Content uploaded by Josiane Mukagihana
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Josiane Mukagihana on Feb 27, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Article LUMAT General Issue 2021
LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education
Published by the University of Helsinki, Finland / LUMA Centre Finland | CC BY 4.0
Effect of resource-based instructions on pre-service
biology teachers’ motivation toward learning biology
Josiane Mukagihana1, Florien Nsanganwimana2 and Catherine M. Aurah3
1 African Centre of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Science
(ACEITLMS), University of Rwanda-College of Education (URCE), Rwamagana, Rwanda
2 University of Rwanda-College of Education (URCE), Rwamagana, Rwanda
3 Masinde Muliro University, of Science and Technology, Kakamega, Kenya
Linking motivation and learning is central to understanding students’ motivation
toward learning and learning itself as complex cognitive phenomena. Some studies
focused on students’ motivation toward learning biology in general; however, the
shortage of studies on the effect of animation-based instruction and small-group
laboratory activities as Resource-based Instructions (RBIs) on pre-service biology
teachers was realized. The present study aimed to determine the effect of resource-
based Instructions on pre-service biology teachers’ academic motivation toward
learning biology at private and public Universities in Rwanda. Pre-service biology
teachers were grouped into three groups at a public teacher traning University and
received a pre-and post-assessment. Quasi-experimental, pre and post-test control
group design was used at a public university, while a repeated measures design was
used at a private university. The standard academic motivation scale for learning
biology (AMSLB) yielded a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.71 before use. The t-Test
was computed to measure the statistically significant difference between the pre-
and post-assessment scores and group of RBI interventions. Multivariate analysis
(MANOVA) was computed to measure the effect of RBIs vis à vis the AMSLB factors.
Findings revealed no statistically significant difference (df=18, p=.458) in the
motivation of learning biology of pre-service teachers before and after learning via
traditional instruction at a public university. However, a statistically signficant
difference was found with animation instruction (df=18, p=.002) and lab instruction
(df=18, p=.014). The motivation of learning biology increased at a public university
than at a private university. However, animations and small-group lab activities
increased pre-service biology teachers’ intrinsic and extrinsic—career motivation
of learning biology at both universities. Therefore, the study recommends using
RBIs to improve pre-service biology teachers’ motivation toward learning biology.
Keywords: Academic motivation, resource-based instructions, learning biology,
pre-service biology teachers, university, Rwanda
1 Introduction
Biology is a science subject that informs the world about all aspects of life. Its teaching
and learning increase knowledge of life sciences (Özbaş, 2019). Some studies reported
that students showed a good interest in learning biology (Koul et al., 2011; Prokop et
al., 2007); however, some difficulties in learning biology like teachers teaching
strategies and lack of learning stimulus resources, among others, were pointed out
ARTICLE DETAILS
LUMAT General Issue
Vol 9 No 1 (2021), 873–891
Received 27 July 2021
Accepted 22 November 2021
Published 3 December 2021
Pages: 19
References: 39
Correspondence:
joaxmuka@yahoo.fr
https://doi.org/10.31129/
LUMAT.9.1.1637
LUMAT
874
(Çimer, 2012). Teaching and learning biology require a motivating teaching and
learning environment where student’s involvement is taken into account. This is
imperative based on the biological concepts that many are experimental in nature and
challenge interested students to learn and work on the concepts (Cuthbert, 2005;
Dohn et al., 2016; Şen et al., 2014).
Linking motivation and learning is central to understanding students’ stimulus
toward learning and learning themselves as complex cognitive phenomena (Jurisevic
et al., 2008). Cuthbert (2005) defined learning as ontogenetic adaptations that mean
the changes in an organism’s behavior due to the regularities from its environments.
Jurisevic et al. (2008) added that motivation to learn is a behavioral factor defined by
different elements of motivation like interests, goals, attributes, self-image, and
external enticements. The literature emphasized that motivation to learn is a crucial
factor in learning science and interactions between different learning domains like
cognitive and affective with intrinsic or extrinsic motivation (Shin et al., 2017).
In the present study, academic motivation was discussed in three different factors
pointed by self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) as intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Different studies Ayub (2010); Covington &
Müeller, (2001); Jurisevic et al., (2008); Reiss (2012) and Ryan & Deci (2000)
discussed intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to learn. All authors defined the terms
and came up with a similar description stating intrinsic motivation as an act of doing
something because it is inherently interesting, enjoyable, or satisfying to someone.
Simply intrinsic motivation is characterized by doing things without any reason or
expected benefits. At the same time, extrinsic motivation was seen as pursuing
something without its own sake. In other words, to engage in an activity with an end
of achieving the goal. For instance, students extrinsically may be motivated to perform
better in a competition or test to achieve a good grade, please their parents, get a
reward, or skip a punishment (Gilakjani et al., 2012).
According to Ryan and Deci (2000), amotivation is the third factor or type of
motivation that announces the absence of an individual intention to act. Amotivated
students do not accord any disparity to a learning activity, feel incompetent toward
activity, lose interest, and find no enjoyment or reason to do an activity. In their
queries, there is “why to join the school,” a behavioral question that may result in low
academic achievement or school dropout as advocated that students with low
performance showed low motivational belief (Ekici, 2010).
