142
754

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

EFFECTS OF PROVIDING A RATIONALE FOR LEARNING A
LESSON ON STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION AND LEARNING IN
ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

presented by
TAE SEOB SHIN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Educational Psychology and
Ph.D. Educational Technology

a) . kagégs; g.

Major Professor’s Signature
"JUL“ I“I , ’10 {o
I /

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

"5—.-1-3-I-------.--n-u-a-o—.----e-c--¢—a-n‘a-u—aI—«—o—o-

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/AccR-Pres/CIRC/Dateoue.Indd

 

 

EFFECTS OF PROVIDING A RATIONALE FOR LEARNING A LESSON ON
STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION AND LEARNING IN ONLINE LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS
by

Tae Seob Shin

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Educational Psychology and Educational Technology

2010

 

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF PROVIDING A RATIONALE FOR LEARNING A
LESSON ON STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION AND LEARNING IN
ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

by
Tae Seob Shin

This study examined whether providing a rationale for learning a particular lesson
influences students’ motivation and learning in online learning environments. A mixed-
method design was used to investigate the effects of two types of rationales (former
student vs. instructor rationales) presented in an online introductory educational
psychology course. Fifty-nine participants were randomly assigned to one of the three
conditions: (1) a student rationale condition where students listened to a brief testimonial
of a former student about the value of the presented lesson (2) an instructor rationale
condition where students listened to an audio statement by the instructors about the value
of the presented lesson and (3) a control condition where students were not provided with
any rationale. The treatment was given at the beginning of six two-week modules, each of
which covered one specific topic in educational psychology.

Pre- and post-tests, which included self-report questionnaires measuring students’
perceptions about the value of the course, interest in the course, self-determination,
autonomous regulation, and their essay responses to a series of short movie clips
depicting various educational phenomena, were administered at the beginning and end of
the semester. At the end of semester, students’ grades and perceptions of learning were

also collected.

Results suggest that providing a rationale for learning had positive effects on
students’ motivation and learning and its effects were affected by the source of rationale.
In terms of motivation, students’ sense of autonomy increased over time whether they
listened to student or instructor rationales. Students who listened to instructor rationales
reported an increase in their sense of relatedness to instructors, while those who listened
to student rationales reported a decrease in their relatedness to instructors. In terms of
learning, both the quantitative and qualitative results indicate that listening to rationales
provided by former students had the most positive effect on students’ final grades and
their ability to apply major ideas covered in the course to real-life problems. Findings
suggest that student rationales can be effective in promoting students’ motivation and
learning in an online learning context.

This study adds to the existing body of literature by examining whether the source
of rationale matters in promoting students’ learning and motivation. The current study
also focuses on the learning aspects of provisions of rationales. By triangulating different
learning outcome measures, a better understanding of the effects of providing a rationale
has on students’ learning has been achieved. In addition, the design of this study
demonstrates how research grounded in theory can be conducted with strong ecological
validity when implemented in regular online courses. Unlike other studies where
inauthentic tasks were given, this project was done in a natural academic setting. Finally
the kinds of treatments that were developed for this study can easily be implemented in

teaching practices in face-to-face or online environments.

Cepyright by
Tae Seob Shin
201 0

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my dissertation committee members for their tremendous
support and wonderful guidance. I am especially grateful for Dr. W. Patrick Dickson who
was my academic advisor and dissertation committee chair. Without his constant support
it would have been extremely difficult for me to finish my doctorate successfully. I would
also like to thank Dr. Punya Mishra, Dr. Matthew Koehler, and Dr. Cary Roseth for their
unmatched support and guidance. I had the privilege of working with every one of them
on various projects which helped me grow both as a researcher and teacher. I am also
deeply indebted to the late Dr. Jere Brophy. His inspiration, dedication, care, and wisdom
will not be forgotten.

I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my friends and colleagues who
have helped me develop my dissertation research. First, I would like to thank the
wonderful teaching assistants and students of the online course for their support and
participation. Second, I would like to thank my writing group and Dr. Doug Campbell for
their helpful comments and constructive feedback on my dissertation chapters. 1 would
also like thank my fellow Korean students in the College of Education who helped me
out on various occasions.

Finally, I owe the greatest debt to my family, Mee Hye and Hoyoon. Their
patience, support, and unconditional love were my major motivation during my four
years in the program. I am also grateful for my parents, who went through the same
process thirty some years ago in Germany, for providing both financial and morale
support for me. Last, but not least, I would also like to thank my parents-in-law for

helping us out when I-onoon was born.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES viii

 

 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Statement of the Problem 1

Purpose of the Study 2
Theoretical Framework 2
Organization of Chapters 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 6
The Value of Aspects of Motivation 6
Motivational Strategies and Techniques to Foster Students’ Appreciation of Value

10

Effects of Providing Rationales on Student Motivation 13
Rationales Provided by Former Students vs. Course Instructors 15
Self-Determination in Online Learning Environments 17

Need for the Current Study 18
Research Questions/Hypotheses 19
Definitions of Terms 22
CHAPTER 3: METHODS 24
Research Design 24
Participants 25
Sample Size Justification 26

Study Context 26
Experimental Conditions 27
Procedure 30
Measures 31
CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS 37
Motivation 37
Learning 41
Discussion of Quantitative Results 42
CHAPTER 5: QUALITATIVE RESULTS 45
Overview of the Qualitative Data 45
Students’ Immediate Responses 46
Students’ Essay Responses ' 50
Discussion of Qualitative Results 53
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION 55
Limitations 56

 

 

Future Research 57

vi

 

Implications

 

APPENDICES

 

A: MOTIVATION MEASURES
B: LEARNING MEASURES
C: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
D: REFLECTION ITEMS

E: TRANSCRIPTION OF MOVIE MONTAGE

 

 

 

REFERENCES

vii

58

77
78
80
82
84
85

91

LIST OF TABLES

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Participants’ Grade Levels by Conditions 61
Table 2: Degree Requirement by Conditions 62
Table 3: Participants’ Desire to Pursue Teaching Careers 63
Table 4: Participants’ Online Learning Experiences by Conditions 64
Table 5: Initial Familiarity with the Topics 65
Table 6: Initial Interest in the Topics 66

 

Table 7: A Priori Power Analysis (N=66) Using Effect Sizes Reported in Jang (2008) ----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

67
Table 8: Six Role Models that Represent the Former Students 68
Table 9: Example of a Script of a Student Rationale (Module 2) 69
Table 10: Example of a Script of an Instructor Rationale (Module 2) 70
Table 11: Descriptive Statistics of Motivation Measures 71
Table 12: Descriptive Statistics of Learning Measures 72
Table 13: Correlations among Dependent Variables 73
Table 14: Analysis Framework: Evidence of Knowledge 75

 

 

Table 15: Descriptive Statistics of Knowledge Development 76

viii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem

Helping students appreciate the value of what they learn is one of the major
challenges teachers face. Research has shown that students who value what they learn in
their classes tend to show higher achievement scores, engagement in the class activities,
and level of interest than those who fail to appreciate the value of the content. Students
who fail to appreciate the value of school content tend to Show a significant decrease in
their motivation to engage in the school related activities. This devaluing process is a
serious concern in education as it is associated with various maladaptive behaviors such
as losing interest in the course material or being easily distracted in the class (Jang, 2008;
Legault et al., 2006; Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997). Similar effects of appreciation of
value on students’ learning and motivation can be observed across all grade levels,
domains, and disciplines (Brophy, 2004; Hidi, 1990; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).

Despite the obvious need to develop students’ appreciation for learning, many
teachers struggle to achieve this goal for various reasons. First, teachers often fail to
recognize or appreciate the value of school learning themselves (Brophy, 2004). This is
particularly true in subject-matters such as history or social studies that seem to have little
relevance to daily life. Second, even if teachers realize the value of the content, they may
not be equipped with pedagogical knowledge needed to foster students’ appreciation of
the value of school content. In a classroom where teachers are faced with large individual
differences and time constraints, it may be challenging to develop instructional strategies

that promote students’ appreciation of the value of learning (Brophy, 2008a, 2008b).

The first challenge discussed above relates to the theoretical issues that this study
aims to address. Specifically, this study provides a literature review on the value aspects
of motivation in education, explore underlying mechanisms aimed at fostering
appreciation of value, and identify a theoretical model for developing motivational
strategies for promoting value appreciation. The empirical part of this study addresses the
second challenge concerning a practical issue in instruction and curriculum development.
That is, this study examines whether providing a rationale for learning a lesson, which
can be easily incorporated into teaching, has a positive influence on students’ motivation
and learning and tests whether the source of rationale matters (i.e., rationales provided by
former students of the course vs. rationales provided by the course instructors).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine whether prOViding a rationale for learning
a particular lesson enhances students’ motivation and learning. With regard to students’
motivation, four constructs were the foci of this study: students’ perceived value of the
course, interest in the course, self-determination, and autonomous regulation. In terms of
learning, students’ final grades, perceived learning, and development of knowledge in
educational psychology were examined. An experimental design involving random
assignments to treatments was used to investigate the effects of two types of rationales
(student vs. instructor rationales).

Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded within two major theoretical frameworks: the value

aspects of motivation and self-determination theory. First, research in the value aspects of

motivation serves as an important theoretical background for this study. Brophy (2008 a)

points out that it is a teacher’s responsibility to make students not only learn the new
content taught in class but also to value it and want to learn more about it. He notes that
in order to help students appreciate the value of a lesson teachers need to be competent in
both content and pedagogical knowledge. In addition, they need to be sensitive to the
learners’ beliefs and attitudes towards the content.

Some of Brophy’s suggestions on how to foster students’ appreciation of the
value of school content include: curriculum development, lesson framing, and scaffolding
appreciation. He argues that teachers can help their students recognize and exploit the
affordances of the content by explicitly explaining the value of the course material in
ways that they can understand easily and by modeling how the big ideas and skills can be
applied to real life (Brophy, 2008a). Although his paper mainly addresses motivational
issues in K-12 settings, most of the principles he presents can be applied in post-
secondary education, particularly in introductory survey courses where students have
Opportunities to explore their potential majors.

Self-determination theory also provides a foundation of this research. The theory
suggests that students have three psychological needs that must be met in order to achieve
self-regulation, intrinsic motivation, and personal well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan
& Deci, 2000a; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). These three psychological needs are:
competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Competence refers to a feeling of
accomplishment that is derived from effective functioning. Autonomy refers to the
perception of control over one’s own actions. Finally, relatedness refers to feelings of
security and belonging in the social environment. Deci and Ryan (2000) propose that all

three psychological needs are intertwined and that the fulfillment of these needs depends

on the social environment. To briefly sum up, the central notion of self-determination
theory is that “people are inherently motivated to feel connected to others within the
setting, to function effectively in it, and to feel a sense of personal initiative while doing
so” (Brophy, 2004, p. 189).

A variety of motivational strategies have been developed to support the
psychological needs of learners. Listening to students’ opinions, providing formative
feedback to students, providing optimal levels of challenge, and offering choices about
homework are some of the strategies proven to facilitate students’ intrinsic motivation
(Brophy, 2004; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). The current study, which examines
students’ motivation and learning in the context of an online introductory educational
psychology course, focuses on how providing a rationale for learning a lesson that
emphasizes the intrinsic and utility value affects the way students appreciate the value of
learning various concepts and ideas in teaching and learning.

Organization of Chapters

Chapter 1 introduces theoretical and practical issues with regard to appreciation
of value of school content. A brief overview of the value aspects of motivation and self-
determination theory is also provided. Chapter 2 is a literature review section which
includes an introduction to various motivational theories, a critical review of previous
studies on the value aspects of motivation in education, and a summary of research
findings which highlights the need of the current study. Research questions that guided
this study are also provided in this chapter. Chapter 3 describes the research method of
this study in detail. Chapter 4 presents quantitative results of the study, particularly

focusing on the analyses of survey items. In Chapter 5, two pieces of qualitative data are

examined to see whether different patterns emerged across the two experimental
conditions. Finally, Chapter 6 is a general discussion of the study which addresses its

limitations, suggestions for future research, and theoretical and practical implications.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Motivation literature can be categorized into three broad categories depending on
the foci of the research. First, there is a body of research on expectancy aspects of
motivation. Some of the topics that are addressed within this line of research include:
expectation of success or failure and concerns about social comparisons. Another line of
research is mostly concerned with the social milieu. Researchers from this tradition are
interested in developing classroom motivational climates and goal structures that can
promote students’ motivation. Finally, there is a line of research that focuses on the
value aspects of motivation in education. Research in the value aspects of motivation
addresses value related motivational issues such as what makes school content valuable
to learn and how teachers can help their students better appreciate it (Brophy, 1999;
2008a;2008b)

The Value Aspects of Motivation

The value aspects of motivation addresses such questions as “Why should I care
about learning this?” or “What will I get out of this course?” Several different theories in
motivation specifically tap into these value aspects of motivation. Three traditional
motivation theories that address the value aspects of motivation in education include:
expectancy x value theory, interest theory, and self-determination theory (Brophy, 2004;
2008b). A brief overview of each theory will be provided in the following section.

Expectancy X Value Theory
Expectancy x value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000)

posits that the amount of effort that students are willing to put into a learning activity is

determined by the product of ( l) the degree to which they are likely to succeed in the
given task and (2) the degree to which they value the processes and products of the task.
According to expectancy x value theory, both the expectancy and value factors play an
important role in forming students’ motivation and if either one of them is not properly
addressed students are unlikely to put maximum efforts into their learning.

Eccles and Wigfield (2002) further elaborated four major components of
subjective task value that can influence students’ achievement behaviors: attainment
value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost. Attaimnent value refers to the importance of
doing well on the task in order to affirm our self-concept or fulfill our needs for
achievement, power, or prestige. Intrinsic value refers to the enjoyment that we get from
engaging in the activity or the interest we have in the content. Utility value refers to the
role that engaging in the task may play in helping us to achieve current or future goals,
such as career goals. Finally, Cost refers to negative aspects of engaging in the task, as
well as the time, effort, or other resources required to complete it successfully and the
foregone opportunities to use these resources to accomplish other goals (Eccles, et al.,
1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).

Research has shown that students perceive their tasks as an opportunity to
demonstrate of their self-schemata such as masculinity and competence in specific
domains. Wigfield and Eccles (1992) propose that tasks will have higher attainment value
to the extent that they allow the individual to confirm salient aspects of these self-
schemata. Prior research has also found that students who are engaged in tasks that they

value intrinsically tend to show positive outcomes in psychological measures such as

intentions to continue to engage in academic activities (Eccles, et al., 1983; Wigfield &
Eccles, 1992)
Interest Theory

Interest theory posits that two types of interest play different roles in initiating and
sustaining student motivation (Hidi, 1990). Individual interest refers to a stable
dispositional trait to engage with particular content or activities. Situational interest refers
to a response or reaction that is triggered by stimuli embedded in the situation. Interest
researchers have studied how each dimension of interest develops and how they are
associated with other motivational constructs and learning.

According Hidi and Renninger (2006) one’s interest develops through four phases.
First, situational interest is triggered by features of a course material or learning
environment. Then, the situation interest is maintained through various factors that
sustain the level of engagement in a given task. In the next phase, individual interest
emerges as students begin to appreciate the affordances and applications of the learning
activities and show a higher level of engagement subsequently. Finally, if students
continue to find the materials valuable and rewarding, they develop deeper and more
creative forms of engagement (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Brophy (2008b) suggests that
an emphasis should be given on fostering students’ positive attitudes toward learning a
particular lesson in the earlier phases. According to him, in later phases, “forms of
scaffolding that encourage students to take more initiative in self-regulating their own
interest development” (Brophy, 2008b, p. 7) should be provided by teachers. -

Research in interest has shown that students’ level of individual interest affects

their attention, concentration, attitude toward the content, comprehension of the text, and

performance in achievement tests (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Krapp, 2002; Renninger,

2000). Bergin (1999) identifies individual and situational factors that influence interest in

a classroom setting. Individual factors include belongingness (e. g. cultural value,

identification, and social support), emotions, competence, utility-goal relevance, and

background knowledge. Situation factors include hands-on, discrepancy, novelty, food,

social interaction, modeling, games and puzzles, content, fantasy, humor, and narrative.
Self-Determination Theory

Another motivational perspective that explores students’ subjective experience
during a task engagement is self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The theory
posits that people are intrinsically motivated when they perceive themselves to be self-
deterrnined rather than being controlled by external factors such as rewards or threats.
Early work in self-determination theory focused on investigating detrimental effects of
extrinsic motivation (e.g., use of rewards) and the desirable effects of intrinsic motivation
(Ryan & Deci 2000a, 2000b). Recently self-deterrnination theorists started to
acknowledge the need to shift their focus from the dichotomy of intrinsic versus extrinsic
motivation to more practical issues such as “how can originally extrinsically motivated
actions become self-determined through developmental processes of internalization and
integration?” (Brophy, 2008b).

Deci and Ryan (2000) identify four types of extrinsic regulation: external,
introjected, identified, and integrated regulation. External regulation is when people’s
actions are regulated by external factors such as rewards or pressures. In introjected
regulation people’s actions are driven by feelings of guilt. Identified regulation occurs

when people adopt an introjected regulation or value and perceive it as personally

important and valuable. Finally, in integrated regulation, which is most similar to
intrinsic motivation, identified values and regulations become integrated into the self.
Using this framework, researchers have begun to develop motivational strategies that can
help students shift from external or introjected regulation to identified or integrated
regulation.

According to self-determination theory, external regulations can transform into
internal regulations by going through the process of internalization. Internalization refers
to “the transformation of an externally prescribed regulation or value into an internally
adopted one” (Brophy, 2004; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Williams & Deci, 1996). It implies that
initially controlled behaviors can become autonomous and self-determined when people
assimilate external regulations and values and personally endorse them. Research has
shown that the process of internalization is associated not only with behavioral
regulations but also with values, attitudes, and other learning outcomes (Deci & Ryan,
2000; Williams & Deci, 1996). When students are autonomously engaged in school
learning, they tend to internalize and integrate the values and fully accept them as their
own values (Brophy, 2004).

Motivational Strategies and Techniques to Foster Students’ Appreciation of Value

Several motivational strategies have been developed to stimulate students’
appreciation of the value of school content. One way to stimulate appreciation is to frame
content or learning tasks in a manner that enhances their relevance to students. Some of
the content framing strategies include: linking content to students’ interests and needs,

explicitly stating how content is related to students’ prior learning, emphasizing the

10

current or future applicability of the lesson, and letting students reflect on the relevance
of the lesson (Keller, 1987).

Relevance manipulation is another strategy that can help students realize the
affordances and applications of content. For instance, Oades and Harackiewicz (2007)
manipulated the perceived utility value of learning mathematics skills by providing
explanations on how it can be useful for improving college students’ cognitive skills,
studying for other mathematics or statistics courses, and preparing for graduate school or
future careers. They also asked students to write an essay about the potential relevance of
what they learned in the class as applied to their everyday lives. The findings suggested
that the relevance manipulation strategies were effective in increasing students’ interest
in the course when they perceived themselves to be competent in mathematics (Oades &
Harackiewicz, 2007).

Jang (2008) proposes that teachers can promote students’ motivation by providing
a rationale that “(a) identifies the lesson’s otherwise hidden value, (b) helps students
understand why the lesson is genuinely worth their effort, (c) communicates why the
lesson can be expected to be useful to them, and/or ((1) helps students see or discover the
personal meaning within a lesson” (J ang, 2008, pp. 798). An effective rationale which
encompasses those components can create an opportunity in which students can
appreciate the affordances and application of the given learning task.

Brophy (2008b) also proposes three motivational principles that can scaffold

students’ appreciation for school learning. First, he acknowledges the need for
elaborating reasons for appreciating school learning. Brophy states that “the potential for

appreciating their value lies primarily in the affordances they offer to those who engage

ll

in them, particularly 1) the insights and understandings afforded by the big ideas that
anchor content networks, and 2) the information processing, problem solving, and
decision making opportunities afforded by activities designed to develop and apply those
big ideas” (Brophy, 2008b). Often students have difficulty realizing the affordances
provided by school content. Therefore, teachers need to provide careful elaborations on
the value of the lessons.

Second, Brophy (2008b) emphasizes the importance of socializing and
scaffolding appreciation of the value of school content. Socializing appreciation involves
three steps: curriculum development, lesson structuring or framing, and scaffolding
appreciation. In terms of curriculum development, teachers and policy makers have to be
careful about which content and activities to include in the curriculum. Only those worth
learning should be chosen and taught to students. Lessons structuring or framing is also
important in socializing appreciation. When teaching lessons, teachers should explain the
value and become a model on how to apply the big ideas and concepts. The other step in
enhancing appreciation is scaffolding. Teachers need to encourage students discover the
value of engaging in learning activities and provide assistances that can help them notice
and realize the affordances of the activities.

Finally, Brophy introduces the notion of a motivational zone of proximal
development. Students exhibit a wide range of levels of appreciation of the value of

school content. Some students may already be able to appreciate the value of what they
learn but others may have difficulty understanding it. There also is variability in the
affordances of content. It may be relatively easy to see the value of some content while

other content may be too abstract for students. Brophy concludes that curriculum

12

developers and teachers need to work within the motivational zone of proximal
development to insure that students have Opportunities to develop appreciations of the
value of school learning (Brophy, 2008b).

Effects of Providing Rationales on Student Motivation

Reeve, et al. (2002) investigated the effects of the provision of externally provided
rationales in an autonomy-supportive way on students’ self-determination, effort, and
interest. In their study, college students were asked to take a two-part lesson in
conversational Chinese. The experimental group watched a 90-second videotape which
contained an introductory statement about the lesson. They provided three different
reasons to try hard. For the external regulation group, they presented a forthcoming test
as a reason to study hard (e.g., “the reason we are asking you to try hard during
conversational Chinese is because we are going to give you a test on the materials to
evaluate how well you studied the information”). In the introj ected regulation group,
students were told that they had to try hard because it was what they ought to do as pre-
service teachers (e. g., “The reason we are asking you to try hard to during conversational
Chinese is because doing so is what today’s classroom teacher should do.”). In the
control condition, instead of showing a video clip, the screen simply showed a title for
each lesson.

The researchers found that the externally provided rationales communicated in an
autonomy-supportive way positively influenced students’ identification experience.
Identification was conceptualized as “the moment-to-moment experience in which the
person accepts, personally endorses, and values the effort put forth during the

uninteresting activity” (Reeve et al., 2002). Although the rationale was initiated by a

13

teacher, students perceived it as autonomy-supportive and, consequently, exerted high
level of effort. Reeve and his colleagues (2002) demonstrated that carefully
communicated rationales for learning can facilitate students’ appreciation of the value of
the content and their subsequent effort.

In a similar study, Jang (2008) reported that providing a rationale for learning
during an uninteresting activity was effective in promoting students’ engagement and
learning. In her study, undergraduate students asked to participate in an uninteresting
lesson on statistics were randomly assigned to either the experimental condition where
they received a rationale or the control condition where no rationale was provided. The
rationale was designed to enable students to perceive the uninteresting task as important
enough to put their efforts into it and help them understand the connection between this
task and their personal goals (Jang, 2008). She found that students in the rationale
condition scored higher on self-determination measures, use of interest—enhancing
strategies, behavioral engagement, and conceptual learning than their counterparts in the
control condition.

Despite the experimental nature of her study, the author acknowledged several
limitations. First, the study was not conducted in an ongoing authentic learning context.
A single 20-minute lesson on correlation may not have been the most adequate setting to
examine the effects of a rationale, due to its short period of treatment. Second, Jang used
a multiple-choice test to assess students’ factual and conceptual learning at the end of the
treatment and made an argument that students who received the rationale showed greater

conceptual learning. It was unclear, however, whether their scores on learning measures

14

improved as a result of the rationale treatment, because their pre—test scores were not
collected.
Rationales Provided by Former Students vs. Course Instructors

Prior research examining the effects of providing a rationale for learning was
mostly concerned with rationales provided by teachers or instructors (Deci & Ryan,
1994; Jang, 2008; Reeve et al., 2002). This intervention appeared reasonable given that
verbal or written explanations about the value of the lesson are commonly practiced in
the classroom. According to self-determination theory, however, the top-down approach
to providing a rationale for learning could negatively affect students’ self-determination.
For instance, students can perceive the instructor’s statement as controlling and forceful
and, as a result, their sense of autonomy can be undermined. In addition, students may
not pay attention to the instructor’s statement because they have low perceived
relatedness to the instructor or the class (Jang, 2008).

One way to scaffold students’ appreciation of value without undermining
students’ self-determination is to provide the rationale through a different channel of
communication. In particular, a rationale provided by a former student of the course can
be effective not only in supporting students’ self-determination but also in helping them
see the value of what they learn in the course. It is autonomy-supportive because the
rationale comes fiom a former student who does not impose any pressure. It also takes
into account the need of relatedness because students are likely to feel connected to a
person who shared the same learning experience with them.

Providing a rationale for learning can be considered a persuasion strategy because

the goal is to change students’ perception and attitude towards a specific activity.

15

Persuasion refers to a technique that consists of “presenting arguments and facts,
reasoning, drawing conclusions, and spelling out the positive results of a recommended
course of action” (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991, p. 127). Hovland et al. (1953) argues that
convincing a person to pursue a recommended course of action can only be accomplished
if he or she accepts the notion that adopting the message’s position will bring out
reinforcement.

Zimbardo and Leippe (1991) further elaborate six mental steps involving the
persuasion process: 1) Exposure to message, 2) attention to message, 3) comprehension
of message, 4) acceptance of its conclusion, 5) retention of new attitude, & 6) translation
of attitude to behavior. Their model suggests that a message can affect people’s belief
only if it is learned through various steps. Learning requires that people pay attention to
the message and comprehend it by understanding the beliefs it proposes. If people
perceive the message as compelling, then they would accept its conclusion and change
their attitudes accordingly (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991).

Research in persuasion theory has identified several factors that influence the
persuasion process. One factor is the message qualities which refer to the validity,
strength, and compellingness of the message. Zimbardo and Leippe (1991) argue that
“the arguments need to withstand the scrutiny of comparison with what the audience
already knows, and they need to link the recommended position to the audience’s existing
attitudes” (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991, p. 150). Another factor is the relevance of the
message. Petty et a1. (1981) found that whether the message was considered relevant to
students or not had a significant effect on whether they agreed with the argument. In

particular, they found that for high relevance subjects, the strong message was far more

16

persuasive than the weak message. Finally, the characteristics of the source of persuasion
play a critical role in convincing people to change their belief and behaviors. People are
more likely to be persuaded when they perceive the persuader to be a member of the
same community. The source may appear similar to the people who are being persuaded
and, thereby activating a schema that people with similar background tend to share
commonalities (Brock, 1965; Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953).

Self-Determination in Online Learning Environments

Recently much research has been done on learners’ motivation in online courses.
Yet there is relatively little research that explored the motivational aspects of new
learning environments from a traditional motivational perspective. Among the few, a
couple of empirical studies deserve a closer investigation. Roca and Gagne (2008)
explored how workers’ perception of autonomy support, competence, and relatedness in
regard to online learning environments affect their perception of usefulness, playfulness,
and ease of use, of which are found to be important antecedents of e-learning continuance
intention. The path analysis suggests that there is a positive relation between workers’
self-determination and their perceived usefulness and playfulness, which in turn,
positively affect behavioral intention to continue to use the e-leaming system.

Xie et al. (2006) examined how students’ self-determination affected their
engagement in an online discussion in which they participated as part of a regular face-to-
face course. In particular, they were interested in the relations among perceived
value/usefulness, interest/enjoyment, and feelings of autonomous regulation in online
discussion. They found that if students perceived the online discussion as valuable,

interesting, and enjoyable, they tended to show a high level of engagement. Another

17

interesting finding was that students’ interest in and perceived value for participating in
online discussion dropped steadily over time. Students’ responses suggested that lack of
facilitation by the instructor and lack of interaction among peers might have resulted in
the declines in motivation. Xie et al. also pointed out a possibility that students’ interest
decreased over time as the act of participating in online discussion became less novel,
eventually becoming a boring activity for them.

Need for the Current Study

In sum, the current study aimed at addressing some of the key issues that had not
been directly explored in the previous studies. First, this study investigated whether
providing a rationale for learning a lesson throughout a semester in an intact class would
show positive effects on students’ motivation and learning as shown in the previous
studies that were conducted in a controlled laboratory setting. This study, while ensuring
a strong internal validity by randomly assigning participants into different experimental
conditions, was designed to yield a strong ecological validity by providing interventions
throughout a whole semester.

Another important question that has not been answered in prior research is
whether the source of rationale matters to students’ motivation and learning. Past studies
on the provision of rationale primarily focused on the effect of instructor rationales on
students’ engagement and learning and found that it is important for teachers to provide
rationales for learning in an autonomy supportive manner. Little research, however,
explored the motivational effect of rationales provided by former students. Brophy
(2008b) argues that peOpIe who already have well developed interests in particular areas

can testify about the affordances and applications of the school content in a way that

18

novice learners can appreciate the value of what they learn. The current study examined
the effects of rationales given by former students and by faculty instructors on students’
motivation and learning.

Finally, this study was conducted in an online course where the form of learning
is quite different from that of a typical face-to-face course. One affordance of an online
learning environment is that various technologies can be incorporated into the course. In
this study, student and instructor rationales were presented in an audio format to help
students better appreciate the value of what they would learn in the new lesson. In
addition, little research has explored the motivational aspects of changes in students’ self-
deterrnination over time in this new online learning context. This study should provide
insight on whether students’ sense of competence, autonomy, and relatedness change
over time and how they were affected by the source of rationale.

Research Questions/Hypotheses
Motivation

Based on research in the value aspects of motivation and self-determination
theory, four major research questions were generated to guide this research. The first
question is whether providing a rationale for learning has an effect on students’

motivation.

Question 1: Does providing a rationale for learning a module influence students’

motivation?

Question 1.1: Does providing a rationale for learning a module influence students’

appreciation of value?

19

Question 1.2: Does providing a rationale for learning a module influence students’
interest in the course?

Question 1.3: Does providing a rationale for learning a module influence students’
self-determination?

Question 1.4: Does providing a rationale for learning a module influence students’

autonomous regulation?

The second question is whether the source of rationale affects students’

motivation.

Question 2: Do the effects of providing a rationale on students’ motivation vary by the

source of rationale presented (student vs. instructor rationale)?

To answer these questions, the analysis focuses on changes in students’
perceptions about the value of the course content, interest in the course, self-
determination, and autonomous regulation over time. These questions are particularly
important because they not only examine whether providing a rationale is an effective
instructional strategy that can promote students’ motivation but also help us determine
whether the source of rationale matters in fostering students’ appreciation of the value of
school content.

Prior research suggests that externally provided rationales facilitate students’
engagement, interest, internalization of regulations, and appreciation of value (Jang,
2008: Reeve et al., 2002; Williams & Deci, 1996). Therefore, it was hypothesized that
students in the two experimental conditions would Show higher gains in all four

motivational measures compared to the students in the control condition. As an

20

exploratory analysis, this study also examines whether the magnitude of changes in
students’ motivation over time would vary depending on the source of rationale.
Learning
The third research question is whether providing a rationale for learning
influences students’ learning as measured by their final grades and perception of learning.
The fourth question is whether the source of the rationale affects students’ learning as
Observed in their development of knowledge. The analysis focuses on group differences

in students’ final grades, perceived learning, and knowledge development over time.

Question 3: Does providing a rationale for learning a module influence students’

learning?

Question 3.1: Does providing a rationale for learning a module influence students’

grades?

Question 3.2: Does providing a rationale for learning a module influence students’

perceptions of their learning?

Question 4: Does the effect of providing a rationale on students’ learning vary by the

source of the rationale presented (former student vs. instructor rationales)?

Question 4.1: Does providing a rationale for learning a module influence changes

in students’ knowledge development?

Based on the literature on the value aspects of motivation and self-determination
theory, it was expected that students in the experimental conditions would show higher

gains in performance scores and receive better grades compared to those in the control

21

condition. As for perceived learning and knowledge development, no specific hypotheses
were generated and left as exploratory questions.
Definitions of Terms
Motivation

Value is defined as how a task meets different needs of individuals (Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000). The concept of value has two major components: intrinsic value and utility
value. Intrinsic value refers to the enjoyment a person gains from engaging in the task.
Utility value refers to how a task fits into a person’s current or future goals (Hulleman et
al., 2008; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Interest is defined as positive emotions toward
specific tasks, objects, events, or ideas (Bergin, 1999; Bianco, Higgins, & Klem, 2003).
Self-Determination is defined as the extent to which an action is freely chosen, not
controlled by internal need or external force. Three psychological needs of self-
determination are: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers to self-
determination in deciding what to do and how to do it. Competence refers to developing
and exercising skills for manipulating and controlling the environment. Relatedness
refers to affiliation with others through prosocial relationships (Brophy, 2004; Deci &
Ryan, 2000). Finally, autonomous regulation refers to the degree to which students
integrate the material being taught into their own way of thinking and behaving
(Williams & Deci, 1996).

Learning

Final Grade is operationalized as the total points an individual student receives

throughout the semester. Perceived learning is defined as “the set of beliefs and feelings

one has regarding the learning that has occurred” (Caspi & Blau, 2008). Knowledge

22

development is defined as changes in students’ knowledge about the materials covered in

the course. (Brophy, 2008a; Schraw, 2006).

23

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Research Design

A mixed-method design (Creswell, 2003; Ross & Morrison, 2004) was used in
this study. Four sections of an introductory educational psychology course were offered
online during the fall semester of 2009. Students enrolled in the course were randomly
assigned to one of three conditions: (1) student rationale condition where rationales were
provided by former students of the course, (2) instructor rationale condition where
rationales were provided by course faculty instructors, and (3) no rationale condition
where no rationales were provided externally.

Four graduate students taught the course as co-instructors under the supervision of
two faculty members. Duties of the teaching assistant include course management,
grading assignments, providing feedback, answering questions about the course materials,
and taking care of administrative matters. Two teaching assistants worked as a team and
took full responsibility of teaching two sections (e.g., Teaching assistant A & B assigned V
to sections 1 & 2).

Each team was assigned to one experimental condition (i.e., student rationale or
instructor rationale condition) and one control condition (i.e., no rationale condition) so
that any potential bias resulting from teaching assistant effects (e.g., discrepancy in
grading between team A and B) could be addressed in the study. To prevent the
confounding effect of teaching assistants additional measures were taken. First, all the
teaching assistants graded students’ work based on grading rubrics that were provided at

the beginning of the course. Second, a teaching assistant with little or'no experience in

24

teaching the course online was paired with a more experienced teaching assistant who
served as a mentor.
Participants

All participants were enrolled in an online undergraduate introductory educational
psychology course during the fall semester of 2009 at a large Midwestern university.
Among the 74 students who were enrolled in the course, sixty-four students agreed to
participate in this study at the beginning of the semester. Five of these students dropped
the course during the semester, so that the final sample size was fifty-nine. A five dollar
gift certificate was given to each participant as a monetary reward.

Demographic Information

Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 include the demographic information about participants. In
terms of the grade level, only two out of fifty-nine participants were freshmen. About
71% of the students were in their third year and beyond in the program. More than half
(31 out of 59) of the participants took the course because it was a required course for
teaching certificates and about 61% (36 out of 59) of them wanted to pursue their careers
in teaching. Finally, about 41% (24 out of 59) of the participants reported that they had
never taken an online course before.

Initial Familiarity and Interest

Students’ familiarity and interest in the topics addressed in the course were also
measured during the first week of the semester. As Tables 5 and 6 illustrate, the concepts
of social interaction and motivation were among the most familiar and interesting topics

for the participants regardless of their conditions. On the other hand, students across all

25

three conditions reported that the concepts of schemas and memory was the most
unfamiliar and uninteresting topics to learn.
Sample Size Justification

Based on the effect sizes reported in Jang’s (2008) study, a priori power analysis
was conducted prior to the recruitment. Although her experiment was conducted in a
different setting with different survey instruments, her study was used as a reference
point because it was relatively recently published and provided raw data on means and
standard deviations. The results of the power analysis suggest that an estimated sample
size of sixty-six, which was the number of students who signed up for the course when
the priori power analysis conducted, would yield adequate power for motivational
variables (see Table 7).

Study Context

The study was conducted within a semester-long, online undergraduate
introductory educational psychology course which is offered through a course
management system called Moodle. Its goal is to help students understand the
psychological and social processes and products of learning. The course deals with the
complex, multi-faceted, and contextual nature of learning that occurs throughout the life
span. During the course, students learn about various processes and contexts of learning,
major theories of learning, and connections between learning theories and learning
contexts. In short, it is an online introductory educational psychology course built on the
assumption that “psychological theories and ideas relevant to education can provide
important information for the design and improvement of teaching, learning, and

schooling (Peterson, Dickson, & Clark, 1990).

26

There are several innovative aspects that make this online course distinctive
(Mishra et al., 2009). First, the content is carefirlly designed to promote students’
engagement in grounding abstract and theoretical issues of teaching and learning in
multiple learning contexts. It not only addresses topics relevant to learning in school
contexts but also taps into learning issues in non-school settings. This is supported by
activities that ask students to explore learning in multiple contexts -— through watching
short movie clips, an interview assignment, and a book review assignment.

Second, the course uses various Internet-based resources and popular media to
help students build rich conceptual understanding of the topics being addressed. Several
multi-media formats have been incorporated into the course for both instruction and
evaluation. Examples include YouTube clips, F lash-based magic tricks, memory games
and experiments, Wikipedia, quizzes and polls. This rich range of multimedia formats
allows Students to look at the world of learning from new perspectives.

Finally, the course puts heavy emphasis on a spiral curriculum in which ideas
need to be revisited in multiple contexts if they are to be learned and assimilated by
students. For instance, in the first module, students watch short movie clips that represent
learning in various ways. Then they are asked to discuss how the clips are relevant to
learning. These clips have been carefully selected to match specific lessons that come up
later in the semester, and students revisit the clips within these specific contexts. This
spiral approach helps not only evaluate the students’ growth in conceptual understanding
but also make students self-aware about their progress and development.

Experimental Conditions

Student Rationale Condition

27

In this experimental condition students listened to an audio recording at the
beginning of the module of a former student explaining how the presented module helped
her/him in her/his career (while watching a page of text displaying the main points of her
testimonial). The testimonials were delivered by graduate students who played the role of
a former student for two major reasons. First, it had been only two years since the course
was offered online, which made it hard to find any graduates working in the field. The
other reason was that by having graduate students read the prepared scripts, the
experimenter was able to control the content of each rationale, which was designed to
emphasize both the intrinsic and utility value aspects of the module.

Based on the demographic information of the students enrolled in the previous
semester, six role models were prepared to represent the current jobs of the former
students. Since the course is offered by a teacher education program and the majority of
students either pursue or are interested in pursuing a career in teaching, five of six role
models represented teaching professions (e.g., school teachers, a coach, & a teacher
education major). The other role was depicted as a non-education major who is currently
working in the field of advertisement (see Table 8).

Although the details of the testimonials differed across the six modules, the
overall format of the rationale remained consistent. The audio recording lasted about 60
seconds, during which a list of topics addressed in the module was displayed on the
computer screen. Each former student testimonial had the components and examples
presented in Table 9.

As soon as students completed hearing each rationale, an open-ended prompt

which asked students to write why they felt the rationale was helpful or unhelpful to their

28

learning (in 25 words or less) was presented. This prompt helped students reflect on the
rationale they received and also enabled the experimenter to monitor whether participants
paid attention to the rationales or not (see Appendix D). I

Instructor Rationale Condition

In this experimental condition, students listened to the instructors’ explanation
about the value of what students would learn in that particular module (while watching a
presentation which displays the main points of their explanation). The rationale, which
was jointly delivered by the two faculty instructors of the course, was provided at the
beginning of each learning module. To control for noise variables associated with the
multiple instructors, the faculty instructors took turns reading two or three sentences of
the rationale. Each instructor rationale had the components and examples presented in
Table 10.

The content of the instructor rationale contained (1) the same message (e.g.,
emphasis on intrinsic and utility values) and (2) the same level of specificity (e.g.,
detailed explanation about the value of the module) as the one provided in the student
rationale. By holding the content and level of specificity constant across the two
experimental condition, the experimenter was able to ensure that the difference in
students’ motivation and learning could be solely attributed to the source of rationale. As
soon as students completed hearing each rationale, an open-ended prompt which asked
students to write why they felt the rationale was helpful or unhelpful to their learning (in
25 words or less) was presented.

Control Condition

In the control condition, students were not provided any rationale externally.

29

Procedure
Treatment
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: (I) a student
rationale condition where students listened to a brief testimonial of a former student
about how the presented module turned out to be valuable when she/he started her/his
career (while text is presented in the screen), (2) an instructor rationale condition where
students listened to an audio statement by the instructors about why the presented module
is valuable (while text is presented as in the first condition), and (3) a control condition
where students were not provided with any rationale for learning the presented lesson.
Condition Checks
To ensure that participants in the two experimental conditions (i.e., student &
instructor rationale conditions) listened to the rationales that they were supposed to hear,
a list of people who access the web pages that contained the audio files was acquired
through a log report in Moodle. According to a log report 98% of participants (15 out of
16) in the student rationale condition and 80% of participants (12 out of 15) in the
instructor rationale condition have accessed all six web pages containing the audio files
during the semester.
Six Modules
The treatments were given at the beginning of six two-week modules, each of

WhiCh covered one specific topic. The following major topics were covered in the course:

0 Learning as Reinforcement
0 Learning as Individual Cognitive Processing: Memory

0 Learning as Individual Cognitive Processing (the Sequel): Schemas

0 Learning as a Social Interaction

30

a Learning and Motivation

0 Learning as Development

A pre- and post—test, which included questionnaires measuring students’
perceptions about the value of the course, interest in the course, self—determination,
autonomous regulation, and open-ended prompts that assess students’ knowledge
development were administered at the beginning and end of the semester respectively.
Items measuring students’ perceived learning were also added to the post-test survey (see
Appendices A & B).

