Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 65, Issue 6, pp 1471–1493 | Cite as

Different underlying motivations and abilities predict student versus teacher persistence in an online course

  • Ross M. Higashi
  • Christian D. Schunn
  • Jesse B. Flot
Research Article

Abstract

Free online courses, including Massively Open Online Courses, have great potential to increase the inclusiveness of education, but suffer from very high course dropout rates. A study of 172 K-12 students and 114 K-12 teachers taking the same free, online, summertime programming course finds that student and teacher populations have different underlying motivational models that predict rates of persistence in the course despite having generally similar motivational levels. Student persistence is predicted by prior programming knowledge, intrinsic interest in the subject matter, and mastery approach goals. By contrast, teacher persistence is similarly predicted by intrinsic interest, but then also by self-identity as a programmer, performance approach goals, and negatively by performance avoidance goals. This sub-population discrepancy in predictive factors is novel, and may be reflective of differing environmental conditions or internal mechanisms between students and teachers. Future design of free choice learning environments can take these factors into account to increase rates of user persistence for different target user populations.

Keywords

MOOC Programming Students Teachers Motivation Persistence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Work on this project was funded by a Grant from the National Science Foundation. We also thank the operators of the online course we studied for ongoing technical support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Ross Higashi and Jesse Flot were involved in the development of the Robotics Academy curriculum used in the study. Jesse owned stock in Robomatter, Inc. at the time the data was collected, which is the worldwide commercial distributor of curriculum developed at the Robotics Academy. Christian Schunn declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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(1), 13–25.Google Scholar
  5. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education policy analysis archives, 13(42), n42.Google Scholar
  6. DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Seaton, D., & Breslow, L. (2013). Diversity in MOOC students’ backgrounds and behaviors in relationship to performance in 6.002x. In the Proceedings of the Sixth Learning International Networks Consortium Conference.Google Scholar
  7. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Dillahunt, T. R., Wang, B. Z., & Teasley, S. (2014). Democratizing higher education: Exploring MOOC use among those who cannot afford a formal education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning15(5).Google Scholar
  9. Durik, A. M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Task values and ability beliefs as predictors of high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 382–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebner, N. C., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2006). Developmental changes in personal goal orientation from young to late adulthood: from striving for gains to maintenance and prevention of losses. Psychology and Aging, 21(4), 664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational psychologist, 34(3), 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Flake, J. K., Barron, K. E., Hulleman, C., McCoach, B. D., & Welsh, M. E. (2015). Measuring cost: The forgotten component of expectancy-value theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 232–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gütl, C., Rizzardini, R. H., Chang, V., & Morales, M. (2014). Attrition in MOOC: Lessons learned from drop-out students. In Learning Technology for Education in Cloud. MOOC and Big Data (pp. 37–48). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ho, A. D., Chuang, I., Reich, J., Coleman, C., Whitehill, J., Northcutt, C., Williams, J. J., Hansen, J., Lopez, G., & Petersen, R. (2015). HarvardX and MITx: Two years of open online courses (HarvardX Working Paper No. 10). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2586847.
  21. Ho, A. D., Reich, J., Nesterko, S., Seaton, D. T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J., & Chuang, I. (2014). HarvardX and MITx: The first year of open online courses (HarvardX and MITx Working Paper No. 1).Google Scholar
  22. Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hulleman, C. S., & Senko, C. (2010). Up around the bend: Forecasts for achievement goal theory and research in 2020. In The decade ahead: Theoritical perspectives on motivation and achievement (Vol. 16, pp. 71–104). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  24. Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu, A. S., Schunn, C. D., Flot, J., & Shoop, R. (2013). The role of physicality in rich programming environments. Computer Science Education, 23(4), 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lovett, M. C., & Anderson, J. R. (1996). History of success and current context in problem solving: Combined influences on operator selection. Cognitive Psychology, 31(2), 168–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macleod, H., Haywood, J., Woodgate, A., & Alkhatnai, M. (2015). Emerging patterns in MOOCs: Learners, course designs and directions. TechTrends, 59(1), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Kashin, K., Han, Q., Reich, J., Waldo, J., Chuang I., & Ho, A. D. (2014). Education Levels Composition (HarvardX Insights).Google Scholar
  30. Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Kashin, K., Han, Q., Reich, J., Waldo, J., Chuang I., & Ho, A. D. (2014). World Map of Education Composition (HarvardX Insights).Google Scholar
  31. Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Briere, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25(4), 279–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reich, J. (2014). MOOC completion and retention in the context of student intent. EDUCAUSE Review Online.Google Scholar
  35. Senko, C. (2016). Achievement goal theory. Handbook of Motivation at School, 75.Google Scholar
  36. Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 26–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sha, L., Schunn, C. D., Bathgate, M., & Ben-Eliyahu, A. (2016). Families support their children’s success in science learning by influencing interest and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 450–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, M. (2016). Computer science for all | whitehouse.gov. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all.
  39. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. The College Board. (2016). AP computer science principles. New York, NY. Retrieved from CS Principles website: https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-computer-science-principles-course-and-examdescription.pdf
  41. Wiebe, E., Williams, L., Yang, K., & Miller, C. (2003). Computer science attitude survey. Computer Science, 14(25), 0–86.Google Scholar
  42. Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Expectancy-value theory: Retrospective and prospective. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 16, 35–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Robotics AcademyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations