Reviewing Academic Motivation Levels of Students Study in Different Faculties in Terms of Certain Variables (Sakarya University Case)
1Faculty of Sports Sciences, Department of Recreation, Kocaeli, Turkey
2Faculty of Sports Sciences, Department of Recreation, Çanakkale, Turkey
Abstract
Entirely 1325 students participated in this research that was conducted to specify the differences between motivation levels of students in terms of age, gender, class and department variables. ‘Academic Motivation Scale’ that is seven points Likert scale was developed by Karaguven (2012) was used as the data collection tool in this research that was performed by screening model. Descriptive analyses were applied in data T-test was applied in independent groups to determine whether there were differences based on gender and age ranges. One Way ANOVA Test was conducted to specify the differences based on classes and departments. There was found statistically significant differences (p<0,01) between academic motivation sub-dimensions were evaluated based on age range, gender, classes and departments. It is thought that associating these differences with different variables will be beneficial to determine the sources of the differences. Because there are several internal and external factors that positively and negatively affect the motivation level. Eliminating problems by founding the factors can contribute to increasing the motivation level of students and accordingly, the success rate increases as well.
Keywords:Academic motivation, University student, Age, Gender, Class, Department.
Education is a system that causes an individual’s current behaviors to change in line with purposes determined in advance and education also helps individuals to learn some new attitudes (Balantekin and Bilgin, 2017). One of the essential duties of education is to raise qualified manpower that economic, social and cultural development of a country necessitates. Thus, also the education institutions constitute a supply source for the manpower. Raising successful individuals with high motivation is depending on the qualification and background of education. The most significant task of the educational institutions is to create a suitable learning environment for students and provide them to succeed (Ergin and Karataş, 2018). Universities contribute to the development of societies in terms of economic, social and cultural besides the contributions for education and science life (Yıldırım et al., 2017).
Universities are universal education institutions that prepare students for life by directing and shaping lives; help them to a vocationally and technically improve themselves at the highest level. Universities are also the places in which creative thinking and original ideas improve. University life is a process does not only include lessons but also has several physiological and cultural expectations (Vural, 2013).
Students, notably university students enter into a new adaptation process to get into university and get used to a new four-year educational period after a challenging education and exam process in Turkey. While the adaptation process of some of the students is easy, other students may face with many problems during the same process.
Following factors affect students’ adaptation; personal characteristics, family structure, circle of friends, sense of belonging to the school or department, academicians, level of communication with directors, social activities they participated, career plans, motivation, level of depression and stress (Bülbül and Acar-Güvendir, 2014).
Students’ overcoming levels for the negative factors affect in this process will also positively affect their success level. This reality was revealed by several studies conducted on reasons that affect the academic success level of students (Kenç and Oktay, 2002; Koç et al., 2004; Vural, 2013; Cabı, 2015; Mücevher et al., 2016; Sevilmiş and Sirin, 2016; Yıldırım et al., 2016; Balantekin and Bilgin, 2017; Duran et al., 2017; Igci and Ozdemir, 2017; Lyndon et al., 2017; Yıldırım et al., 2017; Ergin and Karataş, 2018) .
Not only the location and conditions of university education but also sociopsychological environments affect students’ academic success (Vural, 2013). Also, some of the factors such as mental skills, social environment history, quality of education and personal characteristics are the determinants in the academic success of students (Topcu and Leana-Tascılar, 2018). One of several components that are associated with academic success is the motivation. Academic motivation is one of the determinants of behaviors that students display during the education process (Güdül, 2015). Motivation is an important factor for students in terms of maintaining their success and improvement in their careers (Gonda, 2017). It is determined that learning attitude that is displayed by the student in the training process is the key fact in motivation. Motivation state may take a long time based on the commits of the learning process and the quality of loyalty to learning. Besides, it is pointed out that motivation also depends on being disposed of, passion and obligation in participation, progress in the learning process (Afzal et al., 2010).
Academic motivation is close to the term of ´motivation to learn`. Motivation to learn deals with psychological processes which explain the appearance and evolvement of learning activities and its effects as well (Wilkesmann et al., 2012). Literature has studies on academic motivation levels; (Faye and Sharpe, 2008; Saracaloğlu, 2008; Akbay and Gizir, 2010; Gömleksiz and Serhatlıoğlu, 2013; Bedel and Hamarta, 2014; Akdemir et al., 2015; Cetin, 2015; Etten et al., 2015; Güdül, 2015; Özkan Özdemir et al., 2015; Akar and Aydın, 2016; Aydoğan and Baş, 2016; Kontaş, 2016; Şeker, 2016; Sevilmiş and Sirin, 2016; Aktaş, 2017; Celik et al., 2017; Keskin, 2018) . While the concept of motivation has multi-directional, non-cognitive psychosocial structure; academic motivation is a more specific concept that is about cognitive, behavioral and affective education factors like creative thinking skills and study skills, satisfaction from school and reasons for attending the school, performances in doing homework. Since academic motivation produces motivational outputs, it is a remarkable concept in the training process.
This research aimed to determine the differences arising from academic motivation levels in terms of age, gender and department variables for students.
Subjects: A total of 1325 students (519 female, 806 male) (age average x=21.23±1.72) who study in different faculty (sports sciences, engineering, tourism, business management, communication, economics, and sciences) of Sakarya University during the 2016-2017 education year, participated voluntarily in this study.
Data Collection Tools: “The Academic Motivation Scale” has been utilized along with a demographic questionnaire. The Scale’ that was developed by Karaguven (2012) was used as data collection tool in this research. Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient relating to the scale was specified as 0,87 by Karagüven. This same coefficient was found as 0,78 in this research. The scale is composed of 28 items. The scale also has 7 sub-dimensions with four each item. These are the sub-dimensions of internal motivation towards knowledge (IMTK), internal motivation towards accomplishments (IMTA), internal motivation to experience stimulation (IMES), extrinsic motivation identified regulation (EMID), extrinsic motivation introjected regulation (EMIJ), extrinsic motivation external motivation external regulation (EMER) and amotivation (AM). The highest score received from the sub-dimensions was 28; the lowest score was 4.
Data Collection: This research is a descriptive study conducted using a screening model. The questionnaire (survey) technique was used as a data collecting. Investigators made entirely 1500 surveys for the students of different departments by one to one. However, just 1325 surveys were subjected to the analysis.
Data Analysis: After being applied descriptive statistical processes (average, standard deviation, frequency, percentage), Independent Sample T test was conducted to determine differences based on gender and age ranges. Besides, One Way ANOVA Test was applied to specify the differences based on classes and departments. SPSS 24.0 packaged software evaluated the data; 0,01 was used as the significance level.
777 of 1325 participants (519 female, 806 male) were in the 18-21 age range; 548 participants were in the 22-25 age range. 323 of students who study in faculty of sports sciences, engineering faculty (243), tourism faculty (228), faculty of management (230), communication faculty (76), faculty of economics (109), faculty of science and letters (116) were studied in the first-grade; 348 of students who study in departments above were in the second-grade; 407 of students who study in departments above were in the third-degree and finally, 211 of students who study in departments above were in the fourth-grade.
Table-1. Frequency and percentage values of participants based on age group, gender, class and faculty variables
Demographic Variables |
Frequency |
% |
|
Age Group |
18-21 age |
777 |
58,6 |
22-25 age |
548 |
41,4 |
|
Gender |
Female |
519 |
39,2 |
Male |
806 |
60,8 |
|
Degree |
1st Grade |
323 |
24,4 |
2nd Grade |
384 |
29,0 |
|
3rd Grade |
407 |
30,7 |
|
4th Grade |
211 |
15,9 |
|
Faculty |
Sports Science |
323 |
24,4 |
Engineering |
243 |
18,3 |
|
Tourism |
228 |
17,2 |
|
Business management |
230 |
17,4 |
|
Communication |
76 |
5,7 |
|
Economics |
109 |
8,2 |
|
Sciences |
116 |
8,8 |
|
Source: Data have obtained from demographic questionnaire
Table-2. Descriptive statistics and independent sample t-test results for motivation sub-dimensions (IMTK, IMTA, IMES, EMID, EMIJ, EMER and AM) by age group and gender
Factors |
N |
X |
Sd |
t |
p |
||
IMTK |
Age Group |
18-21 age |
777 |
21,21 |
4,69 |
1,078 |
,281 |
22-25 age |
548 |
20,92 |
5,03 |
||||
Gender |
Female |
519 |
21,35 |
4,81 |
1,562 |
,119 |
|
Male |
806 |
20,92 |
4,85 |
||||
IMTA |
Age Group |
18-21 age |
777 |
17,34 |
5,06 |
,134 |
,894 |
22-25 age |
548 |
17,30 |
5,42 |
||||
Gender |
Female |
519 |
17,54 |
4,98 |
1,220 |
,223 |
|
Male |
806 |
17,18 |
5,35 |
||||
IMES |
Age Group |
18-21 age |
777 |
17,31 |
5,13 |
,085 |
,932 |
22-25 age |
548 |
17,28 |
5,46 |
||||
Gender |
Female |
519 |
17,63 |
5,15 |
1,855 |
,064 |
|
Male |
806 |
17,08 |
5,34 |
||||
EMID |
Age Group |
18-21 age |
777 |
22,01 |
4,64 |
4,350 |
,000* |
22-25 age |
548 |
20,85 |
5,04 |
||||
Gender |
Female |
519 |
22,58 |
4,56 |
6,418 |
,000* |
|
Male |
806 |
20,85 |
4,90 |
||||
Age Group |
18-21 age |
777 |
17,80 |
5,69 |
2,043 |
,041** |
|
EMIJ |
22-25 age |
548 |
17,16 |
5,61 |
|||
Gender |
Female |
519 |
18,22 |
5,66 |
3,543 |
,000* |
|
Male |
806 |
17,10 |
5,63 |
||||
EMER |
Age Group |
18-21 age |
777 |
21,99 |
4,37 |
3,940 |
,000* |
22-25 age |
548 |
20,98 |
4,85 |
||||
Gender |
Female |
519 |
22,52 |
4,18 |
6,055 |
,000* |
|
Male |
806 |
20,97 |
4,76 |
||||
AM |
Age Group |
18-21 age |
777 |
10,59 |
6,23 |
-3,728 |
,000* |
22-25 age |
548 |
11,89 |
6,26 |
||||
Gender |
Female |
519 |
9,37 |
5,71 |
-8,362 |
,000* |
|
Male |
806 |
12,26 |
6,37 |
||||
*p<0,01 **p<0,05
Statistically significant differences were found in the sub-dimensions (EMID, EMIJ, EMER, and AM) when the academic motivation level of students are compared in terms of the age groups and gender variable (p<0,01, p<0,05).
Table-3. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA test results for motivation sub-dimensions (IMTK, IMTA, IMES, EMID, EMIJ, EMER and AM) by class
Class |
N |
X |
Sd |
F |
p |
Tukey |
|
IMTK |
1st Grade |
323 |
21,53 |
4,95 |
1,369 |
,251 |
|
2nd Grade |
384 |
21,02 |
4,71 |
||||
3rd Grade |
407 |
21,01 |
4,88 |
||||
4th Grade |
211 |
20,72 |
4,79 |
||||
IMTA |
1st Grade |
323 |
17,73 |
5,16 |
2,456 |
,061 |
|
2nd Grade |
384 |
17,09 |
5,26 |
||||
3rd Grade |
407 |
17,57 |
5,13 |
||||
4th Grade |
211 |
16,63 |
5,31 |
||||
IMES |
1st Grade |
323 |
17,35 |
5,47 |
,181 |
,909 |
|
2nd Grade |
384 |
17,35 |
5,06 |
||||
3rd Grade |
407 |
17,32 |
5,37 |
||||
4th Grade |
211 |
17,05 |
5,17 |
||||
EMID |
1st Grade |
323 |
22,45 |
4,68 |
6,462 |
,000* |
1-2,3,4 |
2nd Grade |
384 |
21,37 |
4,85 |
||||
3rd Grade |
407 |
21,41 |
4,81 |
||||
4th Grade |
211 |
20,65 |
4,93 |
||||
EMIJ |
1st Grade |
323 |
18,45 |
5,49 |
5,056 |
,002* |
4-Jan |
2nd Grade |
384 |
17,41 |
5,77 |
||||
3rd Grade |
407 |
17,44 |
5,75 |
||||
4th Grade |
211 |
16,56 |
5,41 |
||||
1st Grade |
323 |
22,60 |
4,50 |
7,442 |
,000* |
1-2,3,4 |
|
EMER |
2nd Grade |
384 |
21,35 |
4,46 |
|||
3rd Grade |
407 |
21,09 |
4,54 |
||||
4th Grade |
211 |
21,35 |
4,91 |
||||
AM |
1st Grade |
323 |
9,85 |
5,83 |
12,632 |
,000* |
1-3,4 |
2nd Grade |
384 |
10,52 |
6,16 |
3-Feb |
|||
3rd Grade |
407 |
12,48 |
6,51 |
||||
4th Grade |
211 |
11,58 |
6,17 |
||||
*p<0,01
Statistically significant differences were found in the sub-dimensions (EMID, EMIJ, EMER, and AM) when the academic motivation level of students are compared in terms of the class variable (p<0,01).
Statistically significant differences were found in all the sub-dimensions (IMTK, IMBH, IMES, EMID, EMIJ, EMER, and AM) when the academic motivation level of students are compared in terms of the faculty variable (p<0,01).
The motivation that has been a significant concept in every stage of our lives is a determinative factor in education life, notably university experience. It is also revealed in many of surveys that motivation has an effect on academic success level of students. This research was performed to evaluate whether there are differences between academic motivation level of students study in different faculties of Sakarya University by concerning the studies conducted on the relationship between academic motivation levels and various variables. The differences in terms of age ranges, gender, class and department variables were evaluated in the light of the data obtained at the end of the research.
777 of 1325 participants (519 female, 806 male) were in the 18-21 age range; 548 of 1325 participants were in the 22-25 age range. 323 of students who study in faculty of sports sciences (323), engineering faculty (243), tourism faculty (228), faculty of management (230), communication faculty (76), faculty of economics (109), faculty of science and letters (116) were studied in the first-grade; 348 of students who study in departments above were in the second-grade; 407 of students who study in departments above were in the third-degree and finally, 211 of students who study in departments above were in the fourth-grade. There were found statistically significant (p<0,05) differences among EMID, EMIJ, EMER and AM sub-dimensions in both age ranges and gender variables when the sub-dimensions of academic motivations were evaluated.
It is seen that EMID (x=22,01±4,64), EMIJ (x=17,80±5,69) and EMER (x=21,99±4,37) point averages of students in 18-21 age group are higher than EMID (x=20,85±5,04), EMIJ (x=17,16±5,61) and EMER (x=20,98±4,85) point averages of students in 22-25 age group. In AM sub-dimension, point averages (x=10,59±6,23) of students in 18-21 age group is lower than point averages (x=11,89±6,26) of students in 22-25 age group.
Following expressions can be seen in EMID; ‘’I think that university education will help me to prepare better for the field I selected’’ ‘’Indeed, university education will provide me to start in a good business space’’ ‘’University education will provide me to make a better choice in terms of getting a profession’’ ‘’I have a hunch that this education that I will get a few more years will improve my abilities for working life’’. It is normal that finding scores of students in the 18-21 age groups is higher than the scores of students in the 22-25 age groups. The reason for this is the groups with a higher score who are at the half of university life have a higher motivation level to reach the goals mentioned above. However, as the age increases, they may steer away from this motive level because of several different reasons such as their experiences and expectations fall behind. Because directing the individual to gain individual benefit and display behavior for personal importance is the point in determined external motivation. This type of motivation is seen in case of even if a behavior is not displayed by the individual, but till that same behavior is valued because of being liked (Terlemez et al., 2015).
