1. What is your study all about?
Our study focuses on improving the intrinsic motivation of
Grade 8 students in English through Choice-Based Learning
Tasks or CBLT. We observed that students were completing
tasks for compliance rather than genuine interest. To address
this, we introduced structured task choices aligned with lesson
objectives. Students were allowed to select activities based on
their preferences and strengths. We then measured their
motivation before and after the intervention. The goal was to
determine if autonomy could increase engagement and
ownership of learning.
2. Why did you choose intrinsic motivation?
We chose intrinsic motivation because it reflects genuine
interest and internal drive to learn. Many students rely on
external factors like grades or teacher approval. This limits
deep learning and long-term engagement. Intrinsic motivation
promotes curiosity, persistence, and enjoyment. It is also
linked to better academic performance. That is why we
focused on enhancing it.
3. What problem did you observe?
We observed that students were passive and task-oriented
rather than engaged. They completed activities just to comply
with requirements. This resulted in shallow understanding and
low participation. Many struggled to express ideas and analyze
texts. The classroom was mostly teacher-directed. This limited
student autonomy and motivation.
4. What is CBLT?
Choice-Based Learning Tasks is an approach where students
choose from structured task options. Each task is aligned with
the same learning objective. The difference lies in the format,
such as writing, presenting, or role-playing. This allows
students to match tasks with their interests and strengths. It
promotes autonomy while maintaining structure. It also
encourages active participation.
5. What theory supports your study?
Our study is based on Self-Determination Theory by Deci and
Ryan. This theory emphasizes autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. When these needs are met, intrinsic motivation
increases. In our study, autonomy is provided through task
choices. Competence is supported through feedback and
guidance. Relatedness is developed through interaction and
collaboration.
B. METHODOLOGY
6. What research design did you use?
We used a quantitative pretest-posttest design. This allowed us
to measure motivation before and after the intervention. It
helps determine if there is a significant change. The same
group of students participated in both tests. This ensures
consistency in results. It is appropriate for measuring
effectiveness.
7. Why pretest-posttest?
We used it to establish a baseline and measure improvement.
The pretest showed initial motivation levels. The posttest
measured changes after the intervention. This allowed direct
comparison of results. It provides clear evidence of impact.
Without it, improvement cannot be measured accurately.
8. What statistical tool did you use?
We used a paired-sample t-test. This compares the same
group’s scores before and after the intervention. It is
appropriate for pretest-posttest design. The results showed a
significant difference. The p-value was less than 0.001. This
confirms the effectiveness of the intervention.
C. IMPLEMENTATION (VERY IMPORTANT)
9. How did you implement your intervention?
The intervention lasted for five weeks and was integrated into
weekly lesson plans. We prepared task menu sheets, rubrics,
and monitoring tools. Students were oriented about how CBLT
works. In each lesson, they chose tasks aligned with the
objective. We monitored their progress and gave feedback.
After the implementation, we conducted a posttest.
10. How did you integrate it in lessons?
CBLT was embedded within the lesson, not separate. After
discussion, we presented task choices. Students selected tasks
to demonstrate understanding. These tasks replaced
traditional activities. All options were aligned with
competencies. This ensured learning objectives were still met.
11. What is a task menu sheet?
A task menu sheet lists different activity options. Each task
targets the same objective but uses different formats. Students
choose based on interest or ability. It provides structured
choices, not unlimited freedom. It supports differentiated
learning. It is the core tool of CBLT.
12. How did you ensure learning still happened?
All tasks were aligned with the same competency. We used
rubrics to maintain standards. We monitored students during
activities. Feedback guided them toward correct
understanding. We also clarified instructions. This ensured that
learning remained consistent.
13. What challenges did you encounter?
Time management was a major challenge. Some students
were confused by multiple choices. Others preferred easier
tasks. There were also concerns about honest responses in
surveys. We addressed these through guidance and clear
instructions. Over time, students adjusted well.
14. How did you handle students choosing easy tasks?
We encouraged them to try more challenging tasks gradually.
We designed tasks to all be meaningful, even if varied. We
gave feedback to push improvement. Students were guided in
making better choices. Over time, they became more
confident. Many eventually chose complex tasks.
15. How did you monitor students?
We used observation checklists during activities. We also
collected student outputs. Participation and engagement were
recorded. Feedback sessions helped assess understanding.
This provided both qualitative and quantitative data.
Monitoring ensured students stayed on track.
D. RESULTS
17. What were your findings?
Before the intervention, most students had moderate
motivation. After implementation, most reached very high
motivation. The mean score increased significantly. The
statistical test confirmed significance. This shows the
intervention was effective. It improved intrinsic motivation.
18. Why did motivation increase?
Students were given autonomy to choose tasks. This made
learning more engaging. They felt more in control of their
learning. Tasks matched their interests. This increased
participation and enjoyment. It aligns with Self-Determination
Theory.
19. What does the mean increase imply?
It shows overall improvement in motivation. Students became
more engaged and interested. It reflects stronger intrinsic
motivation. The increase confirms effectiveness of CBLT. It
indicates positive learning experience. It supports the
intervention.
E. CRITICAL QUESTIONS
20. What are your limitations?
The study involved only one class. The duration was relatively
short. External factors may have influenced results. Data relied
on self-reports. There was no control group. Despite this,
findings are still valuable.
21. How do you know it’s your intervention?
We used pretest-posttest comparison. There was a significant
increase in scores. This suggests the intervention had an
effect. However, other factors may contribute. Future studies
can include control groups. This would strengthen conclusions.
22. Can it be generalized?
Generalization is limited due to small sample size. It only
involved one section. However, findings can apply to similar
contexts. It provides useful insights for teachers. Further
research is recommended. Larger samples can confirm results.
23. What are disadvantages of CBLT?
It requires more preparation time. Some students may feel
confused. Others may choose easier tasks. It needs strong
teacher guidance. Without structure, it may not work
effectively. Balance is important.
F. PRACTICAL QUESTIONS
24. How will you apply this?
I will integrate structured choices in my lessons. I will design
aligned task menus. I will provide guidance and feedback. This
will increase engagement. It promotes learner-centered
teaching. It supports autonomy.
25. Do you recommend it?
Yes, but with proper structure. It should be aligned with
objectives. Teachers must guide students. It may not suit all
contexts equally. Adaptation is important. Overall, it is
effective.
26. Advice to teachers?
Start with simple choices. Align tasks with competencies.
Provide clear instructions and rubrics. Monitor and guide
students. Encourage meaningful choices. This will improve
motivation.