CEP 901bDeveloping Proposal
Spring 2007
Tianyi Zhang
Motivation in Asynchronous Text-Based Online Discussions
Abstract
goes here
Introduction
Self-efficacy refers to a belief in one’s capabilities to successfully accomplish a specific task (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy perceptions were defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p.3). People with positive self-efficacy perceptions when they enter achievement situations believe that they will accomplish the anticipated achievement tasks, whereas people who lack self-efficacy perceptions are not confident to accomplish the tasks or even convinced they cannot.
Self-efficacy perceptions are most commonly acquired from three sources: attribution, vicarious learning, and persuasion (Bandura, 1994; Brophy, 2004). People who attribute success to internal and controllable causal dimensions are more likely to generate positive self-efficacy perceptions for subsequent similar tasks. People who observe the tasks performed successfully by others whom they view as similar to themselves are also likely to boost their perceptions of self-efficacy. Persuasion from a trustworthy source to convince students that they can accomplish tasks by putting forth persistent efforts and applying appropriate strategies can also positively affect self-efficacy perceptions.
The formation of self-efficacy perceptions is dynamic and unstable. Perceived self-efficacy affects individuals’ efforts involved in accomplishing a specific task, and thus, influences their actual performance. Self-efficacy perceptions, however, do not always reflect actual capabilities accurately, albeit they are built on cognitive analyses of causality, vicarious experiences, and persuasion. There are discrepancies between self-efficacy perceptions and actual capabilities. This exploratory study attempts to trace the changes in these discrepancies in a natural online learning environment and explore the motivational characteristics which can influence these changes.
Literature Review
Attribution
The main source of self-efficacy perceptions is attribution. Attribution theory is concerned with how individuals explain events and how these interpretations relate to their expectations and emotions. Attribution theory is based on the assumption that people behave according to their beliefs, and causal explanation will affect the subsequent behaviors (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Weiner, 1985).
Causal attributions, such as luck, effort, and ability, are the specific explanations people generate to interpret a particular result. Beneath these explanations are causal dimensions representing the individual’s cognitive structure. Attributionists have identified four causal dimensions: locus of causality, stability, globality, and controllability. Locus of causality refers to individuals seeking to assign the outcome of an event to either personal (internal) factors or environment or other people (external) factors.Stability refers to the changeability of the cause, whether it is stable or unstable across time.Globality refers to the generality of the cause, whether it applies across situations (global) or to only specific events (specific).Controllability refers to whether or not the cause of an outcome is within the individual's control. Though these four dimensions are highly associated with each other, controllability is the fundamental dimension and exerts impact on other three (Anderson & Arnoult, 1985; Wortman & Dintzer, 1978).
Self-Theories
Dweck’s almost 30 years’ research discloses that what people believe about their intelligence will lead them to generate different goals and subsequent behavioral patterns. According to Dweck (1999), there are two traitlike views of intelligence: entity theories and incremental theories. Entity theorists consider intelligence or ability to be fixed and stable. Students with an entity theory are usually overtly concerned with looking smart and tend to set up performance goals before the task. Entity theorists are likely to doubt their intelligence or abilities if they experience setbacks, and due to the belief that their intelligence is unchangeable, they are more likely to attribute their failures to internal, stable, and generalizable causes – to believe that their failures are out of their control. Thus they are likely to produce helpless behaviors after failures.
In contrast, incremental theorists believe that their intelligence and ability could be enhanced if they put forth persistent efforts and adopt appropriate learning strategies. Compared with entity theorists, students with an incremental theory are usually concerned with how smarter they can be, and they tend to set up learning goals before the task. If incremental theorists experience obstacles, they are more likely to strive to generate efforts and coping strategies to disentangle the problems, and they believe that the intelligence is under their control. Thus failures, even though they may be attributed to (temporary) lack of information or strategy, knowledge can be conquered in the future. As a result, mastery-oriented behaviors are expected to appearafter failures.
Self-Efficacy Perceptions
The research in perceived self-efficacy discloses that people with high confidence approach difficult tasks as challenges to be conquered rather than threats to be avoided. Sustained efforts are more likely to be produced after setbacks by people with high self-efficacy perceptions. They quickly recover their sense of efficacy after failures, and attribute the failures to insufficient effort or inappropriate strategies rather than doubting their abilities. On the other hand, people who lack self-efficacy perceptions shy away from difficult tasks, which they view as threats to their abilities. Thus, they have low commitment to achievement goals, give up quickly in the face of setbacks, and are slow to recover from obstacles (Bandura, 1982, 1994).
