Back

Influence of non-content instructor talk on students' motivation-related outcomes in laboratory courses

Zajic, C. J.; Dolan, E. L.

2026-05-15 scientific communication and education
10.64898/2026.05.13.724928 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) can expand undergraduates access to research and motivate students to stay in science. Yet, little research has examined how CURE instruction shapes student motivation. We leveraged a motivation-related characterization of non-content talk of 48 CURE and non-CURE instructors to predict the motivation-related outcomes of 462 students. We fit a series of multi-level models (MLM) in which we regressed students post-course scientific self-efficacy, task values, scientific identity, and science-related intentions onto instructors self-efficacy and task values-related talk, controlling for students pre-course levels. We also fit an MLM to explore whether instructors relationship-building talk (immediacy talk) was associated with students rapport with their instructor. Instructors self-efficacy talk did not affect students self-efficacy, and instructors immediacy talk had a marginally positive but non-significant association with students rapport ratings. Instructors task values talk positively influenced students scientific identity and some but not all of their task values. Instructors task values talk also positively influenced students intentions to pursue a science career, but not graduate education or research careers. Collectively, these results suggest that instructors task values talk may underpin some of the motivational effects of CURE instruction, but that task values talk need not be limited to CUREs. HIGHLIGHTWe examine whether instructor talk predicts students motivational outcomes in CURE and non-CURE lab courses. Self-efficacy talk had no effect on student self-efficacy. Task values talk positively affected students science identity and career intentions, and some value beliefs. Immediacy talk was marginally related to student-instructor rapport.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
35.2%
2
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.8%
3
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
9.0%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.3%
5
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.8%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 32%
3.8%
7
FASEB BioAdvances
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
8
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.2%
9
Ecosphere
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
10
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
11
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
12
Journal of Cellular Physiology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
13
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
14
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
15
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
46 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.8%
17
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
18
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
19
American Journal of Primatology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
20
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
21
npj Science of Learning
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.5%