Advertisement

World Wide Web

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 695–722 | Cite as

The impact of computer self-efficacy, situational interest and academic self-concept in virtual communities of inquiry during the distance learning procedures through Second Life

  • Nikolaos Pellas
  • Ioannis KazanidisEmail author
Article

Abstract

The current study investigates a case where the online learning procedure in three-dimensional (3D) technologically-advanced environments of the Web 2.0 is growing at an exponential rate. In this occasion it is highly imperative need to understand students’ interactions in this innovative mode of e-Education that requires from educators and scholars not only analysis conceptually, but also an empirically-driven optimization. The community of inquiry (CoI) model (or framework) consists to be as one of the most prominent multi-dimensional constructs that it is widely used to represent several distinct dimensions of social presence, teaching presence and cognitive presence, as a unique and fundamental theoretical concept to measure students’ interactions in contemporary electronic environments. Although, the effectiveness of these multi-dimensional constructs creates a dilemma to researchers who want the breadth and comprehensiveness of this model for the precision and clarity of users’ (instructors and students) dimensions with other motivational and learning variables. To address this dilemma, the current empirical study presents statistical analyses from the “trinity” constructs of the CoI model by utilizing correlation and hierarchical regression analyses with two fundamental motivational (computer self-efficacy and situational interest) and another one learning (academic self-concept) variables. This study goes one step further and introduces the conspicuously indisputable intervention of a virtual (V)CoI and its utilization in multi-user virtual worlds, like Second Life (SL). The study findings of one hundred thirty-five (135) participants who enrolled in several online sessions unveiled that the situational interest was the only significant predictor of social presence. The computer self-efficacy was not a significant predictor of the CoI model, while on the other hand academic self-concept was a significant predictor in a revamped attempt to validate the strong relationship among constructs within it. According to the aforementioned reasons, it can be surmised that the successful combination of the VCoI in Second Life, surpassing irrefutable and inherent shortcomings to a future-driven sustainable use and growth.

