
limits” the mean male score was 3.95 (SD ¼ 0.510), whereas
the mean female score was 4.50 (SD ¼ 0.516). The independent
t-test showed the following results: t ¼ −3.192, df ¼ 32.12, and
p ¼ 0.003. Similarly, for the rewards and recognition variable
“Studying, understanding and learning increases my knowledge
and makes me feel accomplished” the mean male score was found
to be 4.25 (SD ¼ 0.550), whereas the mean female score was found
to be 4.63 (SD ¼ 0.500). The independent t-test indicates that
t ¼ −2.115, df ¼ 34, and p ¼ 0.042. For the individual attitude
variable “I want to accomplish my learning goals” the mean male
score was 4.21 (SD ¼ 0.535), and the mean female score was 4.63

Table 3. Reliability for the respective studies by year

Study type Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Overall
Cross-sectional 0.761 (n ¼ 55) 0.817 (n ¼ 46) 0.778 (n ¼ 43) 0.805 (n ¼ 144)
Longitudinal 0.761 (n ¼ 55) 0.794 (n ¼ 36) 0.787 (n ¼ 43) 0.779 (n ¼ 134)

© ASCE 04018005-6 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005

 Table 4. Relative importance index and Spearman rank
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Motivational attributes of the students RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
Studying, learning and achieving something makes my parents/family proud. 3.27 9 3.22 8.0 3.07 11.0
I am keen to learn about new aspects of my subject area and explore new ideas. 3.25 10 3.36 5.0 3.26 7.0
Completing this degree will help me get a good, well-paying and respectable job. 3.40 4 3.19 9.5 3.28 6.0
I get satisfaction from meeting intellectual challenges and pushing my limits. 3.20 12 3.19 9.5 3.14 9.0
Studying, understanding and learning increases my knowledge and makes me feel accomplished. 3.45 2 3.42 2.0 3.35 4.5
I don’t want to disappoint my family. 3.16 13 2.94 14.0 2.81 13.0
I enjoy working with my study group/friends and they encourage me. 2.58 16 2.81 15.0 2.53 16.0
I want to be top student.a 2.64 15 2.64 16.0 1.98 19.0
I want to do well to avoid mistakes (losing scholarship, sponsorship, failing etc.). 3.13 14 3.08 12.0 2.60 14.5
I want to accomplish my own learning goals. 3.22 11 3.40 4.0 3.19 8.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

If I don’t do well I will be humiliated. 2.13 19.5 2.22 18.0 2.05 18.0
All my friends are doing well so I need to do well also.a,b 2.15 18 1.83 20.0 1.79 20.0
I want to make a difference or contribution to engineering in the world. 3.31 7 3.31 6 3.35 4.5
I want to outperform my classmates and friends.a,b 2.13 19.5 2.00 19 1.56 21
I want to get good grades and graduate with high honors. 3.43 3.0 3.25 7 2.91 12
I just want to get a degree at the end of the day. 2.35 17.0 2.36 17 2.60 14.5
I want to be like my mother or father.a,b,c 1.41 22.0 1.39 22 1.42 22
I don’t want to let myself down. 3.58 1.0 3.42 2 3.37 3
I want to prove something to myself. 3.30 8.0 2.97 13 3.12 10
I believe that what I am learning now will be beneficial to my future job. 3.36 5.5 3.17 11 3.42 1.5
The lecturers are informative, encouraging and good role models.b 2.07 21 1.72 21 2.14 17
My parents/guardians/family encourage me. 3.36 5.5 3.42 2 3.42 1.5
a,b,c
Amotivational variables for each year. Cronbach’s alpha for amotivational variables was found to be 0.782; 0.818; 0.729 for overall, Year 2, and Year 3.
Year 1 represents a single item; as such, the reliability is not determined.

(SD ¼ 0.619). The t-test conducted showed that t ¼ −2.125,
df ¼ 33, and p ¼ 0.041. Evaluation of the individual attitude var-
iable “I want to make a difference or contribution to engineering in
the world” resulted in a male mean score of 3.90 (SD ¼ 0.553) and
a female, mean score of 4.81 (0.403). The independent t-test done
showed that t ¼ −5.527, df ¼ 34, and p ¼ 0.000.
When the students moved to Year 3, only one variable showed
significant difference based on the gender of the students. For the
clear direction variable “I am keen to learn about the new aspects of
my subject area and to explore new ideas” the mean male score was
found to be 4.04 (SD ¼ 0.693), whereas the female score was
found to be 4.67 (SD ¼ 0.488). The independent t-test yielded
the following results: t ¼ −3.128, df ¼ 41, and p ¼ 0.003.
Two-way MANOVA indicates a significance of p <¼ 0.002 for
Wilks’s lambda when both age and gender are compared on the
motivational variables.
Positive Motivational Variable versus Nationality
or Age
No significant differences were observed for the mean values given
for the motivational variables based on respondent’s nationality or
age when they were in Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3.
