A Mixed Methods Study of Graduate Students' Achievement Motivation and Perceptions of Implementing Asynchronous Online Discussions
الكلمات المفتاحية:
Mixed Methods Research, Asynchronous Online Discussions, Perceptions, Achievement Motivation, Higher Education
الملخص
This study used sequential explanatory mixed methods to examine higher education female students’ achievement motivation, and explored their perceptions towards the implementation of asynchronous online discussions in the Learning Management course for masters' students at a Western district university of Saudi Arabia. Quantitative data were collected using a one-group pretest-posttest design, and an achievement motivation's scale was administered before and after the treatment. The sample for this phase were a purposeful sample consisted of (n=10). Qualitative data were collected by a focus group discussion for (n=8) who completed the quantitative phase and volunteered to participate in this phase. Due to the small size of the study sample at the quantitative phase, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was used to identify statistically significant differences between the scores of the experimental group in the pre and post applications of the scale, and Cohen's equation (r) to measure the effect size of asynchronous online discussions on the development of students' achievement motivation. This result indicates that there is a positive effect of using asynchronous online discussions on graduated students’ achievement motivation with a high effect size, at three dimensions (Perseverance, Level of Ambition, and Perceived Efficiency) and total scale, while there was no positive effect of using asynchronous online discussions on graduated students’ achievement motivation at the (Goal Setting) dimension. The qualitative results revealed that students had positive perceptions towards asynchronous online discussions. Benefits and strategies that instructors could try to improve the online discussions' implementation arose. Finally, implications and recommendations for future studies regarding the usage of asynchronous online discussions are discussed.
المراجع
1. Alfares, N. (2021). The Effect of Problem-Based Learning on Students Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy Through Blackboard System in Higher Education. International Journal of Education and Practice, 9(1), 185-200.
2. Aljaser, A. M. (2017). Effectiveness of using flipped classroom strategy in academic achievement and self-efficacy among education students of Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University. English Language Teaching, 10(4), 67.
3. AL-Sehaem, A. I. (2022). The Effectiveness of an Educational Environment Based on Augmented Reality in Developing the Motivation for Achievement among Female Students of the University of Jeddah. مجلة الفنون والأدب وعلوم الإنسانيات والاجتماع, (79), 240-253.
4. Athman, J., & Monroe, M. C. (2004). The effects of environment-based education on students’ achievement motivation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 9(1), 9-25.
5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6. Chang, N. (2006). E-discussions as a complement to traditional instruction: did the students like online communication and why?. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27(3), 249-264.
7. Cho, M.-H. & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 123-140.
8. Cinkara, E., & Bagceci, B. (2013). Learners’ attitudes towards online language learning; and corresponding success rates. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 118-130.
9. Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141.
10. Cohen, J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
12. Fitriwati, D. G. (2018). The effect of motivation on the learning achievement. Indonesian Journal of Integrated English Language Teaching, 4(2), 198-207.
13. Fraser, W., & Killen, R. (2005). The perceptions of students and lecturers of some factors influencing academic performance at two South African universities. Perspectives in Education, 23(1), 25-40.
14. Gamon, J. (2001). Web-based learning: Relationships among student motivation, attitude, learning styles, and achievement. Journal of agricultural education, 42(4).
15. Hodges, C. B. (2005). Self-regulation in web-based courses: A review and the need for research. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(4), 375-383.
16. Hoskins, B. J. (2012). Connections, engagement and presence. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60, 51-53. doi: 10.1080/07377363.2012.650573
17. Khan, B. H. (Ed.). (1997). Web-based instruction. Educational Technology.
18. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty‐first century: what do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in higher education, 30(3), 257-274.
19. Lee, H. J., & Rha, I. (2009). Influence of structure and interaction on student achievement and satisfaction in web-based distance learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 372-382.
20. Lei, S. A., & Gupta, R. K. (2010). College distance education courses: Evaluating benefits and costs from institutional, faculty, and students’ perspectives. Education, 130(4), 616-631.
21. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
22. National Research Council. (1999). Improving student learning: A strategic plan for education research and its utilization. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23. Rafiola, R., Setyosari, P., Radjah, C., & Ramli, M. (2020). The effect of learning motivation, self-efficacy, and blended learning on students’ achievement in the industrial revolution 4.0. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(8), 71-82.
24. Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Bray, S. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 847-858. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00780.x
25. Palmer, S. (2012). Understanding the context of distance students: Differences in on- and off- campus engagement with an online learning environment. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 16(1), 70–82.
26. Pintrich, P. & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. Schunk and J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp.149-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Pittman, C. N. (2013). The impact of student motivation on participation and academic performance in distance learning (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University).
28. Popovici, A., & Mironov, C. (2015). Students’ perception on using eLearning technologies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1514-1519.
29. Ransdell, S., Borror, J., & Su, A. (2018). Users not watchers: Motivation and the use of discussion boards in online learning. FDLA Journal, 3(1), 4.
30. Revere, L., & Kovach, J. V. (2011). Online technologies for engage learning: A meaningful synthesis for educators. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 113-124.
31. Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101-109.
32. Roby, T., Ashe, S., Singh, N., & Clark, C. (2013). Shaping the online experience: How administrators can influence student and instructor perceptions through policy and practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.004
33. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Simpson, O. (2008). Motivating learners in open and distance learning: Do we need a new theory of learner support? Open Learning, 23(3), 159-170. doi:10.1080/02680510802419979
35. Sook-Hi Kang. (2012) A Study of Pre-service Teachers' Perceptions of Effective Online Discussion Strategies. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education 29:2, pages 175-194.
36. Subramanian, P., Zainuddin, N., Alatawi, S., Javabdeh, T., & Hussin, A. (2014). A study of comparison between Moodle and Blackboard based on case studies for better LMS. Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation, 6, 26-33.
37. Xie, K., Durrington, V., & Yen, L. L. (2011). Relationship between students’ motivation and their participation in asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 17-29.
38. Yu, W. F., She, H. C., & Lee, Y. M. (2010). The effects of Web‐based/non‐Web‐based problem‐solving instruction and high/low achievement on students’ problem‐solving ability and biology achievement. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(2), 187-199.
39. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2003). Albert Bandura: The scholar and his contributions to educational psychology. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 431- 457). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Aljaser, A. M. (2017). Effectiveness of using flipped classroom strategy in academic achievement and self-efficacy among education students of Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University. English Language Teaching, 10(4), 67.
3. AL-Sehaem, A. I. (2022). The Effectiveness of an Educational Environment Based on Augmented Reality in Developing the Motivation for Achievement among Female Students of the University of Jeddah. مجلة الفنون والأدب وعلوم الإنسانيات والاجتماع, (79), 240-253.
4. Athman, J., & Monroe, M. C. (2004). The effects of environment-based education on students’ achievement motivation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 9(1), 9-25.
5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6. Chang, N. (2006). E-discussions as a complement to traditional instruction: did the students like online communication and why?. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27(3), 249-264.
7. Cho, M.-H. & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 123-140.
8. Cinkara, E., & Bagceci, B. (2013). Learners’ attitudes towards online language learning; and corresponding success rates. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 118-130.
9. Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141.
10. Cohen, J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
12. Fitriwati, D. G. (2018). The effect of motivation on the learning achievement. Indonesian Journal of Integrated English Language Teaching, 4(2), 198-207.
13. Fraser, W., & Killen, R. (2005). The perceptions of students and lecturers of some factors influencing academic performance at two South African universities. Perspectives in Education, 23(1), 25-40.
14. Gamon, J. (2001). Web-based learning: Relationships among student motivation, attitude, learning styles, and achievement. Journal of agricultural education, 42(4).
15. Hodges, C. B. (2005). Self-regulation in web-based courses: A review and the need for research. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(4), 375-383.
16. Hoskins, B. J. (2012). Connections, engagement and presence. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60, 51-53. doi: 10.1080/07377363.2012.650573
17. Khan, B. H. (Ed.). (1997). Web-based instruction. Educational Technology.
18. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty‐first century: what do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in higher education, 30(3), 257-274.
19. Lee, H. J., & Rha, I. (2009). Influence of structure and interaction on student achievement and satisfaction in web-based distance learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 372-382.
20. Lei, S. A., & Gupta, R. K. (2010). College distance education courses: Evaluating benefits and costs from institutional, faculty, and students’ perspectives. Education, 130(4), 616-631.
21. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
22. National Research Council. (1999). Improving student learning: A strategic plan for education research and its utilization. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23. Rafiola, R., Setyosari, P., Radjah, C., & Ramli, M. (2020). The effect of learning motivation, self-efficacy, and blended learning on students’ achievement in the industrial revolution 4.0. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(8), 71-82.
24. Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Bray, S. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 847-858. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00780.x
25. Palmer, S. (2012). Understanding the context of distance students: Differences in on- and off- campus engagement with an online learning environment. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 16(1), 70–82.
26. Pintrich, P. & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. Schunk and J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp.149-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Pittman, C. N. (2013). The impact of student motivation on participation and academic performance in distance learning (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University).
28. Popovici, A., & Mironov, C. (2015). Students’ perception on using eLearning technologies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1514-1519.
29. Ransdell, S., Borror, J., & Su, A. (2018). Users not watchers: Motivation and the use of discussion boards in online learning. FDLA Journal, 3(1), 4.
30. Revere, L., & Kovach, J. V. (2011). Online technologies for engage learning: A meaningful synthesis for educators. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 113-124.
31. Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101-109.
32. Roby, T., Ashe, S., Singh, N., & Clark, C. (2013). Shaping the online experience: How administrators can influence student and instructor perceptions through policy and practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.004
33. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Simpson, O. (2008). Motivating learners in open and distance learning: Do we need a new theory of learner support? Open Learning, 23(3), 159-170. doi:10.1080/02680510802419979
35. Sook-Hi Kang. (2012) A Study of Pre-service Teachers' Perceptions of Effective Online Discussion Strategies. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education 29:2, pages 175-194.
36. Subramanian, P., Zainuddin, N., Alatawi, S., Javabdeh, T., & Hussin, A. (2014). A study of comparison between Moodle and Blackboard based on case studies for better LMS. Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation, 6, 26-33.
37. Xie, K., Durrington, V., & Yen, L. L. (2011). Relationship between students’ motivation and their participation in asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 17-29.
38. Yu, W. F., She, H. C., & Lee, Y. M. (2010). The effects of Web‐based/non‐Web‐based problem‐solving instruction and high/low achievement on students’ problem‐solving ability and biology achievement. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(2), 187-199.
39. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2003). Albert Bandura: The scholar and his contributions to educational psychology. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 431- 457). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
منشور
2023-02-20
كيفية الاقتباس
Dr. Rabab Mohammad Alareifi. (2023). A Mixed Methods Study of Graduate Students’ Achievement Motivation and Perceptions of Implementing Asynchronous Online Discussions. Journal of Arts, Literature, Humanities and Social Sciences, (88), 160-176. https://doi.org/10.33193/JALHSS.88.2023.795
إصدار
القسم
المقالات