Following expressions can be seen in EMIJ; ‘’I take the university education to prove myself that I can finish university’’ ‘’In fact, I fell myself important when I succeed in school’’ ‘’I want to show myself that I can succeed in lessons’’. It can be said when these expressions are evaluated that the reason for the motivation of students in the 18-21 age group may be that they focused on standing on own feet by getting into university. The reason for the lower scores of students in the 22-25 age group may be that they could not achieve the goals, satisfy the expectations and also the lack of enjoying by the activities.
Table-4. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA test results for motivation sub-dimensions (IMTK, IMTA, IMES, EMID, EMIJ, EMER and AM) by faculty
Faculty |
N |
X |
Sd |
F |
p |
Tukey |
|
IMTK |
Sports Science |
323 |
21,99 |
4,82 |
4,601 |
,000* |
2-Jan |
Engineering |
243 |
20,43 |
5,04 |
5-Jan |
|||
Tourism |
228 |
21,35 |
4,91 |
7-Jan |
|||
Business management |
230 |
21,22 |
4,53 |
||||
Communication |
76 |
19,75 |
5,78 |
||||
Economics |
109 |
21,10 |
5,13 |
||||
Sciences |
116 |
20,10 |
3,20 |
||||
IMTA |
Sports Science |
323 |
18,23 |
5,11 |
11,481 |
,000* |
1-2,3,5,7 |
Engineering |
243 |
16,73 |
5,53 |
7-Feb |
|||
Tourism |
228 |
16,82 |
4,80 |
3-5,7 |
|||
Business management |
230 |
17,00 |
5,18 |
4-5,7 |
|||
Communication |
76 |
14,77 |
5,69 |
7-May |
|||
Economics |
109 |
16,66 |
5,43 |
7-Jun |
|||
Sciences |
116 |
19,97 |
3,45 |
||||
IMES |
Sports Science |
323 |
17,70 |
5,34 |
4,831 |
,000* |
7-2,3,4,5,6 |
Engineering |
243 |
16,63 |
5,34 |
||||
Tourism |
228 |
17,33 |
5,06 |
||||
Business management |
230 |
17,22 |
5,17 |
||||
Communication |
76 |
16,28 |
5,86 |
||||
Economics |
109 |
16,28 |
5,63 |
||||
Sciences |
116 |
19,25 |
4,17 |
||||
EMID |
Sports Science |
323 |
22,35 |
4,72 |
8,767 |
,000* |
1-2,3,5,7 |
Engineering |
243 |
20,89 |
4,90 |
4-Feb |
|||
Tourism |
228 |
21,04 |
5,08 |
4-Mar |
|||
Business management |
230 |
22,71 |
4,30 |
4-5,7 |
|||
Communication |
76 |
19,40 |
5,91 |
6-May |
|||
Economics |
109 |
21,74 |
5,12 |
||||
Sciences |
116 |
20,40 |
3,37 |
||||
EMIJ |
Sports Science |
323 |
18,08 |
5,37 |
16,196 |
,000* |
1-2,5,7 |
Engineering |
243 |
15,54 |
5,81 |
2-3,4,6,7 |
|||
Tourism |
228 |
17,64 |
5,45 |
7-Mar |
|||
Business management |
230 |
17,49 |
5,55 |
4-2,7 |
|||
Communication |
76 |
15,82 |
6,14 |
7-May |
|||
Economics |
109 |
17,51 |
5,63 |
6-2,7 |
|||
Sciences |
116 |
21,29 |
4,24 |
7-1,2,3,4,5,6 |
|||
EMER |
Sports Science |
323 |
21,44 |
4,69 |
9,034 |
,000* |
4-Jan |
Engineering |
243 |
20,46 |
4,80 |
2-4,6 |
|||
Tourism |
228 |
21,64 |
4,62 |
4-Mar |
|||
Business management |
230 |
22,95 |
3,88 |
4-1,2,3,7 |
|||
Communication |
76 |
21,25 |
4,99 |
7-Jun |
|||
Economics |
109 |
22,91 |
5,01 |
||||
Sciences |
116 |
20,39 |
3,50 |
||||
AM |
Sports Science |
323 |
11,46 |
6,16 |
12,295 |
,000* |
1-4,6 |
2-4,6 |
|||||||
Engineering |
243 |
12,00 |
6,57 |
3-4,6 |
|||
Tourism |
228 |
11,80 |
6,41 |
4-1,2,3,5,7 |
|||
Business management |
230 |
8,58 |
5,27 |
5-4,6 |
|||
Communication |
76 |
12,35 |
7,03 |
6-1,2,3,5,7 |
|||
Economics |
109 |
9,23 |
5,52 |
7-4,6 |
|||
Sciences |
116 |
13,08 |
5,89 |
||||
*p<0,01
Following expressions can be seen in EMER sub-dimension; ‘’I cannot find a good job in future by only a high school diploma’’ ‘’I get university education to find a respected job’’ ‘’I want to live a good life in the future’’ ‘’I get a university education to get a better wage in the future’’. These expressions emerge in case of dealing with a behavior to get an external reward or keep safe from a punishment’’. It is result-oriented as well (Terlemez et al., 2015). It is a normal situation that students in 18-21 age groups have higher motivation level on the purpose of carrying targeted profession into effect in line with the experience from university, new knowledge, and skills that they will learn from the university. However, the motivation levels of students in 22-25 age groups decreased because of that they have the idea that they will not succeed in a targeted profession or the targeted profession is not suitable for themselves because of unsatisfied expectations from education life. Terlemez et al. (2015) pointed out that the first-grade university students’ awareness toward professions is less and also they have an idea to develop behavior toward the results to be obtained; the reason for higher external motivation levels may be these sources above.
