DOI: 10.15415/jotitt.2017.

51001

In Search of Intellectual Stimulation:

Understanding the Relationship Between
Motivation, Deep Learning and Stimulation in
the Higher Education Classroom
Sandeep Chowdhry1, Renata Osowska2
1
Lecturer, School of Engineering, Edinburgh Napier University, Scotland, U.K
2
Lecturer, School of Business, Edinburgh Napier University, Scotland, U.K.
E-mail: s.chowdhry@napier.ac.uk, r.osowska@napier.ac.uk
Published Online: June 28, 2017
The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access at www.chitkara.edu.in/publications

Abstract: One of the key educational notions measured in the National

Student Survey (NSS) is intellectual stimulation. This study aimed to find
out Higher Education (HE) engineering students’ views of intellectual
stimulation with a focus on its measurement and supporting its increase within
the classroom environment. A quantitative questionnaire acted as a data
gathering instrument. The sample comprised 128 students from Edinburgh
Napier University (ENU), Scotland. The survey findings showed a positive
correlation and positive agreement between the intellectual stimulation (IS),
intrinsic motivation (IM) and deep learning approach (DLA) scales. The
students’ feedback suggests that implementation of the new intellectual scale
based teaching and learning strategy is useful in intellectually stimulated
the students and encouraged them to adopt deep learning approach. The
findings suggest the design of an intellectually stimulating environment in
HE classroom, should consider students’ learning styles, challenge students,
allow the provision of timely feedback and provide opportunities to encourage
independent thought. Further, the research suggests, the studied institution
should encourage staff to consider the intellectual stimulation scale when
constructively aligning learning and teaching with an assessment. Journal on Today’s Ideas –
Keywords: Intellectual stimulation, problem based learning, Active learn- Tomorrow’s Technologies,
Vol. 5, No. 1,
ing, Constructivism, Academic staff development June 2017
pp. 9–29
INTRODUCTION
Intellectual stimulation is one of the criteria used in the National Student
Survey (NSS) in the UK. It is an influential source of public information about
higher education and gives students a powerful collective voice to help shape
the future of their course and their university or college. Thus, supporting
Chowdhry, S. intellectual stimulation of students has become a major concern to Edinburgh
Osowska, R. Napier University’s undergraduate modules (Edinburgh Napier University,
2013). For instance, in the School of Engineering, there is a steady decrease
in the students’ positive response to the question, ‘The course is intellectually
stimulating’ (NSS result 2013-88%, NSS result 2014- 86%, NSS result 2015-
83% and NSS result 2016- 83%).While the NSS survey takes place each year
with only final year students, the-University have been trying to increase their
scores in the inquiry by finding out, through student feedback on every module
taught, what issues students have in each area of their studies earlier in their
programme.
Terms such as deep learning approach and intrinsic motivation are
well understood among the academics. The aim of this paper is to cast
some light into the educator’s understanding of intellectual stimulation as a
criterion applied for module evaluation with the deep learning approach and
intrinsic motivation. In particular, the current study has three objectives: 1)
to determine the relationship between the students’ perceptions on intrinsic
motivation, intellectual stimulation and deep learning approach, 2) to find
out what intervention strategies lecturers can put in place to support students
feeling ‘intellectually stimulated’, 3) assess the effectiveness of the new
proposed teaching and learning strategy, 4) propose recommendation for using
‘intellectual stimulation’ as an evaluation criterion for teaching and learning
in higher education.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Intellectual stimulation is a topic that stems from the search for exploration,
challenge and individual development. However, there is lack of clarity about
the meaning of this elusive idea in the academic literature. The definition appears
to vary between disciplines and it is even more problematic if applied across
them. For intellectual stimulation, there are various definitions to choose from,
depending on the discipline applied. For example, Shahzad and Zareen (2011)
identified two definitions in transformational leadership and psychology that
are viable for this study: first, ‘as the degree of the people’s encouragement to
be creative in looking at old problems in new ways, by creating an environment
that is tolerant’. According to the second definition, intellectual stimulation
is ‘questioning old assumptions and the status quo’ (Hetland and Sandal,
2003). However, for this article the focus will be on the literature on education
with particular interest in the Higher Education (HE) context. The study of
intellectual stimulation is still scarce; and, there is a need to conduct more
research on its influence in the classroom environment (Bolkan, Goodboy and