Investigating Positive Motivational Differences Against
GPA
A significant difference was observed between the mean scores
for three motivational variables based on GPA grouping for Year
1 students. Firstly, analysis on the punishment variable “If I do not
do well I will be humiliated” produced the following results:
F ½2; 52 ¼ 3.200 with p ¼ 0.049. LSD analysis showed there
was a significant difference between students with low and inter-
mediate GPA scores as well as between those with low and high
GPA scores for this variable. A significant difference between the
mean scores for the rewards and recognition variable “I just want to
get a degree at the end of the day” was also observed to be
(F ½2; 52 ¼ 4.348; p ¼ 0.018). Tamhane analysis illustrated that
significant mean difference occurred between students with low
and intermediate GPA as well as between students with low and
high GPA. Thirdly, a significant difference was also found between
the mean scores for the individual attitude variable “I want to prove
something to myself” (F ½2; 52 ¼ 3.383; p ¼ 0.042). Tamhane
analysis revealed that significant difference occurred between stu-
dents with low and intermediate GPA scores as well as between
those with low and high GPA scores.
No significant difference was found for the means of the vari-
ables for Year 2 students based on GPA.
Only one student had a low GPA in Year 3, which deemed one-
way ANOVA inappropriate. As such, this student was removed
from the analysis and an independent t-test used to investigate pos-
sible differences between the mean responses of the remaining two
groups and the motivational variables. As expressed by the Year 3
students, there are significant differences observed between the
mean GPA groups for the motivational variables. Analysis on
personal attitude variable “I want to get good grades and graduate
with high honors” produced the following results: t ¼ −2.335,
df ¼ 41, and p ¼ 0.025. The mean value obtained for students with
intermediate GPA was found to be 3.67 (SD ¼ 1.155), whereas
the mean for students with high GPA was found to be 4.50
(SD ¼ 0.674). The results indicate that students in Year 3 with high
GPA scores were more motivated by attaining high grades than stu-
dents with intermediate GPA scores. For the rewards and recogni-
tion variable “I just want to get a degree at the end of the day” a
significant difference was also observed between the mean scores
of the students with high and intermediate GPA scores (t ¼ 2.672,
df ¼ 40, and p ¼ 0.011). The mean score obtained for students
with intermediate GPA scores was 3.90 (SD ¼ 1.145), whereas
the mean score for students with high GPA scores was 2.75
(SD ¼ 1.485). The results show that students in Year 3 with inter-
mediate GPA scores are more motivated by the desire for a degree
compared to students with high GPA scores.

© ASCE 04018005-7 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005

 Academic Performance (GPA) versus Gender, Age,
and Nationality
A significant difference was obtained between the mean GPA
scores for the different ages (F ½4; 50 ¼ 3.049; p ¼ 0.025). LSD
analysis revealed that significant differences occurred between
students of the following age ranges: 19–20 and 21–22 years
old, 21–22 and 23–24 years old, and 21–22 and >24 years old.
There were no significant differences found between the
mean GPA for students of different genders, nationalities or ages
in Years 2 and 3.
Discussion
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
What Variables Motivate Students?
A combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational variables was
used to test students’ motivation. Utilizing the self-determination
theory’s segregation of extrinsic motivation via level of autonomy
(Ryan and Deci 2000), it can also be said that the presented var-
iables test the external regulation, introjection, identification, and
integration forms of extrinsic motivation. The numerous positive
motivational variables illustrate that a mixture of intrinsic and ex-
trinsic factors motivates students. Other research (Law and Chuah
2009; Law et al. 2009; Husman and Lens 1999) on students’ mo-
tivational factors also found that both intrinsic and extrinsic moti-
vation contributed to students’ motivation.
Utilizing the relative importance index (RII), the most important
positive motivational variable for the students throughout their
three years of study was found to be “I don’t want to let myself
down.” This variable suggests that the goal of attaining their degree
has become an internal part of who the students’ consider them-
selves to be. This variable is the most intrinsic form of extrinsic
motivation (Ryan and Deci 2000). A variable that has a mean score
less than three is not considered to motivate the students. A concept
that does not have motivational power does not necessarily have
demotivating power. Hence, the variables with a mean score less
than three are deemed amotivational variables. The four amotiva-
tional variables from the overall analysis were introjection varia-
bles. The driving force tested was either due to parental/mentor
motivation or social/group motivation focusing on gaining others’
approval. This result may indicate that throughout the students’
studies motivational factors, which are rooted outside of the stu-
dents, do not substantially contribute to their motivation to com-
plete their degree. Law and Chuah (2009) and Law et al. (2009)
concluded that intrinsic motivational factors contribute more to stu-
dents’ motivation on an individual level compared to that of extrin-
sic motivation.
How Do the Positive and Amotivational Variables
Change over Time?
A similar evaluation of each academic year indicated variations in
the positive and amotivational variables that affected the students.
Firstly, the number of amotivational variables for each year level
differed. While the students were in Year 1, only one introjection
variable (parental/mentor) did not contribute to their motivation. In
Year 2 and Year 3, this value increased to four variables, possibly
signifying that the quantity of the students’ motivation is decreas-
ing. As students progress in their program of choice, the difficulty
level of the material increases. Educational programs are often de-
signed in this way to cause students to grow and develop cogni-
tively. Bloom’s taxonomy illustrates the hierarchy of learning
that numerous academic programs are built on (Seaman 2011).
© ASCE 04018005-8
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005
Cognitive processes progress through the following stages: remem-
bering, understanding, application, analyzing, evaluation, and
creation. Students’ motivation may be decreasing due to various
reasons such as disappointing outcomes after applying effort to
the increasingly challenging workload. Longitudinal motivational
studies have shown that over time the quantity of motivation de-
creases. For instance, Hayenga and Corpus (2010) revealed that
over time students with good quantity motivational profiles moved
toward a lower quantity of motivational profile. Motivation levels
may decrease over the course of a degree program because of in-
stitutions, in the beginning, raising student expectations only to be
dampened when the student finds out that the reality is not what
they expected.
Secondly, differences were observed that have implications for
the quality of the students’ motivation. Although the decreased
quantity of motivation suggests cause for concern, research has
shown that the quality of motivation more strongly predicts cogni-
tive learning and engagement (Corpus and Wormington 2014; Lin
et al. 2003). In Year 1 the most important motivational variable for
the students was “I don’t want to let myself down.” In Year 2 “Study-
ing, understanding and learning increases my knowledge and makes
me feel accomplished” (intrinsic), “I don’t want to let myself down,”
and “My parents/guardians/family encourage me” (introjection)
tied for the first position. Alternatively, in Year 3 the top variables
with the same relative importance emerged to be “I believe that what
I am learning now will be beneficial to my future job” (identifica-
tion) and “My parents/guardians/family encourage me.” Each year
the most important variable(s) became more extrinsic. In Year 2,
although an intrinsic variable was introduced, so was an introjection
motivational variable. In Year 3, an identification variable (some-
what internal) replaced the intrinsic and integration variables asso-
ciated with Year 2. Additionally, the amotivational variables in Year
2 were all introjection (parental/mentor and social/group) motiva-
tional variables. In Year 3, however, one of the variables “I want
to be top student” stood out. Unlike the previous observations, this
variable belongs to the individual aspirations and goals group. In
agreement with self-determination theory, this variable displays
identification characteristics. In light of achievement goal theory,
“I want to be the top student” illustrates performance approach
behavior. The achievement goal theory postulates two reasons
for student engagement: mastery and performance goals. According
to Meece et al. (2006), mastery goals reflect perfectionism. Students
focus on mastering a skill, advancing to more challenging levels.
With performance goals, on the other hand, students engage in
learning activities to demonstrate higher abilities when compared
to other students. Both goals can be viewed from approach and
avoidance perspectives. Approach goals involve positive attitudes,
whereas avoidance goals involve negative attitudes. Commonly,
mastery goals have been attributed to positive outcomes such as in-
trinsic motivation, whereas performance goals have been concomi-
tant to the opposite. Recently, however, performance approach
behavior has been found to contribute to intrinsic motivation leading
to more adaptive behavior such as cognitive learning and the devel-
opment of metacognitive and self-regulatory practices (Husman and
Lens 1999; Meece et al. 2006). The more internal motivation be-
comes, the higher its quality and positive outcomes. As such, the
fact that this variable is not positively contributing to students’ mo-
tivation, coupled with the changes observed for the most important
variables in each year of study, demonstrates that the internal nature
of their motivation is decreasing throughout the course. As students
get nearer to their goal, the desire to attain the goal in and of
itself may be increasing, thus shifting the focus from performing
at the highest level to merely passing to reach the target. The
overjustification theory (Pintrich and Schunk 1996) supports this
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.
 interpretation because it hypothesizes that once both intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations exist in the same arena: as time passes extrinsic
motivation undermines intrinsic motivation.
Do the Motivational Variables Change Significantly
Over Time?
Statistically, the Spearman’s correlation coefficients indicated that
there were significant changes in the motivational variables as the
students went through each academic level. Results from one-way
ANOVA solidify the correlation evaluation. The motivational
strength of the variable “I want to be top student” significantly de-
creased from Year 1 to Year 3 and from Year 2 to Year 3, supporting
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the previous observation and reasoning. Based on the various the-
ories, this result, along with previous observations made, seems to
demonstrate that the degree of internal motivation is decreasing.
The second variable found to be significant, “I want to avoid
making mistakes (losing a scholarship, sponsorship, failing,
etc.),” showed that the students were more motivated by this fear
when they were in Year 1 as opposed to Year 3. In the first year of
the undergraduate civil engineering degree programs, there are
several crucial courses that are commonly known to have high fail-
ure rates. Since these courses are prerequisites to Level 2 courses,
failure would usually lead to an additional year of study. Year-1
students are made aware of this, and the fear associated with such
failure can be high. Conversely, in Year 3 during the second semes-
ter (when the questionnaire was administered) students have com-
pleted the majority of their courses. At that point in their studies,
fear of making mistakes may be less since the probability and sub-
sequent risk of failure attached to their remaining time in university
is low. The self-determination theory describes the motivation that
occurs due to fear of punishment from an external source as exter-
nally regulated. Furthermore, regarding the achievement goal
theory, this variable shows characteristics of performance avoid-
ance, in which students strive to do well to avoid failure. Studies
have demonstrated that both external regulation extrinsic and per-
formance avoidance behavior lead to the most maladaptive forms of
educational practices (Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Elliot and Church
1997; Wolters 2004). These results may indicate that by the end of
their course of study students’ extrinsic motivation has decreased.
Do Trends Exist between the Motivational Variable for
Each Academic Year by Gender?
Results revealed that throughout the program female students were
significantly more motivated compared to their male classmates
based on six variables. The variables all displayed high internal
qualities, showing intrinsic and integration features. Consequently,
it can be deduced that females may be more intrinsically motivated
compared to their male classmates. Engineering is a traditionally
male-dominated field, and as such gender disparities exist (Alpay
et al. 2008; Kolmos et al. 2013). Improvement in the presence of
females in engineering has occurred in recent times, although a bias
is sometimes still evident; in the survey conducted in each year,
there was a greater percentage of male students, although the differ-
ence was not substantial. Even in the advent of a more substantial
proportion of female participation in the field, research has shown
that females gravitate toward the newly established engineering
fields, which display broader contextual approaches (Kolmos
et al. 2013). Values hold high importance when students choose
a particular career path (Matusovich et al. 2010). Research has
shown that female and male values differ. Women are known to
gravitate toward engineering fields that utilize contextual ap-
proaches because they value social context more highly than
© ASCE 04018005-9
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005
men do (Kolmos et al. 2013). Consequently, females who choose
to pursue core engineering disciplines such as civil engineering
would be thought to integrate their personal values to their
academic/career goals. Some of the significant variables such as
“I want to make a difference or contribution to the engineering
world” and “I am keen to learn about the new aspects of my subject
area and to explore new ideas” illustrate this. The same trend was
observed in Alpay et al. (2008) for similar testing on the motiva-
tional variable called “Make a difference in the world.” The vari-
ables “I want to get good grades and graduate with high honors,” “I
want to accomplish my learning goals,” and “I get satisfaction from
meeting intellectual challenges and pushing my limits” suggest
self-regulatory behavior. Self-regulation speaks to a student’s abil-
ity to organize the way they prepare or move toward accomplishing
their goals. Meece and Painter (2008) reported on various works
done on motivation and self-regulatory practices with gender in
mind. Although conflicted results were obtained based on student
motivation, the studies on self-regulation indicated that often fe-
males display better cognitive and metacognitive practices such
as intermediate goal setting, planning, and environmental structur-
ing than males do. Good self-regulatory practices are associated
with intrinsic motivation.
Is There a Significant Change in Motivational Variables
over Time Based on Gender?
As we moved from one academic year to the next, the number
of significantly different motivational variables due to gender de-
creased. The number of significant variables dropped from five var-
iables in Year 1 to four in Year 2 to one in Year 3. Evaluation of the
male and female means of each variable for each academic level
showed that both genders mostly decreased in succession. This
behavior may indicate that students’ overall intrinsic motivation
decreased as time passed. When Alpay et al. (2008) investigated
the motivation of male and female students as they passed through
each academic level, the overall motivation (male and female) was
found to decrease as time passed. Additionally, female motivation
declined at a slower rate and even increased slightly from their
third to the fourth (final) year of study. Other researchers also
show this trend; as time passes, once an extrinsic goal is present,
intrinsic motivation tends to decrease (Corpus and Wormington
2014; Hayenga and Corpus 2010; Otis et al. 2005; Spinath and
Steinmayr 2008).
Do Trends Exist between the Motivational Variable
Scores for Each Academic Year by Nationality
and Age?
The results of the statistical analysis showed no significant differ-
ences for the motivational variables when compared to nationality
and age in all the academic years. Benson et al. (2013) carried out
motivational tests on Year 2 and Year 3 engineering students. The
work evaluated the possible differences in the students’ motivation
as a result of ethnicity. However, no significant differences were
observed. Ethnicity, similar to nationality and age, proposes stu-
dents from different contexts. Ethnicity and nationality speak to
cultural differences whereas age speaks to developmental differen-
ces. Benson et al. (2013), attributed the lack of differences to simi-
larities in students’ motivational profiles when they choose to enter
a degree program. The same deduction may apply in the current
circumstance. The vast majority of the students were Caribbean na-
tionals. As such, the results may reflect similar cultural experiences
and values across the region.
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.
 Is There a Relationship between the Motivational
Variables, Which Influence Students, and Their
Academic Performance (GPA)?
In Year 1, evaluation showed that for the variable “If I don’t do well
I will be humiliated” students with low GPA scores adhered to this
variable more than students with high GPA scores. The same trend
was noticed for students with intermediate GPA and high GPA. As
previously discussed, performance avoidance behavior such as that
portrayed by this variable is known to precede maladaptive forms
of learning and consequently poor academic achievement (Wigfield
and Cambria 2010). Students with higher GPA are in good
academic standing and would most likely not be overly concerned
with humiliation from poor academic performance. Their goals
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
have already been met, and their perceived level of competence
and resulting self-efficacy may be higher (Pintrich 2003). In the
study carried out by Benson et al. (2013), the authors also found
that students with higher GPA had significantly higher problem-
solving self-efficacy. Evaluation of the second significant variable,
“I just want a degree at the end of the day,” showed that students
with low GPA scores were more motivated by this variable in com-
parison to students in both the intermediate and high GPA groups.
If a student’s motivation is primarily to obtain a degree, merely
passing their courses would be satisfactory for them. Therefore, this
reflects that students who are motivated by this variable do not see
the need to do the work to attain high academic standards. This
thought pattern would reflect in their academic grades. Extrinsic
motivation, as embodied here, is linked in the literature to poor
academic performance. The same trends were observed for the
third significant variable, “I want to prove something to myself.”
