Abstract
In adolescence, motivation is a predictive factor in academic success. Motivated students have higher levels of satisfaction in school, mobilizing interests and skills in various domains (
Keywords: Motivationinterestsskillsstudentseducational system
Introduction
Since young people spend most of their time in school in order to acquire the skills necessary for their personal fulfillment and school life project, relating motivation to educational contexts is necessary because of the importance they have. Motivation is one of the most predictive factors of school success, and it is increasingly necessary for schools to focus on the implementation of personal and social skills development programs (Galinha, 2006; Jardim, 2007; Lopes, Galinha & Loureiro, 2010). Academic success according to PISA's international statistical data indicate that they must be established in a way which, in addition to essential knowledge, also translates into a better competence for the 21st century. (OECD, 2013; 2015).
Etymologically, the concept of Motivation derives from the Latin movere (with movement). A set of physiological and psychological processes in an individual’s action is responsible for the process of triggering, maintenance and cessation of a behavior. The concept of motivation tends to include an element of stimulation  the energetic forces responsible for behavior, an element of action and effort, the observed behavior, an element of movement and persistence, and an element of reward. Motivation can be intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation refers to behaviors that are stimulated by self. Extrinsic motivation has the external motivating factor. Intrinsic motivation is the one that, of the two, that tends to remain unchanged with time. Motivation studies the set of factors that control the triggering of behavior covered by hypothetical elements such as instinct, tendency, and appetite. The study of stimuli and responses aims to determine the characteristics of the stimulus that can trigger a response. Due to motivation, needs become goals. The development of motivation implies the learning of the channelling of the needs, the cognitive elaboration of the objectives, the instrumental motivation of means and ends and functional autonomy (Maslow, 1983; Vala & Monteiro, 2000; Galinha, 2006; Pina e Cunha; Rego, Campos e Cunha, & CabralCardoso, 2007)
Problem Statement
In adolescence, motivation is a predictive factor in academic success. Motivated students have higher levels of satisfaction in school, mobilizing interests and skills in various domains (Galinha, 2006). The problem lies in determining what kind of programme is suitable to enhance students’ motivation. This study was undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of one such programme, the PDMAR, by identifying if students mobilized interests and skills in the six domains present in the QME questionnaire. The domains measured in the QME questionnaire are: strategies (F1), extrinsic objectives of the teacher (F2), extrinsic objectives of the student with external regulation (F3), intrinsic objectives of the teacher (F4), extrinsic objectives of the student with internal regulation (F5) and intrinsic objectives of the student (F6).
Research Questions
Do students who participated in the PDMAR Programme display higher motivation levels relative to the control group in the six domains present in the QME questionnaire?
Are there statistically significant differences in motivation values after the PDMAR program, relative to gender, in each of the six domains present in the QME questionnaire?
Purpose of the Study
This study aims to assess the existence of improvements in motivational dynamics among Portuguese adolescents before and after participation in the PDMAR programme in order to determine if the programme is beneficial in enhancing students’ motivation.
Research Methods
A sample of 86 students (n = 43 experimental group, n = 43 control group) was considered. The School Motivation Questionnaire  QME (Cordeiro, 2010) was administered to these two groups (experimental vs control) at two different phases, before and after participation in the PDMAR (Fonseca, Galinha & Loureiro, 2017).
A descriptive analysis of the QME values was performed before and after the PDMAR program, based on the main statistical measures of location and dispersion. The statistical methodology consisted of a quantitative analysis of the QME using hypothesis tests for independent and paired samples. The following tests were used in independent samples: Mann Whitney U Test (nonparametric test) and Two Sample tTest. In the case of paired samples was used: tPaired Test (parametric test). An α = 5% was set. The statistical analysis was performed in R software (R Core Team, 2016).
Findings
QME results: before and after PDMAR program
Males were predominant (51.2%) with 29.1% of respondents repeating. Before applying the PDMAR program to the 86 students (44 males and 42 females) the overall results considering the six dimensions (F1 to F6) were: the mean value of school motivation in the six dimensions under analysis was 37.45 (sd 8.48). Based on the whisker box chart below, Figure
If the gender were considered, the overall mean value of the QME in the males was 37.93 (sd 9.88), being higher than the overall mean value for the females, 36.94 (sd 6. 81).