10
Griffin, 2011). The concept is again usually linked to the role of teachers as In Search of
transformational leaders (Bolkan and Goodboy, 2010)(Bolkan, Goodboy and Intellectual
Griffin, 2011). Although, Bolkan and Goodboy (2010) verified that intellectual Stimulation:
stimulation has the ability to influence student learning, scholars have yet to Understanding
find out the mechanisms of that interaction. the Relationship
Since the lack of measurement of intellectual stimulation in the literature Between
(Bolkan and Goodboy, 2012), the transformational leadership includes the Motivation, Deep
students’ involvement in the process of intellectual stimulation, acknowledging Learning and
the benefits of deep approaches to learning (Entwistle, 1988). Specifically, Stimulation in the
Bolkan and Goodboy (2010) suggest that ‘teachers who promote intellectual Higher Education
stimulation empower students and promote both cognitive and affective learning’. Classroom
Nevertheless, the impact of intellectual stimulation on learning outcomes
enhancement depend on the role of intrinsic motivation. Based on an extensive
literature review, Wolters (1998) argued that intrinsically motivated students
persist in their tasks longer and adopt deep learning approach in their studies,
which also develop their critical thinking. In addition, the self-improvement
(which could be associated with intrinsic motivation) has been associated with
‘deep-processing cognitive learning strategies and self-regulation strategies (for
example, self-testing while reading and monitoring one’s understanding of class
lectures)’ (Bolkan, Goodboy and Griffin, 2011). Finally, intrinsic motivation has
been associated with ‘cognitive engagement and classroom performance by way
of self-regulation and the use of adaptive strategies for studying (for example,
elaborating on class material and organizing class notes)’ (Bolkan, Goodboy
and Griffin, 2011). Therefore, based on this review, the association between
intellectual stimulation and intrinsic motivation has the potential to develop deep
learning approach among students.
The research on deep and surface approaches mainly aims at the students’
basic approaches to their schoolwork (Entwistle, Hanley and Hounsell,
1979).Students who use a deep approach to learning look ‘for meaning in
the matter being studied ‘relating that ‘to other experiences and ideas with
a critical approach’, whereas students who apply a surface approach depend
on ‘rote-learning and memorization in isolation to other ideas’ (Duff, 2004,
p.57).Understanding the way students approach their studying can predict
their performance since research has revealed an association between deep
approach to learning and ‘higher quality learning outcomes’ (Prosser and
Trigwell, 1999, p.12). Further, there is a positive relation between the general
academic performance and the deep approach to learning (Duff, 2003).
Following this line of argument, the findings of Bolkan, Goodboy and
Griffin (2011) suggest that challenging students in the classroom may be the

11
Chowdhry, S. most influential aspect of intellectual stimulation when it comes to fostering
Osowska, R. intrinsic motivation, and imply that teachers who push students to know the
course material well and who help students to be the best they can be also
encourage students to improve their motives for studying. Furthermore, the
direct relationship between encouraging independent thought and students’
deep approach to studying is more important than the interactive learning style.
To find out the contributing causes of intellectual stimulation to learning,
there is a need to consider number of factors in teaching and learning practice
and contribute to related literature. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore
the association between intellectual stimulation, intrinsic motivation and deep
learning approach relative to the students’ perception.
Research Design and Context
The research took place within the first and third year engineering module which
uses a problem-based learning (PBL) method. A quantitative students’ feedback
is used in examining the relationship and association between the intellectual
stimulation, intrinsic motivation and deep learning
The study included 128 engineering students’ at ENU. The students were
from various departments at the university, and some students came as direct entry
through an international exchange programme. The module teaching included
face to face sessions and instructions on virtual learning environment (VLE).
To study the issue, the conceptual framework is formed with the use of:
student intellectual stimulation scale developed by Bolkan and Goodboy (2010),
the shortened experiences of teaching and learning questionnaire (SETLQ) (ETL
Project, 2005) and the manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning
questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich et all, 1991).
A quantitative feedback questionnaire collected data on the students’
perceptions of intellectual stimulation, intrinsic motivation and deep learning
approach. The feedback questionnaire included three core behaviours of intellectual
stimulation, i.e. interactive teaching style (ITS) with 4 questions, challenging
students (CS) with 3 questions, encouraging independent thought (EIT) with 3
questions and 4 questions on intrinsic motivation (IM). In addition, there were
9 questions on a deep learning approach (DLA) (Appendix 1). Parametric tests
determined a statistically significant correlation and a non-parametric test helped
in finding the measure of agreement between the intellectual stimulation, intrinsic
motivation and deep learning approach. The research used the statistical software,
SPSS 20.0 (academic version) to perform the data analysis.
A reliability coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha determined the reliability of the
questionnaire. Alpha reliabilities for the total scale and subscales are: summed
scale=0.90 (mean, M=87.51, standard deviation, SD=17.31); interactive
teaching style = 0.79 (M=14.40, SD=4.22); challenging students=0.86