Measures
Pre—test measures

During the second week of the semester, after students became familiar with the
course structure and schedule, students completed a questionnaire that contained items
assessing their perceived value of the course, interest in the course, self-determination,
and autonomous regulation. Demographic information and data on their familiarity and
interest in learning each module were also collected (see Appendix C). All the self-report
items were on 7 -point Likert scales.
Motivation

Motivational measures consisted of the following scales (see Appendix A for a

full list of items):

Perceived Value

Interest in the Course

Self-Determination

Autonomous Regulation

31

Self-report items used by Hulleman et a1 (2008) were adapted to assess students’
perceived value which consisted of two sub-scales: utility value (Cronbach’s or = .87) and
intrinsic value (Cronbach’s or: .79). Four items assessed utility value (e. g., what I am
learning in this class is relevant to my life) and four assessed intrinsic value (e.g., when I
am engaged in an activity in the course, I think about how much I enjoy it).

Interest in the course (Cronbach’s a = .84) was assessed with two self-report
items (e.g., I enjoy taking this course very much) that was adopted from the instrument
used by Harackiewicz et al. (2002).

The self—determination measures consisted of four sub-scales: perceived
competence (Cronbach’s a = .97), perceived autonomy (Cronbach’s or = .69), perceived
relatedness to peers (Cronbach’s or = .73), and perceived relatedness to instructors
(Cronbach’s a = .67). Items used by Jang (2008) and Deci et al. (1994) were adapted to
measure students’ sense of perceived competence and autonomy. For perceived
relatedness, items used by Roca & Gagne (2008) were adapted. Four items were used to
assess perceived competence (e.g., I feel confident in my ability to learn the course
materials). Perceived autonomy was assessed with two items (e.g., during the course I felt
I was doing what I wanted to be doing). The perceived relatedness scale consisted of two
sub-scales: relatedness to peers and relatedness to instructors. Two items measured
perceived relatedness to peers (e. g., I’d like a chance to interact with my classmates more
often) and two items measured perceived relatedness to instructors (e.g., I feel close to
my instructors).

The autonomous regulation scale (Cronbach’s or = .75), which was initially

developed by Deci et al. (1994), was also used in this study. The measure consisted of

32

four items (e.g., I actively participate in this course because I feel like it is a good way to
improve my understanding of the material).
To check the reliability of the survey measures a pilot study was conducted during

the summer semester of 2009. A total of thirty undergraduate students who were enrolled
in either a undergraduate introductory educational psychology course or a undergraduate
educational technology course during the summer participated in this pilot study. The
Cronbach’s or for each sub-scale of motivational measures ranged from .60 to .95 which
was similar to what was reported in the previous studies (Deci et al., 1994; Deci & Ryan,
2000; Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Hulleman et al., 2008; Jang, 2008; Roca & Gagne,
2008)

In addition to the self-report survey items, one open-ended item was included to
check whether students had any problem understanding the questionnaires. Since some of
the survey items have been modified to fit better with the study context, it was necessary
to check whether the items made sense to the students. None of the participants made any
comment regarding the clarity of the survey items. Therefore, all the survey items used in
the pilot study were included in the main study without any further modifications.
Learning

For the learning measures, students’ responses to a prompt that asked them to
write about various forms of learning taking place in the movie clips that they watched

during the first week of semester were collected. This served as baseline data that was
paired up with their responses from the last module of the course, when they revisited the
clips and interpreted the scenes by applying the concepts and ideas that they learned

throughout the course (see Appendix B).

33

Immediate responses
Immediately following the rationales, students in the two experimental conditions
(i.e., student & instructor rationale condition) were asked to write a brief response to the
rationales they heard. These immediate responses served two purposes. First, it captured
what students thought of the rationales to which they listened. Responses of participants
assigned to either the student or instructor rationale condition were qualitative analyzed.
The immediate responses also served as an indicator of whether or not students had paid
attention to the rationales.
End of modules 2 and 4 measures
At the end of modules 2 and 4, I assessed students’ autonomous regulation using
four items that were administered at the pre-test stage.
Post—test measures
Motivation
To assess students’ motivation, the same questionnaire that had been used for the
pre-test was re-administered during the last week of the course. In addition, three learning
measures (i.e., final grades, perceived learning, & essay responses) were collected at the
end of the semester.
Learning
Total points that students accumulated throughout the semester were calculated.
The maximum possible point value was 100, and each student was given a numeric grade
based on the percentage of their accumulated scores (e. g., 4.0 for 92.5% and abOve).
Rovai and Barnum (2003) argue that solely relying on grades as a way to measure

students’ learning maybe problematic for two reasons. First, grades may not accurately

34

represent what students have learned in the course. Some students may already have a
good grasp of the course material when they signed up for the course. Second, grades can
be inconsistently assigned depending on the instructors. This can be especially
problematic in a course where multiple instructors or teaching assistants are involved in
the course (Rovai & Barnum, 2003). Therefore, in addition to a traditional achievement
measure, students’ final grades, two more learning measures were incorporated into this
study.

First, three self—report items that assess students’ perception of their learning in
the course were included in the post—test measure (e.g., on a scale of 1 to 7, how much did
you learn in this course, with 1 meaning you learned nothing and 7 meaning you learned
more than in any other course you’ve had?) Specifically, items measured students’
perceived learning in an online course, perceived learning if taught traditionally, and
perceived learning if taught by the ideal instructor. (Rovai & Barnum, 2003).

Second, students’ essay responses to the movie clips that they watched during the
first and last week of the semester were used to examine changes in students’
understanding and application of major ideas in educational psychology. Students’
learning was assessed by examining how students’ knowledge about various aspects of
educational psychology changed over the course. Students’ open-ended responses were
analyzed within three categories: (1) use of terminology, (2) definition of terminology,
and (3) application in real-life situations, which includes skills and know-how to apply

major ideas and concepts in educational psychology to real-life problems as reflected on

movie clips (Brophy, 2008a; Schraw, 2006). By comparing students’ initial responses and

35

their responses made during the last module, students’ knowledge development during

the course was explored.

36

 

CHAPTER 4
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

Quantitative datasets including self-report survey responses and final grades were
analyzed to examine the effects of providing a rationale for learning on students’
motivation and learning. The first part of this section focuses on the influence on
students’ motivation and the second part focuses on the effect on students’ learning. For
each part results are organized by the specific hypotheses. Tables 11 and 12 illustrate the
descriptive statistics Of motivation and learning measures respectively. Table 13 presents
correlations among dependent variables.

Motivation

It was hypothesized that the students in the two experimental conditions (student
vs. instructor rationales) would show higher gains in their perceived value, interest in the
course, self-determination, and autonomous regulation compared to the students in the
control condition where no rationale was provided. For each motivational measure that
consists of multiple sub-scales (i.e., perceived value, self-determination, & autonomous
regulation), a repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (RM-MANOVA) was
used to test the hypotheses. When there was a statistically significant result emerging
from the omnibus multivariate tests, separate follow-up univariate tests were conducted.
As for students’ interest in the course, a repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-
ANOVA) was used to test the hypothesis as it only had one dependent variable.

Despite the random assignment of participants to treatments, several students
dropped the course making it necessary to examine whether there was any pre-test

difference in any of the motivational measures among the three conditions. Results of

37

 

AN OVA on each sub-scale of motivational measures indicated that there was no

autonomy (F (2, 53) = 4.25, p < .05) where the no rationale condition scored the highest,
followed by the student and instructor rationale conditions (see Table 13).

A visual inspection of histograms and descriptive data was conducted to check for
the assumption of normality. No extreme outliers were observed in both the pre- and
post-test measures. Scatter plots of each dependent variable were also examined to check
for linearity assumption. None of the scatter plots appeared to shew non-linear pattern.
Given that both the assumptions of normality and linearity were met, a RM-MANOVA
was conducted as planned.

Perceived Value

A RM-MANOVA was performed, with utility value and intrinsic value as the

dependent variables. Results showed that the multivariate omnibus for condition (i.e.,

student rationale vs. instructor rationale vs. control) was non-significant (Wilks’ A = 0.94,

2 . . . . ,
F (4, 100) = 0.77, n.s., 7] = 0.03), as were condition x t1mernteract10ns(erks A = 0.90,

2 _ . .
F(4, 100) = 1.32, n.s., II = 0.05). The within-subject tests for time (r.e., pre- vs. post-

2 . .
test) (Wilks’ A = 0.52, F(2, 50) = 23.14,p < .001, I] = 0.48) was srgmficant. However,
2 _

follow-up univariate F tests on utility value (F(1, 51) = 0.50, n.s., I] = 0.10) and

2 . .
intrinsic value (F (1 , 51) = 0.26, n.s., T] = 0.05) were non-Significant. Results suggest

38

that students’ perception of the value of the course neither changed over time nor was
affected by the types of rationales to which they listened throughout the course.
Interest in the Course
A RM-ANOVA tested the hypothesis that the students who listened to a rationale
for learning would report gains in the interest in the course. Results showed that the main

effect of condition (i.e., student rationale vs. instructor rationale vs. control) was non—
. o - 2 u o u u o
Significant (F(2, 51) = 0.57, n.s., I] = 0.02), as were Within-subject tests for trme (1.e.,
2 . . . . .
pre- vs. post-test) (F (l, 51) = 0.01, n.s., T] = 0.00), and condition x trme Interactions

2
(F (2, 51) = 0.15, n.s., I] = 0.06). Results suggest that students’ interest in the course

neither changed over time nor was affected by the types of rationales to which they

listened.

