CEP 901b Developing 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 selfefficacy 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 selfefficacy 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 appear after 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 selfefficacy 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 selfefficacy 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:
1. Is there a discrepancy between perceived self-efficacy of critical reasoning
abilities and actual quality of critical postings in online discussions?
2. Do self-efficacy perceptions, actual quality of critical postings, and the
discrepancy between these two factors change throughout the class?
3. Do pre-existing motivational characteristics of participants, such as goals, implicit
theories, and previous online class experience, influence these changes?
4. Do other motivational aspects (goals, implicit theories, value) change throughout
the class without interventions?
5. 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.
Measures of Actual Critical Postings (more works here)
Critical reasoning is both generic and contextual (…). Several other terms, like
critical thinking and higher-order thinking, are used in research to represent critical
reasoning. Based on the need of this research, we adapted and reorganized Henri’s (1992)
analytical model for cognitive skills, and defined that reasoning skills include four
categories: clarification, inference, judgment, and solution. Among each category, we
also distinguish between ‘surface’ and ‘in-depth’ reasoning. Table 1 presents the criteria
for this distinction We consider participants’ postings with in-depth reasoning as critical
postings, and postings with surface reasoning as surface postings.
To measure participants’ actual critical reasoning abilities, postings will firstly be
divided into statements based on their meanings as counted units of measure. Three
coders will use analytical model (Table 1) to code units independently. For each specific
unit of measure, coders will mark it in the form of [reasoning skills][surface/in-depth
reasoning]. Finally, the percentage of critical postings will be calculated by using the
following equation:
Percentage = (the number of units with in-depth reasoning / the number of all units) *100%
The number of units of measure with in-depth reasoning for each reasoning skills will be
calculated. Non-sense units of measure, such as “Hello, everyone!” will be not be
counted. Three pairs of correlational coefficients are calculated to test inter-rater
reliability of three coders.
Table 1. Analytical Model of Critical Reasoning Abilities
Reasoning
In-Depth Reasoning (+)
Surface Reasoning (-)
skills
Clarification
Clarifying existing information (facts,
Clarification doesn’t happen if previous
(C)
ideas, notions, statements, hypotheses,
information (facts, ideas, notions,
propositions, conclusions, or
statements, hypotheses, propositions,
generalizations) by
conclusions, or generalizations) is repeated
without
 refining relevant information, and
eliminating irrelevant information;
 further triangulation, comparison,
interpretation, refinement, or linkage;
 bridging information by comparing
similarities and differences;
 bringing in more valuable new
information to make the previous
 offering new information (could be
information clearer; or
either confirming or disconfirming)
logically connected to the original
 being used as the base to making
information;
further inferences, judgments,
solutions, or strategies.
 Setting out the advantages and
Or just add some simple personal
disadvantages; or
comments.
 defining the terms, identifying
assumptions, establishing referential
criteria, and reformulating problems
on the basis of above steps
Inference
(I)
Proposing conclusions, hypotheses,
propositions, or generalization on the basis
of clarification, induction or deduction.
Judgment
(J)
Appreciating and evaluating decisions,
statements, inferences, solutions, and
strategies by offering explanation on the
basis of clarification.
Solution
(S)



Proposing solutions with justification;
Deciding on the action to be taken
with explanation; or
Interacting with concerns and perceive
the situation holistically.
Proposing conclusions, hypotheses,
propositions, or generalizations without
clarification, or logical induction or
deduction.
Appreciating and evaluating decisions,
statements, inferences, solutions, and
strategies without justification.



Proposing solutions without offering
explanations;
Offering several solutions without
suggesting which is most
appropriate; or
Perceiving the situation in a
fragmentary or short-term manner.
Give them a concrete example
Preliminary study
Participants:
At least 30 (my goal is to recruit 50) undergraduate or graduate students who are taking
web-based class with online discussions will be recruited voluntarily to complete the
inventories. Subjects need to be at least 18 years old.
Procedure:
The concept of critical reasoning abilities, although a commonly used term in
education, hasn’t been clearly defined. The research on critical reasoning abilities is beset
due to the disagreement on the scope of critical reasoning abilities (Lewis & Smith, 1993).
To avoid misconceptions among the participants in the present study, researchers will
post a short introduction of critical reasoning abilities at the beginning of the class.
The investigator will contact instructors who are teaching online classes and ask
the instructors to post a recruiting letter which is composed by the investigator to their
course website. Students who want to participate in this study will inform the investigator
through email. Upon request, the investigator will send out consent form and the
questionnaire to participants. Both consent form and the questionnaire are made with
Microsoft Word document. Participants will be asked to complete the questionnaire and
return to the investigator via email. Two weeks later, the participant will be asked to
complete the questionnaire again and return to the investigator by email. To minimize the
possibility of participants’ memorizing the previous results, the sequence of items in the
second questionnaire will be rearranged. The content of all items in both questionnaires
will be the same. Cronbach’s alpha under each subscale will be calculated by two times
and the means of these two times’ alphas are the final internal consistency value.
The correlational coefficient between the inventory results from these two times
will be used to obtain test-retest reliability. Factor analysis will also be run to test the
construct of the questionnaire.
Main study
Subjects
Procedure (need more work)
Participants will be asked to complete all the inventories at three different times: before
the class, in the middle of the class (after module 4), and at the end of the class (when it is
module 8).
A brief introduction of Critical Reasoning Abilities
(this will be put in front of the questionnaire)
This questionnaire focuses on how you perceive your own critical reasoning abilities and
evaluate the critical reasoning abilities shown in your postings, which is called critical
postings. Critical postings doesn’t mean negatively. In this study, critical posting means
postings with in-depth rather than surface reasoning. In-depth reasoning includes the
following skills:
1. Clarifying existing information by myriad ways, such as:
a. refining relevant information, and eliminating irrelevant information,
b. bridging information by comparing similarities and differences,
c. offering new information (could be either confirming or disconfirming)
logically connected to the original information,
d. setting out the advantages and disadvantages, or
e. defining the terms, identifying assumptions, establishing referential
criteria, and reformulating problems on the basis of above steps.
2. Proposing conclusions, hypotheses, propositions, or generalization on the basis of
clarification, induction or deduction.
3. Appreciating and evaluating decisions, statements, inferences, solutions, and
strategies by offering explanations on the basis of clarification.
4. Proposing solutions with justification, deciding on the action to be taken with
explanation, or interacting with concerns and perceiving the situation holistically.
Achievement Goal Inventory
(adapted from Grant & Dweck, 20031)
General
Outcome Goal Items
1.
2.
3.
It is very important to me to do well in my courses.
I really want to get good grades in my classes.
A major goal I have in my courses is to perform really well.
Ability Goal Items
4.
5.
6.
It is important to me to confirm my intelligence through my schoolwork.
In school I am focused on demonstrating my intellectual ability.
One of my important goals is to validate my intelligence through my schoolwork.
Learning Goal Items
7.
8.
9.
I strive to constantly learn and improve in my courses.
In school I am always seeking opportunities to develop new skills and acquire new knowledge.
In my classes I focus on developing my abilities and acquiring new ones.
Normative Outcome Goal Items
10. It is very important to me to do well in my courses compared to others.
11. A major goal I have in courses is to get higher grades than my classmates.
12. I try to do better in my classes than my classmates.
Normative Ability Goal Items
13. It is very important to me to confirm that I am more intelligent than other students.
14. When I take a course in school, it is very important for me to validate that I am smarter than other
students.
15. In school I am focused on demonstrating that I am smarter than other students.
Normative Learning Goal Items2
16. I strive to constantly learn and improve more in my courses than my classmates.
17. In school it is very important for me to seek more opportunities to develop new skills and acquire new
knowledge than others.
18. In my classes I focus on developing more abilities and acquiring more new ones than others.
Grant and Dweck’s (2003) research shows that the inventory they developed has satisfactory construct
validity and discriminating groups validity between normative and nonnormative forms of performance
goals among college students. This inventory also has substantially consistent test-retest reliability.
1
This type of goal was not included in Grant and Dweck’s (2003) inventory but was added in the present
research.
2
Achievement Goal Inventory
(adapted from Grant & Dweck, 2003)
Specific Goals in Critical Reasoning
Outcome Goal Items
1.
2.
3.
It is very important to me to generate critical postings in online discussions.
I really want to get positive feedback concerning the critical reasoning abilities shown in my postings.
A major goal I have in my online discussions is to generate critical postings.
Ability Goal Items
4.
5.
6.
It is important to me to confirm my critical reasoning abilities through my online discussions.
In online discussions, I am focused on demonstrating my critical reasoning abilities.
One of my important goals is to validate my intelligence on critical reasoning through my involvement
in online discussions.
Learning Goal Items (Ability increasing)
7.
8.
9.
I strive to constantly improve my critical reasoning abilities in online discussions.
In online discussions, I am always seeking opportunities to develop critical postings.
In my classes I focus on developing my critical reasoning abilities.
Normative Outcome Goal Items
10. It is very important to me to generate more critical postings in online discussions compared to others.
11. A major goal I have in courses is to get more positive feedback to my contributions in online
discussions than my classmates due to my critical postings.
12. I try to generate more critical postings or compose my postings more critically than my classmates.
Normative Ability Goal Items
13. It is important to me to confirm that I have higher critical reasoning abilities than others.
14. In this class I am focused on demonstrating that I have higher critical reasoning abilities than others.
15. When I take an online course, it is very important for me to validate that I have more intelligence on
critical reasoning than my classmates.
Normative Learning Goal Items
16. It is important to me to strive more than my classmates to constantly improve my critical reasoning
abilities in online discussions.
17. In online discussions, it is very important for me to seek more opportunities to develop critical postings
than others.
18. In online discussions, I focus on developing the abilities of thinking more critically than others.
Implicit Theories Inventory
(Adapted from Dweck, 1999)3
1.
2.
3.
4.
I have a certain amount of critical reasoning ability, and I cannot really do much to change it.
To be honest, I cannot really change my basic critical reasoning abilities very much.
I can significantly change my critical reasoning abilities.
I can change even my basic critical reasoning abilities considerably.
Perceived Self-Efficacy Inventory
Critical reasoning abilities
1.
2.
3.
I am confident of my critical reasoning abilities.
I am confident that my posts will demonstrate high quality of critical reasoning.
It is hard for me to generate high quality of critical postings to all discussion topics.
Improvement of critical reasoning abilities
4. I am sure that my critical reasoning abilities will be improved in this class.
5. I am sure that the quality of critical reasoning in my posts will be improved in this class.
6. I know my critical reasoning abilities will be improved, but may need a longer time than just
throughout this class.
Value Inventory4
Importance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
I consider it is meaningless if online discussions lack critical postings.
I believe that my classmates’ critical postings are important.
I believe the online discussion topics help me learn in this class.
I believe this class is meaningful for my career.
I consider it is important that my own postings should be critical (in-depth reasoning).
I feel very pleased when others consider my postings are critical (in-depth reasoning).
To obtain critical reasoning abilities are important to me.
I would feel very pleased if I realize that my postings are more and more critical (in-depth reasoning).
I want to improve my critical reasoning abilities very much.
I consider that the more critical (in-depth reasoning) my postings are, the more likely that they will
generate more follow-ups by others.
Personal Interest
11. If my postings do not generate follow-ups, I will loose the enthusiasm to join online discussions.
3
4
Dweck, C.S. (1999). p. 178 “Theories of Intelligence Scale – Self Form for Adults”.
Any existing inventory? Do concurrent validity rather than factor analysis, because each items are hard to
be grouped together under each sub category (importance, personal interests) but if you calculate the
combined scores for each sub category, it will give you a good picture of importance and personal interest.
But maybe factor analysis is also needed to get rid of redundant items.  ensure that one item to test one
aspect.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
I enjoy taking this class.
I enjoy the reading in this class.
The discussion topics are interesting to me.
The online discussions with peers and instructors are interesting to me.
I like to read other people’s postings.
I like my postings to be argued or even questioned by others.
If my posts were questioned by others, it will help me to think more critically.
If my posts were questioned by others, I will doubt my critical reasoning abilities.
Other Factor Inventory
How many online classes did you have before this class? ______
If you have a job, how many hours do you work per week? ________
Effort
1.
2.
3.
4.
So far, I have been putting great effort into this class to improve the critical reasoning in my postings.
I have been trying very hard to think critically in this class.
I have been working hard on critical thinking postings even when I don’t have to.
I have been working hard to demonstrate more in-depth reasoning in my postings even when I don’t
want to do that.
Other goals
5.
6.
7.
8.
I join online discussions because I want to get it done.
I join online discussions because it is required and influences my final grade.
I want to develop positive relationships with my instructors and peers through online discussions.
Is this class required to get your master’s degree? Yes No
If not, why did you register for this class? Or what did you expect to get from it?
References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned Helplessness in
Humans: Critique and Reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1),
49-74.
Anderson, C. A. & Arnoult, L. H. (1985). Attributional style and everyday problems in
living: depression, loneliness, and shyness. Social Cognition, 3(1), 16-35
Bandura, A., & Adams, N.E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral
change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287-308.
Bandura, A., Adams, N.E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125-139.
Bandura, A., Adams, N.E., Hardy, A.B., & Howells, G.N. (1980). Tests of the generality
of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4, 39-66.
Bandura, A. (Feb. 1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. Retrieved Dec. 17th, 2006, from
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NewJersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Grant, H. & Dweck, C.S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541-553.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and contnet analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.),
Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing (pp. 117-136). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Lemos, M. (1996). Students’ and teachers’ goals in the classroom. Learning and
Instruction, 6, 151-171.
Lewis, A, & Smith, D. (Summer, 1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into
Practice, 32(3), Teaching for Higher Order Thinking. 131-137.
Marra, R.M., Moore, J.L., & Klimczak, A.K. (2004). Content analysis of online
discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. ETR&D, 52(2), 23-40.
Newman, D.R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure
critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning.
Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st
Century, 3(2), 56-77.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning
Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.
Wortman, C. B., & Dintzer, L. (1978). Is an attributional Analysis of the learned
helplessness phenomenon viable? A critique of the Abramson-Seligman-Teasdale
reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 75-90.