Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 56, Issue 5, pp 599–612 | Cite as

“Do I need research skills in working life?”: University students’ motivation and difficulties in quantitative methods courses

  • Mari Murtonen
  • Erkki Olkinuora
  • Päivi Tynjälä
  • Erno Lehtinen
Article

Abstract

This study explored university students’ views of whether they will need research skills in their future work in relation to their approaches to learning, situational orientations on a learning situation of quantitative methods, and difficulties experienced in quantitative research courses. Education and psychology students in both Finland (N = 46) and the USA (= 122), who thought that they would need research skills in their future work, differed significantly from the students who were not sure whether they would need these skills. The students, who considered research skills important for their future work, were more task-oriented, used a deeper approach to learning and experienced fewer difficulties in the learning of research skills than other students. This finding implies that experiences in learning, learning approaches and situational orientations are related to expectations about future work. For instruction, this means that if we were somehow able to change students’ experiences and orientations towards research into a more positive direction, students might be better prepared for their future work.

Keywords

Learning of research Research skills in working life Motivation in research learning Difficulties in research learning Conceptions of research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cultural Foundation, and the Turku University Foundation.

References

  1. Birenbaum, M., & Eylath, S. (1994). Who is afraid of statistics? Correlates of statistics anxiety among students of educational sciences. Educational Research, 36, 93–98.Google Scholar
  2. Boulton-Lewis, G. M., & Smith, D. J. H., McCrindle, A. R., Burnett, P. C., & Campbell, K. J. (2001). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. Learning and Instruction, 11, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  4. Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher education: Analytic abstractions, everyday life. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 103–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  6. Epstein, I. (1987). Pedagogy of the perturbed: Teaching research to the reluctants. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 1(1), 71–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Filinson, R., & Niklas, D. (1992). The research critique approach to educating sociology students. Teaching Sociology, 20, 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forte, J. (1995). Teaching statistics without sadistics. Journal of Social Work Education, 31(2), 204–308.Google Scholar
  9. Gal, I., Ginsburg, L., & Schau, C. (1997). Monitoring attitudes and beliefs in statistics education. In I. Gal & J. B. Garfield (Eds.), The assessment challenge in statistics education (pp. 37–51). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  10. Greer, B. (2000). Statistical thinking and learning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(1&2), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choises. Why high school students do not like math and science? Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hauff, H. M., & Fogarty, G. J. (1996). Analysing problem solving behaviour of successful and unsuccessful statistics students. Instructional Science, 24, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kiley, M., & Mullins, G. (2005). Supervisors’ conceptions of research: What are they? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(3), 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klieme, E., Knoll, S., & Schümer, G. (1998). Mathematikunterricht der Sekundarstufe I in Deutschland, Japan und den USA [Math lessons in high school in Germany, Japan, and the US]., Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, Berlin Multimedia-CD-Dokumentation zur TIMSS-Videostudie. Google Scholar
  15. Leech, N. L., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Murtonen, M., Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., & Tähtinen, J. (2007). Researcher workshop for student teachers—An example of a mixed methods learning environment. In M. Murtonen, J. Rautopuro, & P. Väisänen (Eds.), Learning and teaching of research methods at university. Research in educational sciences (Vol. 30, pp. 205–226). Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  16. Lehtinen, E. (2007). Methodology learning from the point of view of learning sciences. A commentary. In M. Murtonen, J. Rautopuro, & P. Väisänen (Eds.), Learning and teaching of research methods at university. Research in Educational Sciences (Vol. 30, pp. 205–226). Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  17. Lehtinen, E., & Rui, E. (1995). Computer-supported complex learning: An environment for learning experimental methods and statistical inference. Machine-Mediated Learning, 5(3&4), 149–175.Google Scholar
  18. Lehtinen, E., Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Olkinuora, E., & Kinnunen, R., (1995). Long-term development of learning activity: Motivational, cognitive and social interaction. Educational Psychologist, 30 (1), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Lonka, K. (1999). Individual ways of interacting with the learning environment—Are they related to study success? Learning and Instruction, 9(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, and study practices in medicine and psychology. Higher Education, 31, 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning – I. Process and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.Google Scholar
  22. Meyer, J. H. F., Shanahan, M. P., & Laugksch, R. C. (2005). Students’ conceptions of research—A qualitative and quantitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(3), 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murtonen, M. (2005). University students’ research orientations—Do negative attitudes exist toward quantitative methods? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(3), 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murtonen, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2003). Difficulties experienced by education and sociology students in quantitative methods courses. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murtonen, M., Rautopuro, J., & Väisänen, P. (Eds.) (2007). Introduction to the book Learning and teaching of research methods at university. Research in Educational Sciences (Vol. 30). Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  26. Murtonen, M., & Titterton, N. (2004). Earlier mathematics achievement and success in university studies in relation to experienced difficulties in quantitative methods courses. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 9(4), 3–13.Google Scholar
  27. Olkinuora, E., & Salonen, P. (1992). Adaptation, motivational orientation, and cognition in a subnormally performing child: A systemic perspective for training. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities. An international perspective (pp. 190–213). Springer-Verlag: New York.Google Scholar
  28. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1997). Writing a research proposal: The role of library anxiety, statistics anxiety, and composition anxiety. Library & Information Science Research, 19(1), 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2000). Statistics anxiety and the role of self-perceptions. Journal of Educational Research, 93(5), 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (1998). The relationship between learning styles and statistics anxiety in a research methodology course. A paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, April 13, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  31. Op’t Eynde, P., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2001). “What to learn from what we feel?”: The role of students’ emotions in the mathematics classroom. In S. Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 17–31). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. Orr, J. E. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity. War stories and community memory among service technicians. In D. S. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds), Collective remembering: Memory in society (pp. 169–189). London: Sage Publications Limited. Google Scholar
  33. Pretorius, T. B., & Norman, A. M. (1992). Psychometric data on the statistics anxiety scale for a sample of south african students. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 933–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rautopuro, J., Väisänen, P., & Malin, A. (2007). From misunderstanding to misapplication? Difficulties encountered by Finnish students of education in learning quantitative research methods. In M. Murtonen, J. Rautopuro, & P. Väisänen (Eds.), Learning and teaching of research methods at university. Research in educational sciences (Vol .30, pp. 205–226). Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  35. Rosenthal, B. C., & Wilson, W. C. (1992). Student factors affecting performance in an MSW research and statistics course. Journal of Social Work Education, 28(1), 77–85.Google Scholar
  36. Thompson, B. W. (1994). Making data-analysis realistic: Incorporating research into statistics courses. Teaching of Psychology, 21(1), 41–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Townsend, M. A. R., Moore, D. W., Tuck, B. F., & Wilton, K. M. (1998). Self-concept and anxiety in university students studying social science statistics within a co-operative learning structure. Educational Psychology, 18(1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tynjälä, P., Helle, L., & Murtonen, M. (2002). A comparison of students’ and experts’ beliefs concerning the nature of expertise. In E. Pantzar (Ed.), Perspectives on the age of the information society. Reports of the Information Research Programme of the Academy of Finland, 6 (pp. 29–49). Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Tynjälä, P., Slotte, V., Nieminen, J., Lonka, K., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). From university to working life: Graduates’ workplace skills in practise. In P. Tynjälä, J. Välimaa, & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Higher education and working life. Collaborations, confrontations and challenges (pp. 73–88). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  41. Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Lehtinen, E., & Lepola, J. (2001). Long term development of motivation and cognition in family, school context. In S. Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning context. Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 295–315). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  42. Välimaa, J., Tynjälä, P., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2006). Introduction: Changing world, changing higher education. In P. Tynjälä, J. Välimaa, & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Higher education and working life. Collaborations, confrontations and challenges (pp. 1–6). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zeidner, M. (1991). Statistics and mathematics anxiety in social science students: Some interesting parallels. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 319–328.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mari Murtonen
    • 1
  • Erkki Olkinuora
    • 1
  • Päivi Tynjälä
    • 2
  • Erno Lehtinen
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Institute for Educational ResearchUniversity of Jyväskylä JyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations