Advertisement

Reexamining the impact of self-determination theory on learning outcomes in the online learning environment

  • Hui-Ching Kayla HsuEmail author
  • Cong Vivi Wang
  • Chantal Levesque-Bristol
Article
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

While various researchers have conducted work supporting the validity of self-determination theory (SDT) in the conventional learning setting, few attempts have been made to explore its application in the online learning context. In a recent study using structural equation modeling (SEM), Chen and Jang (2010) concluded that the SDT-based model was unable to predict the learning outcomes in online programs. After analyzing the model employed in their study, the researchers of the current study identified possible measurement issues and aimed to further examine the SDT-based model after modifications. More than 300 undergraduate students from seven online courses completed the SDT surveys. The results indicated that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs enhanced self-regulated motivation, which was associated with higher perceived knowledge transfer and increased achievement of course objectives in online courses. This study provides empirical evidence for the application of the SDT-based model in the online learning environment.

Keywords

Self-determination theory Motivation Online learning Higher education 

Notes

References

  1. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
  2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses: Exploring issues and solutions—A literature review. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  4. Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.Google Scholar
  5. Boton, E. C., & Gregory, S. (2015). Minimizing attrition in online degree courses. Journal of Educators Online, 12(1), 62–90.Google Scholar
  6. Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX's first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13–25.Google Scholar
  7. Brooker, A., Corrin, L., de Barba, P., Lodge, J., & Kennedy, G. (2018). A tale of two MOOCs: How student motivation and participation predict learning outcomes in different MOOCs. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 73–87.Google Scholar
  8. Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2007). Studying aggression with structural equation modeling. In D. J. Flannery, A. T. Vazsonyi, & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 727–739). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39–A41.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, K. C. (2007). Self-determination theory: Implications for motivation in online learning. In Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare and Higher Education. Norfolk, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741–752.Google Scholar
  12. Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Moon, I. S. (2012). Experimentally based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34(3), 365–396.Google Scholar
  13. Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 314–324.Google Scholar
  14. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 325–346.Google Scholar
  15. Dimitrov, D. M. (2006). Comparing groups on latent variables: A structural equation modeling approach. Work, 26(4), 429–436.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2013). Investigating the relations between motivation, tool use, participation, and performance in an e-learning course using web-videoconferencing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 285–292.Google Scholar
  17. 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(5), 890–898.Google Scholar
  18. Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 175–213.Google Scholar
  19. Gunawardena, C. N., Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., LaPointe, D. K., & Rao, L. (2010). Predictors of learner satisfaction and transfer of learning in a corporate online education program. American Journal of Distance Education, 24(4), 207–226.Google Scholar
  20. Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students' intentions to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 347–356.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19–42.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
  23. Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory's motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1175–1188.Google Scholar
  24. Johnston, M. M., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the basic needs satisfaction in general scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 280–296.Google Scholar
  25. Jordan, K. (2015). Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length and attrition. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 341–358.Google Scholar
  26. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  27. Jun, J. (2005). Understanding e-dropout? International Journal on E-Learning, 4(2), 229–240.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation and employee-supervisor discrepancies in a psychiatric vocational rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37(3), 175–188.Google Scholar
  29. Kizilcec, R. F., & Halawa, S. (2015). Attrition and achievement gaps in online learning. Paper presented at the second ACM Conference on Learning at Scale (L@S).Google Scholar
  30. Lee, Y., Choi, J., & Kim, T. (2013). Discriminating factors between completers of and dropouts from online learning courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 328–337.Google Scholar
  31. Levesque-Bristol, C., Sell, G. R., & Zimmerman, J. A. (2006). A theory-based integrative model for learning and motivation in higher education. In S. Chadwick-Blossey & D. R. Robertson (Eds.), To improve the academy (Vol. 24, pp. 86–103). Boston, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  32. Levesque-Bristol, C., Knapp, T. D., & Fisher, B. J. (2010). The effectiveness of service-learning: It's not always what you think. The Journal of Experiential Education, 33(3), 208–224.Google Scholar
  33. Levesque-Bristol, C., Bonem, E. M., Zissimopoulos, A., Nelson, D. B., Fedesco, H., Yu, S., & Wang, C. (2016a). Using self-determination theory to model the effects of student centeredness on the satisfaction of basic psychological needs, motivation and learning outcomes. In Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  34. Levesque-Bristol, C., Zissimopoulos, A., Richards, K. A. R., Wang, C., & Yu, S. (2016b). Creation and validation of the perceived knowledge transfer scale (PKTS). In Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  35. Lim, C. P. (2004). Engaging learners in online learning environments. TechTrends, 48(4), 16–23.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Milyavskaya, M., & Koestner, R. (2011). Psychological needs, motivation, and well-being: A test of self-determination theory across multiple domains. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 387–391.Google Scholar
  37. Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rochester, C. D., & Pradel, F. (2008). Students’ perceptions and satisfaction with a web-based human nutrition course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(4), 1–7.Google Scholar
  39. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.Google Scholar
  40. Sheldon, K. M., & Hilpert, J. C. (2012). The balanced measure of psychological needs (BMPN) scale: An alternative domain general measure of need satisfaction. Motivation and Emotion, 36(4), 439–451.Google Scholar
  41. Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). Students’ motivational processes and their relationship to teacher ratings in school physical education: A self-determination theory approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77, 100–110.Google Scholar
  42. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics. Needham height, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  43. Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271–360.Google Scholar
  44. Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003–1017.Google Scholar
  45. Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high-school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161–1176.Google Scholar
  46. Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Michailidou, S. (2006). Development and initial validation of a measure of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise: The basic psychological needs in exercise scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(3), 179–201.Google Scholar
  47. Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779.Google Scholar
  48. Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(6), 913–934.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tandon School of EngineeringNew York UniversityBrooklynUSA
  2. 2.Center for Instructional ExcellencePurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Center for Instructional ExcellencePurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations