1

Chapter 5 Problem-based learning and student motivation:

The role of interest in learning and achievement
Jerome I. Rotgans
National Institute of Education, Singapore
Henk G. Schmidt
Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
My students dont seem interested in what I teach and I can hardly get them to focus on the
tasks in class. What can I do to make them more interested so that they engage more and learn
more? This is a common cry for help by many teachers and has been considered an increasingly
severe problem facing education worldwide (e.g. see Motivating the academically unmotivated:
A critical issue for the 21
st
Century).
Although it may not be directly obvious, problem-based learning as an instructional approach can
help remedy the problem in three important ways. First, it has largely been assumed that the
problem, which represents a puzzle or controversial issue describing something unexpected or
novel, startles students curiosity and interest. Further, if students are interested they engage more
in discussions with their peers and come up with tentative explanations for the problem. Working
with peers in teams is a second expected motivator. Rather than engaging in a question and an-
swer discourse with a teacher, students engage in discussions with peers who are generally of
similar mindsets and proficiency. This is expected to result in a feeling of equality and is less
threatening. Lastly, in problem-based learning students perceive that they have a choice on what
they want to study, i.e. they identify their own learning goals. According to self-determination
theory, having this choice results in a feeling of autonomy and empowerment, which in turn is
expected to have a motivating effect on students learning.
The above explanations appeal to intuitive logic. However, surprisingly little research has been
conducted in problem-based learning to investigate whether these assumptions are correct. The
objective of this chapter is to provide more insights in this issue.
Introduction
Many advocates of problem-based learning (PBL) implicitly assume that this instructional method is
highly motivating for students. It is expected that specific features of PBL, such as working on mean-
ingful, real-life problems independently in small teams under the minimal intervention of a facilitator,
would promote student motivation and learning. However, whether this is the case has not been studied
extensively. The objective of this chapter is to summarize the results of two recently conducted studies
using the one-day, one-problem approach that examined whether this PBL environment has a motivat-
ing effect on student learning. In these studies, motivation was operationalized by means of students
situational interest, which is interest aroused in the moment by environmental stimuli such as the prob-
lem or facilitator discussing an intriguing phenomenon.
What do we know about student motivation in PBL?
There are not many empirical studies that have investigated how far PBL has a motivating effect on
student learning. In the few accounts that exist, motivation was measured by means of intrinsic interest
in the subject matter. For instance, Schmidt and Moust (1995) were the first to test a path model in
which the relationships between various elements of PBL were tested (e.g. quality of problems and tu-
tor, group functioning, time spent on self-study, and intrinsic interest). The results of the study demon-
2
strate that students group functioning was positively related to intrinsic interest in the subject matter.
Group functioning refers to the manner in which students interact with one another in their teams (or
tutorial groups), and includes factors such as the level of teamwork, and whether the discussions be-
tween the team members were interesting. These findings were replicated in two subsequent studies
(cf. Schmidt et al. 1995; Schmidt and Moust 2000), which confirmed that there is a relatively strong re-
lationship between group functioning and intrinsic interest in the subject matter. These outcomes sug-
gest that the manner in which students work together in their teams, such as generating learning objec-
tives, tossing around ideas and hypotheses that may explain the phenomena presented in the problem,
helping each other, and providing explanations has a positive influence on how interesting students
perceive a subject to be.
Although these studies provide valuable insights in the role of group functioning on students intrin-
sic interest, these studies were designed to look at the bigger picture, i.e. the general relationships be-
tween key PBL variables. In this chapter we argue that a more detailed examination of how interest de-
velops during PBL in situ is necessary when trying to understand the underlying motivational factors of
PBL. For instance, in the above studies, intrinsic interest was measured at the end of a block (i.e. a six-
week learning unit) representing a summary score of students overall interests for that course or sub-
ject domain. As a result, the findings of these studies do not cast light on the questions of whether and
how students interest varies across problems, and more importantly, whether there are critical mo-
ments during PBL itself that may influence students interest. It may be possible that there are critical
moments in PBL during which interest suddenly plummets, causing students to disengage. Such a criti-
cal moment could be when students engage in their self-study; having to search for information and be-
ing confronted with many new facts may cause some sort of confusion, which may lead to a significant
decrease in interest. It is important to identify these critical moments in order for the facilitator to take
appropriate actions (e.g. by providing more guidance and structure). In short, to measure students mo-
tivation during PBL, more situational measures are needed to pick up contextual variations.
Situational interest and PBL
A construct that is best suited to measure contextual variations in student motivation is situational in-
terest. Situational interest is defined as an immediate affective response to certain conditions and/or
stimuli in the learning environment that focuses ones attention on the task (Hidi 1990; Schraw et al.
2001; Mitchell 1993). Research has shown that environmental stimuli such as puzzles, challenging
tasks, well-organized texts, or simply providing students with choices in the way they learn and what
they learn, increases situational interest, which typically manifests itself as a direct affective response,
focused attention, and increased levels of learning (Mitchell 1993; Hidi and Renninger 2006; Hidi
1990).
All these elements are theoretically present in the PBL classroom. The problem is often presented as
a challenging puzzle or phenomenon, which should arouse students interest in the subject. In addition,
students work in small groups in which they have the choice to decide what to study, which may have a
positive effect on sustaining students level of situational interest in a PBL classroom. With reference
to the latter, Deci (1992) has suggested that classrooms which promote student autonomy and choice
increase situational interest (see also (Schraw et al. 2001; Cordova and Lepper 1996). Deci et al. (1991)
pointed out that choice has a positive effect on interest because people have an innate psychological
need for competence, belonging, and autonomy. In terms of self-determination research, having a
choice is a means of satisfying the need for autonomy.
In summary, there are reasons to believe that the PBL classroom provides students with sufficient
environmental stimuli to attract their attention and interest in learning. How students situational inter-
est develops during PBL and where the critical moments during the learning process are has not been
studied extensively. It appears plausible to assume that the problem statement students receive would
increase their situational interest. What happens thereafter, however, is less clear. It may be possible
that situational interest increases as a function of continued exposure to the learning materials and ani-
mating discussions between peers and/or the facilitator. It is also possible that situational interest de-
creases over the learning event because students engage in information seeking behaviors that result in
gaining more knowledge about the problem. Berlyne (1978) suggested that this knowledge gain (i.e.
closing the perceived knowledge gap) leads to a reduction in interest. There is of course a third alterna-
tive hypothesis that situational interest does not change at all over the learning event. Gaining insights
3
in the development of situational interest during a learning event is important because this would tell
when facilitators should intervene in the learning process to increase students level of interest.
The role of facilitators in promoting students situational interest
According to Hidi and Renninger (2006), teachers have a major impact on students situational interest.
Sloboda and Davidson (1995) reported findings of a study, which indicate that for music students to
persevere, the most important characteristics of their teachers were to be able to communicate well (i.e.
being friendly, encouraging, talkative) and to possess the ability to pass on their love for music. Long
and Murphy (2005) found that a teachers interest for the subject matter was to some degree related to
students subject interest in the classroom (see also (Long 2003). Although both studies come close to
describing the influence of teacher characteristics, such as their own interest or passion in the subject
and their ability to communicate well or being friendly, these accounts seem more related to students
stable and enduring individual or topic interest rather than to their situational interest. With our re-
search reported in this chapter, we were however more interested in the extent to which interpersonal
and cognitive facilitator characteristics influence the level of students situational interest. We figured
that if we were able to demonstrate such influence this would reveal whether more could be done to in-
crease students situational interest in the PBL classroomnot only by providing stimulating instruc-
tional materials, but also by selecting (and possibly training) facilitators who have distinct facilitation
characteristics that are conducive for increasing situational interest.
In this respect, research findings in the PBL literature have demonstrated that certain facilitator
characteristics are particularly conducive for student learning. Three distinct characteristics have been
identified that seem to influence the effectiveness of student learning and achievement: (1) social con-
gruence, (2) subject-matter expertise, and (3) cognitive congruence (Schmidt and Moust 2000; Moust
1993; Schmidt and Moust 1995; Grave et al. 1998; De Grave et al. 1999; Solomon and Crowe 2001;
Lockspeiser et al. 2008).
Social congruence refers to a facilitators personal interest in or concern for his/her students (Grave
et al. 1998; Schmidt and Moust 2000). Students who experience a socially congruent facilitator are typ-
ically not afraid to tell him or her if they do not understand something; they typically put in more effort
to try hard, and are not afraid of making mistakes. We hypothesized that the enhanced social climate of
a socially congruent facilitator and the mutual respect between facilitator and students could have a
positive influence on students situational interest in a classroom.