Students with low GPA would have more to prove as compared to
students with intermediate and high GPA. That is, students with
higher GPA have already proven to themselves that they can attain
satisfactory and good grades. Overall, in Year 1 students with
higher GPA scores seem to be more intrinsically motivated.
No statistical differences were highlighted in Year 2’s GPA
evaluation. Hence, students’ motivational profiles do not differ
based on GPA groups in Year 2. There is not enough evidence
to extract conclusions from this data explaining this phenomenon,
leaving questions and room for further research. The motivational
variables used in this study test the social cognitive constructs of
values, goals, and interests directly. However, they do not directly
test control and self-efficacy. Research has shown that self-efficacy
and control could also predict academic performance (Pintrich
2003). Previous results suggested that motivation decreased from
the first through to the third year. However, do the students’ self-
efficacy or control beliefs drop dramatically in Year 2? What are the
implications of such a case on the motivational profiles of students
in the various GPA groups? For instance, in Year 1 the students’
attitude may be “I can accomplish academic excellence.” If self-
efficacy drops in Year 2, their attitude may become “Can I accom-
plish this?” After successfully completing the first semester of Year
3, self-efficacy may again increase. As the goal draws nearer, the
students’ attitudes may then become “I must accomplish this.”
Future work should address this behavior.
The results from the students’ third year of study, in fact, support
this change in attitude hypothesis. The variable “I just want to get a
degree at the end of the day” showed a significant difference be-
tween students with intermediate GPA and high GPA. Similar to the
observations made in Year 1, the students with lower GPA were
more motivated by this variable when compared to students in
the higher GPA group. The second significant variable, “I want
to get good grades,” revealed that students with higher GPA scores
desire good grades more than students with intermediate scores do.
© ASCE 04018005-10
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005
If a student wants to get good grades, he/she is more likely to work
toward that goal and therefore is more likely to attain it. The results
show a split in the type of motivation the students observe in their
last semester of their degrees. The group of students with inter-
mediate GPA is more extrinsically motivated, focusing on simply
finishing the program. This variable belongs to the external regu-
lation segment of extrinsic motivation. In the second group of stu-
dents, however, students with high GPA display more intrinsic
forms of extrinsic motivation. Needing to obtain good grades
may signify that attaining those grades is important to the students,
resulting in the identification form of extrinsic motivation. A more
internal form of motivation is therefore shown to more positively
predict academic achievement. A review of achievement values,
goal orientations, and interests by Wigfield and Cambria (2010)
indicated that numerous research endeavors support the postulated
correlation.
What Influences the GPA Differences?
To find out why the significant differences occurred in Year 1 and
Year 3 further statistical tests were carried out based on the dem-
ographics of the students. In Year 1 mean GPA scores were found to
differ based on age groups significantly. The 21–22-year-old stu-
dents outperformed students in all the other age groups. Descriptive
statistics revealed that there were eight students in this age range.
No significant difference was found based on age or any other dem-
ographic dissimilarities for GPA in Year 3. The results do not allow
for solid interpretation of the observed phenomenon. This observa-
tion may simply reflect the specific situation, especially since the
number of students aged 21–22 in Year 1 was small and by Year 2
any demarcation based on GPA dissipated.
Implication to Educational Practice
Over time, the motivation of the students decreased in both quantity
and quality. The study revealed that as students progressed, their
motivation became more extrinsic—deteriorating the quality of
their motivation. This information reinforces the fact that as time
passes students would greatly benefit from an increasingly greater
intensity of intervention and guidance that pushes them toward in-
trinsic motivation because the quality of motivation is of highest
concern. Specifically, the variables like “I want to be top student”
that differ significantly over time highlight the loss of aspirations
and goals that intrinsically motivate students. This observation
translates to educators implementing strategies to help students
identify and internalize their goals because in the classroom goals
are considered as the measures that regulate an individual’s actions
(Schunk 2001). Goals can be progressive from the short-term goal
of just earning a good grade on an exam and advancing toward the
long-term achievement of being the top student in a program. Thus,
encouraging students to set short-term goals such as studying for a
fixed amount of time for their learning can be a useful way to help
students track their progress and assist in ensuring success on
exams (Zimmerman 2004).
The results also indicated that throughout the three-year study
females were more intrinsically motivated than males and as such
demonstrated more self-regulatory practices compared to men.
Self-regulated learning (SRL) is recognized as an essential predic-
tor of student academic motivation and achievement (Zimmerman
2011). This process requires students to in advance plan to accom-
plish both their short- and long-term goals for their learning,
self-motivate themselves, monitor their progress, and assess their
learning independently. However, few students naturally do this
well, and so course assessments must be designed with this in mind
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.
 so students may use multiple learning strategies and adjust those
strategies and seek help from others as needed. The males need
to be motivated to internalize their goals more and learn to incor-
porate better organization and self-evaluation skills. Lecturers can
use the aforementioned strategies to promote self-regulation in their
classrooms. However, they should understand that learners develop
at various paces and a strategy that works best for one student may
not always work with the next.
Students in the lower GPA range are also in need of direct at-
tention. Overall, students with higher GPAs were more intrinsically
motivated than the rest of the students. For instance, in Year 1 lower
performing students were found to adhere to the variable “If I don’t
do well I will be humiliated.” This finding indicates a possible de-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ficiency in perceived competence and self-efficacy. Work should be
done to empower the lower achievers to see their value and believe
in their abilities.
