Determinants of Research Motivation and Productivity: Evidence from University of Sargodha
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68490/ber.2023.3.555Keywords:
Learning Styles, Scientific Process Skills, Kolb’s Learning Styles, Science Education, Force and Energy, Science Learning, Secondary School StudentsAbstract
The aim of the study is to examine the relationship between the learning styles of classroom students in the force and energy unit and their scientific process skills. In the study, pre-test and post-test weak experimental design without a control group was used. The research was carried out in 2 different secondary schools in the central district of a metropolitan province. In the study, a total of 59 seventh-grade students were studied. The study lasted 5 weeks. The lessons were planned taking into account the scientific process skill steps. In the study, Kolb’s learning styles inventory and scientific process skills test were applied as pre-test and post-test. Arithmetic averages, standard deviations, and percentages were calculated for the analysis of the data, and unrelated t-tests and dependent-tests were performed to determine whether there was a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test results of the learning styles. Analysis of Variance analysis was performed to determine whether there was a difference in the scientific process skills of the learning styles. The obtained data have been analyzed with SPSS 22 packet program. As a result of the research, when the pre-test and post-test results of the students were compared, it was observed that there was an increase in scientific process skills in all learning styles. When the pre-test and post-test averages were examined, the students with the highest average assimilation learning style were the students with the least dissociation. When the pre-test and post-test results of the Scientific Process Skills within the groups were compared, no significant difference was found in the learning styles that separate and absorb, while a significant difference was found in the learning styles that place and change. It was observed that the students had different learning styles, but there was no significant difference in terms of scientific process skills. However, a significant difference was found in classifying, using space/time relations, and hypothesizing scientific process skills.
References
Awan, R. N. (2022). The effect of Leadership Support on Research Motivation: The Gendered Role of Teaching Workload and Self-efficacy in Motivating Researchers. Pakistan Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation. 10(1), 42-63.
Bailey, J. G. (1999). Academics' motivation and self‐efficacy for teaching and research. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(3), 343-359.
Bay Jr, B. E., & Clerigo, M. E. C. (2013). Factors Associated with Research Productivity among Oral Healthcare Educators in an Asian University. International Education Studies, 6(8), 124-135.
Bentley, P. J., & Kyvik, S. (2012). Individual Differences in Faculty Research Time Allocations Across 13 Countries. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9273-4
Blackburn, R. T., Bieber, J. P., Lawrence, J. H., & Trautvetter, L. (1991). Faculty at work: Focus on research, scholarship, and service. Research in Higher Education, 32(4), 385–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00992183
Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2005). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine, 80(3), 225-237.
Buela-Casal, G., Gutiérrez-Martínez, O., Bermúdez-Sánchez, M. P., & Vadillo-Muñoz, O. (2007). Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities. Scientometrics, 71, 349-365.
Chen, Y., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2006). Factors that motivate business faculty to conduct research: An expectancy theory analysis. Journal of Education for business, 81, 179-189. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.4.179-189
Cummings, W. K., & Shin, J. C. (2014). Teaching and research in contemporary higher education: An impression. In J. C. Shin, A. Arimoto, W. K. Cummings, & U. Teichler (Eds.), Teaching and research in contemporary higher education: Systems, activities, and rewards (pp. 1–12). Springer.
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277-304.
Hemmings, B., & Kay, R. (2010). University lecturer publication output: Qualifications, time, and confidence count. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(2), 185–197.
Horodnic, I. A., & Zaiţ, A. (2015). Motivation and research productivity in a university system undergoing transition. Research evaluation, 24(3), 282-292.
Hu, Q., & Gill, T. G. (2000). Is faculty research productivity: Influential factors and implications. Information Assets Management Journal,13(2), 15–25.
Iqbal, H. M., Mahmood, K., & Iqbal, S. A. (2018). Factors contributing towards research productivity and visibility: a case study of Pakistan. Libri, 68(2), 85-98.
Jung, J. (2012). Faculty research productivity in Hong Kong across academic discipline. Higher education studies, 2(4), 1-13.
Kaya, N., & Weber, M. J. (2003). Faculty research productivity: Gender and discipline differences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 95(4), 46.
King, R. (2004). Globalisation and the university. In R. King (Ed.), The university in the global age (pp. 45–66), Palgrave Macmillan.
Lertputtarak, S. (2008). An investigation of factors related to research productivity in a public university in Thailand: A case study (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University).
Lodhi, A. S. (2016). Factors influencing institutional research culture: the case of a Pakistani university (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds).
Ng, K.-Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K.-Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: a moderated mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 733.
Nguyen, Q. H. (2015). Factors Influencing the research productivity of academics at the research-oriented university in Vietnam. Vietnam: Griffith University.
Peng, J. E., & Gao, X. (2019). Understanding TEFL academics’ research motivation and its relations with research productivity. Sage Open, 9(3), 2158244019866295.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7(2), 112-137.
Smeby, J. C., & Try, S. (2005). Departmental contexts and faculty research activity in Norway. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 593-619.
Sulo, T., Kendagor, R., Kosgei, D., Tuitoek, D., & Chelangat, S. (2012). Factors affecting research productivity in public universities of Kenya: The case of Moi University, Eldoret. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 3(5), 475-484.
Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis. Higher Education, 39(2), 201–222.
Times Higher Education, (2023). World University Rankings 2023: methodology. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2023-methodology
White, C. S., James, K., Burke, L. A., & Allen, R. S. (2012). What makes a “research star”? Factors influencing the research productivity of business faculty. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(6), 584–602. Zhang, X. (2014). Factors that motivate academic staff to conduct research and influence research productivity in Chinese project 211 universities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Canberra). Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children, and research productivity. Research in higher education, 45, 891-920.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Bulletin of Education and Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