A second significant facilitator characteristic is subject-matter expertise. Research has shown that
the degree of knowledge a facilitator has positively affects student achievement in the active-learning
classroom (Schmidt and Moust 1995; Schmidt et al. 1993). We hypothesized that students perceptions
about the level of a facilitators expertise may positively influence situational interest as well, because
they are more willing to exert effort for a knowledgeable facilitator than for a not so knowledgeable fa-
cilitator.
Cognitive congruence refers to the ability to express oneself in a language students can understand,
using concepts they use and explaining concepts in ways easily grasped by students (Schmidt and
Moust 1995). For instance, if a cognitive congruent facilitator knows that a particular concept is diffi-
cult to understand, he or she will break it down for the students by asking questions that guide them to
reach the desired level of understanding. Moreover, a cognitive congruent facilitator does not disrupt
an ongoing discussion nor puts him or herself in the center of the learning process. We hypothesize that
this form of scaffolding and tactful behavior would result in providing students with structure in their
thinking as well as with the confidence that they can master the topic on their own, which eventually is
expected to result in increased levels of situational interest.
Summary
This chapter reports the findings of two studies we have recently conducted to investigate how stu-
dents situational interest develops over the course of a one-day PBL learning event and the degree to
which three facilitator characteristics increase students situational interest in PBL. The first study was
conducted with 66 second-year economics students. During the PBL day, a measure of situational in-
4
terest and task engagement were repeatedly administered during critical moments in the learning pro-
cess. The second study was conducted with 498 students across various diploma programs. We chose a
quasi-experimental design in which we pre-selected facilitators who scored either high or low on the
three characteristics.

Studies on Situational Interest in PBL
Study 1: Situational interest during PBL
The first study involved 66 student participants who were enrolled in a second year economics module
at Republic Polytechnic. All students were subjected to the one-day, one-problem approach. During the
day, two measures of situational interest were repeatedly administered at critical moments during the
learning process. Before we elaborate on what constitute critical moments, we first give some expla-
nations of how we measured situational interest and other relevant variables involved in the study.
We devised two situational interest measures, which determine (1) the present psychological state of
interest, involving increased attention and cognitive functioning, persistence, and an affective compo-
nent, and (2) interest that emerges from the interaction of the person with the previous learning task
(Hidi 1990, 2001; Krapp et al. 1992). The first situational interest measure, designed to measure the
present state of interest (and, for claritys sake to be called SI-present-state), consisted of four ele-
ments: (1) positive affect, (2) willingness to learn, (3) expectancy to succeed, and (4) increased levels
of attention (Ainley et al. 2002; Schraw et al. 2001; Schraw and Lehman 2001; Hidi and Renninger
2006; Renninger and Hidi 2002; Shirey 1992; Hidi 1990; Bergin 1999). Positive affect was measured
by two items: I will enjoy working on todays topic, and Presently, I feel bored (reversed). Will-
ingness to learn was measured by: I want to know more about todays topic and I think todays top-
ic is interesting. Expectancy to succeed was measured by: I expect to master todays topic well. And
finally, increased levels of attention were reflected in: I am fully focused on todays topic and I am
not distracted by other things.
The second situational interest measure, designed to measure situational interest derived from the
previous learning task (and therefore called SI-task-engagement), consisted of three elements: (1) en-
gagement with the task, (2) effort and persistence, and (3) experience of flow or having been totally
emerged in the activity (Mitchell 1993; Schraw et al. 2001; Schraw and Lehman 2001; Krapp and
Lewalter 2001; Prenzel 1992; Csikszentmihalyi 1975). Facets of task engagement were measured by
three items: I was engaged with the topic at hand, I contributed good ideas (i.e. the quality of a
students engagement), and I contributed more than others (i.e. the quantity of a students engage-
ment). Effort and persistence were determined by two items: I put in a lot of effort and I wish we
could still continue for a while. And finally, the experience of flow was measured by I was so in-
volved that I forgot everything around me.
For both situational interest measures, the participants responded to a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (not
true at all), 2 (not true for me), 3 (neutral), 4 (true for me), and 5 (very true for me). The construct va-
lidity and reliability of the situational interest measures were established and deemed adequate.