The findings strongly support the importance of the social-
cognitive constructs to the development of student motivation.
Specific factors in the social context, such as choice and meaning-
ful positive feedback, can be thought of as being analogous to spe-
cific aspects of work contents and settings. There is considerable
similarity between the social-contextual factors that maintain in-
trinsic motivation and those that facilitate the integration of extrin-
sic motivation. Specifically, autonomy-supportive climates, as well
as such specific factors as choice and acknowledgement, promote
both types of autonomous motivation (Gagné and Deci 2005).
Social support from peers and teachers can serve as a significant
role as students are learning to be more self-regulative. Findings
from a study by Patrick et al. (2007) showed that task engagement
and the use of self-regulated learning strategies were more preva-
lent in students that regularly received support from their teachers
and peers. Feedback is the most common form of social support.
Research indicates that effective feedback includes information
about what students need to improve, what they did well (Labuhn
et al. 2010), and steps they can take to enhance their work (Hattie
and Timperley 2007). Progress feedback assists students in raising
their academic achievement (Brookhart 2011) and can promote stu-
dent motivation (Wigfield and Cambria 2010) and self-regulation.
Students who received feedback from their teachers were more
likely to use self-regulated learning strategies to improve their tests
scores (Labuhn et al. 2010).
Conclusions and Recommendations
Motivation is a concept that elucidates the magnitude and direction
of human behavior (Pintrich 2003). Often educators and research-
ers look to motivation to resolve inconsistencies in students’ aca-
demic performance. At the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, over the past four years, more than half of each under-
graduate graduating class has failed to complete the programs of-
fered in the allotted timeframe. Students, although entering the
program with similar abilities, have not performed, on average,
at a high academic level. The disparity between the minority
who perform exceptionally well and the remaining students is stark.
Martin et al. (2014) examined this outcome in the academic year
2013–2014 to determine possible links between motivation and
academic performance. The results of the cross-sectional survey
conducted suggested that intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic motiva-
tional factors had a more positive effect on students’ motivation.
The study, however, only revealed a significant difference in aca-
demic performance based on the social acceptance motivational
factor and provided inferences about the changing nature of
motivation.
© ASCE 04018005-11
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005
This study, being longitudinal, seeks to provide deductions
about changes in motivation with time, and the link between stu-
dents’ motivation and academic performance. Evaluation of the
motivational variables revealed that the students were motivated
by a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic variables, which were
observed to decrease in quantity and quality over time. This obser-
vation was supported by the temporary decline of the two signifi-
cantly different variables found with respect to academic level: “I
want to be the top student” and “I want to avoid making mistakes
(losing a scholarship, sponsorship, failing, etc.). Assessment of sig-
nificant disparities in gender revealed that in each academic year
females were more internally motivated compared to their male
classmates. However, as time progressed, the trend again emerged
that the internal nature of motivation decreased. A better under-
standing of the relationship between demographics and motivators
should allow lecturers to motivate students individually rather than
using a blanket approach.
Testing of the motivational variables on academic performance
(GPA) showed that when the students were in Year 1 and Year 3
those with higher GPA were more internally motivated. An
anomaly characterizes Year 2; no significant differences occurred
between academic performance levels (GPA). This anomaly raises
questions about what may be influencing this observation. Further
research into this area would be beneficial, providing continuity
and further insight into the link between motivation and academic
achievement. At entry, students had the skills and belief that they
will complete the program; as a result, this investigation did not
directly test the social cognitive constructs of self-efficacy; how-
ever, its importance relating to other motivational variables is dis-
cussed. Exploring the applicability of this construct and its links to
academic achievement especially for Year 2 students needs to be
done. Consequent findings combined with the present results
would inform the Civil and Environmental Engineering department
and educators with directions for aiding students’ motivation.
The results and subsequent interpretations illustrate that mea-
sures need to be put in place to assist students as they move from
one year level to the next to maintain their internal motivation. The
same sentiments need to be applied to students who are at lower
academic performance levels. Further research is required to deter-
mine the factors that are causing the students to be demotivated.
For instance, the results of this survey indicated that the variable
“The lecturers are informative, encouraging and good role models”
was rated low in each academic year. Evaluating the effect of teach-
ing styles may fully uncover practical measures that can be taken to
improve the students’ motivation.
References
Alpay, E., A. L. Ahearn, R. H. Graham, and A. M. J. Bull. 2008. “Student
enthusiasm for engineering: Charting changes in student aspirations and
motivation.” Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 33 (5–6): 573–585. https://doi.org/10
.1080/03043790802585454.
Assaf, S. A., and S. Al-Hejji. 2006. “Causes of delay in large construction
projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 24 (4): 349–357. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010.
Bandura, A. 1993. “Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning.” Educ. Psychol. 28 (2): 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207
/s15326985ep2802_3.
Benson, L., A. Kirn, and C. Faber. 2013. “CAREER: Student motivation
and learning in engineering.” In Proc., 120th ASEE Annual Conf. and
Exposition. Paper No. 6363. Washington, DC: American Society for
Engineering Education.
Brookhart, S. 2011. “Educational assessment knowledge and skills for
teachers.” Educ. Meas.: Issues Pract. 30 (1): 3–12. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x.
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.
 Ciani, K. D., K. M. Sheldon, J. C. Hilpert, and M. A. Easter. 2011. “Ante-
cedents and trajectories of achievement goals: A self-determination
theory perspective.” Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 81 (2): 223–243. https://doi
.org/10.1348/000709910X517399.
Corpus, J. H., M. S. McClintic-Gilbert, and A. O. Hayenga. 2009. “Within-
year changes in children’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orienta-
tions: Contextual predictors and academic outcomes.” Contemp. Educ.
Psychol. 34 (2): 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.01
.001.
Corpus, J. H., and S. V. Wormington. 2014. “Profiles of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations in elementary school: A longitudinal analysis.”
J. Exp. Educ. 82 (4): 480–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973
.2013.876225.
Damci, A. 2015. “Impact of personal demographics on civil engineers’
motivators: Case study of Turkey.” J. Manage. Eng. 32 (2): 1–7.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000406.
Das, T. K. 1993. “Time in management and organizational studies.” Time
Soc. 2 (2): 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X93002002008.
Deci, E. L. 1971. “Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic mo-
tivation.” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 18 (1): 105–115. https://doi.org/10
.1037/h0030644.
Dias, D. 2011. “Reasons and motivations for the option of an engineering
career in Portugal.” Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 36 (4): 367–376. https://doi.org
/10.1080/03043797.2011.593096.
Dworkin, G. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Eccles, J. S., and A. Wigfield. 2002. “Motivational beliefs, values, and
goals.” Ann. Rev. Psychol. 53 (1): 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146
/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.
Elliot, A. J., and M. A. Church. 1997. “A hierarchical model of approach
and avoidance achievement motivation.” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72 (1):
218–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218.
Engelschalk, T., G. Steuer, and M. Dresel. 2017. “Quantity and quality of
motivational regulation among university students.” Educ. Psychol.
37 (9): 1154–1170. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1322177.
Gagné, M., and E. L. Deci. 2005. “Self-determination theory and work mo-
tivation.” J. Organiz. Behav. 26 (4): 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002
/job.322.
George, D., and P. Mallery. 2011. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple
study guide and reference, 17.0 update, 10/e. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Harris, F., and C. Moll. 2015. “The impact of quality management practices
on the extended curriculum programme at a university of technology.”
Int. J. Innov. Educ. Res. 3 (2): 143–152.
Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The power of feedback.” Rev. Educ.
Res. 77 (1): 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
Hayenga, A. O., and J. H. Corpus. 2010. “Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations: A person-centered approach to motivation and achieve-
ment in middle school.” Motivation Emotion 34 (4): 371–383.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-010-9181-x.
Husman, J., and W. Lens. 1999. “The role of the future in student moti-
vation.” Educ. Psychol. 34 (2): 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1207
/s15326985ep3402_4.
Kolmos, A., N. Mejlgaard, S. Haase, and J. E. Holgaard. 2013. “Motiva-
tional factors, gender and engineering education.” Eur. J. Eng. Educ.
38 (3): 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.794198.
Labuhn, A. S., B. J. Zimmerman, and M. Hasselhorn. 2010. “Enhancing
students’ self-regulation and mathematics performance: The influence
of feedback and self-evaluative standards.” Metacognit. Learn. 5 (2):
173–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9056-2.
Law, K. M., and K. Chuah. 2009. “What motivates engineering students? A
study in Taiwan.” Int. J. Eng. Educ. 25 (5): 1068–1074.
Law, K. M., F. E. Sandnes, H.-L. Jian, and Y.-P. Huang. 2009. “A compar-
ative study of learning motivation among engineering students in South
East Asia and beyond.” Int. J. Eng. Educ. 25 (1): 144–151.
Lin, Y.-G., W. J. McKeachie, and Y. C. Kim. 2003. “College student in-
trinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning.” Learn. Individual
Differences 13 (3): 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(02)
00092-4.
© ASCE 04018005-12
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005
Lustick, L. S. 1996. “History, historiography, and political science: Multi-
ple historical records and the problem of selection bias.” Am. Political
Sci. Rev. 90 (3): 605–618. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082612.
Marra, R. M., K. A. Rodgers, D. Shen, and B. Bogue. 2009. “Women
engineering students and self-efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institution
study of women engineering student self-efficacy.” J. Eng. Educ.
98 (1): 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01003.x.
Martin, H., T. M. Lewis, and A. Petersen. 2016. “Factors affecting the
choice of construction project delivery in developing oil and gas econo-
mies.” Archit. Eng. Des. Manage. 12 (3): 170–188. https://doi.org/10
.1080/17452007.2016.1151762.
Martin, H., C. Sorhaindo, and F. Welch. 2014. “Motivation of undergradu-
ate civil engineering students for higher levels of academic success.”
In Proc., 30th Ann. Int. Conf. by the Association of Researchers in
Construction Management (ARCOM), 1205–1224. Reading, UK:
Association of Researchers in Construction Management.
Maslow, A. 1968. Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Matusovich, H. M., R. A. Streveler, and R. L. Miller. 2010. “Why do stu-
dents choose engineering? A qualitative, longitudinal investigation of
students’ motivational values.” J. Eng. Educ. 99 (4): 289–303.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01064.x.
Meece, J. L., E. M. Anderman, and L. H. Anderman. 2006. “Classroom
goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement.” Annu.
Rev. Psychol. 57 (1): 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych
.56.091103.070258.
Meece, J. L., and J. Painter. 2008. “Gender, self-regulation, and motiva-
tion.” In Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research,
and applications, 339–367. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nandhakumar, J. 2002. “Managing time in a software factory: Temporal
and spatial organization of IS development activities.” Inf. Soc.
18 (4): 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240290075101.
Otis, N., F. M. Grouzet, and L. G. Pelletier. 2005. “Latent motivational
change in an academic setting: A 3-year longitudinal study.” J. Educ.
Psychol. 97 (2): 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.170.
Patrick, H., A. Ryan, and A. Kaplan. 2007. “Early adolescents’ perceptions
of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engage-
ment.” J. Educ. Psychol. 99 (1): 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022
-0663.99.1.83.
Pintrich, P. R. 2003. “A motivational science perspective on the role of stu-
dent motivation in learning and teaching contexts.” J. Educ. Psychol.
95 (4): 667–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667.
Pintrich, P. R., and D. H. Schunk. 1996. Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Merrill.
Porter, L. W., and E. E. Lawler. 1968. Managerial attitudes and perfor-
mance. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:
Classic definitions and new directions.” Contemp. Educ. Psychol.
25 (1): 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Salthouse, T. A., and E. M. Tucker-Drob. 2008. “Implications of short-term
retest effects for the interpretation of longitudinal change.” Neuropsy-
chology 22 (6): 800–811.
Saunders, C., and J. Kim. 2007. “Editor’s comments: Perspectives on time.”
MIS Q. 31 (4): iii–xi. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148813.
Schmitt, N. 1996. “Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha.” Psychological
Assessment 8 (4): 350–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4
.350.
Schonfeld, I. S., and D. Rindskopf. 2007. “Hierarchical linear modeling in
organizational research: Longitudinal data outside the context of growth
modeling.” Organ. Res. Methods 10 (3): 417–429. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1094428107300229.
Schunk, D. H. 2001. “Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning.”
In Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. 2nd ed.,
125–152. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H., and B. J. Zimmerman. 2008. “Motivation: An essential di-
mension of self-regulated learning.” In Motivation and self-regulated
learning: Theory, research, and applications, 1–30. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Seaman, M. 2011. “Bloom’s taxonomy: Its evolution, revision, and use in
the field of education.” Curriculum Teach. Dialogue 13 (1–2): 29–43.
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.
 Shalley, C. E. 1995. “Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal
setting on creativity and productivity.” Acad. Manage. J. 38 (2):
483–503. https://doi.org/10.2307/256689.
Singh, S. P., A. G. Barto, and N. Chentanez. 2004. “Intrinsically motivated
reinforcement learning.” In Proc., Advances in Neural Information
Processing Systems 17 (NIPS 2004). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Spinath, B., and R. Steinmayr. 2008. “Longitudinal analysis of intrinsic
motivation and competence beliefs: Is there a relation over time?” Child
Develop. 79 (5): 1555–1569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008
.01205.x.
Stengers, I., and D. Gille. 1997. “Time and representation.” In Power and
invention: Situating science. Vol. 10 of Theory out of bounds, edited by
I. Stengers, 177–214. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Street, C. T., and K. W. Ward. 2012. “Improving validity and reliability in
longitudinal case study timelines.” Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 21 (2): 160–175.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 06/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.53.
Ullah, M. I., A. Sagheer, T. Sattar, and S. Khan. 2013. “Factors influencing
students motivation to learn in Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan
(Pakistan).” Int. J. Human Resour. Stud. 3 (2): 90–108. https://doi.org
/10.5296/ijhrs.v3i2.4135.
Valentini, N. C., and M. E. Rudisill. 2006. “Goal orientation and mastery
climate: a review of contemporary research and insights to interven-
tion.” Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas) 23 (2): 159–171. https://doi
.org/10.1590/S0103-166X2006000200006.
Vansteenkiste, M., E. Sierens, B. Soenens, K. Luyckx, and W. Lens. 2009.
“Motivational profiles from a self-determination perspective: The
© ASCE 04018005-13
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2018, 144(4): 04018005
quality of motivation matters.” J. Educ. Psychol. 101 (3): 671–688.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015083.
Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Wigfield, A., and J. Cambria. 2010. “Students’ achievement values, goal
orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to
achievement outcomes.” Develop. Rev. 30 (1): 1–35. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001.
Wolters, C. A. 2004. “Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal
structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cogni-
tion, and achievement.” J. Educ. Psychol. 96 (2): 236–250. https://doi
.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.236.
Yarnold, P. R. 1988. “Classical test theory methods for repeated-measures
N = 1 research designs.” Educ. Psychol. Meas. 48 (4): 913–919. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0013164488484006.
Zar, J. H. 1972. “Significance testing of the Spearman rank correlation co-
efficient.” J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 67 (339): 578–580. https://doi.org/10
.1080/01621459.1972.10481251.
Zimmerman, B. J. 2004. “Sociocultural influences and students’ develop-
ment of academic regulation: A social-cognitive approach.” In Big the-
ories revisited, edited by D. M. McInerney and S. V. Etten, 139–164.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Zimmerman, B. J. 2011. “Motivational sources and outcomes of self-
regulated learning and performance.” In Handbook of self-regulation
of learning and performance, edited by D. H. Schunk and B. J.
Zimmerman, 49–64. New York, NY: Routledge.
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.