Following expressions can be seen in AM (Amotivation) sub-dimension; ‘’Honestly, I do not know, I feel like I waste time in university’’ ‘’I had good reasons to go to university before, but now I am uncertain about attending the school’’ ‘’I do not know why I go to school, indeed, I do not care’’ ‘’I do not know, I just do not get what I do in school’’. It is determined that individuals cannot establish a connection between their actions and results to be obtained, they feel incompetent and also they get the feeling that they will not able to control the happenings in case of amotivation (Karaguven, 2012). Being higher the amotivation scores of students in the 22-25 age group is an unavoidable situation. Several reasons such as just starting university life, desiring to learn new knowledge and skills may cause first-grade students to have higher motivation levels.
It is determined when EMID, EMIJ, EMER point averages are evaluated based on the gender variable that EMID (x=22,58±4,56), EMIJ (x=18,22±5,66), and EMER (x=22,52±4,18) scores of female students are higher than EMID (x=20,85±4,90), EMIJ (x=17,10±5,63) and EMER (x=20,97±4,76) scores of male students. Similarly, AM (x=9,37±5,71) point averages of female students are lower than AM (x=12,26±6,37) point averages of male students. Results on behalf of females were obtained between the academic motivation levels of female and male students; statistically significant differences were found as well (p<0,05). There are studies that support our results; Gömleksiz and Serhatlıoğlu (2013); Eymur and Geban (2011); Alemdağ et al. (2014); Köseoğlu (2013); Hakan and Münire (2014); Hegarty (2010); Demir and Arı (2013). Bugler et al. (2013) mentioned in their surveys that academic motivation level of females is higher at a positive level in focusing on learning and task management. With reference to these same investigators, women are better than men about focusing on learning, planning their work time effectively and coping with the difficulties (Hegarty, 2010). Güdül (2015) expressed that women take more pleasure in actualizing educational activities; women form more interaction with educational activities and also the women are motivated to get rid of the internal and external pressure. According to other expressions of (Güdül, 2015) women can display more proper behaviors in educational environments because of the sexual roles; women can be more supported by family and teachers. These reasons may cause them to have higher motivation levels.
This circumstance will vary from society to society; because remarkable differences attract attention when we evaluate the situation in terms of the gender variable. Being differences between motivation levels of females and males is normal because of the motive themselves by the concern of gaining a ground in line with behavior and attitudes that they displayed based upon personal characteristics and external factors such as difference of environments in which women and men raise in, stereotyped women and men roles, social restrictions brought by the society. The ratio of attending in university is low in women in Turkey in comparison with men; this can be accepted as a significant factor for women to have higher motivation. Therefore, conducting comprehensive studies on gender differences will be beneficial to be understood the issue better.
Statistically significant differences (p<0,05) were found among EMID, EMIJ, EMER and AM sub-dimensions when the sub-dimensions of academic motivation is compared based on the class variable. It is seen when looking at point averages of EMID (22,45±4,68) and EMER (22,60±4,50) sub-dimensions are evaluated that the scores of first-grade students are higher than the scores of others. There are seen statistically significant differences (p<0,05) between first-grade (18,45±5,77) and fourth-grade students (16,56±5,41) when EMIJ point averages are evaluated. Significant differences were found between the first-grade (9,85±5,83) and third-grade & fourth-grade students in AM sub-dimension; between the second-grade and third-grade students (12,48±6,51). There are seen studies that share similarity with this research. Karataş and Erden (2014); Küçükosmanoğlu (2015); Gömleksiz and Serhatlıoğlu (2013); Alemdağ et al. (2014); Terlemez et al. (2015) mentioned that academic motivation level of the first-grade teacher candidates is higher than teacher candidates study in other grades. Gömleksiz and Serhatlıoğlu (2013) conducted a study and mentioned that the motivation level of the first-grade students is higher in comparison with students study in the last grade. The study that shares similarity with these surveys is the study conducted by Terlemez et al. (2015); motivation level of the first-grade students was found as higher than the motivation level of other students. They pointed out that first-grade university students’ awareness toward professions is less and also they have an idea to develop behavior toward the results to be obtained; the reason for higher external motivation levels may be these sources above.
Statistically significant differences (p<0,01) were found in all the sub-dimensions (IMTK, IMBH, IMES, EMID, EMIJ, EMER, and AM) when the academic motivation level of students are compared in terms of the department variable. Studies that examine the level of academic motivation in terms of department variable are rarely encountered. Following studies can be shown as the examples; Köseoğlu (2013); Gömleksiz and Serhatlıoğlu (2013); Güdül (2015); Ergin and Karataş (2018); Ekinci (2017); Yıldırım et al. (2017); Ozer and Bozanoğlu (2016); Yokuş et al. (2017); Nayir and Tekmen (2017); Demir and Arı (2013).
Differences in the level of internal motivation to know (IMTK) can be seen between students who study in the faculty of sports sciences (x=21,99±4,82) and engineering (x=20,43±5.04); students who study in the faculty of communication (x=19,75±5,78) and faculty of science and letters (x=20,10±3,20). Following expressions can be read in IMTK sub-dimension; ‘’I take pleasure when learning new things’’ ‘’I get university education because of exploring things that I have never seen before’’ ‘’Because of happiness that I feel when I increase my information about issue I do not know’’ ‘’It provides me to learn more on issues interest me’’. It is normal for students who study in the faculty of sports sciences to fell these. Because curriculum provides many applied and theoretical course selections that allow students to experience those feelings. Thus, students get a chance to perform several activities.
Differences at the level of internal motivation to success can be seen between student study in the faculty of sports sciences (x=18,23±5,11) and engineering faculty (x=16,73±5,53); between tourism faculty (x=16,82±4,80) and faculty of science and letters (x=19,97±3,45). Moreover, scores of students in the faculty of science and letters are higher than the scores of all other students; differences stem from here. Following expressions can be seen IMTA sub-dimension; ‘’Because of taking pleasure when I get over myself in courses’’ ‘’Because of happiness when I get over myself to reach personal goals’’ ‘’Because of taking pleasure from having difficulty in academic studies’’ ‘’Trying to succeed in studies in university provides me to feel personal satisfaction’’. The concept of internal motivation to success means being happy with creating new things, completing a task. It is possible to talk about motivation that is constituted on the happiness as the result of successfully completing a task or learning process (Terlemez et al., 2015). Ozer and Bozanoğlu (2016) expressed that students who study in Engineering and Faculty of Science and Letters have more negative thoughts relating to academicians in comparison with students study in other faculties. There can be decrements in motivation level of students because of being unsatisfied by the education and relationships with academicians and friends. In conclusion, there cannot be observed a desire to succeed; individuals may give up under difficulties.
It is determined when the differences in internal motivation to experience stimulation (IMES) are evaluated that point averages (x=19,25±4,17) of students in the faculty of science and letters are higher than students study in all other departments (p<0,01). Following expressions can be seen in IMES sub-dimension; ‘’I experience so strong emotions when sharing my thoughts with others’’ ‘’Because of taking pleasure from reading interesting writings’’ ‘’Because of happiness I feel when I am wrapped up in writings of famous authors’’ ‘’Because of the pleasure when I feel reading Different and interesting topics’’. It is meant here that developing a feeling to join in an activity for the sense of satisfaction when the student displays a behavior (Karaguven, 2012). Gömleksiz and Serhatlıoğlu (2013) pointed out that internal motivation to stimulation levels of science teacher candidates are higher than the same levels of preschool teacher candidates.
The external motivation that is composed of another dimension of motivation is result-oriented. It can be defined as performing a task for a reward or punishment. Also, the external motivation can be classified into three different types. These types are; extrinsic motivation identified regulation (EMID), extrinsic motivation introjected regulation (EMIJ) and external motivation-external regulation (EMER) (Terlemez et al., 2015). Significant differences were determined in three sub-scales when we evaluated by the department variable.
It is found when determined external motivation scores are evaluated that the point average of faculty of sports sciences is 22,35±4,72; the point average of engineering faculty is 20,89±4,90; the point average of tourism faculty is 21,04±5,08; the point average of faculty of management is 22,71±4,30; the point average of faculty of communication is 19,40±5,91; the point average of faculty of economics is 21,74±5,12 and the point average of faculty of science is 20,40±3,37. The highest point among the groups belongs to the faculty of management. This circumstance means a status that the individual valued because of delightedness even if there is not an action performed. They think that their education will improve their abilities for the profession they selected.
About introjected external motivation (EMIJ), the point averages of faculty of sports sciences is 18,08±5,37; the point average of engineering faculty is 15,54±5,81; the point average of tourism faculty is 17,64±5,45; the point average of faculty of management is 17,49±5,55; the point average of faculty of communication is 15,82±6,14; the point average of faculty of economics is 17,51±5,63 and the point average of faculty of science is 21,29±4,24. The highest average among the groups belongs to the faculty of science and letters; the lower average belongs to the engineering faculty. Terlemez et al. (2015) associate this circumstance with being whether satisfied with personal expectations of the individual; or whether there is an expectation of individual. He also pointed out that there can be talked about an internalization based on previous experiences. According to the conclusions obtained, it is the status that shaping of next motivation state based on the results. Hereby, the student may undertake a mission by the motive that he/she is intelligent and can finish the university. However, this situation may backfire.
About external motivation-external regulation (EMER), the point averages of faculty of sports sciences is 21,44±4,69; the point average of engineering faculty is 20,46±4,80; the point average of tourism faculty is 21,64±4,62; the point average of faculty of management is 22,95±3,88; the point average of faculty of communication is 21,25±4,99; the point average of faculty of economics is 22,91±5,01 and the point average of faculty of science is 20,39±3,50. The highest point average among the groups belongs to the faculty of management. This motivational state emerges in case of being interested in a behavior to gain a reward or keep safe from a punishment; it is result-oriented. We see when we make a general assessment that averages of all departments are high. Because they motivate themselves by the thought that they need get a good jog and a good salary to live well.