Besides the measures of situational interest, we included measures of prior knowledge and academic
achievement to determine whether students prior knowledge influences their levels of situational in-
terest and whether being interested does indeed result in better academic achievement. Both prior
knowledge and academic achievement measure were identical and designed to measure students con-
ceptual knowledge about the topic of the problem. We also included the daily grade as a measure of
students achievement-related classroom behaviors (see Chapter 9 for more details).
Critical moments during PBL
The questionnaires were administered on seven critical occasions during the day. The prior knowledge
test as well as the first SI-present-state measure were administered before the problem was presented.
The second SI-present-state measure was administered directly after the students read the problem. The
SI-task-engagement measure and the third SI-present-state measure were then administered just before
5
students commenced with their self-study. Immediately after the allocated self-study time of approxi-
mately 2.5 hours students were asked to respond to the second SI-task-engagement measure as well as
to the fourth SI-present-state measure. All five teams then presented their findings and were given the
opportunity to elaborate on how they have dealt with the problem. After the elaboration phase, students
were asked to respond to the fifth SI-present-state measure. In addition to this, the post-test was admin-
istered to determine the extent of their learning. The tutors rated the achievement-related classroom be-
haviors for each student at the end of the day. See Figure 1 for the schedule of measurements in rela-
tion to the days activities.


Note: The numbers above the arrows are standardized regression weights ().
Fig. 5.1 Path model of the relationships between situational interest, achievement-related classroom behaviors,
prior knowledge, and academic achievement
Outcomes of Study 1
The results revealed that situational interest increased significantly after the problem was presented.
However, over the course of the day, students situational interest decreased gradually. In the path
analysis (Figure 5.1), the simplest fitting model was the one in which each measure of situational inter-
est uniquely influenced each subsequent situational interest measure. The findings also demonstrated
the significant mediating role of achievement-related classroom behaviors between situational interest
and students academic achievement. In our sample, prior knowledge was not related to situational in-
terest, but it was a significant factor in predicting student achievement at the end of the day.
Study 2: The influence of the facilitator on students situational interest
The key outcome of the first study is that the problem seems to have a major effect on triggering stu-
dents situational interest in PBL. The second study addresses the question of how this triggered inter-
est can be maintained by the facilitator. We examined whether teacher characteristicssuch as, a
teachers expertise in a subject domain, social concern for the students, and his or her ability to tune
in to the students and discuss educational materials in a way they understandhave a direct influence
on students situational interest.
With the present study we hypothesized that the three distinct PBL teacher characteristics would
contribute to increase students situational interest in the active-learning classroom. We tested the
above hypotheses by selecting facilitators that were rated either high or low on the three characteristics
obtained through a regular program evaluation questionnaire and subsequently administering measures
of situational interest during the course of a one-day PBL curriculum. An aggregated mean value for
six situational interest measures was generated and effects of the teacher characteristics on situational
interest were determined. In addition, we used path analysis to examine how much of the variance in
situational interest was explained by each of the three components of the facilitator characteristics stud-
ied and how they were interrelated.
6
In the study, 498 students participated who were enrolled under 37 facilitators in various diploma
programs at Republic Polytechnic. Data from a routine program evaluation questionnaire was used to
identify facilitators with high and low scores on the three facilitator characteristics.
Facilitator characteristics
In order to measure the facilitator characteristics a rating scale was adapted from Schmidt and Moust
(1995). This scale is one which is used on a regular basis as a program evaluation questionnaire at the
polytechnic. Three subscales were administered: (1) social congruence (Items: The facilitator showed
that he/she liked informal contact with us, I was not afraid to tell the facilitator when I did not under-
stand something, The facilitator appreciated our efforts, and The facilitator showed interest in our per-
sonal lives), (2) subject-matter expertise (Items: The facilitator used his or her content knowledge to
help us, and The facilitator has a lot of content knowledge about this module), and (3) cognitive con-
gruence (Items: The facilitator asked questions we could understand, The facilitator interrupted us sev-
eral times, which disturbed the progress of the group discussion, and The facilitator used words or jar-
gon that were difficult for me to understand). The items of the rating scales were scored on a 5-point
Likert scale: 1 (not true at all), 2 (not true for me), 3 (neutral), 4 (true for me), and 5 (very true for me).
