You are here:

Investigating Students’ Perceptions of Motivating Factors of Online Class Discussions
ARTICLE

, , University of Texas at Arlington

IRRODL Volume 18, Number 5, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Full Text

Abstract

One of the goals of teacher education is to prepare our citizens to communicate in a variety of ways. In our present society, communication using digital media has become essential. Although online discussions are a common component of many online courses, engaging students in online discussions has been a challenge. This study queried 86 educators in a math/science teacher education graduate program to examine their perceptions on the factors that motivate them to participate in online discussions.The results revealed a pragmatic outlook on online education. In terms of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, the participants’ main motivation to participate in online class discussions was extrinsic (85.88%), specifically so that they could earn an acceptable participation grade. With regards to discussion grouping formats, they preferred small group discussions (81%) which could facilitate their ability to develop rapport with a small group of fellow classmates over whole class discussion (38.83%). With respect to discussion facilitation, they focused on the practical need to have the instructor to answer their questions about course assignments (67.06%) over online open discussion without a given topic (35.72%). Next, when asked about discussion question types based on Bloom’s taxonomy, their strongest preference reflected a desire for application (89.54%) questions which would facilitate their ability to use theories discussed in class in their daily work as educators. Through collaboration with twenty-first-century learners, online education can use data-driven decision making to help transform online discussion from being the least desirable component of online courses to a more relevant, instructional medium.

Citation

Lee, J. & Martin, L. (2017). Investigating Students’ Perceptions of Motivating Factors of Online Class Discussions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved July 1, 2022 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United
  2. Brooks, C.F., & Bippus, A.M. (2012). Underscoring the social nature of classrooms by examining the
  3. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
  4. Díaz, S.R., Swan, K., Ice, P., & Kupczynski, L. (2010). Student rating of the importance of survey items,
  5. Garrison, D.R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.
  6. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
  7. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
  8. Hall, R.A. (2015). Critical thinking in online discussion boards: Transforming an anomaly. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin International Journal for Professional Educators, 81 (3), 21-43.
  9. Hammond, M. (1999). Issues associated with participation in online forums– the case of the communicative learner. Education and Information Technologies, 4(4), 353-367.
  10. Hartnett, M. (2016). Motivation in online education. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media.
  11. Hew, K.F., & Cheung, W.S. (2012). Student participation in online discussions: Challenges, solutions, and future research. New York, NY: Springer.
  12. Jeong, A., & Frasier, S. (2008). How day of posting affects growth patterns in asynchronous discussion
  13. Lee, J. (2014). An exploratory study of effective online learning: Assessing satisfaction levels of graduate
  14. Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2016). Practical research: Planning and design. Boston, MA: Pearson.
  15. Mandigo, J.L., & Holt, N.L. (1990). Putting theory into practice: How cognitive evaluation theory can
  16. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers& Education, 49, 193-213. Doi:10.1016/J.compedu.2005.06.011
  17. Meyer, K.A. (2014). Student engagement online: What works and why. San Francisco, CA: Whiley Subscription Services.
  18. Meyer, K.A., & McNeal, L. (2011). How online faculty improve student learning productivity. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(3), 37-53.
  19. Nagel, D. (2010). The future of e-learning is more growth. Campus Technology. Retrieved from https://thejournal.com/articles/2010/03/03/the-future-of-e-learning-is-more-growth.aspx
  20. Naughton, C., Smeed, J., & Roder, J. (2011). Delimiting the prospect of openness: An examination of
  21. Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2000). Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. In T. Turner, G. Szwillus,
  22. Pena-Shaft, J.B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers& Education, 32(3), 221-238.
  23. Qui, M., Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2014). Influence of group configuration on online discourse writing. Computer& Education, 71, 289-302. Doi:10.1016/J.compedu.2013.09.010
  24. Rettig, M. (2013). Online postings of teacher education candidates completing student teaching: What do they talk about? Linking Research& Practice to Improve Learning, 57(4), 40-45.
  25. Rietveld, T. & Van Hout, R. (1993). Statistical techniques for the study of language and language behavior. Berlin– New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
  26. Romero, M., & Barberà, E. (2011). Quality of learners’ time and learning performance beyond quantitative time-on-task. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 126137.
  27. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussion. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1. Retrieved from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/article/view/37/
  28. Russell, M., Kleiman, G., Carey, R., & Douglas, J. (2009). Comparing self-paced and cohort-based online courses for teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 443-466.
  29. Tagg, A.C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 40-50. Doi:10.1080/08923649409526865
  30. Umbach, P.D., & Wawrzynski, M.R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184. Doi: 10.1 007/s 1 1 1 62004-1 598-1
  31. Winograd, D. (2000). The effects of training moderation in online asynchronous distance learning.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections