20151107 - The Influences on Motivation in Online Educational Environments

Running head: THE INFLUECES ON MOTIVATION 1

The Influences on Motivation in Online Educational Environments

William Harding

Grand Canyon University

November 7, 2015

THE INFLUECES ON MOTIVATION 2

The Influences on Motivation in Online Educational Environments

The accessibility of information through the internet has seeded the proliferation of

online learning and the globalization of education, but at what cost. Measuring the successful

implementation of an online educational environment should not be in dollars, but instead in the

quality of student experiences and successes that do not diminish the value of education

(Hazelkorn, 2011). With that in mind, this paper explores how the globalization of education

affects prosocial behavior, while remaining mindful of the negative consequences of creating

environments that encourage social detachment as well as the inference that prosocial behavior

(i.e., social intelligence and communication) is critical for human survival Carter’s (2013).

In online educational environments, prosocial behavior between students and instructors

can serve to motivate or demotivate a student’s pursuit of aspirational goals as well as influence

a student’s level of educational satisfaction. Moreover, as is inferred by Liu, Safin, Yang, and

Luhmann (2015), an instructor who expresses prosocial behavior (e.g., empathy, trust, and

respect) towards a student, will be able to positively influence and motivate the successes that a

student may experience. In contrast, an instructor or a student who exhibits negative social

behavior within their interactions will create a demotivating environment where student

dissatisfaction and attrition may be the result (Islam, 2013).

That said, many educational institutes are creating online environments; however,

without a full appreciation for the differences between face-to-face classroom experiences and

online settings, the results of poorly managed online experiences could be disastrous for both the

students and the institutions. According to Picciano (2002), issues that relate to how students

socially interact (i.e., with other students and instructors), are the primary reasons for student

discontent and increased dropout rates. Additionally, as is supported by Brookfield (2015),


instructors who have successfully implemented face-to-face classroom environments need to

recognize that those same methods do not necessarily translate to the creation of an effective

online environment.

This paper synthesis many relevant articles and examines the social concern of creating

and maintaining an effective online educational environment. A hypothesis is offered within the

paper that aligns with Brookfield’s (2015) theories, where behaviorism is used to promote

changes in online education programs and where it acts as an educational stabilizer while

increasing student motivation and satisfaction. Additionally, a perspective from theorists

Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan related to a hypothesized analysis of the online

educational social concerns is performed through the lens of behaviorism. Lastly, this paper

explores the limitations of the proposed behavioral solution(s) such that methods can be

implemented to realize the successful resolution of issues associated with online learning,

student motivation, and goal attainment.

Theorist Deci and Ryan Examine Online Education

From the perspective of applying the concepts associated with self-determination theory

(SDT) in maintaining an effective online educational environment while motivating students,

Ryan and Deci (2006) writings support that instructors are responsible for transforming the

learning environment. Furthermore, the effectiveness of an online educational environment is

enhanced when instructors act as change agents who stimulate a student’s positive autonomous

motivation and healthy self-regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2006).

Comparatively, Chen and Jang (2010) offer insight into the predictors of a student’s

learning outcomes as gleaned from Deci et al. (2001), where an instructor’s ability to address a

student’s need satisfaction, directly influenced self-esteem and reduced anxiety. In addition, it


was hypothesized that the application of Deci et al. (2001) SDT enabled instructors and

educational institutes to predict and identify student learning issues, positively influence student

motivation, and reduce student attrition (Chen & Jang, 2010).

All things considered, it is proposed that Ryan and Deci (2000) would advise that the

issues associated with lack of motivation within online students are the result of knowledge gaps,

where instructors and institutions are not able to recognize or identify student behaviors related

to motivation. Moreover, Ryan and Deci (2000) infers that instructors should seek methods to

improve their awareness of external influences, which can effect a student’s motivation,

specifically with respect to enhancing academic performance and encouraging student prosocial

engagement.

A Behavioral Solution for the Social Concerns of Online Education

Defining a behavioral solution for the issues associated with the globalization of

education requires an understanding of the present state of the environment and the ability to

access education/success data that is often protected or considered private. However, with

education services toping the lists of a number of countries, where those services are a chief

means of generating revenue (Hazelkorn, 2011), measuring the success of an educational

environment is essential in determining issues and ultimately developing a resolution for those

issues. Nevertheless, with the assumption that methods for assessing the issues and successes of

online learning can be realized and with attention to this paper’s hypothesis that student

motivation is a principal concern, solutions from the perspective of behavioral theories are

presented.

Understanding a student’s motivation through the lens of behaviorism is best achieved by

the application of Deci and Ryan’s (2008) SDT, where encouraging behaviors associated with


autonomous motivation and intrinsic desires, will result in students who are prosocial,

productive, and highly motivated to achieve their goals (Chen & Jang, 2010). According to

Williams and Williams (2011), five principle components combine to either positively or

negatively affect the motivation of a student. Those five components are described as student,

instructor, educational content, teaching method(s), and educational environment, where an

instructor’s awareness of those components and personal self-reflection on behavior may assist

in understanding student motivation (Williams & Williams, 2011). Correspondingly, the

following sections offer suggestions that instructors should consider in order to positively

motivate students within an online educational environment.

The Student’s Role in Motivation

As the recipient of knowledge within an educational environment, students may not

always be aware of the elements that may negatively affect their ability to understand and retain

information presented by instructors. Some of those elements that students need to consider and

resolve include a desire to achieve success, managing their time, and creating an environment

free of distractions (Williams & Williams, 2011). Educational institutes can help students

understand their role in creating an affective learning environment, by providing information

related to previous student successes, data collected from studies, and encouraging instructors to

reinforce the elements associated with goal attainment.

The Instructor’s Role in Motivation

Of the five components that combine to positively motivate students, the instructor is the

most influential. As the educational institute’s ambassador and principle figure who engages

students, the instructor’s ability represent an institute and implement methods for motivating

students is pivotal in defining student satisfaction and retention. As is discussed within the


Williams and Williams (2011) article, instructors need to clearly declare their course

expectations and align those expectations with those of the institutes they represent, where

providing interesting and engaging course work as well as remaining consistent throughout their

courses will enable students to establish a stronger rapport. Ultimately, as is proposed by Aiken

and Aditya (1997), instructors who desire to motivate their students need to treat their students

the way that they would like to be treated.

Educational Content’s Role in Motivation

Williams & Williams (2011) suggest that instructors need to engage students in the

creation of educational content, such that it is presented in an interesting manor and at an

achievable level of difficultly, which enables students to feel intellectually challenged and

establish accountability for the successful retention of presented material. In addition, instructors

need to remain cognitive of technology’s role in presenting educational content, such that content

is not overshadowed by the technology within which it is presented (Aiken & Aditya, 1997).

That point becomes increasingly evident within online educational environments, which are

principally dependent on reliable and intuitively useful technology.

Lastly, with the goal to engage, challenge, and motivate students, instructors need to

create and present content that encourages critical thinking. However, the concept of critical

thinking is not a principal goal within higher educational environments, but more a method

and/or tool for enabling students to create what Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999) describes

as a cognitive presence. Unlike face-to-face classrooms, successful online students establish a

social interaction with their fellow students and with instructors, where those interactions help to

strengthen a student’s prosocial behavior. Accordingly, as instructors present content, they need

to recognize the attributes associated with a student’s prosocial behavior (i.e., social affiliation,


acceptance of social risks, and ability to socially interact) and encourage the behavior (Rameson,

Morelli, & Lieberman, 2012).

Teaching Method’s Role in Motivation

The method or process by which an instructor presents content should embrace the

concept of incentivizing a student's desire to be a successful learner. Though online

environments may not be the optimal setting for incentivizing students, an instructor’s ability to

relate student successes to post educational goals (e.g., financial stability, recognition, and

professional growth), will serve to positively motivate students (Williams & Williams, 2011).

Additionally, the instructor’s ability to reorganize content such that students remain interested

and express enjoyment in the learning process reinforces the motivation to remain engaged

(Venkatesh, 1999).

Regardless, of an instructor’s ability adjust content as a means to motivate students, the

requirement that instructors clearly communicate expectations and remain consistent in the

application of those expectations during evaluation and testing, cannot be overemphasized

(Williams & Williams, 2011). An instructor’s lack of consistency, engagement, and use of

constructive versus destructive criticism will enable students to establish functional normalcy,

which according to Williams and Williams (2011) can be very motivating.

The Educational Environment’s Role in Motivation

Last of the five principle components that combine to affect the motivation of an online

student is the role that environment plays. Consequently, an educational environment in essence

encapsulates the other elements to provide students with a tool that is secure, reliable, and

accessible, while promoting prosocial interactions with fellow students and instructors (Williams

& Williams, 2011). For example, in a doctoral program where reference material is the primarily


catalyst for research and publication, a rich and intuitive environment filled with valid and easily

accessible researchable material is crucial for enabling students to become affective researchers.

Conversely an environment that is difficult to use or where there is a limited amount of research

material, will only lead to student frustrations and doubt in an institution’s credibility.

In addition to creating an online educational environment that enriches as well as

motivates an individual student, institutions need to create environments that enable a general

population of students to acquire competitive and marketable skills. Christensen and Eyring

(2011) describe the optimal educational environment to be one that is reactive and adaptive in

acquiring instructors with skills that can provide students with aptitude that is presently in

demand. Moreover, environments that enable students to work, travel, and still collaborate with

fellow students in simulated face-to-face classroom settings, will help to keep students motivated

and engaged in the learning process (Williams & Williams, 2011).

Limitations of Behavioral Interpretation and Resolutions

The discussed five principle components, which need to be considered when motivating

online students may not be practical for all educators to employ due to time restrictions, limited

resources, and lack of skill. Additionally, as is supported by Christensen and Eyring (2011),

purely online environments may not be the perfect vehicle for motivating successful students,

where it is proposed that a hybrid environment should be created, which embraces elements of

both online and face-to-face classroom experiences.

Regardless of environmental limitations, it is posited that the primary issues associated

with creating successful online learning experiences can be directly attributed to the

skill/experience and behaviors of the instructors. As Whistler (1992) proposes, instructors need

to remain objective in their teaching methods and respective of each student’s individuality.


Furthermore, a limitation of the proposed solutions for motivating students is an instructor’s lack

expertise with applicable technology, which when expressed through perceived negative feelings

and stress, results in decreased student satisfaction and increased student frustration (Whistler,

1992).

Conclusion

In an environment where students and instructors may never meet, the creation of a

simulated face-to-face classroom environment may appear to be the best solution for motivating

students in the successful attainment of their goals, but that theory is flawed. As Christensen and

Eyring (2011) pointed out, a successful online educational experience can be realized through the

creation of a hybrid environment that also promotes face-to-face student-to-student prosocial

behavior.

That said, this paper successfully identified a social concern related to motivating

students within online environments, where five principle components were discussed with

respect to methods for recognizing a student’s needs and creating a supportive educational

environment. Furthermore, limitations related to the proposed methods were discussed, which

identified the principle catalyst for student dissatisfaction and attrition to be the instructors. As

the primary interface between students and educational institutions, instructors need not simply

possess an advanced degree in their subject matter, but they also need to be skilled in customer

interaction as well as present themselves as the ethical and moral model of the institution they

represent. Accordingly, instructors need to be vetted by institutions where those individuals who

lack prosocial behavior or experience need to mentored and trained such that they are able to

positively influence student motivation (Liu, Safin, Yang, & Luhmann, 2015), while reducing an

institution’s financial risks that result from student dissatisfaction and attrition.


References

Aiken, R. M., & Aditya, J. N. (1997). The golden rule and the ten commandments of

teleteaching: harnessing the power of technology in education. Education and

Information Technologies, 2(1), 5-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018676106066

Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the

classroom. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/

Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-

determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 741–752.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011

Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of

higher education from the inside out. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from

http://www.ncmeresource.org/lcbp/pdf/webinar1/The%20Innovative%20University-

Changing%20the%20DNA%20of%20Higher%20Education.pdf

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001).

Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former

eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930-942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167201278002

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human

motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychological, 49, 182-185.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012801

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based

environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher

education, 2(2), 87-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6


Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: the Battle for World

Wide Excellence. Retrieved from

http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=cserbk

Islam, A. N. (2013). Investigating e-learning system usage outcomes in the university

context. Computers & Education, 69, 387-399.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.037

Liu P-P, Safin V, Yang B, Luhmann CC (2015) Direct and indirect influence of altruistic

behavior in a social network. PLoS ONE 10(10): e0140357.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140357

Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and

performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, 6(1), 21-

40. Retrieved from http://faculty.weber.edu/eamsel/research%20groups/on-

line%20learning/picciano%20(2002).pdf

Rameson, L. T., Morelli, S. A., & Lieberman, M. D. (2012). The neural correlates of empathy:

experience, automaticity, and prosocial behavior. Journal of cognitive

neuroscience, 24(1), 235-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00130

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.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: does

psychology need choice, self‐determination, and will?. Journal of personality, 74(6),

1557-1586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x


Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic

motivation. MIS quarterly, 23(2), 239-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249753

Williams, K. C., & Williams, C. C. (2011). Five key ingredients for improving student

motivation. Research in Higher Education Journal, 12(1), 1-23. Retrieved from

http://www.aabri.comwww.aabri.com/manuscripts/11834.pdf

Documents

20151107 - The Influences on Motivation in Online Educational Environments