APRIL 2013 25

Russian Education and Society, vol. 55, no. 4, April 2013, pp. 25–37.
© 2013 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com
ISSN 1060–9393 (print)/ISSN 1558–0423 (online)
DOI: 10.2753/RES1060-9393550402

L.A. Kudrinskaia and V.S. Kubarev

Characteristics of the Learning

Motivation of Students in a Higher
Technical Educational Institution

During their university career, students go through a series of changes

regarding their professional and personal development. Students may
not be aware that this process is occurring, but universities need to make
sure that the learning process is strengthened by taking this process
into account in the design of instruction and coursework.
It is not possible to accomplish the tasks of modernizing Russia
without renovating and improving the training of cadres for the
high-technology sector of the economy. It is essential to bring young
people back into the sphere of science, technology, and industrial
production, and, moreover, to bring back educated specialists who
are capable of creating and professionally using the latest models
of equipment and technologies in new ways. It is not an accident

English translation © 2013 M.E. Sharpe, Inc., from the Russian text © 2012 the
authors. “Osobennosti uchebnoi motivatsii studentov tekhnicheskogo vuza,”
Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 2012, no. 3, pp. 145–50. A publication of the
Russian Academy of Sciences; the Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Psy-
chology, and Law, Russian Academy of Sciences; and the Russian Union of
Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.
Liudmila Aleksandrovna Kudrinskaia is a doctor of sociological sciences, an
associate professor, and a department head at Omsk State Technical University.
Viacheslav Sergeevich Kubarev is a senior instructor at the same university.
Translated by Kim Braithwaite.

25
26 russian education and society

that these days the state is paying more attention to the training
of the country’s engineers, whose corps is playing a stronger role
in the modernization of the economy. This is confirmed by the
point that in the recent past more budget-funded slots are being
provided for technical specialties in the higher educational insti-
tutions of Russia. The number of students who have deliberately
chosen technical specialties to realize their abilities, and who plan
to work in those specialties in the future, is rising. For example,
according to data from sociological surveys carried out in 2009
and 2010 among students in our university (Omsk State Techni-
cal University), 54–55 percent of the respondents are observed to
have an interest in the specialty at the time of their enrollment;
moreover, while the prestige of the future profession of engineer
was noted by 28.6 percent of the respondents in 2009, in 2010 the
figure was 44.5 percent.
For the purpose of getting a deeper clarification of how the
learning motivation of students in a higher technical educational
institution changes in the process of their schooling, staff person-
nel of the department of sociology carried out a survey in those
years, using the method of semantic differentiation, which has not
been used frequently by sociologists. The approach, at the interface
between sociology and psychology, made it possible to come to
some interesting conclusions. We hope that the experience of our
study will be useful to our colleagues who are teachers engaged in
the activity of instruction in colleges and universities.

Substantiation of the method of the survey

The object of the study consisted of regular enrollment students in

the first through fourth years of study in pursuit of a specialty and
a bachelor’s degree of technical profile (N = 804). A multistage
sample was put together: (1) the structure of the sample was cal-
culated in accordance with the number of students enrolled in the
technical faculties in the general population; (2) based on the size
of the study groups (with an average number of twenty students),
their number was determined at random in each year of study;
and (3) a blanket survey of the students was conducted in these
 APRIL 2013 27

groups. A total of 69 percent of survey participants were men and

31 percent were women. The sample error was 5 percent.
Here is a brief social portrait of a student in our higher educa-
tional institution. In 70 percent of the cases it is a young man who
does not come from a wealthy family: 37.4 percent answered that
“we have enough money for food and clothing but it would be hard
to buy any major household appliance,” while 27.2 percent said “we
have enough money to buy a household appliance, but we cannot
afford to buy a car.” Analysis of the level of education and sphere
of occupation of students’ parents makes it possible to say that for
a number of years there has been a tendency for the scientific and
technical intelligentsia to be self-reproducing: it is most often the
case that children of engineers and technical specialists choose the
profession of their parents.
The task we faced was to select the kind of method that would
permit us to understand the motivational and semantic basis of
students’ learning activity, which, taken into account, can provide
a good-quality education. The complexity of an individual’s mo-
tivational-semantic structure is determined by the extent to which
both rational and nonrational components are blended in it. It is
well known that many inner changes and inner urges to engage
in some particular activity (motives) are not always consciously
realized and rationally verbalized. For this reason, in our opinion
the familiar methods that use only verbal, logical structures do not
make it possible to discern a number of aspects of the process of
the learning.
It may seem that in his learning activity, a student pursuing a
technical specialty is only interested in the professional content of
the disciplines, whereas personal feelings and urges are something
else. Our hypothesis is that these processes are linked together. A
student’s schooling in an institution of higher learning is of good
quality to the extent that he develops and becomes a professional.
If nothing happens to the individual during this period, if he does
not change in the course of his learning activity, this means that the
learning process is merely formal and does not lead to the develop-
ment of a creative, innovative professional who is in demand today.
In the process of professional instruction, it is important for teachers
28 russian education and society

to understand just what impulses the students are guided by, just
what meanings their learning activity affords. For this reason, in
the survey we attempted first and foremost to determine just why
the students are going to school, what they understand to be the
purpose of learning, what motives are driving them. Taking account
of these motives and purposes, whose accomplishment will change a
merely formal learning process into a personally meaningful learn-
ing activity in which the student is transformed as the active agent,
will help the instructor improve the effectiveness of his work and
ensure that the student finds his calling in the profession.
This is the reason why we used the “Semantic Differential”
method (a modified version was developed by V.S. Kubarev).
The students were asked to rate their learning activity in terms of
forty-nine qualities that are presented on polar scales. The primary
information was processed using the method of factor analysis.
After analyzing some factors that were revealed, we were able to
construct a generalized picture of the motivational and purpose
base of the learning activity of students pursuing technical special-
ties. Five factors were detected in the first year of study, four factors
in the second year, four factors in the third year, and five factors in
the fourth year. Also used was the Kruskal–Wallis nonparametric
criterion, to rate the significance of differences on the scales of
the method. As a result, nine scales were singled out, each with a
significant difference in the semantic basis of the learning activity
in various years of study.
The process of interpreting the method was as follows. The stu-
dents rated their learning activity on the basis of scales presented to
them (what associations the activity prompts in them, what meaning
they assign to the activity for themselves). Any activity assumes
an active agent that engages in it. For this reason, the associations
that reflect the inner meanings afforded by the learning activity
also characterize its active agent. In other words, we obtained the
characteristics of motives and purposes of the learning activity’s
active agent—that is, the student. Below, for this reason, the em-
phasis will not be on the activity as such but rather on its active
agent, his motivation.
The analysis of the active agent of the learning activity was
 APRIL 2013 29

carried out in two measurements: (a) the characteristics that the

individual strives toward as he engages in this activity (the scales
that correlate positively with the factor)—active involvement for . . .;
(b) the characteristics that the active agent resists, against
which his involvement is directed (the scales that correlate
negatively to the factor)—active involvement against. . . .
In other words, the active agent was rated from the standpoint
of what he strives toward (what he wants) and what he strives to
overcome as a shortcoming (what he does not want).

Characteristics of the motivations of students in

different years of study

Now let us look at the factor profile of the motivational sphere of

students in the first year of study. It includes a set of the following
factors (which reflect characteristics of the students’ ratings of
forty-nine qualities, grouped on polar scales): (1) A striving toward
rational understanding (13.7 percent); (2) the ability to develop
professional thinking (worldview) (11.1 percent); (3) a striving
toward unambiguous outcomes to allay uncertainty (7 percent);
(4) involvement in an invariable form of activity (5.8 percent);
and (5) a striving to finish one’s schooling (4.1 percent).
In the first year of study the students see their learning activity
first and foremost as a way to enable them to construct a rational
picture of the world, one that will enable them to channel their
activity into the accomplishment of clear-cut goals that are im-
portant to them (Factor 1). In effect, this is a rationale that strives
toward clarity and order in their ideas and goals. It is reasonable
to say that this is the kind of individual for whom there is a reason
for everything in life, and by understanding it he will be able to
manage both his world and his life effectively. And he is prepared
to accomplish this rational plan.
This individual is aware that his ideas and forms of thinking
are not sufficient; in his learning activity, the zone of his immedi-
ate development, he will be overcoming his ordinary ideas about
the world and will discover it from a new angle as he perfects his
professional thinking (Factor 2). This means that first-year students
30 russian education and society

see their learning activity first and foremost as an opportunity to

develop a rational picture of the external world, to discover the
laws of its existence. But this rationalistic attitude involves not only
a striving toward an ordered picture of the world but also toward
reducing it to clear-cut final formulas that can explain the diversity
of life and relieve the sense of uncertainty (Factor 3).
Supplementing this we find an orientation toward an invariable,
established, customary, and predictable manner of activity, one that
affords a feeling of calmness (Factor 4—“Involvement in an invari-
able form of activity”). This factor supplements the preceding one,
and indicates again that this type of learning activity characterizes
an individual who avoids uncertainty and strives toward a stable
and invariable approach, a clear-cut understanding of the world.
Such an individual will cling to what is familiar (whether a way
of life or manner of thinking), even if it no longer has meaning.
Factor 5 provides evidence that first-year students are prepared to
acquire knowledge and fulfill the requirements, but not to discover
new things and plan their learning process on their own. First and
foremost, the learning activity represents a temporary need, an
obligation to be met.
Now let us analyze the motivations to engage in learning activity
on the part of second-year students. The factor profile is as follows:
(1) A striving to construct a complete rational picture of the world
(18.4 percent); (2) professional thinking (worldview) (9.6 percent);
(3) avoidance of working on oneself and a striving to remain the
same (8 percent); and (4) choosing an existing, firmly established
form of behavior (4.6 percent).
The analysis provides evidence that students in the second year
of study, like those in the first year, see their learning activity as a
way to construct a rational picture of the world (Factor 1), which
will also enable them to channel activity into accomplishing clear,
important goals. But by now, second-year students not only see the
possibility—they are aware of themselves as carriers of a rational
picture of the world, which they have constructed and are still work-
ing on. Second-year students have a certain amount of experience
in rational understanding and they find it rewarding; now they are
even more highly oriented toward giving final form to their rational
 APRIL 2013 31

worldview. They are looking at the world through the professional

forms of thinking that they have mastered in their learning activity
(Factor 2) and are able to substantiate their worldview positions. Let
us note that Factor 1 is more prominently expressed (18.4 percent)
than Factor 2 (9.6 percent), not to mention Factor 3 and Factor 4.
This provides evidence that in this year of study the rational attitude
has become hypertrophied, and it is cultivated as fundamental in
the learning activity.
But a disposition to develop professional thinking and a rational
picture of the world also has the motive to avoid uncertainty and
any change in oneself (Factor 3), a fear of breaking up established
patterns, including those connected to learning techniques (rejec-
tion of new things). A second-year student wants to see himself
as developing, but does not strive to put personal effort into this.
He is prepared to make his ideas about the world more explicit,
but is not willing to work on himself, to change. The avoidance of
uncertainty (of personal responsibility) was also found in the first
year of study. However, the first-year students were hoping that
their uncertainty would be lifted as a result of their acquisition of
rational, clear-cut formulas. It seems, however, that second-year
students felt this could not be done on the basis of their ideas, and
for this reason they resorted to feelings that would not demand
personal efforts. They are trying to replace the necessity of personal
effort and self-application with interest, which, in and of itself,
would lead to their development. Evidently they do not look to
themselves as the source for their development but, instead, an
established form of activity that they have actively chosen and are
prepared to reproduce (Factor 4).
The factor profile of the motivational sphere of the students in
the third year of study looks different: (1) A disposition toward
personal meaning or the search for oneself (self-actualization)
(17.2 percent); (2) a complete rational picture of the world
(11 percent); (3) openness to the future (7.5 percent); and (4) ac-
ceptance of oneself (5.6 percent).
The third-year students have experienced a substantial trans-
formation of the semantic basis of their learning activity. The key
disposition that determines the orientation of this activity now is
32 russian education and society

the “search for oneself,” the acquisition of personal meaning (Fac-

tor 1). This means they have turned their gaze inward and have
begun to view activity in the context of their life calling, their
self-actualization.
Let us emphasize: third-year students are satisfied with the
rational picture of the world that they have gained as a result of
their learning activity and consider it complete (Factor 2). In the
preceding years of study their efforts had been oriented toward the
development of their thinking, the mastery of conceptual forms,
the discovery of the objective relations of the world, and so on.
Now, however, they are concerned with the development of their
self-awareness, an understanding of their place in life. What was
left out in the preceding years of study has become the cornerstone
in the third year. There has been a fundamental change in the ori-
entation of their consciousness in their studies, from the formation
of their ideas about the world to an understanding of the personal
meaning of their professional activity, that is, from the question
“how is the world organized” to the question “what is my place
in the world?”
These shifts have led to third-year students’ orientation toward
the future (Factor 3), a search for a new basis for their activity,
which would enable them to realize themselves as individuals. In
effect, these students are confronted with the need to choose their
own professional path in life, and this, first and foremost, draws
their attention to the kind of future in which they want to live, to
learn and to understand themselves, to find the reasons for what
is happening to them today. It is reasonable to say that while the
preceding years of study looked at “today” from the standpoint of
“yesterday,” the third-year students are looking from “tomorrow.”
And this entails having an understanding of their actual position
in life (Factor 4—acceptance of oneself) and an orientation toward
what is to come.
The motivational factors of students in the fourth year of study
are as follows: (1) The process of self-realization (12.2 percent);
(2) an orientation toward personal meaning and one’s calling (10.6
percent); (3) conflict (7.9 percent); (4) the choice of a goal in the
 APRIL 2013 33

face of uncertainty (7.9 percent); and (5) inertia of the learning

process (6.1 percent).
As we can see, in the fourth-year students the semantic orienta-
tion of their learning activity continues to develop. In the preceding
year the focus was on the search for oneself; it is reasonable to say
that third-year students were impressed by the new semantic space
that opened before them, or had a sense of it, while perhaps not
even realizing what had happened. The fourth-year students are
now focused on self-realization (Factor 1). To use the terminol-
ogy of psychology, third-year students were concerned with their
self-actualization, while those in the fourth year are concerned
with self-realization.
For this purpose, the fourth-year students look for new possibili-
ties in their learning activity (Factor 2). They attempt to interpret
this activity in a new way, to make the place for themselves more
explicit. In other words, they begin to look at the activity in the
context of their personal calling, which expands and deepens its
meaning. They are more active in their search for specific goals in
order to begin to act effectively (Factor 4). Let us emphasize that this
is an attempt to decide on goals in the face of uncertainty linked to
the future. It leads to high anxiety when choosing goals, since there
is no guarantee that one will choose exactly what one needs.
Of course, the cognitive component must not be relegated to the
sidelines, because we are discussing the development of profes-
sionalism, which must also entail the development of thinking. In
this connection, the process of self-realization gives rise to a conflict
(Factor 3) between the old rationalistic attitude and the new attitude
oriented toward personal meaning. Such a conflict is essential to
ensure that the learning activity is not one-sided but incorporates
the possibility of finding one’s calling and further understanding of
how a discipline or profession structures knowledge. If the former
is lost, the activity will become alienated, while if the latter is lost
the activity will become nonprofessional. The resolution of this
conflict is not easy, and by no means everyone is able to accomplish
it. In the most difficult situations, professional psychological and
pedagogical help will be needed, since without it there is a high
34 russian education and society

probability of disconnect between the personal dynamic of life and

professional development. Let us emphasize: only a unity of these
aspects can permit the student to become a genuinely educated
person. Meanwhile, however, the fourth-year students often suffer
from the inertia of their customary form of activity (Factor 5—
inertia of the learning process), in which meaningful and cognitive
components have been separated.
What do we find when we compare the characteristics of motiva-
tions of students in the different years of study (see Table 1)?
Based on the data in the table we can single out the following
dynamic of the students’ sense of the meaning of their activity.
1. In the first two years of study, the semantic basis of the learn-
ing activity was a striving to build a rational picture of the world
and to develop professional thinking; in the third and fourth years
the processes of self-actualization and self-realization come to be
of key importance. It is reasonable to say that the student becomes
transformed from an active agent of cognition into the active agent
who determines his own professional path. This transformation
takes place in the third year of study.
2. It is characteristic of the first years of study that an orientation
toward reproduction of the past is predominant. In the later years
of study the future takes priority. The lower-division courses are
marked by a striving toward the continuity of self and one’s social
relations, as a result of which the students avoid new things. In the
upper-division courses, on the other hand, they strive to overcome
their social relations and ideas about themselves and to affirm
themselves in a new way. In other words, a person in the first or
second year of study is counting on himself as he is and strives to
reproduce what is familiar and customary, while a person in the
upper division is oriented toward his possible self and strives for
self-development. On this basis students in the lower division, even
when setting goals, proceed from what is familiar and rationally
explainable, whereas those in upper-division courses proceed on the
basis of what is still unknown but is impressive and interesting.
3. The first and second years of study are characterized by an
adaptive strategy in the learning activity. In other words, the students
are inclined to subordinate themselves and to organize their learn-
 APRIL 2013 35