About amotivation, the point averages of faculty of sports sciences is 11,46±6,16; the point average of engineering faculty is 12,00±6,57; the point average of tourism faculty is 11,80±6,41; the point average of faculty of management is 8,58±5,27; the point average of faculty of communication is 12,35±7,03; the point average of faculty of economics is 9,23±5,52 and the point average of faculty of science is 13,08±5,89. The highest point average among the groups belongs to the faculty of management. Individuals may feel incompetent because of the lack of the connection between results and actions; they also may get the feeling that they will not control the happenings (Karaguven, 2012). If a student does not have the sense of belonging to his department or university, and if he also thinks that the education life will not contribute him, he cannot have the motives that are necessary for fulling the requirements. This situation may increase the amotivation level of the student. An important determinant of academic motivation level of students is the level of evaluating the skills in various domains. To know the required effort to complete the tasks and evaluate this awareness have a place in this issue. Again, specifying whether the relationship between the level of effort and abilities is positive is another important determinant. Students try to be motivated by thinking the positive relationship between their efforts and skills after selected a department to focus on (Muenks and Miele, 2017). It is revealed when the studies are evaluated that motivation positively or negatively varies by plenty of factors. Important thing is to increase the motivation level of students by specifying their negative sides. Besides, there should be provided support to create proper conditions for students to succeed by eliminating amotivation status. Therefore, relationship and effect level in terms of different variables can be found by planning more comprehensive studies; the motivation levels that students need can be provided in this way. Moreover, there should be organized training and seminars for students to learn the ways to increase their own motivation levels.
Afzal, H., I. Ali, M.A. Khan and K. Hamid, 2010. A study of university students’ motivation and its relationship with their academic performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(4): 80-88. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n4p80.
Akar, H. and S. Aydın, 2016. The relatıonshıp between instructors’ professıonal competencıes and students’ academıc motıvatıon. Journal of International Social Research, 9(43): 1344-1352.
Akbay, S.E. and C.A. Gizir, 2010. Academic procrastination among university students according to gender: The role of academic motivation, academic self-efficacy and academic attributional style. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 6(1): 60-78.
Akdemir, A., K.A. Mert, G. Salihoğlu, G. Konakay, P. Adalı, E. Koçyiğit and Ö. Zaimoğlu, 2015. Investıgatıon on the effects of vocatıonal school students career plans on motıvatıon levels. Journal of Economics and Management Research, 4(1): 52-90.
Aktaş, H., 2017. The relationship between academic motivation and academic self-efficacy: An empirical research on the students of the faculty of teology. Journal of the Human and Social Sciences Researches, 6(3): 1376-1398.
Alemdağ, C., E. Öncü and A.K. Yılmaz, 2014. Preservice physical education teachers’ academic motivation and academic self-efficacy. Hacettepe Journal of Sport Sciences, 25(1): 23–35.
Aydoğan, H. and M. Baş, 2016. Examining motivation of teacher candidates to become a teacher. International Journal of Sport, Exercise & Training Sciences, 2(3): 112-124.
Balantekin, Y. and A. Bilgin, 2017. The effect of ARCS motivational model on motivational level, attitudes and academic success of the students. Elementary Education Online, 16(1): 161-177.
Bedel, A. and E. Hamarta, 2014. The relationship between interpersonal problem solving and academic motivation. Elementary Education Online, 13(2): 674-680.
Bugler, M., S.P. McGeown and H. St Clair-Thompson, 2013. Gender differences in adolescents’ academic motivation and classroom behaviour. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 35(5): 1-16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.849325.
Bülbül, T. and M. Acar-Güvendir, 2014. A research study on freshman students’ higher education integration levels. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 4(1): 397-418. Available at: https://doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2014.41.21.
Cabı, E., 2015. The pre-service teachers’ self-regulated strategies and academic success: A longitudinal study. GEFAD / GUJGEF, 35(3): 489-506.
Celik, H., A.R. Terzi and S. Gültekin, 2017. The relatıon between unıversıty students’ academıc motıvatıon and school clımate. Journal of Academic Social Science, 5(48): 422-434.
Cetin, B., 2015. Academic motivation and approaches to learning in predicting college students' academic achievement: Findings from Turkish and US samples. Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Second Quarter, 12(2): 141-150. Available at: https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v12i2.9200.
Demir, M.K. and E. Arı, 2013. Assessıng levels of academıc motıvatıon of preservıce teachers in teram of various variables. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 9(3): 265-279.
Duran, S., A. Karadaş and S. Kaynak, 2017. The relationship between automatic thoughts and academic achievement of nursing students. Kocaeli Medical Journal, 6(2): 30-37.
Ekinci, N., 2017. Pre-service teachers’ motivational factors affecting their teaching profession and field choices. Elementary Education Online, 16(2): 394-405.
Ergin, A. and H. Karataş, 2018. Achievement-oriented motivation levels of university students. Hacettepe Üniversity Journal of Education, 33(14): 868-887.
Etten, S.V., M. Pressley, D.M. McInerney and A.D. Liem, 2015. College seniors’ theory of their academic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4): 812–828. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.812.
Eymur, G. and Ö. Geban, 2011. An investigation of relationship between motivation and academic achievement of pre-service chemistry teachers. Science & Education, 36(161): 246-255.
Faye, C. and D. Sharpe, 2008. Academic motivation in university: The role of basic psychological needs and identity formation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 40(4): 189–199. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012858.
Gömleksiz, M.N. and B. Serhatlıoğlu, 2013. Prospectıve teachers’ perceptıons of academıc motıvatıon levels. TSA, 17(3): 99-127.
Gonda, S.N., 2017. A study on academic motivation of university students. Doctoral dissertation, United States International University-Africa.
Güdül, D.M., 2015. The relatıonshıp between unıversıty students’ academic motıvatıon profıles and psychologıcal needs, academıc procrastınatıon and lıfe satısfactıon. Deparment of Educational Sciences (Guidance and Psychological Counseling Program) Anadolu University Institute of Educational Sciences. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation).
Hakan, K. and E. Münire, 2014. Academic motivation: Gender, domain and grade differences. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143: 708-715. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.469.
Hegarty, N., 2010. Application of the academic motivation scale to graduate school students. Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 6(2): 48-55.
Igci, G. and O. Ozdemir, 2017. The relationship between self-regulatory skills and attitudes towards the university students' academic achievement universite. Education in a Globalizing World, 11: 185-198.
Karaguven, M., 2012. The adaptation of academic motivation scale to Turkish. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4): 2611-2618.
Karataş, H. and M. Erden, 2014. Academic motivation: Gender, domain and grade differences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143: 708-715. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.469.
Kenç, M.F. and B. Oktay, 2002. The relationship between academic self-concept and academic success. Education and Science, 27(124): 71-79.
Keskin, Ö., 2018. Reviewing academic motivation levels of students of faculty of sports science. Asian Journal of Education and E-Learning, 6(2): 43-51.
Koç, M., S. Avşaroğlu and A. Sezer, 2004. Alan the relationship between university students' academic achievement and problem areas. Selcuk University The Journal of Social Sciences, 11: 483-498.
Kontaş, H., 2016. The effect of an education-themed movie on the academic motivation of teacher candidates and their attitude towards teaching profession. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(6): 93-103. Available at: https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i6.1483.
Köseoğlu, Y., 2013. Academic motivation of the first-year university students and the self-determination theory. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(8): 418-424.
Küçükosmanoğlu, H., 2015. The determınatıon of prospective musıc teachers’ academıc motıvatıon levels (Konya Sample). SED-Journal of Art Education, 3(1): 1-21.
Lyndon, M.P., M.A. Henning, H. Alyami, S. Krishna, I. Zeng, T.-C. Yu and A.G. Hill, 2017. Burnout, quality of life, motivation, and academic achievement among medical students: A person-oriented approach. Perspectives on Medical Education, 6(2): 108-114. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-017-0340-6.
Mücevher, M.H., Z. Demirgil and R. Erdem, 2016. Sport activities on academic success: A research on the students of the faculty of economics and administrative sciences Ü. Conference Book II: V. Turkey Graduate Studies Congress. pp: 119-132.
Muenks, K. and D.B. Miele, 2017. Students’ thinking about effort and ability: The role of developmental, contextual, and individual difference factors. Review of Educational Research, 87(4): 707-735. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689328.
Nayir, Ö.Y. and B. Tekmen, 2017. Investigation of the contribution of learning environment to academic motivation and problem solving ability through the lens of prospective teachers. Başkent University Journal of Education, 4(2): 122-135.
Ozer, N. and B. Bozanoğlu, 2016. The assessment of instructors’ misbehaviours according to the college students’ perceptions. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 22(2): 245-266. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2016.010.
Özkan Özdemir, N., S. Akin and Z. Durna, 2015. Nursing students iv leadership tendencies and motivation levels. Journal of Education and Research in Nursing-HEAD, 12(1): 51-61. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5222/head.2015.051.
Saracaloğlu, A.S., 2008. The relatıonshıp between post graduate students' academıc motıvatıon level, research anxıety and attıtudes with theır research competence. Yüzüncü Yıl University, Education Faculty Journal, 5(2): 179-208.
Şeker, S.S., 2016. The examınatıon of prospectıve musıc teachers’ academıc self-effıcacy and academıc motıvatıon levels. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversity Education Faculty Journal, 17(3): 1465-1484.
Sevilmiş, A. and E.F. Sirin, 2016. Academıc achıevement of students of faculty of sports scıences: The role of unıversıty for qualıty of lıfe, academıc motıvatıon and academıc self-effıcacy. Ankara Üniversity Sports Science Faculty, 14(1): 31-44.
Terlemez, B., D. Şahin and F. Dilek, 2015. Opınıons of health servıces vocatıonal school students at namık kemal unıversıty academıc motıvatıon levels. Pamukkale Journal of Eurasian Socioeconomic Studies, 2(2): 67-78. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5505/pjess.2015.09797.
Topcu, S. and M.Z. Leana-Tascılar, 2018. The role of motivation and aelf-esteem in the academic achievement of Turkish gifted students. Gifted Education International, 34(1): 3–18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429416646192.
Vural, M., 2013. A research of the realtıonshıp between the academıc achıevment and incomelevels of students. Akademic Sight International Refereed Online Journal, 35: 1-18.
Wilkesmann, U., H. Fischer and A. Virgillito, 2012. Academic motivation of students-the German case. Dortmund: Zentrum für Weiterbildung.
Yıldırım, İ., Z.S. Demirtaş, Ö. Ulaş, S. Kızıldağ and E.F. Dinçel, 2017. Characteristics of university students with low and high academic achievement. Kastamonu Education Journal, 25(6): 2199-2214.
Yıldırım, İ., S. Kızıldağ, E.F. Dinçel and Z.S. Demirtaş, 2016. Predictors of academic success of students of Hacettepe university faculty of education. Hacettepe University Graduate School of Educational Sciences The Journal of Educational Research, 2(1): 46-59.
Yokuş, G., B. Ayçiçek and Y.T. Yanpar, 2017. An investigation about the perceptions of undergraduate students related to higher education service quality and their sense of institutional belongingness: Education faculty sample. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 5: 1-18.