Research also shows that self-efficacy functions as a cognitive control mechanism. The causal dimension of controllability can reduce fear, undermine the appearance of helpless behaviors, and thus increase confidence in being able to accomplish a task, which in turn enhances self-efficacy perceptions (Bandura & Adams, 1977; Bandura et al., 1977; Bandura et al., 1980; Bandura, 1982).Bandura (1994) demonstrated that it was a benefit rather than a cognitive failing for people to overestimate their capabilities. People would not set aspirations beyond their immediate reach nor mount the extra effort to surpass their performances if efficacy beliefs always reflected actual abilities.
However, the research on perceived self-efficacy neglects an important issue – whether or not traitlike motivational aspects (like implicit theories) influence the formation of self-efficacy perceptions. Entity theorists, even though they are confident of their ability, may quickly show helplessness after setbacks, whereas incremental theorists could maintain their efforts although they recognize their lack of ability. Thus, incremental theorists are not so vulnerable in the face of obstacles, nor are their self-efficacy perceptions destroyed as easily as those of entity theorists. On the other hand, Dweck asserted on the basis of her research that fulfilling a series of simple tasks can hardly help to build up self-efficacy, but may facilitate entity theory and generate performance goals, which will make learners vulnerable to obstacles.
Therefore, people with different traitlike motivational characteristics may generate different scenarios in forming self-efficacy perceptions. When confronted with setbacks, entity theorists, believing that their intelligence is uncontrollable, are likely to doubt their abilities and thus undermine their self-efficacy perceptions easily; whereas incremental theorists, believing that their intelligence can be improved, are likely to attribute consequences to controllable factors. So even though incremental theorists experience failures, their perceived self-efficacy may not be questioned as much as that of entity theorists.
The present study tests these assumptions within a specific context – critical reasoning abilities in online discussions. It is hypothesized that the participants with an entity theory may 1) show more variance both in their self-efficacy perceptions of critical reasoning abilities and in their actual critical reasoning abilities shown in their postings throughout the whole semester’s online discussions, and 2) show more fluctuations in discrepancies between their self-efficacy perceptions and their actual abilities of critical reasoning. The term “critical reasoning abilities shown in participants’ postings” is abbreviated to “critical postings” in the following discussion.
Value
Brophy (2004) described an expectancy × value model of motivation. Expectancy aspects refer to “the degree to which people expect to be able to perform the task successfully if they apply themselves” (p. 18), whereas value aspects refer to the degree to which people value the attainment of task success as well as the opportunity to engage in the processes of performing the task itself. Most research has focused on expectancy rather than value aspects. However, both expectancy and value must be sufficient for people to produce voluntary behaviors.
If the participants in the present study do not see any reason to exert efforts to generate critical postings, they may evade discussions even though they are confident of their ability to produce critical postings. Thus, the present study included the value side to ensure that comparisons between self-efficacy perceptions and participants’ actual abilities were built on the assumption that the participants value their actions.
Other variables
Self-efficacy perceptions contribute to motivation in several ways. They determine 1) the goals people set for themselves, 2) the amount of effort people will expend, 3) how long people will persevere when confronted with difficulties, and 4) their resilience to failures (Bandura, 1994). Yet these motivation aspects may affect the forming of self-efficacy perceptions as well. Additionally, self-efficacy perceptions may not be the only factor leading to the above four aspects of motivation. Existing traitlike motivational features, such as implicit theories, and attributions based on previous similar experiences will also influence these aspects and self-efficacy perceptions. Motivation includes a wide variety of factors that interact with each other, so it can be viewed as an ecological system embracing overarching connections between motivation and explicit behaviors.
Therefore, we also will investigate the interrelations within changes in motivational characteristics (goals, implicit theories, self-efficacy perceptions, and value), and identify the correlations between changes in these motivational aspects and changes in actual ability and in the efforts engaged in ability improvement.
Summary
Review of literature discloses that few studies have investigated motivational and behavioral changes in natural learning environments without any interventions. There is also a dearth in research on the impact of motivational aspects on perceived self-efficacy and actual behaviors.
On the other hand, with the development of technology and opportunities to acquire knowledge through web-based learning, online discussions are commonly used in distance education. Educators should focus on how to improve the quality of these discussions, such as by maintaining and enhancing critical postings. The current study will explore motivational impacts on the generation of critical postings.
Research Questions
The study addresses the following questions:
- Is there a discrepancy between perceived self-efficacy of critical reasoning abilities and actual quality of critical postings in online discussions?