Table 1

Comparison of the Motivational Factors of Students in Different Years

of Study

Year 1 %
A striving toward rational understanding 13.7
The possibility of developing professional thinking (worldview) 11.1
A striving toward clear-cut certainty in order to relieve
uncertainty 7.0
Involvement in an invariable form of activity 5.8
A desire to finish schooling 4.1

Year 2
A striving to construct a complete rational picture of the world 18.4
Professional thinking (worldview) 9.6
Avoidance of work on oneself and a desire to stay the same 8.0
The choice of an established form of activity 4.6

Year 3
A disposition toward personal meaning or search for oneself
(self-actualization) 17.2
A completed rational picture of the world 11.0
Openness to the future 7.5
Self-acceptance 5.6

Year 4
A process of self-realization 12.2
An orientation toward personal meaning and one’s calling 10.6
Conflict 7.9
A choice of goal in the face of uncertainty 7.9
The inertia of the learning process 6.1

ing in accordance with the requirements of the learning process.

Basically, the learning process is of a cognitive character in which
the students are just pupils. In the upper-division courses, on the
other hand, they are more active in their search for opportunities
for self-realization.
This is confirmed by the Kruskal–Wallis criterion of the sig-
nificance of differences. As noted above, the years of study are
significantly statistically different in accordance with nine scales.
36 russian education and society

4.30
4.20
4.10
4.00
3.90
3.80
3.70
3.60
3.50
3.40

Lower-division courses Upper-division courses

Conventional names of scales:

1. “Predictable” 6. “Lifeless”
2. “Selective” 7. “Exciting”
3. “Creative” 8. “Changing”
4. “Overcoming” 9. “Inspired”
5. “Familiar”

Figure 1. Average Ranked Values of Scales with Respect to Which

a Statistically Significant Difference Between Years of Study Was
Obtained

For the sake of graphic clarity and in the context of our analysis,
which detected a similarity between the first and second years of
study and between the third and fourth years of study, we will look
at them in pairs and compare the upper division and the lower divi-
sion (see Figure 1).
It is clear that in the lower-division courses the scales that are
significantly more expressed are “predictable,” “familiar,” and
“uninspiring,” whereas in the upper-division courses, it is the scales
“selective,” “creative,” “overcoming,” “exciting,” “changing,” and
“inspired.” We can say that the learning activity in lower-division
courses involves more mechanical reproduction of the familiar
method of learning (just like back in school), whereas in the
upper-division courses it takes on an active character, charged with
personal meaning.
4. The first through third years of study are characterized by
activity that is one-sided, in which either a cognitive or a personal
 APRIL 2013 37

orientation is prevalent. The fourth-year students, on the other hand,

confront the need to combine these aspects.

Conclusion

The data we obtained concerning changes in the motivational

and semantic structure of college students makes it possible to
perfect the forms and methods of instruction in accordance with
the particular year of study, and can help make adjustments in the
teaching and learning process, especially in students’ scientific and
technical creative endeavor and training and scientific research. We
advise graduating departments to more actively involve students
in upper-division courses in scientific research activity by relying
on their readiness for self-realization and their interest in profes-
sional questing.
It should be kept in mind, at the same time, that students are
not aware of the dynamic in regard to the motives and purposes
of learning. This is especially true in the case of their orientation
toward self-actualization and self-realization. To ensure that there
is an awareness of what is happening in the context of the profes-
sional and personal development, instructors need to help students
deal with the psychological changes they are experiencing. Our
experience has shown that these practices can be implemented with
the support of psychology specialists and educators, for example
in the form of supplementary seminars and training sessions, if
students desire.

To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.
Copyright of Russian Education & Society is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.