Students Motivation in Asynchronous Online Discussions with MOOC Mode

Qiang Yang^1,

¹Computer School, Yangtze University, Jingzhou, China

Cite this paper:
Qiang Yang. Students Motivation in Asynchronous Online Discussions with MOOC Mode. American Journal of Educational Research. 2014; 2(5):325-330. doi: 10.12691/education-2-5-13

Abstract

This paper investigates on MOOC, and analyzes issues in current Extension programs, addresses the attributes of MOOC for advancing Extension, and gives current MOOC programs and future directions. The findings continue to indicate that students motivation has a significant relationship with their participation in online discussion activities at time two and time three. Students perceived process, autonomy, competence, and relatedness have different levels of impact on their online discussion behavior. The motivation for participating in online discussions was self-reported three times throughout the semester. This discussion also found that students’ intrinsic motivation and their perceived value of online discussions remained at a moderate-high level over time, although the perceived value had a significant drop from the mid-point to the end of the semester.

Keywords:
MOOC technology asynchronous online discussion motivation distance learning collaborative learning

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D. T., Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M. (2009). The role of academic motivation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (6), 1195-1206.
[2]	Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14 (4), 567-589.
[3]	Jarvela, S., Jarvenoja, H., & Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47 (2), 122-135.
[4]	Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14 (4), 567-589.
[5]	Jarvela, S., Jarvenoja, H., & Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47 (2), 122-135.
[6]	Farkas, B. G. (2006). Secrets of MOOCing (2nd Ed.). Peachpit Press, .
[7]	Antino, A. R. (2008). Promoting academic motivation and self-regulation: Practical guidelines for online instructors. Tech Trends, 52 (3), 37-45.
[8]	Cheung, W. S., Hew, K. F., & Ling-Ng, C.S. (2008). Toward an understanding of why students contribute in asynchronous online discussions, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38 (1), 29-50.
[9]	Dennen, V. P., (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26 (1), 127-148.
[10]	DeTure, M. (2004). Cognitive style and self-efficacy: Predicting student success in online distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18 (1), 21-38.
[11]	Drouin, M. A. (2008). The relationship between students’ perceived sense of community and satisfaction, activement and retention in an online course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9 (3), 267-284.
[12]	Jones, A. & Issroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies: affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 44 (4), 395-408.
[13]	Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education, 29 (2), 175-185.
[14]	Liao, H. (2005). Communication technology, student learning, and diffusion of innovation. College Quarterly, 8 (2). Retrieved from http://www.senecac.on.ca/quarterly/2005-vol08-num02-spring/liao.html
[15]	Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40 (3), 237-253.
[16]	Moisey, S. D., Neu, C., Cleveland-Innes, M. (2008). Community building and computer-mediated conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 22 (2), 15-42.
[17]	Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkaraine, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 24-32). , : Erlbaum Associations.
[18]	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.
[19]	Reeve, J. (2005). Understanding Motivation and Emotion (2 nd ed.). : Publishers.
[20]	Siemens, G. (2009). Socialization as information objects. Retrieved from
[21]	Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16 (3), 131-150.
[22]	Tuckman, B. W. (2007). The effect of motivational scaffolding on the effectiveness of distance learning. Computers and Education, 49, 414-422.