12
(M=12.14, SD=4.06); encouraging independent thought=0.80(M=12.49, In Search of
SD=3.89); deep learning approach measurement); intrinsic motivation Intellectual
measurement=0.65(M=18.77, SD=4.13). The lower limit of Cronbach’s alpha Stimulation:
coefficient of 0.60 is acceptable (Hair et all, 2009). Therefore, the reliability Understanding
analysis shows a good consistency of the entire scale and the subscales of the the Relationship
measurement instrument. Also, a reliable measuring instrument is valid too. Between
(Gupta and Kapoor, 2007). There are acceptable number of questions in each Motivation, Deep
feedback questionnaire to collect all the relevant information needed to find the Learning and
effectiveness of the use of education technology tools in improving the students Stimulation in the
learning experience in the module. Data analysis determined the relationship Higher Education
between the intellectual stimulation, intrinsic motivation and deep learning Classroom
approach. The first research question (RQ) is
RQ1: Whether there is a relation between students’ perceptions of the intellec-
tual stimulation and the intrinsic motivation?
The aim of this RQ is to find if there is a relationship between the intellectual
stimulation and the intrinsic motivation measurements. To answer this RQ, the
correlation between the intellectual stimulation and the intrinsic motivation
variables is determined using Pearson’s product-moment correlation test, and
Kendall’s tau-b test determines the measure of agreement between the individ-
ual elements of IS and IM.
The second RQ is
RQ2: Is there a relation between the students’ perception on the intellectual
stimulation and the deep learning approach measurements?
The aim of this RQ is to find a relation between the intellectual stimulation and
the deep learning approach measurements. To answer this RQ, the students’
feedback data on Pearson’s product-moment correlation test and the measure
of agreement between the individual elements of IS and DLA is determined by
Kendall’s tau-c test.

Figure1: Research Design Diagram

13
Chowdhry, S. ANALYSIS OF DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
Osowska, R. RQ1: Whether there is a relationship between students’ perceptions of
intellectual stimulation and intrinsic motivation?
To answer this RQ, the intellectual stimulation scale of Bolkan and
Goodboy (2010) is used to gather data on the students’ perception on
the intellectual scale. Similarly, MSLQ (Pintrich et all, 1991) is used
to gather data on students’ perceptions on the intrinsic motivation.
First, Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient is used to
explore the correlation between the IS and IM scales. Table 1 reports
the correlation. The result shows a statistically significant (p=0.002)
and a weak positive correlation. Pearson’s product-moment correlation
coefficient is, r=0.371 with α=0.05 (-1≤ r ≤ 1; where -1 means a strong
negative correlation, 0 means no correlation and 1 means a strong
positive correlation). It showed that higher IS scale is associated with
higher IM scale.
Table 1: Correlation between the intellectual stimulation and the intrinsic
motivation using Pearson’s Product-Moment test

Intrinsic Motivation
Intellectual Pearson Correlation .371**
Stimulation
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Second, Kendall’s tau-b test is used to find the measure of agreement

between the individual elements of IS and IM scales, as both are
ordinal scales with the same number of response choices. The results
show a statistically significant (p <α) and a weak positive agreement
between some elements of IS and IM scales. Kendall’s tau-b agreement
coefficient for a pair of elements is shown in Table 2, with α=0.05 (-1≤
τ ≤ 1; where -1 means a perfect disagreement, 0 means both variables
are independent, and 1 means a perfect agreement). It shows that
IM3 element is in positive agreement with CS1, CS2, EIT1 and EIT2
(Appendix 1) elements of intellectual stimulation scale. Whereas, ITS2,
ITS3, CS3 and EIT3 (Appendix 1) are not associated with any of the
items of the IM scale.

14
 Table 2: Correlation between the intellectual stimulation scale data and the In Search of
intrinsic motivation data using Kendall’s tau-b test Intellectual
Stimulation:
IM1 IM2 IM3 IM4
Understanding
ITS1 0.207 (P=0.046)
a
the Relationship
ITS2 Between
ITS3 Motivation, Deep
ITS4 0.229a (P=0.024) Learning and
Stimulation in the
CS1 0.281a (P=0.005)
Higher Education
CS2 0.265a (P=0.015) 0.208a (P=0.032) Classroom
CS3
EIT1 0.102a (P=0.046)
EIT2 0.218a (P=0.038)
EIT3
a) p < 0.05
Therefore, IS and IM scales has a weak positive correlation, and IM3
shows a positive agreement with most of the elements of IS scale.
RQ2: Whether there is a relation between the students’ perception on the intel-
lectual stimulation and the deep learning approach measurements?
To answer this RQ, the data is gathered on the students’ understanding on the
intellectual stimulation scale (Bolkan and Goodboy, 2010). Similarly, SETLQ
(ETL Project, 2005) is used to gather data on students’ perceptions on the deep
learning approach. Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient is used to
explore the correlation between the IS and DLA variables. The results show a
statistically significant (p=0.001) and a moderate positive correlation. Pearson’s
product-moment correlation coefficient is r=0.585 (α=0.05) (as shown in Table
3). It shows that higher IS scale is associated with higher DLA scale.
Table 3: Correlation between the intellectual stimulation and the intrinsic
motivation using Pearson’s Product-Moment test

Deep Learning Ap-

proach
Intellectual Stimulation Pearson Correlation .585**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

15
Chowdhry, S. Second, Kendall’s tau-c test is used to find the measure of agreement between
Osowska, R. the individual elements of IS and DLA scales, as both are ordinal data type with
different number of response choices Kendall’s tau-c agreement coefficient for
pair of elements is shown in Table 4, with α=0.05 (-1≤ τ ≤ 1; where -1 means
a perfect disagreement, 0 means both variables are independent and 1 means
a perfect agreement). The result shows a statistically significant (p <α) and a
moderate positive agreement between most of the elements of IS and DLA
variables. It shows that except ITS2 and DLA9, all the elements of IS and IM
scales are in positive agreement with each other.
Table 4: Measure of association between the intellectual stimulation scale
data and the deep learning approach data using Kendall’s tau-c test
DLA
DLA1 DLA2 DLA3 DLA4 DLA5 DLA6 DLA7 DLA8
9

0.314b 0.214b 0.269b

ITS1
(P=0.001) (P=0.02) (P=0.001)

ITS2

0.274b 0.264b 0.212b 0.255b 0.197b

ITS3
(P=0.002) (P=0.005) (P=0.03) (P=0.001) (P=0.021)

0.265b 0.273b 0.191b 0.217b 0.266b 0.261b 0.231b

ITS4
(P=0.002) (P=0.002) (P=0.036) (P=0.032) (P=0.001) (P=0.002) (P=0.017)

0.247b 0.282b 0.291b 0.276b 0.313b 0.194b

CS1
(P=0.01) (P=0.001) (P=0.002) (P=0.005) (P=0.001) (P=0.025)

0.340b 0.265b 0.304b 0.28b 0.301b 0.229b 0.262b 0.242b

CS2
(P=0.001) (P=0.003) (P=0.003) (P=0.005) (P=0.001) (P=0.028) (P=0.001) (P=0.023)

0.259b 0.349b 0.231b 0.201b 0.221b 0.229b

CS3
(P=0.003) (P=0.001) (P=0.021) (P=0.02) (P=0.017) (P=0.006)

0.361b 0.23b 0.239b 0.311b 0.356b 0.272b 0.177b

EIT1
(P=0.001) (P=0.015) (P=0.019) (P=0.006) (P=0.001) (P=0.003) (P=0.04)

0.352b 0.293b 0.372b 0.46b 0.386b 0.273b 0.221b

EIT2
(P=0.001) (P=0.001) (P=0.001) (P=0.001) (P=0.001) (P=0.002) (P=0.035)

0.298b 0.206b 0.306b 0.232b 0.261b 0.256b

EIT3
(P=0.001) (P=0.036) (P=0.001) (P=0.024) (P=0.005) (P=0.01)

b) p < 0.05

Therefore, IS and DLA scales have a moderate positive correlation, and most of
the elements of both the scales have a weak positive agreement with each other.

16
DISCUSSION In Search of
Intellectual
The RQ1 results show a positive agreement of intrinsic motivation (IM3) with
Stimulation:
intellectual stimulation (CS1, CS2, EIT1 and EIT2) (Appendix 1). Therefore,
Understanding
the data suggests that to stimulate the students intellectually, they need to be
the Relationship
challenged to on how well they know the material (CS2). The course content
Between
should test the students understanding (CS1), helping them to think deeply
Motivation, Deep
about the concepts taught in the class (EIT1) and come to their conclusions
Learning and
about the course content (EIT2). As a result of such a challenge, students get an
Stimulation in the
opportunity to understand the course content as thoroughly as possible (IM3),
Higher Education
which further intrinsically motivates the students. Therefore, the lecturers may
Classroom
design learning activities that provide a challenging learning environment which
wants students to work hard, develop self-directed learning (SDL) (Krouk and
Zhuravleva, 2009) skills, think deeply about the ideas, construct new knowledge
and engage in a self-evaluation. There should be provision for adequate student-
lecturer interaction opportunities, to give timely feedback to the students. To give
feedback, a lecturer may also adopt verbal strategies such as asking questions,
summarising and suggesting alternatives (Savin-Baden, 2003). Similarly,
lectures may adopt interactive teaching methods based on the students’ different
learning styles, to encourage students to take part in the learning actively. For
instance, the teaching methods may use Kolb’s learning cycle (Lu, Jia, Gong
and Clark, 2007) to classify learners into four categories such as divergers,
assimilators, convergers and accommodators. These classes will further help
the lecturers in adopting suitable teaching strategies and, customise teaching
according to the students’ needs. For example, those identified as divergers prefer
hands-on exploration, followed by productive feedback and the assimilators
prefer lectures, experiments and the use of conceptual models to understand the
topic. As a result, it will help students to understand the course content and will
encourage them to take responsibility for their studies.
The RQ2 result shows that IS and DLA scales have moderate positive
correlation and most of the elements of both the scales show a positive
agreement among themselves. As a result, intellectually stimulating students
will encourage them to adopt deep learning approach. To intellectually stimulate
the students, lecturers may select interactive teaching styles by providing unique
learning activities to get the class involved with the course content (ITS1). The
unique learning activities can be designed according to the students learning
styles, are related to the real-life content (DLA2) and will help set off the
long chain of thoughts (DLA1). Secondly, lecturers may encourage students’
active participation in the classroom activities (ITS3) and encourage them to
see reasons behind the thing (DLA6) and make their conclusions about what

17
Chowdhry, S. they are studying (DLA4). Thirdly, the learning activities should get students
Osowska, R. involved in the learning process in a variety of ways (ITS4) and encourage them
to think critically about what they are learning (EIT3). As a result, it will help
students in developing skills of asking questions such as ‘What author exactly
meant (DLA8) and evaluated their reasoning to see if it makes sense (DLA3).
The new proposed teaching and learning strategy using intellectual scale are
shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Mapping of intellectual scale with teaching and learning activities
Intellectual Teaching & Learning activities
Stimulation
Scale

ITS1 1. Use of screencasts to teach software (visual & auditory learning/

assimilators).
2. Demonstrations in the classroom on taking measurements (visu-
al & auditory learning).
3. Students hands on experience of taking measurements (kinaes-
thetic learning/divergers).

ITS4 1. Students provided information on usefulness of active participa-

tion in learning.
2. Students provided collaborative learning opportunities in the
classroom.
3. Students provided self-directed learning opportunities in the
classroom.
CS1 Learning activities designed to challenge students.

CS2 Learning activities designed to encourage students to work hard.

EIT1 Learning activities designed to encourage students to think deeply

about the concepts.

EIT2 Collaborative learning opportunities provided to help students in

construction of new knowledge.

EIT3 Students provided opportunities to critically analyse the work to con-

struct new knowledge.

The new proposed teaching and learning strategy is implemented and students
feedback (Appendix 2) on their learning experience is as follows,

18
 In Search of
Intellectual
Stimulation:
Understanding
the Relationship
Between
Motivation, Deep
Learning and
Stimulation in the
Higher Education
Classroom

Figure 2: Online videos and demonstrations helped in learning and

understanding
The figure 2 shows that 43.1% of students at least agreed that online videos and
demonstrations helped them in learning and understanding the course content.

Figure 3: Hands on measurement improved learning experience

19
Chowdhry, S. The figure 3 shows that 60.3% of students at least agreed that using Vernier
Osowska, R. Calliper and Micrometre to take mechanical measurements before making
engineering drawings on Computer Aided Engineering (CAD) software
improved their learning experience.

Figure 4: I felt motivated as learning activities required active participation

The figure 4 shows that 50% of students at least agreed that the requirement of
active participation in the learning activities motivated them to study.

Figure 5: Collaborative learning helped in completing the design solution

20
The figure 5 shows that 56.9% of students at least agree that opportunities to do In Search of
collaborative learning helped them in finding the design problem solution. Intellectual
Stimulation:
Understanding
the Relationship
Between
Motivation, Deep
Learning and
Stimulation in the
Higher Education
Classroom

Figure 6: Learning activity provided opportunities for self-directed learning

The figure 6 suggests that 58.6% of students at least agreed that learning
activity design encouraged them to do self-directed learning.

Figure 7: Learning activity challenged me

21
Chowdhry, S. The figure 7 shows that 58.6% of students at least agreed that learning activity
Osowska, R. challenged them in the learning and understanding the module content.

Figure 8: Learning activity encouraged me to work hard

The figure 8 indicates that 32.8% of students at least agreed that learning
activity encouraged them to work hard in studying the module content.

Figure 9: Learning activity encouraged me to think deeply about the concept

22
The figure 9 suggests that 44.8% of students at least agreed that learning ac- In Search of
tivity encouraged them to adopt deep learning approach in understanding the Intellectual
module content. Stimulation:
Understanding
the Relationship
Between
Motivation, Deep
Learning and
Stimulation in the
Higher Education
Classroom

Figure 10: Collaborative learning helped in constructing new knowledge

The figure 10 shows that 62.1% of students at least agreed that collaborative learning
opportunities helped them in constructing new knowledge from the module content.

Figure 11: Critical analysis of the concepts helped in constructing new knowledge

23
Chowdhry, S. The figure 11 indicates that 37.9% of students at least agreed that opportunities
Osowska, R. to do the critical analysis of the academic content helped them in constructing
new knowledge.
The result suggests that the new intellectual scale based teaching and
learning strategy is useful in intellectually stimulated the students and in
providing improved learning experience. The variety of the teaching methods
used considers different learning styles. It helped students to participate in the
learning actively, to do self-directed learning, perform critical analysis and
adopt deep learning approach in understanding the module content, and in the
construction of new knowledge.
The use of an Intellectual stimulation scale will help the institution
to specifically focus on the areas of teaching and learning such as students
learning styles, Kolb’s learning cycle and self-directed learning (SDL), to
provide students with an intellectually stimulating learning environment. To
use an intellectual stimulation scale as an evaluation criterion for teaching
and learning in the higher education institution, a separate questionnaire could
be designed to collect information on different elements of an intellectual
stimulation scale.
Taking this idea further, academic staff could organise workshops to raise
awareness about how to use the intellectual stimulation scale to improve
the students learning experience. The institutions may give new lecturer’s
information on the importance of providing students with an intellectually
stimulating environment during the induction training programme. Students’
union may also be encouraged to organise events to make students familiar
with the intellectual stimulation scale. Academic services may also help staff to
consider using an intellectual stimulation scale while designing and changing
their module descriptors to meet student needs better’ and increase levels of
intellectual stimulation in the classroom.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this study was to investigate the intellectual stimulation, intrinsic
motivation and deep learning approach relative to students’ perception.
In particular, the current study had three objectives: 1) to determine the
relationship between the students’ perceptions on intrinsic motivation,
intellectual stimulation and deep learning approach, 2) to find out what
intervention strategies lecturers can put in place to support students feeling
‘intellectually stimulated’, 3) propose recommendation for using ‘intellectual
stimulation’ as an evaluation criterion for teaching and learning in higher
education institutions and the engineering classroom. The study has found
a statistically significant, weak positive correlation between the IS and IM

24
scales. The IM3 element is in positive agreement with CS1, CS2, EIT1 and In Search of
EIT2 elements of the IS scale. Second, there is a statistically significant, Intellectual
moderate positive correlation between IS and DLA scales. Except ITS2 and Stimulation:
DLA9, all the elements of IS and IM scales are in positive agreement with Understanding
each other. Third, the students feedback suggests that implementation of the Relationship
the new intellectual scale based teaching and learning strategy is useful in Between
intellectually stimulated the students and helped them to actively participate Motivation, Deep
in the learning, to do self-directed learning, perform critically analysis and in Learning and
adopting deep learning approach in understanding the module content, and in Stimulation in the
construction of new knowledge. Higher Education
The main findings therefore are, to intellectually stimulate the students, Classroom
the learning activities should encourage them to engage in deep learning to
ensure that they really know the material well. The course content should
challenge the students, helping them to reflect deeply upon the concepts taught
in the HE class and draw their own conclusions about the course content.
In doing so, it will also intrinsically motivate the students and provide them
with an opportunity to understand the course content thoroughly. Therefore,
the lecturers should design the learning activities that facilitate a challenging
learning environment motivating students to, develop SDL skills, think deeply,
construct new knowledge and engage in the process of self-evaluation. By
acknowledging students learning styles, interactive teaching methods could
encourage students’ active participation in the learning. Furthermore, lecturers
should provide timely feedback to the students.
The research limits to the generalisability of this study to the modules
across the university are small sample size, lack of control groups and variables
present with intellectually stimulated and non-stimulated learning. However,
the results of the study will be transferable for the different departments across
the university in understanding the intellectual stimulation scale. Similarly,
it will further help in improving the teaching and learning practice in the
university.
Collection of information on different elements of the intellectual
stimulation scale may help to find out the feasibility of using the intellectual
stimulation scale as an evaluation criteria for teaching and learning in higher
education institution
It implies that the educational institutions may make a strategy to
systematically ingrain the idea of IS scale in its courses. For instance, spreading
awareness among the academic staff about how to use the IS scale to improve
the students learning experience. The new lecturer’s induction training
programme can also incorporate information on using IS scale to enhance
the students learning experience. The departmental quality committees may

25
Chowdhry, S. encourage staff to consider the IS scale while designing and changing the
Osowska, R. module descriptors. The Students’ union could also contribute by organising
events to make students familiar with the intellectual stimulation scale.
A suggested further research is to compare the effect of setting in IST, CS
and EIT elements of intellectual stimulation scale in different modules in the
School of Engineering.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dr Jacqueline Brodie for the helpful comments
on an earlier draft.
REFERENCES
1. Bolkan, S., Goodboy, A.K. & Griffin, D.J., (2011) “Teacher Leadership and Intellectual
Stimulation: Improving Students” Approaches to Studying through Intrinsic Motivation.
Communication Research Reports, 28(4), pp. 337–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/088240
96.2011.615958.
2. Bolkan, S., Goodboy, A.K. (2012) Behavioral indicators of transformational leadership in
the college classroom. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2011.601520.
3. Bolkan,S. & Goodboy, A.K. (2010) “Transformational Leadership in the Classroom: The
Development and Validation of the student Intellectual Stimulation Scale” Communication
Reports, 23(2), pp. 91–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2010.511399.
4. Chavan,A. A., Khandagale, V. S. (2014) “Development of Critical Thinking Skill
Programme for the Student Teachers of Diploma in Teacher Education colleges”, Issues
and Ideas in Education, 2(1), pp.25–37.
5. Duff, A. (2003) “Quality of learning on an MBA programme: The impact of approaches
to learning on academic performance”, Educational Psychology, 23, pp.123–139. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410303230.
6. Duff, A. (2004) “The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI) and its use in
management education”, Active learning in higher education, 5, pp.56–72.
7. Edinburgh Napier University (2013) “National Student Survey Update Report: “Areas for
Improvement.” Available at: http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/hr/development/acprofdev/
PL/Documents/NSS improvement 2013 _FINAL COPY.pdf.
8. Edinburgh Napier University, (2014) NSS website. Available at: http://www.
thestudentsurvey.com/the_nss.html [Accessed October 2, 2014].
9. Entwistle, N. (1988) Styles of Learning and Teaching,
10. Entwistle, N., Hanley, M., Hounsell, D. (1979) “Identifying distinctive approaches to
studying”, Higher Education, 8, pp.365–380.
11. Gupta, S.C., Kapoor, V.K. (2007) “Fundamentals of Applied Statistics”, Sultan Chand &
Sons.
12. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., and Anderson, R. E., Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin,
B.J., and Anderson, R. E. (2009) “Multivariate Data Analysis - A Global Perspective”,
New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
13. Hetland, H., Sandal, G. (2003) “Transformational leadership in Norway; outcome and
personality correlate”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(2),
pp.147–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320344000057.
14. Krouk, B.I., Member, S. & Zhuravleva, O.B. (2009) “Dynamic Training Elements in a
Circuit Theory Course to Implement a Self-Directed Learning Process”, , 52(3), pp.394–
399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TE.2008.930091.