- Do self-efficacy perceptions, actual quality of critical postings, and the discrepancy between these two factors change throughout the class?
- Do pre-existing motivational characteristicsof participants, such as goals, implicit theories, and previous online class experience, influence these changes?
- Do other motivational aspects (goals, implicit theories, value) change throughout the class without interventions?
- What are the interrelationships among motivational aspects in this natural online learning environment?
Methods
The study consists of two steps: preliminary study, and main study. The preliminary study focuses on developing inventories needed to explore the research questions, testing the validity and reliability of these inventories, and making adjustments based on the results from validity and reliability tests. The main study will investigate the research questions by using the developed and validated inventories to collect data.
Inventories
Five inventories were developed: the achievement goal inventory, implicit theories inventory, perceived self-efficacy inventory, value inventory, and other factor inventory. The first four inventories explore motivational aspects, and the last one investigates effort and other potentially influential features. Although some of the items were adopted from existing valid and reliable inventories, we added, revised, or eliminated other items as needed for the present study. So we still need to test validity and reliability of these new inventories. Detailed information about the developmental process and corresponding validity and reliability that will be tested for each inventory is displayed below:
Perceived Self-efficacy Inventory
Bandura (1986) indicated that self-efficacy was a task-specific construct associated with the performance of specific tasks and behaviors. In the present research, the specific tasks consist of participants’ current critical reasoning abilities as displayed in online postings and the potential for increasing these critical reasoning abilities. Six items (5-point Likert scales) addressing these two variables were developed (each scale consist of three items). Because the self-efficacy perception inventory did not adopt items from any existing inventory, factor analysis will be conducted to test construct validity. Two scores for each scale will be calculated by summing the results from its 3 items.
Goals
Based on Dweck’s (1999) self-theories model, people maintain two basic goals: performance goals and learning goals. However, recent research has found multiple aspects that can be extended from these two basic goals. Grant and Dweck (2003) divided performance goals into two aspects: ability goals (validating an aspect of self), and outcome goals (obtaining positive outcomes). Another dimension – normative goals (want to perform better than others) – can be added to performance goals. We suspect that the same dimensions may appear in learning goals. Thus, we elicit six scales for our goal inventory: outcome goals, ability goals, learning goals, normative outcome goals, normative ability goals, and normative learning goals. Each scale consist three items.
We also considered the need to distinguish between general goals (in this case, taking classes) and specific goals (in this case, critical reasoning abilities). We prepared goal inventories to investigate these two aspects separately.
Although the goal inventories in our study were mostly adapted from existing inventories, due to the involvement of a new subscale, we assessed construct validity using factor analysis.
Finally, Lemos (1996) elicited seven types of goals from sixth graders. We anticipate the potential influence of these types of goals on the main research, although their impact may be peripheral. We have included these goals in the Other Factor inventory, with each type of goal invested by one item. No interrelationships are expected between these items, so we will not test construct validity for this inventory.
Implicit Theories
Dweck’s (1999) “Theories of Intelligence Scale – Self Form for Adults” (p. 178), was adopted for the present study. To meet the needs of our research, we made the following changes: 1) converted the original 7-Point Likert scales into 5- Point Likert scales; 2) eliminated four redundant items; and 3) tailored general intelligence items into task-specific items (in this case, critical reasoning abilities). Although the basic construct of the original inventory was maintained, constructed validity will be tested to ensure that the changes will not contaminate the validity of the implicit theories inventory.
Value
The items of Value Inventory addressed two subscales: importance and personal interest. Some participants may be very interested in the discussion topics, while others may not. However, some of the participants who are not interested may still feel that it is important to get involved in online discussions.
Other Factor
Finally, students with previous online discussion experiences may have formed self-efficacy perceptions to some extent, so fluctuations in the discrepancies between their self-efficacy perceptions and their actual abilities may be smaller than those for students without online discussion experience. Consequently, the inventory includes an item asking about participants’ previous online discussion experience. Another four items were developed to investigate participants’ efforts to improve their critical abilities in postings. Pressures exerted on participants may influence their online discussion involvement, so another item was added to determine whether such pressures occurred during the semester. Construct validity and reliability of efforts will be calculated. Other items in this inventory were designed to collect the descriptive data, and thus, we will not calculate validity and reliability.
Reliability
Two kinds of reliability will be tested for all scales: test-retest reliability with two weeks’ interval and Cronbach’s alpha to ensure internal consistency for each subscale.