The validity of the instrument was established elsewhere (cf. Schmidt and Moust 1995).
The setup of the study
The selection of the facilitators was based on the aggregated mean value of all three facilitator charac-
teristics and scores above the mean were considered high, whereas scores below the mean were consid-
ered low. About a month after the program evaluation, the situational interest measure was adminis-
tered online in the classes of the identified facilitators at six critical occasions during a PBL day. Each
of the selected measurement occasionsfirst confrontation with the problem, small-group discussion
about the problem, self-directed study activities, continued discussion of the problem, and elaboration
on what was learnedrepresented critical events that were supposed to foster situational interest. The
questionnaires appeared in the students regular learning environment. The regular facilitator in class
activated a pop-up window, which appeared on each students computer screen. It took students about
30 sec. to respond to each of the six-item questionnaires. Once the data were collected, aggregated
mean values of situational interest for the day were generated.
Outcomes of Study 2
The results of the analysis revealed that students situational interest was significantly lower with fa-
cilitators who scored low on the three facilitator characteristics. See Table 5.1 for an overview.
Table 5.1 ANOVA for all Three Subscales of the Teacher Characteristics: The Factor was High/Low Social Con-
gruence, Subject-matter Expertise, and Cognitive Congruence
Subscales Mean diff SD diff F p Cohens d
Social congruence .20 .10 4.14 .04 -.33
Subject-matter expertise .23 .02 4.52 .04 -.39
Cognitive congruence .32 .10 9.20 .01 -.56
Aggregated 3 scales .32 .17 8.42 .01 -.36


Note: The numbers above the arrows are standardized regression weights (), * significant at the
5% level.
Fig. 5.2 Path model displaying the relationships between social congruence, subject-matter
expertise, cognitive congruence, and situational interest
Testing a path model (see Fig. 5.2 for an overview) revealed a rather poor fit
between the model and the data. In the model, cognitive congruence was the
strongest and only significant factor related to situational interest. The other path
coefficients were weak and did not reach statistical significance. Considering the
poor model fit, we tested an alternative model, which was based on suggestions of
some cognitive congruence researchers who have proposed that both social con-
gruence and subject-matter expertise are necessary conditions for cognitive con-
gruence to occur rather than influences on situational interest in their own right
(Grave et al. 1998). As such, these two factors may be seen as the antecedents of
cognitive congruence. Schmidt and Moust (1995) tested this assumption empiri-
cally by means of path analysis and found that expertise and social congruence
explained about 45% of the variance in cognitive congruence. In other words,
cognitive congruence, subject-matter expertise, and social congruence are not
three equal-level factors, but it seems that cognitive congruence is the result of a
teacher having both a fair amount of subject-matter knowledge and social concern
for the students.
We examined whether this was the case for our data as well. We tested a se-
cond model in which social congruence and subject-matter expertise were used as
input variables for cognitive congruence, and cognitive congruence as predictor of
situational interest (see Fig. 5.3 for an overview of the model).
8
8

Note: The numbers above the arrows are standardized regression weights (). All standardized
regression weights were significant at the 1% level.
Fig. 5.3 Path model displaying the relationships between social congruence, subject-matter
expertise, cognitive congruence, and situational interest
This model fitted the data considerably better and resulted in adequate model fit
statistics. Social congruence and subject-matter expertise explained about 60% of
the variance in cognitive congruence. In turn, cognitive congruence was a relative-
ly strong predictor of situational interest, explaining about 20% of the variance in
situational interest.
Overall, these findings suggest that when making predictions about the level of
situational interest based on facilitator characteristics, social congruence and sub-
ject-matter expertise are not directly related to situational interest but play a signif-
icant role in explaining a large portion of the variance in cognitive congruence. In
our study, subject-matter expertise showed a stronger relationship with cognitive
congruence as compared to the relationship between social congruence and cogni-
tive congruence. Cognitive congruence in turn was a relatively strong predictor of
students situational interest. As such, when considering the relationship between
facilitator characteristics and situational interest, cognitive congruence seems to be
the strongest and most significant factor to consider.
