SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education / 2006 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2

Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences

Differences between online and traditional students: A study of motivational orientation, self-efficacy, and attitudes

Tara STEVENS
Pages
90–100
Publication Date
2006-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results indicated that the two groups did not differ in terms of their attitudes about and feelings of self-efficacy toward technology.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the differences in demographic characteristics, motivational orientation, self-efficacy, and attitudes about technology between students who enrolled in a course offered in the traditional setting and those enrolled in the same course online.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The two groups, each comprised of 27 students, were administered self-report measures to evaluate their levels of technological self-efficacy, attitude toward technology, and motivational orientation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results indicated that the two groups did not differ in terms of their attitudes about and feelings of self-efficacy toward technology.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Motivational Orientation · Online Learning · Self-Efficacy.

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the differences in demographic characteristics, motivational orientation, self-efficacy, and attitudes about technology between students who enrolled in a course offered in the traditional setting and those enrolled in the same course online. The two groups, each comprised of 27 students, were administered self-report measures to evaluate their levels of technological self-efficacy, attitude toward technology, and motivational orientation. Participants also reported their age, number of online courses taken, and gender. Results indicated that the two groups did not differ in terms of their attitudes about and feelings of self-efficacy toward technology. Despite many similarities in motivational orientation, online students did report higher levels of interest, curiosity, and intrinsic motivation, suggesting that students in online courses may prefer autonomy in the course design. Further research is necessary to determine whether students seek out online courses because they possess motivation or if online courses create motivation.

🔖

Cite This Article

STEVENS, T. (2006). Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2, 90–100. https://ajindex.com/articles/140742

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Amabile, T.M., Hennessey, B.A., & Grossman, B.S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for rewards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50: 14-23.
  2. Anderson, M. D., & Hornby, P. A. (1996). Computer attitudes and the use of computers in psychology courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28: 341- 346. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28: 117-148.
  3. Brophy, J. (1998).
  4. Motivating students to learn. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Cheung-Yuan, L. (2000). Student motivation in the online learning environment. Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences, 37: 367-375.
  5. Delcourt, M.A.B., & Kinzie, M.B. (1993). Computer technologies in teacher education: The measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27: 35-41.
  6. Dutton, J., Dutton, M., & Perry, J. (2002). How do online students differ from lecture students? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6. Grolnick, W.S., & Ryan, R.M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 890-898.
  7. Harter, S. (1980). A scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17: 300-312.
  8. Lepper, M. R., & Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning “Play” into “Work” and “Work” into “Play”: 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J.M. Harackiewicz (Eds.) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation the search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 257-307).
  9. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  10. Milbrath, Y. L., & Kinzie, M. B. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8: 373-396.
  11. Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24: 124-139.
  12. Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-