MUKAGIHANA ET AL. (2021)
875
Apart from amotivation, motivation has a crucial role in education. Şen et al.
(2014) stated that motivational belief in students exerts a direct impact on their
academic achievement. Ayub (2010) added that intrinsic motivation significantly
impacts students’ academic learning and competency, while career motivation, a form
of extrinsic motivation, plays an essential role in supporting students in choosing
science subjects for learning, especially STEM Choice (Shin et al., 2017). Chua and
Karpudewan (2017) added that the extent of motivation in students toward active
learning environments like laboratories predicts their attitude toward science
learning. Hence, investigating the effect of factors influencing motivation in students
like university students is an imperative need.
Different factors have been shown to influence students’ motivation to learn
biology, and among others, instructional methods influence learning motivation
differently. Keraro et al. (2007) advocated that students showed a high motivation
toward learning biology after being treated by cooperative concept mapping teaching
approach, while in the study by Özarslan and Çetin (2018), biology projects proved
negative effect on students” motivation toward learning biology. Online teaching did
not display a significant difference in improving student motivation toward learning
biology in comparison to traditional instructional methods (Bulic & Blazevic, 2020).
Hence, it is imperative to test the motivational level in pre-service biology teachers’
after being treated by animation-based instructions and small-group laboratory
activities. For instance, a study by Mukagihana et al. (2021) found that students were
motivated during learning microbiology through small groups and were excited to
manipulate computer animations. Such instructions also demonstrated a rise in
students’ positive attitudes toward learning biology (Mukagihana et al., 2021). In the
latter study, the students were motivated during learning through the teaching and
learning bucket model. This is a lecturer backing and learners owning learning model
(Ndihokubwayo et al., 2021) interested students in collaboratively constructing
improvised materials (Ndihokubwayo et al., 2019) and presenting their outcome to
the whole class. Kibga et al.’s (2021) study showed a significant increase in students’
curiosity among secondary schools in Tanzania due to the implementation of hands-
on activities as an instructional strategy. In other studies, innovative collaborative
instructional strategies moderated students’ verbal ability and their achievement in
biology (Adejimi et al., 2021) and motivation toward learning biology (Dohn et al.,
2016; Hewitt et al., 2019).
LUMAT
876
In general, studies by Dohn et al. (2016), Mnguni (2018), Özbaş (2019), and
Kişoğlu (2018) were interested in finding out the students motivation toward learning
biology; however, the literature lacks sufficient studies on pre-service biology teachers
motivation toward learning biology. Besides, the effect of different instructional
methods on student’s motivation toward learning biology was found out (Bulic &
Blazevic, 2020; Corkin et al., 2017; Dyrberg et al., 2017; Hewitt et al., 2019; Keraro et
al., 2007; Özarslan & Çetin, 2018), but minor studies focused on the effect of resource-
based instructions on pre-service biology teacher’s motivation toward learning
biology. Likewise, a recent study done in higher learning institutions in Rwanda
(Mukagihana et al., 2020) showed low use of resource-based instructional tools
prevailed to teach and learn biology. Therefore, to bridge the gap, this study aimed to
determine the effect of animation-based instruction and small group laboratory
activities as resource-based instructions on pre-service biology teachers' motivation
to learn biology.
Self- determination theory (SDT), as described by Cook & Artino (2016) and Deci
& Ryan (1985), guides the study. The theory postulates that innately human is
motivated and need to be self-directed in activities they find inherently enjoyable.
This reflects on intrinsic motivation, which primarily is not influenced but innate.
Sometimes, humans may be influenced to do an inherently enjoyable activity to earn
an instrumental value that generates extrinsic motivation in various forms such as
career, goals, societal values, rewards, and others. The theory relates to this study
which sought to determine the effect of resource-based instructions on pre-service
biology teachers’ motivation toward learning biology. In the study, motivation is
conceptualized in its three different factors as intrinsic motivation, amotivation, and
extrinsic motivation in two forms, career goals, and social values.
Motivation toward learning proved its essential role in learning science concepts
(Shin et al., 2017). The present study significantly contributes by adding in literature
the motivational level of pre-service biology teachers to learn biology at private and
public teacher training Universities. Besides, it informs about the effect of animation-
based instruction and small group laboratory activities on pre-service biology
motivation to learn biology. Therefore, we aimed to measure the effect of animation-
based instruction and small-group laboratory activities as resource-based
instructions on pre-service biology teacher’s motivation toward learning biology.
The study answered two research questions:
MUKAGIHANA ET AL. (2021)
877
1. What is the motivation of pre-service biology teachers toward learning biology
at private and public teacher training Universities in Rwanda?
2. What effect do animation-based instruction and small group laboratory
activities as resource-based instructions have on pre-service biology teacher’s
motivation toward learning biology?
We do hypothesize that:
H01: There is no statistically significant difference between pre-service biology
teachers' motivational level taught by traditional methods and those taught by
animation-based instruction or small group laboratory activities as resource-based
instructions.
H02: There is no statistically significant difference in motivation toward learning
biology between pre-service biology teachers at private and public universities.
2 Methodology
2.1 Participants and sample
The participant in the study consisted of fifty (50) pre-service biology teachers in year
two at the University of Technology and Arts of Byumba (UTAB), a private university
with biology education programs and one hundred and eighty (180) year two pre-
service biology teachers assigned to the study from a population of 528 at University
of Rwanda College of Education (URCE), a public teacher training University. Thus a
purposive sampling was used. The research unit and innovation at URCE granted
ethical clearance, and the universities granted data collection approval before the
conduct of the study, which was held from November 2020 to March 2021.
2.2 Research design
A survey design was embedded in a quasi-experimental non-equivalent control group
design and repeated measures design to check the effect of resource-based
instructions on pre-service biology teachers’ motivation to learn biology. Repeated
measures design is a longitudinal research design involving multiple measures of the
same variable in which change over time is assessed (Creswell, 2014). Survey design
is one of the procedures in quantitative research that support researchers to measure
individuals’ different aspects like emotions, attitudes, and opinions (Creswell, 2015).
The survey was used to collect the data before and after treatment and permitted the
LUMAT
878
researcher to measure the motivational level of pre-service biology teachers to learn
biology as the effect of treatment.
2.3 Research instruments
The instrument used to collect the data is an adapted Academic Motivation Scale for
Learning Biology (AMSLB) developed by Aydin et al. (2014). The scale comprises 19
statements distributed into four motivation factors or subscales named “Intrinsic
motivation with six statements, amotivation with five statements, Extrinsic
motivation – Career with four statements, and Extrinsic motivation – Social with four
statements. Statements are scored from 1 to 5 with 1= Strongly disagree (SD), 2=
Disagree (D), 3= No opinion, 4= Agree (A), and 5= Strongly agree (SA). All statements
are positive except five statements in the amotivation factor. However, these items
were similarly scored as others (SD, D, NO, A, and SA). We did not reverse the scales
to avoid participants’ confusion. Before using the scale, the items were rearranged in
subscales or factors in an orderly manner. Thus “Intrinsic Motivation has statements
1 to 6, amotivation statements 7 to 11, and Extrinsic Motivation – Career statements
12 to 15, and extrinsic motivation –Social statements 16-19 (see Appendix A).
Statements in extrinsic motivations career factors were rephrased to relate them
to pre-service biology teachers as university students. Furthermore, the instrument
was subjected to one expert judge at Masinde Muliro University of Science and
Technology and one at URCE for validity checking.
The AMSLB adapted to the Rwandan context was found to have significant
reliability. Before using it, we tested it with 35 pre-service biology teachers at a
university that did not participate in the study. We computed a correlation statistic
using SPSS 23 and found a coefficient of 0.71 of Cronbach alpha. This informs that
AMSLB is reliable, and its statements are internally consistent.
2.4 Data collection procedures
At the University of Technology and Arts of Byumba (UTAB), the participants
consisted of a single group of fifty (50) pre-service biology teachers. The participants
received a pre-assessment by answering the Academic Motivation Scale for Learning
Biology (AMSLB) before receiving any treatments and a post-assessment after each
treatment. They were treated by starting with traditional methods of teaching
(Lecturer method), followed by treatment by animation-based instruction, and lastly
by small group laboratory activities. It means that a post-assessment by AMSLB
MUKAGIHANA ET AL. (2021)
879
alternated with treatment in repeated measures as described in Creswell (2015). All
50 participants did not participate in the study; some attended pre-assessment but
did not answer all post-assessment. Due to this, by data filtering, only 33 participants
answered pre-assessment and all post-assessment by AMSLB.
Contrary, at the University of Rwanda College of Education (URCE), 179 pre-
service biology teachers were available on the starting day of data collection. They
were randomly assigned to three groups as the control group (N=60) and two
experimental groups. The first (N= 59) was treated by animations-based instruction,
and the second (N= 60) was treated by laboratory method using small-group
laboratory activities. One instructor carried out the instruction. This helped us
minimize the instructor’s threat of validity. Pre-service biology teachers in each group
received a pre-assessment by administering AMSLB before receiving treatment and
answered the same AMSLB as post-assessment after interventions. The intervention
lasted for a semester, starting from November 2020 to March 2021 at both
Universities. Concept of introduction to microbiology (history of microbiology, its
scientists and their discoveries, types of microorganism), method and techniques for
microorganism (gram staining), method of pure culture isolation (streak, spread, and
pour method) were discussed.
In the control group, the course took place in the classroom. The instructor used a
projector and drawing on a whiteboard, especially diagrams such as structures of
bacteria, cell walls, etc. The animation group used animated lessons from YouTube.
Introduction to microbiology was projected, and where necessary instructor
intervened for more explanation. For other concepts, every concept had its animation.
The animated video contained graphical images of lab practical and moving text.
Thus, participants heard, watched what was being done, and then read related text.