Keywords

e-learning 2.0 Virtual communities of inquiry Collaboration Second Life 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ackermann, E.: Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the Difference? Conference Proceedings Constructivism: Uses and Perspectives in Education, pp. 85–94. Research Center in Education/Cahier, Geneva (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akyol, Z., Garrison, D.R.: Community of inquiry in adult online learning: collaborative-constructivist approaches. In: Kidd, T., Keengwe, J. (eds.) Adult Learning in the Digital Age: Perspectives on Online Technologies and Outcomes, pp. 52–66. Information Science Reference, Hershey (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Annand, D. Social Presence within the Community of Inquiry Framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 12(5) (2011) http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/924/1855 Accessed 23 March 2012
  4. 4.
    Arbaugh, B.: Learning to learn online: a study of perceptual changes between multiple online course experiences. Int. Hig. Educ. 7, 169–182 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bandura, A.: Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1986). p. 391Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bell, D.: Learning from second life. Br. J. Ed. Tech. 40(3), 515–525 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boulos, M., Hetherington, L., Wheeler, S.: Second life: an overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Heal. Inform. Libr. J. 24(4), 233–245 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bates, R., Khasawneh, S.: Self-efficacy and college students’ perceptions and use of online learning systems. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23(1), 175–191 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bishop, A., Bruce, B., Jones, C.: Communities of inquiry and Information: collaborative learning through ICT. In: Carroll, M. (ed.) Learning in Communities: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Human Centered Information Technology, pp. 3–5. Springer, Pennsylvania (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bong, M., Clark, E.: Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educ. Psych. 34(3), 139–153 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bouffard-Bouchard, T.: Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task. J. Soc. Psych. 130, 353–363 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burgess, M., Slate, J., Rojas-LeBouef, A., LaPraire, K.: Teaching and learning in second life: using the community of inquiry (CoI) model to support online instruction with graduate students and instructional technology. Int. Hig. Educ. 13, 84–88 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Craven, G., Marsh, W., Debus, L.: Effects of internally focused feedback and attribution feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. J. Educ. Psych. 83(1), 17–27 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen, A., Darst, W., Pangrazi, P.: What constitutes situational interest? Validating a construct in psychical education. Meas. Psych. Educ. Exerc. Sc. 3(3), 157–180 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen, A., Darst, W., Pangrazi, P.: An examination of situational interest and its sources. Br. J. Educ. Psych. 71(3), 383–400 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, A., Ennis, C.: Motivational and achievement in psychical education. In: Wetntzel, K. (ed.) Wingfield, A Handbook of Motivation at School, pp. 553–574. Taylor & Francis, Abington (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Conole, G., Culner, J.: The design of cloud-works: applying social networks practice to foster the exchange of learning and teaching ideas and designs. Com. Educ. 54(3), 679–692 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Compeau, R., Higgins, A.: Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quart. 19(189–211), 192 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cordova, I., Lepper, R.: Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. J. Educ. Psych. 88, 715–730 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Di Blas, N., Garzotto, F. & Poggi, C. (2009). Web Engineering at the Frontier of the Web 2.0: Design Patterns for Online 3D Shared Spaces, World Wide Web J., 12(2), 345-379 (2012).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duncan, I., Miller, A., Jiang, S.: A taxonomy of virtual worlds usage in education. Br. J. Educ. Tech 43(6), 946–964 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dunn, R., Szapkiw, A., Holder, D. & Hodgson, D.: Of student teachers and avatars: Working towards an effective model for geographically distributed learning communities of pre-service educators using virtual worlds. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 423–427). Chesapeake, VA: AACE (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eachus, P., Cassidy, S.: Development of the Web Users Self-Efficacy Scale (WUSE). Is. Inf. Sc. Inf. Techn. 3, 199–209 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fallon, G.: Using avatars and virtual environments to learning: what do they have to offer? Br. J. Ed. Tech. 41(1), 108–122 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garrison, R., Anderson, T., Archer, W.: Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Int. Hig. Ed. 2(2–3), 87–105 (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garrison, R., Anderson, T.: E-leaning in the 21st Century: A framework for Research and Practice. Routledge/Falmer, London (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garrison, R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Fung, T.: Exploring causal relationships among cognitive, social and teaching presence: student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Int. Hig. Ed. 13(1–2), 31–36 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Garrison, R., Arbaugh, B.: Researching the community of inquiry framework: review, issues, and future directions. Int. Hig. Ed. 10(3), 157–172 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gorsky, P., Caspi, A., Blau, I.: A comparison of non-mandatory online dialogic behavior in two higher education blended environments. J. As. Lear. Net. 16(4), 55–69 (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guay, F., March, H., Bann, M.: Academic self-concept and academic achievement: developing perception on their causal ordering. J. Ed. Psyc. 95(1), 124–136 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heilman, M., Collins-Thomson, K., Callan, J., Eskenazi, M., Juffs, A., Wilson, L.: Personalization of reading passages improves vocabulary acquisition. Pers. Artif. Intel. Ed. 20(1)), 73–98 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hidi, S., Anderson, V.: Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing. In: Renninger, K.A., Hidi, S., Krapp, A. (eds.) The role of Interest in Learning and Development, pp. 215–238. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Isanejad, O., Shojaheidari, M., Raji, F., Naderi, M., Roodbari, O.: Formulation of structural model for predicts academic progress via global self- esteem, academic self- concept and self- adjustment learning. J. Am. Sc. 8(7), 547–552 (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., Stone, S.: The 2010 Horizon Report. The New Media Consortium, Austin (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Junco, R.: The relationship between frequency of facebook use, participation on Facebook activities and student engagement. Com. Ed. 58(11), 362–371 (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Joo, Y., Yon Kim, K., Kyung Kim, E.: Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Com. Ed. 57, 1654–1664 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kanuka, H.: An exploration into facilitating higher levels of learning in a text-based Internet learning environment using diverse instructional strategies. J. of Com.-Med. Com., 10(3) http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3 (2005) Accessed 15 October 2012
  38. 38.
    Kaplan, M., Haenlein, M.: Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus. Horiz. 53, 59–68 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Krapp, A.: Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Lear. Inst. 12, 383–409 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Krause, R., Serlin, C., Ward, E., Rony, Z., Ezenwa, O., Naab, F.: Testing mediation in nursing research: beyond Baron and Kenny. Nur. Res. J. 59, 288–294 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Linnenbrich-Garcia, C., Durik, A., Conley, A., Barron, K., Tauer, J., Karabenick, S. & Harackiewicz, J.: Measuring situational interest in academic domain. Educ. and Psych. Meas., 1-25 (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kuo, C., Walker, A. & Schroder, K.: Interaction and Other Variables as Predictors of Student Satisfaction in Online Learning Environments. In: D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 593-600). Chesapeake, VA: AACE (2010)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lave, J., Wenger, E.: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Liu, H.-J.: The relation of academic self-concept to motivation among university EFL students. Feng Chia J. Hum. Soc. Sc. 20, 207–225 (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lee, M.: How can 3D virtual worlds are used to support collaboration learning? An analysis of cases from literature. J. E-lear. know. Soc. 5(1), 149–158 (2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lowenthal, A. & Lowenthal, R.: Revisiting teaching presence: An analysis of teaching presence across discourse communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Diego, and CA. http://patricklowenthal.com/publications/aera2009.pdf. (2009) Accessed 22 May 2012
  47. 47.
    Madhavan, P., Phillips, R.: Effects of computer self-efficacy and system reliability on user interaction with decision support systems. Comp. Hum. Beh. 26(2), 199–204 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Magner, U., Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., Popescu, O., Renkl, O.: Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments. Learn. Instr. (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.002 Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mc Kerlich, R., Anderson, T.: Community of inquiry and learning in immersive virtual environments. J. As. Lear. Net. 11(4), 35–52 (2008)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    McKerlich, R., Riis, M., Anderson, T., Eastman, B.: Student perceptions of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in a virtual world. MERLOT-J. On. Learn. Teach. 7(3), 324–336 (2011)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mitchell, M.: Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. J. Educ. Psych. 85, 424–436 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Muller, D., Lee, K., Sharman, M.: Coherence interest: which is the most important in online multimedia learning? Austr. J. Educ. Tech. 24(2), 211–221 (2008)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Musial, K., Budka, M., Juszcyszzyn, K.: Creation and growth of online social network. World Wide Web J. (2012). doi: 10.1007/s11280-012-012-0177-1. Online firstzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Niemivirta, M., Tapola, A.: Self-efficacy interest and task performance with task changes mutual relationships and predictive effects. Zeis. Ped. Psych. 21(3/4), 241–250 (2007)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Palloff, R., Pratt, K.: Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pellas, N.: Towards a beneficial formalization of cyber entities’ interactions during the e-learning process in the virtual world of “second life”. In: Renna, P. (ed.) Production and Manufacturing System Management: Coordination approaches and Multi-Site Planning, pp. 242–277. Engineering Science Reference, Hershey (2012)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pellas, N., Peroutseas, E., Kazanidis, I.: Virtual communities of inquiry (VCoI) for learning basic algorithmic structures with Open Simulator & Scratch4(OS): A case study from the Secondary Education in Greece. In: Diamantaras, K., Evangelidis, G., Manolopoulos, Y., Georgiadis, C., Kefalas, P., Stamatis, D. (eds.) Balkan Conference in Informatics, BCI '13, pp. 187–194. ACM Press, Thessaloniki (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Popescu, E.: Providing collaborative learning support with social media in an integrated environment. World Wide Web J. (2012). doi: 10.1007/s11280-012-012-0177-1 Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Renninger, K.A., Hidi, S.: Student interest and achievement: developmental issues rose by a case study. In: Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S. (eds.) Development of Achievement Motivation, pp. 173–195. Academic, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Preckel, F., Brull, M.: The benefits of being a big fish in a big pond: contrast and assimilation effects on academic self-concept. Lear. Ind. Dif. 20(5), 522–531 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Reid, M., Levy, Y.: Integrating trust and computer self-efficacy with TAM: an empirical assessment of customers’ acceptance of banking information systems (BIS) in Jamaica. J. Inter. Bank. Com. 12(3), 1–18 (2008)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rodriguez, R.: The impact of academic self-concept expectation and the choice self-learning strategy on academic achievement of business students. J. Hig. Educ.l Res. Dev 28(5), 523–529 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ryan, R., Deci, E.: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: classic definition and new directions. Cont. Educ. Psych. 25, 54–67 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Schraw, G., Bruning, R., Svoboda, C.: Sources of situational interest. J. Read. Beh 27, 1–17 (1995)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schraw, G., Floweday, T., Lehman, S.: Situational interest: a review of the literature and directions for future research. Ed. Psych. Rev. 13, 211–224 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Shea, P.: A study of students’ sense of community in online learning environments. J. As. Lear. Net. 10(1), 35–44 (2006)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shea, P., Bidjerano, T.: Cognitive presence and online learner engagement: a cluster analysis of the community of inquiry framework. J. of Comp. in Hig.Ed 29, 199–217 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Shea, P., Vickers, J., Hayes, S.: Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the community of inquiry framework: a re-examination of measures and approach. The Inter. Rev. Res. Op. Dist. Lear. 11(3), 127–154 (2010)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Swan, K., Garrison, D.R., Richardson, J.: A constructivist approach to online learning: the community of inquiry framework. In: Payne, C.R. (ed.) Information Technology and constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive learning Frameworks, pp. 43–57. IGI Global, Hershey (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Traphagan, T., Chiang, Y., Chang, M., Wattanawaha, B., Lee, H., Mayrath, M., Woo, J., Yoon, H., Jee, M., Resta, P.: Cognitive, social and teaching presence in a virtual world and a text chat. Com. Ed. 55, 923–936 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Nagy, G., Marsh, W.: Within-school social comparisons: how students perceive the standing of their class predicts academic self-concept. J. Educ. Psych. 101(4), 853–866 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Vekiri, I., Chronaki, A.: Gender issues in technology use: perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Comp. Educ. 51, 1392–1404 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wang, M., Burton, S.: Second life in education: a review of publications from its launch to 2011. Br. J. Educ. Tech (2012). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01334.x Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Warburton, S.: Second Life in higher education: assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. Br. J. Ed. Tech. 40(3), 414–426 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yan, B., Yates, A.: Ranch analysis of the academic self-concept questionnaire. Inter. Ed. J. 8(2), 470–484 (2007)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    York, S., Richardson, C.: Interpersonal interaction in online learning: experienced online instructors’ perceptions of influencing factors. J. Asyn. Lear. Net. 16(4), 81–96 (2012)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    You, G., Park, J., Hwang, S., Nie, Z., Wen, J.: SocialSearch+: enriching social network with web evidences. World Wide Web J (2012). doi: 10.1007/s11280-012-0165-5. online firstGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Product and Systems, Design EngineeringUniversity of the AegeanSyrosGreece
  2. 2.Kavala Institute of TechnologyKavalaGreece

Personalised recommendations