26
15. Lu, H. et al. (2007) “The Relationship of Kolb Learning Styles, Online Learning Behaviors In Search of
and Learning Outcomes”, Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), pp.187–196. Intellectual
16. Pintrich, Paul, R. et al., (1991) “Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire”, (MSLQ). , p.75. Stimulation:
17. Project, E., (2005) “Shortened Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire ( Understanding
SETLQ ). , 44, pp.1–3. the Relationship
18. Prosser, M.,Trigwell, K. (1999) “Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in
highereducation”, Milton Keynes, England: SRHE,Open University Press.
Between
19. Savin-Baden, M. (2003) “Facilitating Problem-based Learning: Illuminating perspectives”, Motivation, Deep
Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press. Learning and
20. Shahzad, S., Zareen, H. (2011) “Perception of intellectual stimulation, creativity and Stimulation in the
innovation among health managers working in tertiary level hospitals”, Journal of Ayub
Medical College Abbottabad, 23(3), pp.86–90. Higher Education
21. Wolters, C. A. (1998) “Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of Classroom
motivation”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, pp.224–235. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.224

27
Chowdhry, S.
Osowska, R.

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Quantitative feedback questionnaire
ITS1 Unique activities are used to get the class involved with the (1-Never ‘7-Al-
course material. ways)
1234567
ITS2 Exciting teaching techniques are used in class. 1234567
ITS3 Helps students get excited about learning through classroom 1234567
activities.
ITS4 Teaching stimulates students to help them get involved in the 1234567
learning process in a variety of ways
CS1 Challenges me to be the best student I can be. 1234567
CS2 Makes me work hard to ensure that I really know the material 1234567
well.
CS3 Helps me realise that my hard work is worth it. 1234567
EIT1 Helps me think deeply about the concepts taught in class. 1234567
EIT2 Encourages me to come to my own conclusions about course 1234567
material.
EIT3 Wants me to think critically about what we are learning. 1234567
DLA1 Ideas I’ve come cross in my academic reading often set off (1-Rarely true;
long chains of thought. 5- Usually true)
1 2 3 4 5
DLA2 In making sense of new ideas, I have often related them to 1 2 3 4 5
practical or real life contexts.
DLA3 I have been over the work I have done to check my reasoning 1 2 3 4 5
and see that it makes sense.
DLA4 I have looked at evidence carefully to reach my own conclu- 1 2 3 4 5
sion about what I am studying.
DLA5 When I have been communicating ideas, I have thought over 1 2 3 4 5
how well I have got my points across.
DLA6 It has been important for me to follow the argument, or to see 1 2 3 4 5
the reasons behind things.
DLA7 Concentration has not been usually been a problem for me, 1 2 3 4 5
unless I have been really tired.
DLA8 In reading for this course unit, I have tried to find out for my- 1 2 3 4 5
self exactly what the author means.

28
 DLA9 I have not understood things well enough when studying, I 1 2 3 4 5 In Search of
have tried a different approach. Intellectual
IM1 In a class like this, I prefer course material that really challeng- (1-Not at all true Stimulation:
es me so I can learn new things. of me; 7- Very Understanding
true of me) the Relationship
1234567
Between
IM2 In a class like this, I prefer course material that arouses my 1234567
curiosity, even if it is difficult to learn. Motivation, Deep
IM3 The most satisfying thing for me in this course is trying to 1234567
Learning and
understand the content as thoroughly as possible. Stimulation in the
IM4 When I have the opportunity in this class, I choose course 1234567 Higher Education
assignments that I can learn from even if they don’t guarantee a Classroom
good grade.

APPENDIX 2: Students feedback questionnaire on their learning experince

1. I felt motivated by the information provided on the usefulness of active
participation.
a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Strongly Disagree e) Disagree

2. Collaborative learning helped in completing the design solution.

a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Strongly Disagree e) Disagree

3. Collaborative learning helped in constructing new knowledge.

a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Strongly Disagree e) Disagree

4. The learning activity provided opportunity to do self-directed learning.

a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Strongly Disagree e) Disagree

5. Screencasts and demonstrations helped in the learning.

a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Strongly Disagree e) Disagree

6. Hands on experience on measuring/disassembly helped in the learning.

a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Strongly Disagree e) Disagree

7. Critical analysis of the work helped in constructing new knowledge.

a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Strongly Disagree e) Disagree

8. Learning activity encouraged me to work hard.

a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Strongly Disagree e) Disagree

9. Learning activity challenged me.

a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Strongly Disagree e) Disagree

29