When having a question, the instructor stopped, and where challenges occur, she
intervened. Small group lab group mainly studied in the lab. Group of 2 to 3 students
(pre-service biology teachers) spent an amount of time in the lab. We first introduced
lab rules, introduction to microbiology using a projector and showing the materials,
provided lab procedure for each technique showing materials, reagents, and
procedure. The instructor played the role of guidance while pre-service biology
teachers (students) were conducting experiments.
LUMAT
880
2.5 Data Analysis
Upon coming from the research field, we entered data in MS Excel 2016. The first
column was filled with pre-service biology teachers’ codes, while the first row was
filled with Academic Motivation Scale for Learning Biology (AMSLB) statements
(STAT). We entered the number scored by each participant—from 1 as strongly
disagree to 5 as strongly agree—under each statement/item. One file contained data
from URCE, while another file contained data from UTAB pre-service biology
teachers. We first computed the average scores for each statement across all the
participants before exporting the data into SPSS version 23. We analyzed the data
using this software. We first computed mean scores from each intervention at URCE—
where three groups [Control group that was taught using lecture method, first
experimental group that was taught using animation-based instruction, and second
experimental group that was taught using small group laboratory activities] were
tested twice via pre-and post-test design. At UTAB, a single group of the participant
was tested four times via repeated measures [(a) before assessment, (b) after being
taught by lecture method, (c) after being taught using animation-based instruction,
and (d) after being taught using small group laboratory activities]. After computing
the mean score of each group, the t-Test was computed to measure the statistically
significant difference between the pre-and post-test (motivation assessment) and a
group of RBI interventions. Lastly, multivariate analysis (MANOVA) was computed
to measure the effect of resource-based instructions (RBIs) vis à vis the AMSLB
factors.
3 Findings and Discussion
Table 1 shows the mean scores of pre-service biology teachers’ answers on the
Academic Motivation Scale for Learning Biology (AMSLB) before and after each
intervention at both University of Rwanda College of Education (URCE) and the
University of Technology and Arts of Byumba (UTAB). The means scores are
computed on the Likert AMSLB scale. Thus, the lowest score is 1, while the highest
score is 5. At both universities, pre-service biology teachers showed a good intrinsic
motivation before interventions in each group, with an average of pre-assessment
above 4.0, in general interventions did not change their intrinsic motivation toward
learning biology except in the control group after treatment with the traditional
method, mean scores AV=4.50 before treatment and mean scores AV=4.56 after
MUKAGIHANA ET AL. (2021)
881
treatment at URCE. The mean score decrease for intrinsic motivation factor was
realized at UTAB after intervention by small group lab activities (see Table 1). This is
attributed to the effect of repeated testing. Although pre-service biology teachers
generally hold a high intrinsic motivation, UR-CE pre-service biology teachers are
intrinsically motivated than UTAB pre-service biology teachers (See Figure 1).
Even though pre-service biology teachers hold intrinsic motivation, they also
expressed an amount of amotivation toward learning biology. Both traditional
methods of teaching, animation-based instruction, and laboratory methods through
small group lab activities decreased amotivation toward learning biology in all groups
of pre-service biology teachers at URCE. This was not the case at UTAB due to
repeated testing, where pre-service biology teachers taught in series of interventions
continuously showed amotivation after treatment by traditional method and by small
group lab activities see (Table 1). Amotivation was high in pre-service biology teachers
at UTAB than URCE pre-service biology teachers (see Figure 1).
Traditional animation-based instructions and small group laboratory activities
improved extrinsic motivation-career in pre-service biology teachers at UTAB after
each intervention than it did at URCE; however, pre-service biology teachers at URCE
hold high extrinsic motivation motivation-career than those at UTAB. Table 2 shows
the average mean scores of extrinsic motivation-career before and after each
intervention at both Universities. Generally, extrinsic motivation-social did not
increase after interventions in all groups at both universities; however, this
motivation was very high in pre-service biology teachers at UTAB than URCE before
and after interventions.
LUMAT
882
Table 1. Mean scores from AMSLB across Universities and Resource-based Instructions (RBIs)
URCE
UTAB
Control
Pre
Control
Post
Animation
Pre
Animation
Post
Lab
Pre
Lab
Post
Pre-
assessment
Traditional
Animation
Small
group Lab
Intrinsic motivation
STAT1
4.60
4.65
4.36
4.25
4.32
4.28
4.42
4.48
4.33
4.09
STAT2
4.55
4.58
4.46
4.29
4.37
4.37
4.42
4.36
4.21
4.12
STAT3
4.65
4.65
4.29
4.15
4.60
4.31
4.42
4.52
4.39
4.15
STAT4
4.62
4.65
4.47
4.34
4.45
4.28
4.30
4.39
4.48
4.21
STAT5
4.63
4.68
4.47
4.29
4.43
4.32
4.18
4.27
4.18
4.03
STAT6
3.95
4.13
4.03
4.02
3.83
3.88
2.88
2.09
2.42
2.85
Average
4.50
4.56
4.35
4.22
4.33
4.24
4.11
4.02
4.01
3.91
Amotivation
STAT7
1.28
1.30
1.86
1.78
1.83
1.80
2.21
2.33
2.18
2.30
STAT8
1.60
1.52
1.83
1.80
1.83
1.85
2.30
2.22
2.12
2.24
STAT9
1.33
1.32
1.64
1.71
1.77
1.55
2.03
2.09
2.09
2.12
STAT10
1.67
1.62
1.81
1.81
1.85
1.75
2.12
2.24
2.30
2.33
STAT11
1.58
1.52
1.93
1.80
1.68
1.63
3.30
3.85
3.39
3.15
Average
1.49
1.45
1.82
1.78
1.79
1.72
2.39
2.55
2.42
2.43
Extrinsic
motivation
-
career
STAT12
4.23
4.27
4.19
3.98
3.93
3.95
3.94
4.18
3.94
3.91
STAT13
4.55
4.43
4.17
3.98
4.27
4.15
3.70
3.55
3.67
3.88
STAT14
4.12
4.07
3.85
3.80
3.60
3.67
3.79
3.82
3.70
3.82
STAT15
4.22
4.18
3.90
3.88
3.82
3.90
3.27
3.39
3.58
3.97
Average
4.28
4.24
4.03
3.91
3.90
3.92
3.67
3.73
3.72
3.89
Extrinsic
motivation
-
social
STAT16
3.20
3.22
3.34
3.07
3.12
2.97
3.88
3.61
3.48
3.58
STAT17
3.77
3.90
3.59
3.46
3.83
3.67
3.85
3.36
3.73
3.67
STAT18
2.75
2.50
2.44
2.53
2.72
2.52
3.64
3.25
3.48
3.58
STAT19
2.85
2.62
2.42
2.51
2.43
2.52
3.61
3.69
3.72
3.61
Average
3.14
3.06
2.95
2.89
3.03
2.92
3.74
3.48
3.60
3.61
MUKAGIHANA ET AL. (2021)
883
The t-Test of paired samples showed no statistically significant difference (df=18,
p=.458) before and after learning via traditional instruction at URCE. However, it was
shown by animation instruction (df=18, p=.002) and lab instruction (df=18, p=.014).
Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis that there would not be a statistically
significant difference in the motivational level of pre-service biology teachers taught
by the traditional method and those taught by animation-based instruction or small
group laboratory activities. Although the motivation of learning biology increased at
URCE, this was not the case at UTAB. The t-Test of paired samples showed no
statistically significant difference (df=18, p=.660) between pre-assessment and
traditional instruction (df=18, p=.750) between traditional and animation
instruction, and (df=18, p=.832) between animation and lab instruction.
The fact that animation-based instruction and small-group laboratory activities
did not increase intrinsic motivation in pre-service biology teachers at UR-CE as did
the traditional teaching method explains that pre-serve biology teachers in the two
experimental groups learn biology for their own sake. Their motivation to learn
biology is innate in them rather than stimulated by environmental factors. Inherently,
they find biology enjoyable and interesting and learn with no purpose of avoiding like
a failure or earning instrumental value. Being treated with resource-based
instructions or not, they are always intrinsically motivated to learn biology. Their
colleagues who were taught by traditional methods tend to increase their intrinsic
motivation toward learning biology; this may mean that for their learning they like
the traditional method of teaching or that they are used to learn with it or that
traditional methods (lecture) are the easiest engaging instructional method for them
to learn biology. This type of instructional method does not bring new or attractive
instructional resources in a classroom environment that may challenge or stimulate
students to learn with a mind to earn extrinsic incentives; thus, it increases pre-service
biology teachers’ innate enjoyment from learning biology. These findings are not
consistent with the findings of Bye et al. (2007), who reported a high intrinsic
motivation in students taught by non-traditional instructional methods.
Teaching pre-service biology teachers by series of interventions did not show a
statistically significant difference in instructional methods. This does not mean that
used instructional methods have no effect on motivation but rather may improve
motivation toward learning biology at the same level. This similar statistically
significant effect of animation-based instruction, small group laboratory activities,
and traditional methods on motivation toward learning biology tells that at UTAB,
LUMAT
884
pre-service biology teachers gained little motivation after learning by traditional, but
did not increase by followed interventions. This lack of improvement may be caused
by the repetition of learned content that characterizes interventions and creates a
boring learning environment.
We hypothesized no statistically significant difference in motivation toward
learning biology between pre-service biology teachers at a private university (UTAB)
and a public university (URCE). Hence the hypothesis is consistent with the statistical
results that proved that the difference between pre-service biology teachers’
motivation toward learning biology at URCE and UTAB was not statistically
significant (df=1, p=123) prior to RBI intervention. The finding informs that pre-
service biology teachers at private (UTAB) and at public university (URCE) are
committed to learning biology and that both may be equally interested and skilled in
learning biology. This implies that both pre-service biology teachers may be similarly
competent in teaching biology at secondary schools after their studies.
Through the general linear model, MANOVA results are displayed in Figure 1.
Four factors of AMSLB are displayed in the same figure at both universities. Although
the difference between pre-service teachers at URCE and UTAB was not statistically
significant (df=1, p=123), the four factors made this significant (df=3, p=.003). Pre-
service teachers at URCE and UTAB possess high intrinsic and extrinsic—career
motivation of learning biology; however, URCE possesses such motivation higher
than those at UTAB.
