In this study, we assessed instructor and student attitudes and knowledge toward research methods (RM). Instructors ( N = 62) answered questions about course format, topic importance, and resources. Students ( N = 166) of some of those instructors answered questions regarding attitudes toward research. Five major factors organize topics that instructors find most important. Only ratings of statistics importance varied by rank. Associate and full professors rated statistics as being more important than other instructors. There were significant relationships between attitudes toward and knowledge of RM together with the higher perceived utility of some course components. Requiring students to conduct their own research was not a significant predictor of attitudes or RM knowledge.

Identifying impediments to learning can help both instructors and students. In this study students ( N = 222) from across the nation listed concepts from research methods they found the most challenging—“potholes” or impediments to learning, and also rated the difficulty of various concepts from the class. We also measured student attitudes and perceptions of the course. Our results showed validity is one of the hardest concepts for students to understand in RM. Not surprisingly, within a list of concepts in research methods, students tend to be tripped up by terms of similar grouping. Perceptions of a research methods course was strongly related to the students’ attitudes and canonical correlation analysis revealed several important findings from our data set. For example, we found that when students perceive more value, expectancy for success, cognitive strategies, and resources management strategies, they are less likely to be challenged by the concepts of samples and variables and threats to internal validity. Our findings provide a clear map of student potholes in research methods courses and suggest ways to change student attitudes about the same.

No abstract

Based on the tenets of self-determination theory, intrinsic motivation is guided by satisfaction of the 3 basic psychological needs-autonomy, competence, and relatedness. However, recent research has shown promise for adding a new basic psychological need-novelty-in self-determination theory. This article briefly discusses the theory behind novelty as a motivator in the classroom, as well as its effect in technology and learning and future directions for research. As a motivator, novelty has mixed and complex outcomes in the classroom. Balancing novelty and familiarity, or scaffolding, is a common and effective pedagogical practice. Technology is now commonly used as a novel factor in the classroom, although can prove to be expensive. The largest drawback to novelty is its ability to become familiar, therefore instructors must understand what a student has previously experienced and continue to adapt practices to create subjective novelty for their students. Further experimental research is needed to explore the effects of novel teaching practices, including the use of technology, on student motivation and learning outcomes.

Do graphics on clothing drive perceptions? We used a between group design to test if athletic, academic, or suggestive graphics on clothing differentially influence perceptions and behavioral intentions. In study 1, participants (N = 199) rated five female t-shirt models, and in study 2 and 3, participants rated five male t-shirt models (N = 120) or university students (N = 50). Analyses of variance controlling for sex (ANCOVA) showed participants were least likely to want to interact with models/students wearing sexually suggestive graphics: Study 1, F(3,165) = 30.263, p < .001, η = .30, power = 1.00; Study 2, F (3,119) = 11.630, p < .000, η= .234, and Study 3, F(1, 42) = 12.578, p < .000. Participants did not rate models in the academic and athletic graphic shirts differently from models with plain white shirts. Results support the concept that people form different perceptions based upon the clothing a person wears, changing behavioral intentions. Neither sex role ideation (Study 1) or sexism (Study 2) were significant covariates of perceptions and intentions.