Abstract
Promoting students’ ability to transfer or apply their knowledge and skills to real-life situations is critical in higher education. The current study was designed to test the likelihood that the constructs based on self-determination theory (SDT) framework help understand college students’ perceived knowledge transferability. A total of 3783 undergraduates from 301 classes participated in this study. The results of a series of multilevel modeling analyses indicated that (a) competence satisfaction and identification were the most salient factors influencing students’ perceived knowledge transferability; (b) the SDT-related variables together explained 64.2% of the between-student variance in perceived knowledge transferability; (c) after controlling for student-level covariates and SDT-related variables, 7.9% of the variance in perceived knowledge transferability was caused by between-class differences, and 19.6% of it could be explained by course fields and course levels. Our results, which provide evidence of multilevel factors influencing college students’ perceived knowledge transferability, have implications for promoting transfer in higher education.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the current study, we used predict, predictor, prediction, or predicting to describe the associations between the independent variables and the dependent variable. These terms do not suggest causation.
In the present study, the terms course sections and classes are used interchangeably. A course may include multiple sections/classes.
References
Axtell, C. M., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S. K. (1997). Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of training. Personnel Review, 26, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483489710161413.
Belenky, D. M., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2012). Motivation and transfer: The role of mastery-approach goals in preparation for future learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.651232.
Bereby-Meyer, Y., Moran, S., & Unger-Aviram, E. (2004). When performance goals deter performance: Transfer of skills in integrative negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(2), 142–154.
Billing, D. (2007). Teaching for transfer of core/key skills in higher education: Cognitive skills. Higher Education, 53(4), 483–516.
Bonem, E. M., Fedesco, H. N., & Zissimopoulos, A. N. (2019). What you do is less important than how you do it: The effects of learning environment on student outcomes. Learning Environments Research, 23, 27–44.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167267.
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 6, 263–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307303035.
Burton, K. D., Lydon, J. E., D’Alessandro, D. U., & Koestner, R. (2006). The differential effects of intrinsic and identified motivation on well-being and performance: Prospective, experimental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 750–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.750.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Moon, I. S. (2012). Experimentally based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34, 365–396. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.3.365.
Chi, M. T., & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 177–188.
Crawford, M., & MacLeod, M. (1990). Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the “chilly climate” for women. Sex Roles, 23, 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289859.
Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). The import of knowledge export: Connecting findings and theories of transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 47, 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.696438.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). Self-determination theory. In J. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 486–491). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26036-4.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137.
Fedesco, H. N., Bonem, E. M., Wang, C., & Henares, R. (2019). Connections in the classroom: Separating the effects of instructor and peer relatedness in the Basic Needs Satisfaction scale. Motivation and Emotion, 43(5), 758–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09765-x.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148.
Gagné, M. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 372–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/714044203.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175–213. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005614228250.
Hart Research Associates. (2006). How should colleges prepare students to succeed in today’s global economy? A survey of employers conducted on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: Peter D. Hart Research Associates.
Higher Learning Commission. (2019). About the higher learning commission. Retrieved from Quality Initiative: https://www.hlcommission.org/Accreditation/qualityinitiative.html.
Hsu, H. C. K., Wang, C. V., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019). Reexamining the impact of self-determination theory on learning outcomes in the online learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), s2174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09863-w.
Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 798–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012841.
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being highly motivated: A closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In D. El & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact Educational Practices: What they are, Who has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Levesque-Bristol, C., Knapp, T. D., & Fisher, B. J. (2010). The effectiveness of service-learning: It’s not always what you think. Journal of Experiential Education, 33, 208–224. https://doi.org/10.5193/JEE33.3.208.
Levesque-Bristol, C., Flierl, M., Zywicki, C., Parker, L. C., Connor, C., Guberman, D., et al. (2019a). Creating student-centered learning environments and changing teaching culture: Purdue University’s IMPACT Program. Champaign: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
Levesque-Bristol, C., Maybee, C., Parker, L. C., Zywicki, C., Connor, C., & Flierl, M. (2019b). Shifting culture: Professional development through academic course transformation. Change. The Magazine of Higher Learning, 51(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2019.1547077.
Levesque-Bristol, C., Sell, G. R., & Zimmerman, J. A. (2006). A theory-based integrative model for learning and motivation in higher education. In S. Chadwick-Blossey & D. R. Robertson (Eds.), To improve the academy (pp. 86–103). Boston, MA: Anker.
Levesque-Bristol, C., Richards, K. A. R., Zissimopoulos, A., Wang, C., & Yu, S. (2020). An evaluation of the integrative model for learning and motivation in the college classroom. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00671-x.
Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17, 85–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1162.
Nokes, T. J., & Belenky, D. M. (2011). Incorporating motivation into a theoretical framework for knowledge transfer. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 109–135.
O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690.
Pai, H. H., Sears, D. A., & Maeda, Y. (2015). Effects of small-group learning on transfer: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 79–102.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47, 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.693354.
Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48(1), 85–112.
Qualtrics, L. L. C. (2015). Provo. USA: UT.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation & Emotion, 26, 183–207.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/purdue/detail.action?docID=4773318.
Schreiber, J. B. (2016). Motivation 101. New York, NY: Springer.
Sears, D. A., & Pai, H. H. (2012). Effects of cooperative versus individual study on learning and motivation after reward-removal. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3), 246–262.
Sun, H., & Chen, A. (2010). A pedagogical understanding of the self-determination theory in physical education. Quest, 62(4), 364–384.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Chan, D. W. L. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 692–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692.
Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.239.
Trenshaw, K. F., Revelo, R. A., Earl, K. A., & Herman, G. L. (2016). Using self-determination theory principles to promote engineering students’ intrinsic motivation to learn. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32, 1194–1207.
Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., De Muynck, G.-J., Haerens, L., Patall, E., & Reeve, J. (2018). Fostering personal meaning and self-relevance: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86, 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1381067.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246.
Wang, C., Hsu, H. C. K., Bonem, E. M., Moss, J. D., Yu, S., Nelson, D. B., et al. (2019a). Need satisfaction and need dissatisfaction: A comparative study of online and face-to-face learning contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.034.
Wang, C., Zhang, X., & Yao, M. (2019b). Enhancing Chinese college students’ transfer of learning through service-learning. Studies in Higher Education, 44(8), 1316–1331. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1435635.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767.
Xu, Y. J. (2013). Career outcomes of STEM and non-STEM college graduates: Persistence in majored-field and influential factors in career choices. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 349–382.
Young-Jones, A., Cara, K. C., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2014). Verbal and behavioral cues: Creating an autonomy-supportive classroom. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(5), 497–509.
Zilvinskis, J., Masseria, A. A., & Pike, G. R. (2017). Student engagement and student learning: Examining the convergent and discriminant validity of the revised national survey of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 58(8), 880–903.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr. David Sears, Dr. Signe Kastberg, Qian Li, and Yaheng Lu for their feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript. We thank the reviewers and editors for their thoughtful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent has been waived by the IRB because we used existing data that was collected for institutional research purposes.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Perceived Knowledge Transferability Scale
Please consider the following questions as they relate to 〈Course〉 and record the extent to which you agree using the choices provided.
(1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree).
-
1.
I feel confident in my ability to apply the course material in other classes that I have.
-
2.
I feel confident in my ability to apply the course material in my professional life.
-
3.
I feel as if the material covered in this course is relevant to my future career.
-
4.
Given the future career that I have chosen, it is important for me to learn the information covered in this class.
-
5.
I understand how I will use the information learned in this class in my professional life.
-
6.
Information learned in this course will inform my future learning experiences.
-
7.
I believe that it is important for me to learn the information included in this course.
-
8.
The information learned in this course will help me become a more well-rounded individual.
Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ) Short Form (Williams and Deci 1996)
The questions below are related to your learning experience in 〈Course〉 thus far. The learning experience in different courses can vary and we would like to know more about how you generally feel about the overall learning experience in 〈Course〉 .
(1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree).
-
1.
I feel that my instructor provides me choices and options.
-
2.
I feel understood by my instructor.
-
3.
My instructor conveyed confidence in my ability to do well in the course.
-
4.
My instructor encouraged me to ask questions.
-
5.
My instructor listens to how I would like to do things.
-
6.
My instructor tries to understand how I see things before suggesting a new way to do things.
Modified Basic Psychological Needs Scale (BPNS) (Levesque-Bristol et al. 2010)
The following questions concern your feelings about your experience in 〈Course〉. Please indicate how true each of the following statement is for you given your specific experiences with <Course> thus far.
(1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree).
1. Autonomy.
-
a.
I feel like I can make a lot of inputs in deciding how my coursework gets done.
-
b.
I feel pressured in this course.
-
c.
I am free to express my ideas and opinions in this course.
-
d.
When I am in this course, I have to do what I am told.
-
e.
My feelings are taken into consideration in this course.
-
f.
I feel like I can pretty much be myself in this course.
-
g.
There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to go about my coursework.
2. Competence
-
a.
I do not feel very competent in this course.
-
b.
People in this course tell me I am good at what I do.
-
c.
I have been able to learn interesting new skills in this course.
-
d.
Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from this course.
-
e.
In this course I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.
-
f.
I often do not feel very capable in this course.
3. Relatedness
-
a.
I really like the people in this course.
-
b.
I get along with people in this course.
-
c.
I pretty much keep to myself when in this course.
-
d.
I consider the people in this course to be my friends.
-
e.
People in this course care about me.
-
f.
There are not many people in this course that I am close to.
-
g.
The people in this course do not seem to like me much.
-
h.
People in this course are pretty friendly towards me.
Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS) modified version (Guay et al. 2000)
The questions below are related to your feelings of why you are taking 〈Course〉. Students have different motivations for taking different courses, and we are interested in your motivations for taking 〈Course〉 thus far.
(1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree).
1. Intrinsic regulation
-
a.
Because I really enjoy it.
-
b.
Because I really like it.
-
c.
Because it’s really fun.
2. Integration
-
a.
Because learning all I can about academic work is really essential for me.
-
b.
Because acquiring all kinds of knowledge is fundamental for me.
-
c.
Because experiencing new things is a part of who I am.
3.. Identification
-
a.
Because it allows me to develop skills that are important to me.
-
b.
Because it’s a sensible way to get a meaningful experience.
-
c.
Because it’s a practical way to acquire new knowledge.
4. Introjection
-
a.
Because I would feel bad if I didn’t.
-
b.
Because I would feel guilty if I didn’t.
-
c.
Because I would feel awful about myself if I didn’t.
5. Extrinsic regulation
-
a.
Because I feel I have to.
-
b.
Because that’s what I’m supposed to do.
-
c.
Because that’s what I was told to do.
6. Amotivation
-
a.
I don’t know. I have the impression I’m wasting my time.
-
b.
I’m not sure anymore. I think that maybe I should quit (drop the class).
-
c.
I don’t know. I wonder if I should continue.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, C., Zhang, Y., Moss, J.D. et al. Multilevel Factors Affecting College Students’ Perceived Knowledge Transferability: From the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory. Res High Educ 61, 1002–1026 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-020-09592-x
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-020-09592-x