After the students had participated in the PDMAR programme, the overall results considering the six dimensions (F1 to F6) were: the mean value of the school motivation in the six dimensions under analysis after the program was 40.92 (sd 7.22), a value higher than that obtained before the program. The range (34.33) indicates a smaller dispersion of the QME scores. The minimum and maximum values were respectively 21 and 55.33. It was verified that 50% of the students interviewed had a score in the QME equal to or less than 42.17 (median value). With respect to quartiles, Figure
If the gender were considered, the overall mean value of QME after the program in males was 40.67 (sd 7.59), being lower than the overall mean value among the females, 41.19 (sd 6.89).
The tPaired Test identified statistically significant differences between the QME values before and after the PDMAR program (pvalue 0.00549) for an α=5%.
QME domains vs gender
The Motivation values (QME), regarding gender, were compared in the six dimensions (F1 to F6) after the program. The following hypotheses (H0: null hypothesis; H1: alternative hypothesis) of investigation were tested:
H0: The median Motivation values after the realization of the PDMAR program in the first domain (F1) – Strategies, were the same for both genders.
H1: The median Motivation values after the realization of the PDMAR program in the first domain (F1) – Strategies, were different for both genders.
The sample results were: males presented a mean value of 82.57 (sd 17.43) lower than females 87.02 (sd 16.01). Since the values of Motivation in the first domain (F1) among the females were not normally distributed (ShapiroWilk normality test: pvalue = 0.005), the Mann Whitney U Test test was used. The Mann Whitney U Test did not identify statistically significant differences in median QME values with respect to gender in the first domain (F1) Strategies (pvalue=0.141) for an α=5%.
H0: The median Motivation values after the realization of the PDMAR program in the second domain (F2) – extrinsic objectives of the teacher, were the same for both genders.
H1: The median Motivation values after the realization of the PDMAR program in the second domain (F2) – extrinsic objectives of the teacher, were different for both genders.
The sample results were: males presented a mean value of 44.57 (sd 8.84) lower than females 44.95 (sd 7.81 ). Since the values of Motivation in the second domain (F2) in both genders were not normally distributed (ShapiroWilk normality test: pvalue = 0.02 (males); pvalue<0.001 (females)), the Mann Whitney U Test was used. The Mann Whitney U Test did not identify statistically significant differences in median QME values with respect to gender in the second domain (F2) – extrinsic objectives of the teacher (pvalue=0.785) for an α=5%.
H0: The median Motivation values after the realization of the PDMAR program in the third domain (F3) – extrinsic objectives of the student with external regulation, were the same for both genders.
H1: The median Motivation values after the realization of the PDMAR program in the third domain (F3) – extrinsic objectives of the student with external regulation, were different for both genders.
The sample results were: males presented a mean value of 37.57 (sd 8.07) higher than females 35.90 (sd 7.96). Since the values of Motivation in the third domain (F3) in the female were not normally distributed (ShapiroWilk normality test: pvalue = 0.023), the Mann Whitney U Test was used. The Mann Whitney U Test did not identify statistically significant differences in median QME values with respect to gender in the third domain (F3) – extrinsic objectives of the student with external regulation (pvalue=0.601) for an α=5%.
H0: The mean Motivation values after the realization of the PDMAR program in the fourth domain (F4) – intrinsic objectives of the teacher, were the same for both genders.
H1: The mean Motivation values after the realization of the PDMAR program in the fourth domain (F4) – intrinsic objectives of the teacher, were different for both genders.
The sample results were: males presented a mean value of 36.27 (sd 6.75) higher than females 35.67 (sd 6.33). Since the values of Motivation in the fourth domain (F4) were both normally distributed (ShapiroWilk normality test: pvalue = 0.853 (males), pvalue=0.212), and with equal variance (Bartlett test, pvalue = 0.678) the Two Sample tTest was used. The Two Sample tTest did not identify statistically significant differences in mean QME values with respect to gender in the fourth domain (F4) – intrinsic objectives of the teacher (pvalue=0.669) for an α=5%.
H0: The median Motivation values after the realization of the PDMAR program in the fifth domain (F5) – extrinsic objectives of the student with internal regulation, were the same for both genders.
H1: The median Motivation values after the realization of the PDMAR program in the fifth domain (F5) – extrinsic objectives of the student with internal regulation, were different for both genders.
The sample results were: males presented a mean value of 25.09 (sd 5.59) higher than females 24.88 (sd 6.07). Since the values of Motivation in the fifth domain (F5) in the female were not normally distributed (ShapiroWilk normality test: pvalue< 0.001), the Mann Whitney U Test was used. The Mann Whitney U Test did not identify statistically significant differences in median QME values with respect to gender in the fifth domain (F5) – extrinsic objectives of the student with internal regulation (pvalue=0.765) for an α=5%.
H0: The median Motivation values after the realization of the PDMAR program in the sixth domain (F6) – intrinsic objectives of the student, were the same for both genders.
H1: The median Motivation value after the realization of the PDMAR program in the sixth domain (F6) – intrinsic objectives of the student, were different for both genders.
The sample results were: males presented a mean value of 17.98 (sd 4.52) lower than females 18.69 (sd 3.93). Since the values of Motivation in the sixth domain (F6) in both genders were not normally distributed (ShapiroWilk normality test: pvalues< 0.05), the Mann Whitney U Test was used. The Mann Whitney U Test did not identify statistically significant differences in median QME values with respect to gender in the sixth domain (F6) – intrinsic objectives of the student (pvalue= 0.513) for an α = 5%.
Overall, the results confirmed a statistically significant improvement in the six dimensions evaluated in the QME in the experimental group as opposed to the control group (pvalue <0.01) for an α = 5%. Before the PDMAR program, the overall mean value of the QME was higher for males, which changed after the program. Although QME values in all dimensions after the PDMAR program increased in the study sample, no statistically significant differences were recorded for gender in the domains under review.
Conclusion
This study verifies that the PDMAR is a valuable programme with statistical significance (p <0.01) because the students participating in it saw their motivational capacities enhanced in the following six domains measured in the QME: strategies, extrinsic objectives of the teacher, extrinsic objectives of the student with external regulation, intrinsic objectives of the teacher, extrinsic objectives of the student with internal regulation and intrinsic objectives of the student.
However, in terms of gender, no statistically significant differences in motivation values were noted after the PDMAR program, in each of the six domains present in the QME questionnaire. It may be concluded that gender does not play a significant role in determining motivation of students within this programme.
Acknowledgments
Our thanks to Fonseca, C. M. M. for all the collection work carried out in the schools and systematization of data obtained in the direction of conducting the study that integrates a larger investigation.
References
 Cordeiro, P. C. (2010). Construção e validação do questionário de motivação escolar para a população portuguesa: estudos exploratórios. Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação da Universidade de Coimbra.
 Fonseca, C., Galinha, S. A., & Loureiro, M. (2017). As competências socioemocionais. In III ECFCUP. Universidade do Porto.
 Galinha, S. A. (2006). Bem estar subjetivo: Sentidos da complexidade na praxis social, avaliação e ativação. Universidade da Beira Interior.
 Jardim, J. (2007). Programa de desenvolvimento de Competências Pessoais e Sociais: estudo para a promoção do sucesso académico. Universidade de Aveiro.
 Lopes, M., Galinha, S.A., & Loureiro, M. (2010). Animação e Bemestar psicológico: Metodologias de Intervenção Sociocultural e Educativa. Chaves: Intervenção.
 Maslow, A. H. (1983). El hombre autorrealizado: hacia una psicologia del ser. Barcelona: Kairos.
 OECD (2013). Do students perform better in schools with Orderly Classrooms? Pisa Bulteni. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k40d63gcd44en
 OECD (2015). Pisa 2015 Results. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/pisa2015resultsvolumei9789264266490en.htm
 Pina e Cunha, M., Rego, A., Campos e Cunha, R., & CabralCardoso, C. (2007). Manual do Comportamento Organizacional e Gestão. Lisboa: Rh Editores.
 R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.Rproject.org/.
 Vala, J., & Monteiro, M. B. (coords) (2000). Psicologia Social. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialNoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
14 January 2019
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
9781802960525
Publisher
Future Academy
Volume
53
Print ISBN (optional)

Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1812
Subjects
Education, educational psychology, counselling psychology
Cite this article as:
Galinha, S. A., & SãoJoão, R. (2019). Study Of Motivation In Portuguese Students. In Z. Bekirogullari, M. Y. Minas, & R. X. Thambusamy (Eds.), ICEEPSY 2018: Education and Educational Psychology, vol 53. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 300306). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.01.28