Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences

Tara Stevens

TR EN

Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences

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.

Keywords

Motivational Orientation, Online Learning, Self-Efficacy.

References

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.
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.
Brophy, J. (1998). 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.
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.
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.
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.
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). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
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.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24: 124-139.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20: 426-443.
Parish, T. S., & Necessary, J. R. (1996). An examination of cognitive dissonance and computer attitudes. Education, 116: 565-566.
Qureshi, E., Morton, L.L., & Antosz, E. (2002). An interesting profile—University students who take distance education courses show weaker motivation than on-campus students. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5.
Richards, C.N., & Ridley, D.R. (1997). Factors affecting college students’ persistence in on-line computer-managed instruction. College Student Journal, 31: 490-495.
Roblyer, M.D. (1999). Is choice important in distance learning? A study of student motives for taking Internet-based courses at the high school and community college levels. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32:157.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). When rewards compete with nature: The undermining of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. In C. Sansone & J.M. Harackiewicz (Eds.) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation the search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 13-54). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stipek, D. (1992). Motivation and instruction. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calree (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 85-113). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.
Stipek, D., Salmon, J.M., Givvin, K.B., Kazemi, E., Saxe, G., & MacGyvers, V.L. (1998). The value (and convergence) of practices suggested by motivation research and promoted by mathematics education reformers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29: 465-488. 100

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

-

Journal Section

Letter to Editor

Authors

Tara Stevens This is me

Publication Date

June 1, 2006

Submission Date

February 27, 2015

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 2006 Volume: 7 Number: 2

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA97CB94SU

APA

Stevens, T. (2006). Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 90-100. https://izlik.org/JA97CB94SU

AMA

1.Stevens T. Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences. TOJDE. 2006;7(2):90-100. https://izlik.org/JA97CB94SU

Chicago

Stevens, Tara. 2006. “Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences”. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 7 (2): 90-100. https://izlik.org/JA97CB94SU.

EndNote

Stevens T (June 1, 2006) Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 7 2 90–100.

IEEE

[1]T. Stevens, “Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences”, TOJDE, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 90–100, June 2006, [Online]. Available: https://izlik.org/JA97CB94SU

ISNAD

Stevens, Tara. “Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences”. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 7/2 (June 1, 2006): 90-100. https://izlik.org/JA97CB94SU.

JAMA

1.Stevens T. Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences. TOJDE. 2006;7:90–100.

MLA

Stevens, Tara. “Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences”. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, vol. 7, no. 2, June 2006, pp. 90-100, https://izlik.org/JA97CB94SU.

Vancouver

1.Tara Stevens. Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences. TOJDE [Internet]. 2006 Jun. 1;7(2):90-100. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA97CB94SU

Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences

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

Abstract

Running Head: Online and Traditional Student Differences

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

IZ

Cite