Conclusions
The objective of this chapter was to cast some light on the question of how are
students motivated in the PBL classroom. We approached the question from the
angle of situational interest and reported the findings of two recent studies. With
the first we investigated how the features of the one day, one problem learning en-
vironment influence students situational interest and task engagement. The se-
cond examined whether certain facilitator characteristics influence students situa-
tional interest. We first provide a general discussion of the studies in
chronological order and conclude this chapter by discussing the implications of
9
9
our findings for the PBL classroom in general and the one day, one problem in
particular.
The results of the first study revealed that situational interest increased signifi-
cantly after the problem was presented. However, over the course of the day, stu-
dents situational interest decreased gradually. In the path analysis, the simplest
fitting model was the one in which each measure of situational interest uniquely
influenced each subsequent situational interest measure. The findings also demon-
strated the significant mediating role of achievement-related classroom behaviors
between situational interest and students academic achievement. In our sample,
prior knowledge was not related to situational interest, but it was a significant fac-
tor in predicting student achievement at the end of the day.
Why did situational interest significantly increase once the problem was pre-
sented? A possible answer to this question is that students were confronted with a
problem describing phenomena from the real world that they did not understand,
or might not have even heard of previously. This confrontation with unknowns
that are to be known made them feel interested. The PBL literature also assumes
that the discrepancy between what people already know about the world (their pri-
or knowledge) and what still needs to be known as exemplified by the problem, is
a strong stimulus for the emergence of feelings of interest (Norman and Schmidt
1992; Schmidt 1983). It seems that the underlying mechanism responsible for
triggering situational interest is the awareness of ones own lack of knowledge,
which is responsible for igniting curiosity to find out more about the topic. Ber-
lyne (1954) referred to this process as the development of epistemic curiosity
1
,
which reflects a desire for new information that in turn motivates exploratory be-
havior and knowledge acquisition. The research in this area provides support to
our assumption by suggesting that epistemic curiosity is aroused by novel ques-
tions, ambiguous statements, and unsolved problems (e.g. Litman et al. 2005;
Litman and Jimerson 2004; Litman 2008). But, what are the precise mechanisms
that are at play here? It seems that besides the sheer pleasure associated with dis-
covering new ideas (Spielberger and Starr 1994), epistemic curiosity or situational
interest can also be aroused by a feeling of deprivation (Loewenstein 1994) that
is, a perceived knowledge gap that must be closed by exploratory and information-
seeking behaviors (Litman 2008; Litman et al. 2005). In line with this, we suggest
that the presentation of a problem that was novel and ambiguous caused a feeling
of deprivation, which resulted in increased levels of curiosity that was picked up
by our situational interest measure.
Our data however also demonstrate that once situational interest is triggered it
gradually decreases during the course of the day. This finding was counter to ex-
pectation. We expected that activities during the one day, one problem approach,
such as engaging in brainstorming about the problem, getting involved in group
discussions, searching for new information, and elaborating about possible prob-

1
In our view, the constructs epistemic curiosity and situational interest are
identical.
10
10
lem explanations would result in a sustained level of situational interest through-
out the day. This was however not the case. A possible explanation for the de-
crease in situational interest is that the same mechanisms playing a role in trigger-
ing situational interest may explain why it decreases. If one accepts that situational
interest increases in response to dealing with a new problem due to the need to
close the knowledge gap, it is tempting to see its decrease as a manifestation of the
reduction of this need. Thus, situational interest gets satisfied through the learning
activities in which students engage. It should however be noted that the decrease
of situational interest over the day was small and had just reached statistical sig-
nificance.
When it comes to the effects of prior knowledge on situational interest, our re-
sults suggest that prior knowledge does not play a significant role in predicting
students situational interest. In our sample the observed correlation was not sig-
nificant. The reason for this lack of covariance is presently unknown and some-
what worrisome because in other studies prior knowledge was demonstrated to
have an influence on interest (for a review see (Schraw and Lehman 2001).
A final issue is the relationship between situational interest and academic
achievement. A meta-analysis conducted by Schiefele et al. (1992) demonstrated
the mean of the correlation between interest and achievement to be equal to .31.
We found a very similar value, when we correlated situational interest directly
with achievement. By incorporating achievement-related classroom behaviors as a
mediator between situational interest and academic achievement, we were able to
demonstrate the existence of such indirect influence of situational interest on
achievement. In addition, the path coefficients between the variables involved
were considerably higher than the correlations found in the Schiefele et al. (1992)
study. Interest needs engagement to influence performance. It may therefore be
worthwhile to incorporate measures of observable achievement-related behaviors
into future investigations that are directed at making predictions about student
achievement based on interest measures.
The results of the second study revealed that social congruence and subject-
matter expertise are not directly related to situational interest, but are antecedent
variables of a facilitators cognitive congruence. Our findings imply that being
friendly, socially and emotionally connected with the students as well as having a
large body of knowledge about a topic is highly predictive of how cognitively
congruent a teacher is. Being cognitively congruent, that is helping students to un-
derstand the topic by providing scaffolds and structure to the topic, was a signifi-
cant factor in predicting students level of situational interest in the classroom.
The findings of this study allow for two conclusions. On the one hand, our data
suggest that facilitator characteristics and in particular the facilitators cognitive
congruence has a significant influence on students situational interest; it ex-
plained about 20% of the variance in situational interest. A second conclusion is
that if one attempts to increase students situational interest by means of control-
ling for teacher characteristics there are (at least) two options: one is to increase a
facilitators social congruence and the other one is to increase a facilitators sub-
11
11
ject-matter expertise to eventually increase cognitive congruence and thus indi-
rectly situational interest. Social congruence seems to be a rather dispositional
quality of a person, which may make it challenging to be manipulated via short-
term interventions. However subject-matter expertise seems adjustable and should
be able to be enhanced through interventions such as providing additional resource
materials or providing additional briefing sessions for facilitators who lack deeper
knowledge about the subject-matter or the problem at hand.
Projecting our findings against the larger picture of classroom practices, what
kind of general implications do our findings have? Our results suggest that the one
day, one problem PBL classroom provides an ideal ground for students to get situ-
ationally interested and engage in active learning, which leads to deeper pro-
cessing of information and eventually better performance. The key factor in PBL
to kick-start students interest seems to be the problempresenting students with
an unknown phenomenon that arouses their interest and activates their infor-
mation-seeking behavior. It is therefore essential that the problems in a PBL cur-
riculum are of high quality and fulfill their interned purpose. If the problems are of
poor quality, our results suggest that facilitators can compensate for it at least to
a certain degree but only if they have sufficient cognitive congruence.
Considering the strong similarities between PBL in general and the one day,
one problem approach (with the only real difference being the duration of self-
study time) we suggest that our findings are applicable to either context.
An interesting issue for future studies would be to investigate which specific
features of problems in PBL have a positive influence on situational interest. Re-
search findings in the text-processing literature may lead the way here. These
studies have demonstrated the importance of features such as character identifica-
tion, personal relevance, coherence, and vividness in stimulating situational inter-
est (Schraw and Lehman 2001; Schraw et al. 2001; Hidi 2001). These characteris-
tics may to a certain extent be analogously applied to the PBL problems.

Annotated Literature
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest develop-
ment. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
This paper provides a short but comprehenisve overview of the scientific defini-
tions of interest, both for individual interest and situational interest. Morover, the
authors present a theoretical model of how interest may develop from situational
interest to more stable individual interest. The model is of relevance to teachers
and researchers who are interested in increasing students individual interest in
and improving students attitudes towards a school subject.


12
12
Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. (2011). The process of problem-based
learning: What works and why. Medical Education, 45(8), 792-806.
In this paper, the authors provide a review of what works in problem-based learn-
ing and why. In the paper two hypotheses are presented: (1) the knowledge activa-
tion and elaboration hypothesis and (2) the situational interest hypothesis. The au-
thors provide new insights in how these two aspects (cognition and motivation)
are interrelated in the active-learning classroom. This paper is for teachers and re-
searches interested in the underlying psychological processes that seem to govern
problem-based learning.

Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpreta-
tion. Psychological bulletin, 116(1), 75-98.
This review paper provides a comprehensive overview of the psychological mech-
anisms that may explain situational interest. Although the paper uses the term ep-
istemic curiosity, the term is identical to situational interest. This paper makes a
significant contribution to our understanding of the psychology behind situational
interest and how it can be measured. This paper is more for researchers who
would like to engage in interest research and are in need of a theoretical frame-
work to guide their research agenda.

Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in
the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211-224.
This paper is a review paper exploring the history of situational interest and three
ways to increase situational interest in the classroom. The authors propose to in-
crease situational interest by offering meaningful choices to students, selecting
well-organized text, and providing the background knowledge needed to fully un-
derstand a topic. In addition, six specific suggestions are given that are of help for
every teacher concerned with increasing student interest in his or her classroom.
13
13
References

Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the
psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545-561.
Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist,
34(2), 87-98.
Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of
Psychology, 45(3), 180-191.
Berlyne, D. E. (1978). Curiosity and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 2(2), 97-
175.
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of
learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and
choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715-730.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
De Grave, W. S., Dolmans, D., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1999). Profiles of
effective tutors in problem-based learning: Scaffolding student learning.
Medical Education, 33(12), 901-906.
Deci, E. L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-
determination theory perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A.
Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 43-
70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation
and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational
Psychologist, 26(3&4), 325-346.
Grave, W. S. D., Dolmans, D., & Vleuten, C. P. M. (1998). Tutor intervention
profile: Reliability and validity. Medical Education, 32(3), 262-268.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning.
Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549-571.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical
considerations. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 191-
209.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest
development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning and
development. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of
interest in learning and development (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Krapp, A., & Lewalter, D. (Eds.). (2001). Development of interests and interest-
based motivational orientations: A longitudinal study in vocational
14
14
school and work settings (Motivation in learning contexts. Theoretical
advances and methodological implications). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1585-1595, doi:Doi
10.1016/J.Paid.2008.01.014.
Litman, J. A., Hutchins, T., & Russon, R. (2005). Epistemic curiosity, feeling-of-
knowing, and exploratory behaviour. Cognition & Emotion, 19(4), 559-
582.
Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling
of deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147-157.
Lockspeiser, T. M., OSullivan, P., Teherani, A., & Muller, J. (2008).
Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: The value of
social and cognitive congruence. Advances in Health Sciences Education,
13(3), 361-372.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and
reinterpretation. Psychological bulletin, 116(1), 75-98.
Long, J. F. (2003). Connecting with the content: How teacher interest affects
student interest in a core course. Ohio State University,
Long, J. F., & Murphy, P. K. (2005). Connecting through content: The
responsiveness of teacher and student interest in a core course. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association Montreal, Canada,
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the
secondary mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology,
85(3), 424-436.
Moust, J. H. C. (1993). The role of tutors in problem-based learning. Contrasts
between student- and staff-tutors., University of Limburg, Maastricht.
Norman, G. T., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-
based learning: A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9),
557-565.
Prenzel, M. (1992). The selective persistence of interest. In K. A. Renninger, S.
Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development
(pp. 71-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement:
Developmental issues raised by a case study. In A. Wigfield, & J. S.
Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 173-195).
New York, NY: Academic.
Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of
academic achievement: A meta-analysis of research. In K. A. Renninger,
S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and
development (pp. 183-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description.
Medical Education, 17(1), 11-16.
15
15
Schmidt, H. G., Dolmans, D., Gijselaers, W. H., & Des Marchais, J. E. (1995).
Theory-guided design of a rating scale for course evaluation in problem-
based curricula. Teaching and learning in medicine, 7(1), 82-82.
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (1995). What makes a tutor effective? A
structural equations modelling approach to learning in problem-based
curricula. Academic Medicine, 70(1), 708-714.
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (2000). Factors affecting small-group tutorial
learning: A review of research. In D. H. Evensen, & C. E. Hmelo-Silver
(Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective in learning
interactions (pp. 19-52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmidt, H. G., Van der Arend, A., Moust, J. H. C., Kokx, I., & Boon, L. (1993).
Influence of tutors' subject-matter expertise on student effort and
achievement in problem-based learning. Academic Medicine, 68(10),
784-791.
Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in
the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211-224.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature
and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review,
13(1), 23-52.
Shirey, L. L. (1992). Importance, interest, and selective attention. In K. A.
Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning
and development (pp. 281-296). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Sloboda, J. A., & Davidson, J. W. (1995). The young performing musican. In I.
Deliege, & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), The origins and development of musical
competence (pp. 171-190). London: Oxford University Press.
Solomon, P., & Crowe, J. (2001). Perceptions of student peer tutors in a problem-
based learning programme. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 181-186.
Spielberger, C. D., & Starr, L. M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In
H. F. O'Neil Jr., & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation, theory and research
(pp. 221-243). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.