Figure 1. Academic Motivation Scale for Learning Biology (AMSLB) at different Universities
MUKAGIHANA ET AL. (2021)
885
Contrariwise, both pre-service biology teachers at URCE and UTAB possess low
amotivation and extrinsic—social motivation of learning biology. UTAB possesses
such motivation higher than those at URCE. The overall Levene’s Test of Equality of
Error Variances confirmed that the AMSLB factors displayed a high statistical
significance between AMSLB factors (F=6.475, df1=3, df2=15, p=.005) at URCE. At
the same time, this difference was not statistically significant (F=1.794, df1=3, df2=15,
p=.191) at UTAB.
For further analysis, we analyzed each of four factors in AMSLB across RBIs
intervention among pre-service-teachers both at URCE and UTAB (Table 2)
Table 2. Effect of RBIs on pre-service biology teachers’ motivation toward learning biology, specifically
across AMSLB Factors
RBIs Intervention
Intrinsic
motivation
Amotivation
Extrinsic
motivation
- career
Extrinsic
motivation
– social
URCE
Traditional [Pre vs Post]
0.038
0.045
0.135
0.221
Animation [Pre vs Post]
0.002
0.173
0.047
0.279
Lab [Pre vs Post]
0.066
0.063
0.400
0.096
UTAB
Pre-assessment vs
Traditional
0.428
0.357
0.398
0.039
Traditional vs Animation
0.488
0.381
0.469
0.172
Animation vs Lab
0.404
0.485
0.041
0.489
*Statistically significant difference at 0.05 level
The fact that amotivation decreased in pre-service biology teachers at URCE after
all interventions and increased in UTAB after intervention by the traditional method,
animation-based instruction, and small group laboratory activities may result from
the difference in the research designs applied during interventions. At URCE, a quasi-
experimental of nonequivalent group control group design was used. This permitted
them to be assigned to different groups where each group received treatment by only
one instructional method. This helped them to focus on the usefulness of a single
instructional method than in Pre-service biology teachers at UTAB, where they
received series of interventions one after another by different instructional methods.
Series of interventions at UTAB might create a boring and challenging learning
environment as they repeated the same microbiology content by changing
instructional methods. The same reason was also reported by students in a study by
Planchard et al. (2015) found that boring or redundancy is one of the demotivating
factors toward learning.
LUMAT
886
On the side of students, the cause of a decrease in amotivation at URCE and an
increase in UTAB may be attributed to their perceptions and appreciation that may
be different on the used instructional methods. The findings do not tell that
animation-based instruction and small group lab activities demotivate private
university students toward learning biology as they are active instructional methods,
but instructions should be carefully applied by avoiding research designs that involve
assessment repetitions and learning content repetitions.
Though extrinsic motivation-career was high in pre-service biology teachers at
URCE than in those at UTAB, instructional methods improved extrinsic motivation-
career in pre-service biology teachers after interventions at UTAB than in pre-service
biology teachers at URCE. This improving effect of instructional methods at UTAB
may explain low extrinsic motivation-career in Pre-service biology teachers at UTAB
before joining university. It may also explain the strong effect of resource-based
instructions that stimulated students to learn biology education as their future career,
generating income when becoming professional biology teachers. The presence of
high extrinsic motivation-career in pre-service biology teachers at URCE tells that
they joined university with a commitment to learning biology with a defined learning
goal or purpose of their future life.
A no statistically significant effect of the traditional method on the overall
motivation of pre-service biology teachers toward learning biology at URCE is
explained by teacher-centered characteristics of this instructional method that do not
promote student's self-learning, self-determination, or stimulate them extrinsically to
learn with goal orientation. This tells that by the traditional method, pre-serve biology
teachers’ motivation to learn biology may not continuously improve; instead may
remain constant or tend to decrease. Contrary, the statistically significant effect of
animation-based instructions and small group laboratory activities on motivation
toward learning biology may result from the fact that those instructional methods are
active, engaging, and attractive, thus may improve all aspects of motivation toward
learning. The findings line with Bye et al. (2007), who also noticed an improvement
in students' motivation to learn biology when active instructional methods are applied
in the teaching and learning process. The implication is that resource-based
instructions may improve students’ motivation toward learning.
The fact that pre-service biology teachers at URCE were statistically significantly
different based on their intrinsic motivation, amotivation, extrinsic motivation –
career, and social may results from their orientations to Universities after their
MUKAGIHANA ET AL. (2021)
887
secondary schools. Those pre-service biology teachers are oriented following different
factors but mainly based on their performance in national exams. One may be
oriented to a teacher training university, which is not their first choice or oriented in
biology education which may not also be their subject of choice. This may create
variability in their motivation toward learning biology, where some may be
intrinsically motivated to learn biology while others are not. Some students may be
extrinsically motivated with career goals, others may be extrinsically motivated with
social values, and others may be demotivated to learn biology. This might be why the
same difference was not statistically observed in pre-service service biology teachers
at UTAB, where they join university and biology education subjects based on their real
choice. The implication is the production of secondary school biology teachers with
different motivations that may lead to the remarkable difference in competency
among pre-service biology teachers who graduated from URCE.
4 Conclusion and Recommendations
The present study tested the effect of animation based-instruction and laboratory
methods through small activities as resource-based instructions on pre-service
biology teachers’ motivation toward learning biology. The study was conducted at the
University of Technology and Arts of Byumba (UTAB), a private university with
Biology education programs, and at the University of Rwanda College of Education
(URCE), a public teacher-training university. A survey design was used to collect the
data during interventions by resource-based instructions. The findings revealed no
statistically significant difference in motivation toward learning biology between pre-
service biology teachers at private university (UTAB) and public university (URCE).
However, a statistically significant difference in motivation factors between
universities was revealed. There was no significant difference in motivation toward
learning biology in pre-service biology teachers taught by traditional methods at
URCE. However, statistically, animation-based instruction and small group
laboratory activities improved the overall motivation of pre-service biology teachers
toward learning biology; therefore, they are recommended for teaching pre-service
biology teachers motivation toward learning biology. At UTAB, no statistically
significant difference (df=18, p=.660) between pre-assessment and traditional
instruction, between traditional and animation-based instruction (df=18, p=.750),
and between animation and lab instruction (df=18, p=.832). The similarity may result
from the repetition of learned content that characterized interventions and may create
LUMAT
888
a boring learning environment that did not increase pre-service biology teachers’
motivation after each intervention series. The study is biased against participants at
the public university. It might have been better to have used three universities and
grouped each university to each of the interventions or stick to the public university
alone because of the population reported. Therefore, we recommend using other
research designs rather than repeated measures that involve multiple tests and
interventions on a single group of participants. Instructional methods improved
motivation factors in pre-service biology teachers, statistically traditional methods
improved intrinsic motivation and reduced amotivation in pre-service biology
teachers at URCE. At the same time, animation-based instructions increased both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation career but did not reduce amotivation toward
learning biology.
Acknowledgments
We sincerely thank the African Center of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and
Learning Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS), which financially supported this
study to be successfully conducted. We also thank the Universities that voluntarily
participated in the study.
References
Adejimi, S., Nzabalirwa, W., & Shivoga, W. (2021). Innovative collaborative instructional
strategies: It’s effect on secondary school students’ achievement in biology as moderated by
verbal ability. Lumat, 9(1), 495–517. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.9.1.1397
Aydin, S., Yerdelen, S., Yalmanci, S. G., & Göksu, V. (2014). Academic motivation scale for learning
biology: A scale development study. Egitim ve Bilim, 39(176), 425–435.
https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3678
Ayub, N. (2010). Effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on academic performance. Pakistan
Business Review, 8(July 2010), 363–372.
Bulic, M., & Blazevic, I. (2020). The impact of online learning on student motivation in science and
biology classes. Journal of Elementary Education, 13(1), 73–87.
https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.13.1.73-87.2020
Bye, D., Pushkar, D., & Conway, M. (2007). Motivation, interest, and positive affect in traditional
and nontraditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(2), 141–158.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713606294235
Chua, K. H., & Karpudewan, M. (2017). The role of motivation and perceptions about science
laboratory environment on lower secondary students’ attitude towards science. Asia-Pacific
Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 18(2), 1–18.
Çimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views. Educational
Research and Reviews, 7(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR11.205
MUKAGIHANA ET AL. (2021)
889
Cook, D. A., & Artino, A. R. (2016). Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories.
Medical Education, 50(10), 997–1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13074
Corkin, D. M., Horn, C., & Pattison, D. (2017). The effects of an active learning intervention in
biology on college students’ classroom motivational climate perceptions, motivation, and
achievement. Educational Psychology, 37(9), 1106–1124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1324128
Covington, M. V., & Müeller, K. J. (2001). Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Motivation: An
Approach/Avoidance Reformulation. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 157–176.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009009219144
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). PEARSON.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/ISBN: 978-1-4522-2609-5
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Pearson.
Cuthbert, P. F. (2005). The student learning process: Learning Styles or Learning Approaches?
Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 235–249.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000337972
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
Springer Science, Business media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Dohn, N. B., Fago, A., Overgaard, J., Madsen, P. T., & Malte, H. (2016). Students’ motivation
toward laboratory work in physiology teaching. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(3),
313–318. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00029.2016
Dyrberg, N. R., Treusch, A. H., & Wiegand, C. (2017). Virtual laboratories in science education:
students’ motivation and experiences in two tertiary biology courses. Journal of Biological
Education, 51(4), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1257498
Ekici, G. (2010). Factors affecting biology lesseon motivation of high school students. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2137–2142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.295
Gilakjani, A. P., Leong, L.-M., & Sabouri, N. B. (2012). A Study on the Role of Motivation in
Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. International Journal of Modern Education and
Computer Science, 4(7), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2012.07.02
Hewitt, K. M., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., Kitada, H., Mason, R., & Kayes, L. J. (2019). Introductory
biology in social context: The effects of an issues-based laboratory course on biology student
motivation. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar30. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-07-
0110
Jurisevic, M., Glazar, S., Pucko, C. R., & Devetak, I. (2008). Intrinsic motivation of pre-service
primary school teachers for learning chemistry in relation to their academic achievement.
International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 87–107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601148517
Keraro, F. N., Wachanga, S. W., & Orora, W. (2007). Effects of cooperative concept mapping
teaching approach on secondary school students’ motivation in biology in Gucha District,
Kenya. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 111–124.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-005-9026-3
Kibga, E. S., Gakuba, E., & Sentongo, J. (2021). Developing Students’ Curiosity Through Chemistry
Hands-on Activities: A Case of Selected Community Secondary Schools in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(5), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10856
LUMAT
890
Kişoğlu, M. (2018). An Examination of Science High School Students’ Motivation towards
Learning Biology and Their Attitude Towards Biology Lesson. International Journal of
Higher Education, 7(1), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v7n1p151
Koul, R., Lerdpornkulrat, T., & Chantara, S. (2011). Relationship Between Career Aspirations and
Measures of Motivation Toward Biology and Physics, and the Influence of Gender. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-
9269-9
Mnguni, L., & Moyo, D. (2018). The motivation level of Soweto students towards learning biology.
XII Conference of the European Researchers in Didactics of Biology, July, v. 2 p. 6.
Mukagihana, J., Aurah, C. M., & Nsanganwimana, F. (2021). The Effect of Resource-Based
Instructions on Pre-service Biology Teachers’ Attitudes towards Learning Biology.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(8), 262–277.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.8.16
Mukagihana, J., Nsanganwimana, F., & Aurah, C. (2020). Biology Instructional Resources
Availability and Extent of their Utilization in Teaching Pre-Service Biology Teachers. African
Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 16(2), 33–50.
https://doi.org/10.4314/ajesms.v16i2.3
Mukagihana, J., Nsanganwimana, F., & Aurah, C. M. (2021). How Pre-service Teachers Learn
Microbiology using Lecture, Animations, and Laboratory Activities at one Private University
in Rwanda. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(7),
328–345. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.7.18
Ndihokubwayo, K., Nyirahabimana, P., & Musengimana, T. (2021). Teaching and Learning Bucket
Model: Experimented with Mechanics Baseline Test. European Journal of Educational
Research, 10(2), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.2.525
Ndihokubwayo, K., Shimizu, K., Ikeda, H., & Baba, T. (2019). An Evaluation of the Effect of the
Improvised Experiments on Student-teachers’ Conception of Static Electricity. LWATI: A
Journal of Contemporary Research, 16(1), 55–73.
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/lwati/article/view/185967
Özarslan, M., & Çetin, G. (2018). Effects of biology project studies on gifted and talented students’
motivation toward learning biology. Gifted Education International, 34(3), 205–221.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429417754203
Özbaş, S. (2019). High school students’ motivation towards biology learning. Çukurova
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Vol:, 48(1), 945–959.
https://doi.org/10.14812/cufej.293029
Planchard, M., Daniel, K. L., Maroo, J., Mishra, C., & McLean, T. (2015). Homework, motivation,
and academic achievement in a college genetics course. Bioscene, 41(2), 11–18.
Prokop, P., Prokop, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007). Is biology boring? Student attitudes toward
biology. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 36–39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656105
Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. In Teaching of Psychology (Vol. 39, Issue 2,
pp. 152–156). https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312437704
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New
Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Şen, Ş., Yilmaz, A., & Yurdugül, H. (2014). An Evaluation of the Pattern between Students’
Motivation, Learning Strategies and Their Epistemological Beliefs: The Mediator Role of
Motivation. International Association on Science Education International, 24(3), 312–331.
MUKAGIHANA ET AL. (2021)
891
Shin, S., Lee, J. K., & Ha, M. (2017). Influence of career motivation on science learning in Korean
high-school students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,
13(5), 1517–1538. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00683a
Appendix A. Adapted Academic Motivation Scale for Learning
Biology (AMSLB)
Level of agreement
Items
SD
D
NO
A
SA
Intrinsic Motivation
1. I enjoy making discussions on biology subjects
2. Learning new things in the biology subjects that I am interested in is enjoyable.
3. I enjoy sharing the new things that I learn in biology.
4. Biology subjects interest me.
5. I enjoy learning biology subjects.
6. I enjoy reading magazines and texts related to biology
Amotivation
7. To be honest, I don’t see any reason for learning biology.
8. Actually, I don’t think the subjects that I learn will be useful for me in the future
9. Honestly, I don’t know why I should learn biology.
10. I have no idea. I don’t understand how useful the things I learn will be.
11. In fact, I don’t like participating the activities in biology.
Extrinsic Motivation – Career
12. I learn biology because it is related to the profession that I chose for my future.
13. I learn biology because it is important in my choice of profession.
14. I learn biology to get a good job in the field of biology.
15. I learn biology to be able to make better choices for my further studies
Extrinsic Motivation – Social
16. I learn biology to show my family that I’m successful in biology.
17. I learn biology to prove myself that I can be successful in biology
18. I learn biology to show that I’m better than the other students.
19. I want to be praised by the people around me.
