Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multilevel Factors Affecting College Students’ Perceived Knowledge Transferability: From the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billing, D. (2007). Teaching for transfer of core/key skills in higher education: Cognitive skills. Higher Education, 53(4), 483–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T., & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nokes, T. J., & Belenky, D. M. (2011). Incorporating motivation into a theoretical framework for knowledge transfer. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 109–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48(1), 85–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qualtrics, L. L. C. (2015). Provo. USA: UT.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, H., & Chen, A. (2010). A pedagogical understanding of the self-determination theory in physical education. Quest, 62(4), 364–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Center for Instructional Excellence, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Cong Wang, Emily M. Bonem & Chantal Levesque-Bristol

  2. Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Cong Wang

  3. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Ying Zhang

  4. Emporia State University, Emporia, KS, USA

    Jennifer D. Moss

Authors
  1. Cong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ying Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer D. Moss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emily M. Bonem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chantal Levesque-Bristol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cong Wang.

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. 1.

    I feel confident in my ability to apply the course material in other classes that I have.

  2. 2.

    I feel confident in my ability to apply the course material in my professional life.

  3. 3.

    I feel as if the material covered in this course is relevant to my future career.

  4. 4.

    Given the future career that I have chosen, it is important for me to learn the information covered in this class.

  5. 5.

    I understand how I will use the information learned in this class in my professional life.

  6. 6.

    Information learned in this course will inform my future learning experiences.

  7. 7.

    I believe that it is important for me to learn the information included in this course.

  8. 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. 1.

    I feel that my instructor provides me choices and options.

  2. 2.

    I feel understood by my instructor.

  3. 3.

    My instructor conveyed confidence in my ability to do well in the course.

  4. 4.

    My instructor encouraged me to ask questions.

  5. 5.

    My instructor listens to how I would like to do things.

  6. 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.

  1. a.

    I feel like I can make a lot of inputs in deciding how my coursework gets done.

  2. b.

    I feel pressured in this course.

  3. c.

    I am free to express my ideas and opinions in this course.

  4. d.

    When I am in this course, I have to do what I am told.

  5. e.

    My feelings are taken into consideration in this course.

  6. f.

    I feel like I can pretty much be myself in this course.

  7. g.

    There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to go about my coursework.

2. Competence

  1. a.

    I do not feel very competent in this course.

  2. b.

    People in this course tell me I am good at what I do.

  3. c.

    I have been able to learn interesting new skills in this course.

  4. d.

    Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from this course.

  5. e.

    In this course I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.

  6. f.

    I often do not feel very capable in this course.

3. Relatedness

  1. a.

    I really like the people in this course.

  2. b.

    I get along with people in this course.

  3. c.

    I pretty much keep to myself when in this course.

  4. d.

    I consider the people in this course to be my friends.

  5. e.

    People in this course care about me.

  6. f.

    There are not many people in this course that I am close to.

  7. g.

    The people in this course do not seem to like me much.

  8. 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

  1. a.

    Because I really enjoy it.

  2. b.

    Because I really like it.

  3. c.

    Because it’s really fun.

2. Integration

  1. a.

    Because learning all I can about academic work is really essential for me.

  2. b.

    Because acquiring all kinds of knowledge is fundamental for me.

  3. c.

    Because experiencing new things is a part of who I am.

3.. Identification

  1. a.

    Because it allows me to develop skills that are important to me.

  2. b.

    Because it’s a sensible way to get a meaningful experience.

  3. c.

    Because it’s a practical way to acquire new knowledge.

4. Introjection

  1. a.

    Because I would feel bad if I didn’t.

  2. b.

    Because I would feel guilty if I didn’t.

  3. c.

    Because I would feel awful about myself if I didn’t.

5. Extrinsic regulation

  1. a.

    Because I feel I have to.

  2. b.

    Because that’s what I’m supposed to do.

  3. c.

    Because that’s what I was told to do.

6. Amotivation

  1. a.

    I don’t know. I have the impression I’m wasting my time.

  2. b.

    I’m not sure anymore. I think that maybe I should quit (drop the class).

  3. c.

    I don’t know. I wonder if I should continue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-020-09592-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation