Understanding Student Motivation in Engineering Education

Workshop Recommended citation: Kruse, J. (2025). Understanding Student Motivation in Engineering Education. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631366. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. UNDERSTANDING STUDENT MOTIVATION IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION J. Kruse a, 1 a Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark, ORCID: 0000-0001-5302-926X Conference Key Areas: Building the capacity and strengthening the educational competences of engineering educators + Improving higher engineering education through researching engineering education Keywords: Student motivation, teaching strategies, active learning, curriculum development ABSTRACT This workshop addresses the challenge of understanding student motivation in engineering education. While motivation is widely acknowledged as a key factor in student engagement, performance and retention, educators’ assumptions about what motivates students do not always align with students’ actual experiences and priorities. Participants will engage in a structured card-sorting activity in small groups, where they are asked to predict and rank motivational drivers from the perspective of today’s engineering students. These group-based rankings will be compared with empirical data collected from students in Danish professional bachelor engineering programmes, who completed the same sorting exercise from their own viewpoint. The activity serves as a basis for critical reflection and discussion about potential mismatches between educator assumptions and student perspectives. Participants will be introduced to motivation profiles derived from the data and encouraged to consider how these insights can inform course and activity design. The session combines evidence-based input with peer dialogue and practical reflection. 1 Corresponding Author J. Kruse [email protected] 1 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE 1.1 Motivation in engineering education Motivation plays a crucial role in engineering education, directly impacting student engagement, learning outcomes and retention. Research shows that motivated students not only achieve better academic results, but also that they are more likely to persist in their studies (Savage, Birch & Noussi, 2011; Baillie & Fitzgerald, 2000). However, motivation is far from uniform: students are driven by a range of different factors, including structured learning environments, career relevance and social impact (Kolmos, Mejlgaard, Haase & Holgaard, 2013). Moreover, motivation itself evolves over time: many students enter engineering programs aspiring to innovate and make a difference, yet their priorities often shift toward financial security and employability (Alpay, Ahearn, Graham & Bull, 2008). Additionally, student persistence is strongly linked to perceptions of engagement and belonging, meaning that how institutions shape learning experiences can significantly influence motivation throughout the student journey (Tinto, 2025). While motivation is widely recognized as an important factor in student success, understanding exactly what drives engineering students can be challenging. Educators often rely on instinct when designing courses, yet research indicates that what educators assume motivates students often differs from students’ actual priorities (Bombaerts & Vaessen, 2022; López-Fernández, Alarcón & Tovar, 2015). If such mismatches go unaddressed, students may disengage, contributing to low attendance and higher dropout rates. This workshop is designed to address that challenge. By helping educators better understand the diverse motivational drivers of their students, it aims to equip course designers and instructors with strategies that resonate across a spectrum of learning styles, for the purpose of delivering more effective, engaging and inclusive engineering education. 1.2 Exploring student motivation through card-sorting The workshop itself takes a very hands-on approach to understanding and reflecting on student motivation. Participants will work in small groups on a card-sorting exercise using a fixed set of statements reflecting different motivational drivers (e.g., “It is motivating when I can see the real-world relevance of what I’m learning”). Each group will be asked to rank these statements from most to least important, not based on their own preferences, but on what they believe today’s engineering students value most. These group-based rankings will then be compared to empirical data gathered from students enrolled in Danish professional bachelor programmes in engineering (BEng), who have done the same card-sorting exercise from their own viewpoint. This comparison will serve as a springboard for discussion and critical reflection on potential mismatches between educator assumptions and student realities. Following this activity, the workshop will introduce a set of student motivation profiles based on what real students actually said, offering a structured lens through which to understand the variety of ways students engage with their studies. Participants will be invited to consider how these insights can inform their own teaching practices and discuss concrete strategies for designing more inclusive and motivating learning environments. 2 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES 2.1 Target audience This workshop is aimed at engineering educators, course designers and educational researchers who are curious about the many ways student motivation impacts engineering education. 2.2 Expected learning outcomes By the end of this workshop, participants will have: • A clearer understanding of where their assumptions about student motivation align, and misalign, with actual student perspectives. • Gained insight into evidence-backed motivation profiles that illustrate the different ways students engage, or disengage, with learning. • Reflected on their own teaching approaches and explored ways to align them more effectively with diverse student motivations. • Discussed and developed concrete strategies for fostering motivation in engineering education. 3 WORKSHOP DESIGN 3.1 Time plan The time plan for the workshop is as follows: Run time Activity Notes 8 min Introduction Brief overview of student motivation in engineering education and the purpose of the workshop 15 min Card-sorting activity In small groups, participants predict and rank what they believe motivates students the most. Discussion and reflection during the process 12 min Discussion Groups share their rankings, followed by a presentation of actual student data. Discussion on mismatches and surprises 15 min Interactive activity 2 Participants discuss in groups how insights from the session can inform their own teaching practices and share potential strategies. In this activity, participants are encouraged to connect specific teaching methods or course designs to the motivational drivers discussed, enabling them to consider how pedagogical strategies can support diverse student motivations 10 min Discussion and conclusions 3.2 Interactivity This workshop is designed to be highly interactive, ensuring that participants are actively engaged rather than passively listening. The core activity – the card-sorting exercise – encourages participants to work collaboratively in small groups, discussing, ranking and justifying their choices. This structure fosters peer learning and reflection, as educators articulate their assumptions about student motivation and challenge each other’s perspectives. Rather than simply presenting research findings, the session is designed to build suspense by allowing participants to compare their own rankings with real student data, hopefully leading to a fruitful and thought-provoking discussion. The possible contrast between educator assumptions and student realities provides a natural springboard for deeper engagement with the evidence-backed motivation profiles that follow. Building on this, participants will also be invited to explore connections between these profiles and potential teaching approaches, supporting the development of more targeted and inclusive pedagogy. 4 WORKSHOP RESULTS 4.1 Participant engagement The workshop attracted 42 participants representing a broad range of institutions and national contexts. Most were teaching staff from engineering programmes, though a few represented educational leadership (including members of deanships) and a small number were students. Participants worked collaboratively in small groups, each using one of the five physical card-sorting grids brought to the session. From the outset, the atmosphere was lively and engaged. Despite the diversity of backgrounds, groups quickly entered constructive negotiations and reached agreement faster than anticipated. The card-sorting activity proved effective in stimulating conversation and prompting participants to articulate and justify their assumptions about what motivates engineering students today. 4.2 Patterns and insights Once all groups had completed their card sorts, they presented their highest and lowest ranked statements to the room, and it was a reassuring sign of the participants’ professionalism that the groups’ collective rankings ended up quite close to the actual student data. Participants accurately recognised that peer feedback and student influence on course design are not experienced as motivating by most students, even though such activities are known to enhance learning outcomes. They also correctly identified career relevance and exam focus as strong motivational drivers. However, a few differences stood out. Some groups assumed that students are highly motivated by being well prepared for class, a belief that is certainly not supported by the student data. Likewise, the groups tended to underestimate the centrality of the teacher’s role in motivation – particularly the traditional aspects of teaching, such as being clear, well-prepared and skilled at explaining complex material. This recognition prompted a discussion about how educators often take such “baseline” competences for granted when, in practice, students value them highly. Participants also discussed the apparent contradiction between what motivates students and what research identifies as beneficial for learning. Everyone in the room recognised that activities like peer feedback and co-creation have positive learning effects, but as several noted, students hate them. The consensus was that these activities should not be abandoned but better framed, for instance by making their relevance to future professional practice explicit and thereby linking them to students’ career-oriented motivations. 4.3 Reflections and pedagogical implications Building on these insights, participants were introduced to five motivation profiles derived from student data that has been analysed using Q methodology. Each profile represents a distinct way of engaging with learning: • The Owl, an autonomous, deep learner driven by curiosity and mastery. • The Cat, a pragmatic, efficiency-oriented learner focused on immediate usefulness. • The Monkey, a social, exploratory learner energised by interaction and variety. • The Dog, a relational, community-oriented learner motivated by belonging and live exchange. • The Bee, a structure-seeking learner who thrives in predictable, inclusive environments. Though partly humorous, the animal-inspired typology provided an accessible and easy-to-use vocabulary for discussing how different students respond to teaching strategies and environments. The ensuing discussion centred on how educators might respond to this motivational diversity. One question raised was whether it is truly the teacher’s responsibility to accommodate all motivational profiles. Participants overwhelmingly agreed that it is, while at the same time acknowledging the difficulty. As one participant put it, “we cannot design one meal that suits all tastes, but we can make sure the salt is on the table.” In other words, thoughtful course planning and flexibility allow teachers to provide structure while leaving room for individual differences in engagement. Another topic concerned the relative absence of “save-the-world” motivation among students. Many found it surprising that global or societal relevance ranked low in the data, given how often sustainability and ethics are promoted as drivers of engagement. Yet several participants noted that this might reflect the broader condition of being a young student today – facing uncertainty, pressure and fatigue – which can make abstract ideals feel distant. This led to a reflective dialogue about the gap between institutional rhetoric and everyday student realities. Participants generally described the five profiles as immediately recognisable from their own teaching experience. The framework served as a productive lens for analysing their own practice and for discussing how different teaching designs privilege certain types of motivation over others. 4.4 Future directions Several participants expressed interest in adopting the card-sorting method and motivation profiles in their own faculty development and course evaluation activities. A few initiated follow-up conversations about applying the tool in their local contexts, and concrete ideas were discussed for extending the study cross-nationally to explore whether similar motivation patterns appear in other educational cultures. Beyond methodological interest, the session underscored the value of explicit reflection on motivation as part of teaching design. By comparing assumptions with data, the participants hopefully became more aware of the diversity within their classrooms and more deliberate in aligning teaching strategies with different motivational drivers. Finally, as a light-hearted yet hardly surprising conclusion, it seemed that the majority of SEFI participants themselves identified most strongly with the Monkey profile: the playful, curious learner who thrives on social interaction and variety. REFERENCES Alpay, E., Ahearn, A.L., Graham, R.H., & Bull, A.M.J. (2008). Student enthusiasm for engineering: Charting changes in student aspirations and motivation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(5–6), 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790802585454 Baillie, C., & Fitzgerald, G. (2000). Motivation and attrition in engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/030437900308544 Bombaerts, G., & Vaessen, B. (2022). Motivational dynamics in basic needs profiles: Toward a person-centered motivation approach in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(2), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20448 Kolmos, A., Mejlgaard, N., Haase, S., & Holgaard, J.E. (2013). Motivational factors, gender and engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(3), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.794198 López-Fernández, D., Alarcón, P.P., & Tovar, E. (2015). Motivation in engineering education: A framework supported by evaluation instruments and enhancement resources. 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Tallinn, Estonia, 2015, pp. 421–430. 10.1109/EDUCON.2015.7096006 Savage, N., Birch, R., & Noussi, E. (2011). Motivation of engineering students in higher education. Engineering Education, 6(2), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.11120/ened.2011.06020039 Tinto, V. (2025). Student persistence through a different lens. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 26(4), 959–969. https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251241249158