Self-Determination
A RM-MANOVA was performed, with sense of competence, sense of autonomy,
sense of relatedness to peers, and sense of relatedness to instructors as the dependent
variables. Results showed that the multivariate omnibus for condition (i.e., student

rationale vs. instructor rationale vs. control) was non-significant (Wilks’ A = 0.80, F (8,
2
96) = 1.45, n.s., I] = 0.10). The multivariate omnibus for time (i.e., pre- vs. post-test),

2
on the other hand, was significant (Wilks’ A = 0.41 , F (4, 48) = 16.82, p < .001, II =

0.58), as were time x condition interactions (Wilks’ A = 0.64, F (8, 96) = 2.97, p<.01,

TI = 0.20). Follow-up F tests were conducted for each of the four sub-scales of self-

deterrnination. Univariate tests showed significant main effect of time for sense of

39

2
autonomy (F (l , 51) = 7.49, p < .05, n = 0.13) showing a post-test gain of 0.07. A

significant time x condition interaction effect on the students’ sense of relatedness to

instructors (F(2, 51) = 4.96, p < .05, n2 = 0.16) was also found. The instructor rationale
conditions showed gains in their sense of relatedness to instructors by a mean difference

of 0.12 over time while the student rationale condition showed loss by a mean difference
of 0.05. The mean score for the control condition remained the same over time (see Table
11).

Results suggest that students’ sense of autonomy increased over time regardless
of the condition to which they were assigned as a result of their course experiences.
Findings also suggest that the magnitude of changes in their sense of relatedness to
instructors varied depending on the condition to which they were assigned. Students who
listened to the instructor rationales reported their sense of relatedness to instructors
increased over time while their counterparts who listened to the student rationales
reported a decrease in their sense of relatedness to instructors. Students’ sense of
competence and their sense of relatedness to their peers neither changed over time nor
were affected by the source of rationale.

Autonomous Regulation

A RM-MANOVA was performed, with autonomous regulation and controlled

regulation as the dependent variables. Results showed that the multivariate omnibus for

condition (i.e., student rationale vs. instructor rationale vs. control) was non-significant
o 2 0 I a a .
(erks’ A = 0.91, F (8, 84) = 0.51, n.s., II = 0.05), as were condition x trme Interactions

2
(Wilks’ A = 0.84, F (8, 84) = 0.92, n.s., I] = 0.08). The within-subject tests for time (i.e.,

40

pre—test, Module 3, Module 5, post—test) (Wilks’ A = 0.72, F (4, 42) = 3.95, p < 0.01 ,

2 2
T] = 0.27) was significant (Wilks’ A = 0.28, F(3, 43) = 37.34,p < .001, T] = 0.72).

Univariate tests showed a significant main effect of time for autonomous regulation (F (3,

2
43) = 38.52, p < .05, 11 = 0.73) and controlled regulation (F(3, 43) = 23.35, p < .05,

I] = 0.62). Both students’ sense of autonomous regulation and controlled regulation

decreased until the end of Module 5 and rebounded at the end of the course (see Table
11).
Learning
It was hypothesized that the students in the two experimental conditions (student
vs. instructor rationales) would score higher in the final grades and show higher levels of
perceived learning compared to the students in the control condition where no rationale
was provided. An initial descriptive analysis suggested that the distribution of final
grades was not normally distributed (Skewness: -l .94; Kurtosis: 4.979) (see Table 12).
Therefore, the Kruskal Wallis test, which is a non-parametric version of ANOVA, was
used to examine the effect of the rationales on students’ final grades. For perceived
learning, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the hypotheses as there was
no indicator of violation of normality assumption.
Final Grades

Results showed that there was a statistically significant difference among the

2
three conditions (X = 6.44, df = 2, p < .05). The mean rank for the student rationale
condition was the highest (Mean rank = 38.25), followed by the no rationale condition

(Mean rank = 27.98), and the instructor rationale condition (Mean rank = 24.97).

41

Perceived Learning
Results showed that the main effect of condition (i.e., student rationale vs.

instructor rationale vs. control) on perceived learning was not significant (F (2, 56) = 3.58,

2
p < .05 , I] = 0.11). The finding suggests that students’ perception of their learning did
not differ by the source of rationale.

Discussion of Quantitative Results

The quantitative analysis focused on the effects of providing a rationale for
learning on students’ motivation and learning. For motivation, it was hypothesized that
students who listened to either student or instructor rationales would report gains in their
perceived value, interest in the course, self—determination, and autonomous regulation.

Results supported two of four hypotheses regarding motivation. First, it was
found that students’ sense of autonomy improved over time, regardless of source of
rationale. In other words, participants in both the student and instructor conditions
reported that their sense of autonomy increased over time. Second, it was found that
students who listened to instructor rationales reported gains in their sense of relatedness
to instructors while those who listened to student rationales reported loss in their sense of
relatedness to instructors. These findings were consistent with previous studies that
showed the provision of rationales positively influenced students’ self—determination
(J ang, 2008). While consistent with the literature on instructor rationale, this study’
results suggest that rationales may uniquely affect the relatedness to instructors rather
than the relatedness to peers.

Results regarding students’ perceived value and interest in the course did not

support the hypotheses. In other words, students’ perception of the value of the course

42

and their interest in the course neither changed over time nor were affected by the source
of rationale that they received throughout the course. This null finding might be attributed
to the fact that the course is a teacher education course. A majority of the students stated
either that the course was part of their teacher education requirement or that they were
interested in pursuing a teaching career. Given the strong practical value of the course, it
is plausible that the effect of rationale on learning might be minimal in changing
students’ perceived value as they already started the semester with clear expectations
about the value of the course. The fact that there was no change in students’ interest level
might also be attributed to the unique nature of the online course which involved various
uses of technology and multi—media. It is possible that students in this online course
started with high level of interest in the course as they were exposed to a variety of
multimedia such as Flash-based games during the first week of the course.

In terms of students’ learning, results showed that the source of rationale for
learning had different impacts on students’ final grades. Students who listened to student
rationales performed the highest, followed by students who did not listen to any
rationales, and students who listened to instructor rationales throughout the semester. The
prior research has shown students who received instructor rationales for learning
outperformed the counterparts who received no rationales (Deci & Ryan, 1994; J ang,
2008; Reeve et al., 2002). Therefore, it was a rather unexpected finding that the students
who listened to instructor rationales scored lower than the students in the control

condition where no rationale was provided. One possible explanation is that students

considered their instructors as authoritative figures and consequently perceived their

43

explanations about the value of the course of controlling and imposing. This could have

had a negative impact on students’ learning over time.

CHAPTER 5
QUALITATIVE RESULTS
Overview of the Qualitative Data
Two types of qualitative data were collected in this study. The first set of data is
students’ responses to an open-ended question that they had to answer immediately after
listening to rationales. Each time a rationale was provided, the students in the student and
instructor rationale conditions were asked to comment briefly on the rationales they heard.
Since rationales were only provided in the two experimental conditions (i.e., student and
instructor rationale), no data was collected from the control condition, where no rationale
was provided. Responses to these open-ended questions, which were given six times
throughout the course, were coded and analyzed to examine whether students’ responses
to the rationales demonstrated different patterns depending on the source of rationale.
The second set of data is students’ essay responses to a series of short movie clips
that they watched at the beginning and the end of the course. During the first and last
week of the semester, students were asked to watch a movie montage that consisted of
one to two minute movie clips that contained scenes where various forms of learning took
place. For instance, one of the movie clips showed how a young boy learned to play chess
masterfully after watching how others play in a park. This particularly scene was
included because it was considered a classic example of the type of observational
learning which was discussed in the module on social interaction and learning. Details of
each movie clip are provided in Appendix E. Once students watched the movie montage,
they were asked to write a brief analysis (500 words) on what kinds of learning they

observed in the clips. This task was given at the beginning of the course, before students

45

were exposed to any of the major modules in the course. The same task was given at the
end of the course, to see how students were able to make connections between the movie
clips and what they learned over the semester. The analysis examined changes in how
students understood major concepts in educational psychology and how they applied
those ideas to interpret the educational phenomena portrayed in the movie clips.
Students’ Immediate Responses
For students in the student and instructor rationale conditions, the following

question was presented immediately after they listened to the rationales:

In 25 words or less, please explain why the explanation was helpful or unhelpful.

Since there were six different modules, students in the two experimental
conditions had to respond to this question six times. Students’ responses were complied
together within the experimental condition. For instance, all the comments made by the
students who listened to student rationales were collected together. Once all the
comments were collected, an inductive analysis of theme was conducted. In other words,
emerging themes were identified from the analysis rather than from using pro-determined
coding categories. Similarities and differences found in the themes across the two
experimental conditions are reported in the following section.

Results

Several interesting findings emerged from the analysis of students’ immediate

responses. Most students reported that the rationales served as useful introductions to the

modules. Regardless of the source of rationale, students thought that listening to them

46

helped them prepare for the upcoming module. They reported that the rationales provided
a brief overview of the module. In addition, participants reported that the rationales
helped them understand how the concepts that they were going to learn can be applied to

realvlife situations. Some of the most common types of responses include:

“T he explanation gave examples of how what we are going to learn about

Behaviorism in this module will provide us with tools we will use as

teachers. ”

“It was helpful to see what is being taught in the next module and how l't is

applied to everyday things such as ads. ”

“It was helpful to hear that what I will learn in this module will be used in

1

other classes. '

“I think this information was helpful because I, too, am an athlete and I
agree that imitation plays a large part in the learning process. '
“It was helpful because it gave examples of how to motivate students in
interesting ways. "

”I want to teach younger kids, so I have been waiting for a module like

this one. I am excited and ready to learn! "

This was consistent with previous studies that showed providing a rationale for

learning was effective in promoting students’ positive attitudes toward the class.
However, despite the consensus on the benefits of listening to the rationales for learning,

the comments as to why they were helpful differed significantly across the two conditions

47

Student Rationale Condition: Focus on the Source

One unique theme that emerged from the majority of responses collected from the
student rationale condition was their sense of relatedness to former students. Several
students commented that they found the rationales helpful because they were provided by
someone to whom they could relate. Some students mentioned that it was nice to hear
from people who have gone through the same path as they would be. Another interesting
finding was that students reported strong bonds to the former students, whom they
considered as their role models. For instance, students who aspired to become high

school mathematics teachers tended to find the rationales provided by a high school

mathematics teacher more helpful and engaging. Here are some of the comments

pertinent to the source of rationale:

“T he explanation was helpful. It ’s reassurance from someone who has

taken the course and applied it to her everyday life. "

“I found it interesting that Brian was able to apply the information to

advertising. It is interesting to think that the class can be useful in

professions other than teaching. ”

“I like how it related to other classes. I am currently taking TE 250 so I

felt something like a personal connection. ”

“I thought this explanation was very helpful. I really liked how she

explained how she used the materials in her coaching. It made it seem

very practical. "

48

”I liked Rebecca ’s explanation a lot because it gave me an insight as to

how this module can be applied to teaching. "

Instructor Rationale Condition: Focus on the Information

A completely different theme emerged from the responses given by the students
in the instructor rationale condition. Instead of focusing on who provided the rationales,
students in the instruction rationale condition were more concerned with the information
provided in the explanations. Some commented that concrete examples of real-life
applications made them become more interested in the content of the module. Some
complained that too little information was provided regarding what was covered in the

actual module. Here are some of the comments pertinent to the information of rationale:

”T he explanation was helpful because it helped me focus. When listening

to the professors I was able to focus on the actual content. "

”T he explanation was helpful because it provided a little introduction of

memory and provided an example to help us understand what we will be

focusing on. ”

"It introduced the topic well by covering a good chunk of material quickly

and peaked my interest on the topic. ”

"I have already learned about schemas a few years ago, so it was a quick

refresher to the course and what I will be learning about more in depth. ”

49

“The explanation listed specific interesting points that we will be covering

in this section. I ’m interested in learning more about modeling! "
“Gave a brief overview of what we’ll be learning. ”

“Made some reference to moral development and how it is linked to

overall development. ”

Given that the content of the rationales were the same both for the student and
instructor rationale conditions, it is interesting to see how students in the two conditions
responded differently to the same prompts. There are several plausible explanations to
account for this difference observed across the two conditions. First, it is possible that
there was a novelty effect for the students in the student rationale condition. It is not
common to listen to explanations given by former students in the class. Therefore, some
students might have paid more attention to the source rather than to the content or
information of the rationales. Second, it is also plausible that students are used to the
notion that instructors’ explanations are part of the lectures and that their explanations
should cover the course content more substantially.

Students’ Essay Responses
Pre- Test

During the first week of the class, students watched a series of short movie clips

that contained educational scenes. After they watched the movie montage, they were

asked to write short essay responses to the following prompt, and post them on the course

discussion forum.

50

You 've just watched the montage of video clips. If you need to see those clips
again to help you with this part at any time, just click here. Otherwise, in about 500

words, make a posting that answers these questions:

What are different ways that people learned in these movies?
What evidence could you see in the movies that people were learning?

What are factors that helped or hindered people from learning?

The essay assigrunent was aimed at measuring students’ prior knowledge in
educational psychology. In other words, students’ responses represented how much
students knew about big ideas and concepts in educational psychology and how well they
were able to apply those concepts to real—life situations.

As a pre-test, the essay was a vital part of this learning measure as it captured
students’ prior knowledge about major concepts and ideas covered in the course. Some
students started the course with strong backgrounds in education and psychology, while
others had never taken courses in education or psychology before. Therefore, it was
important to collect data that showed their initial understanding of educational
psychology.

Post- Test

At the end of the semester, afier students learned all the major learning theories,
they were asked to watch the same movie montage and respond to the same essay prompt
that was given at the beginning of the course. This time, the course instructors made their

initial postings invisible so that they could not just c0py and paste their initial responses.

51

Students’ essay responses, which were collected at the beginning and end of the
course, were analyzed qualitatively using the analysis framework provided in Table 14.
The coder conducted blind-coding where the information about whether the response was
a pre- or post-test measure was omitted. The analysis focused on examining the three
categories of evidence of knowledge: use of terminology, definition of terminology, and
applications in real-life. The total number of indicators that fall into these three
categories of evidence of knowledge for both the pre- and post-responses of participants
were counted (see Table 15).

To establish the reliability of coding, an interrater reliability analysis using Kappa
statistic was conducted on twenty randomly selected partial responses. Cohen’s kappa
was approximately 0.70 (p < .001) which indicated that the coding was substantially
reliable (Landis & Koch, 1977).

Since the analysis focused on how students’ knowledge changed over time, an
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with pre-test scores as covariate was conducted on the
three categories.

Results
Use of Terminology

The number of indicators of appropriate usage of terminologies covered in the
course was tallied for both the pre- and post-test responses. Results of ANCOVA
indicated that even after adjusting for pre-test responses, students’ use of terminology did
not statistically differ by conditions (F(2, 52) = 0.19, n.S.). In other words, there was no
difference in students’ use of terminology among the three rationale conditions when pre-

test differences were controlled for.

52

Definition of Terminology

The number of indicators of accurate definition of terminologies covered in the
course was tallied for both the pre— and post-test responses. Results of ANCOVA
indicated that even after adjusting for pro-test responses, students’ use of terminology did
not statistically differ by conditions (F (2, 52) = 1.66, n.s.). In other words, there was no
difference in students’ definition of terminology among the three rationale conditions
when pre-test differences were controlled for.
Applications in Real-Life

The number of indicators of application of concepts covered in the course in real-
life was tallied for both the pre- and post-test responses. Results of ANCOVA indicated
that afier adjusting for pre-test responses, students’ application in real-life statistically
differed by conditions (F (2, 52) = 3.20, p < .05). In other words, there was difference in
students’ application of real-life among the three rationale conditions when pre-test
differences were controlled for. The student rationale condition showed the biggest
improvements, followed by the no rationale condition and the instructor rationale (see
Table 15). This was consistent with the results of the quantitative analysis on students’
final grades.

Discussion of Qualitative Results

Some of the qualitative results that examined students’ knowledge development
were consistent with the quantitative results. That is, students who listened to student
rationales at the beginning of each module showed the most improvements in their
abilities to apply concepts to real-life problems. The next condition that showed the most

improvements was the control condition in which no rationales for learning were

53

provided. Finally only a small percentage of students who listened to instructor rationales
showed improvements in application of concepts in real—life. It was notable that the same
pattern was observed in students’ final grades. The student rationale condition performed
the best, followed by the control condition and the instructor rationale condition.

Results from the qualitative analysis provide another piece of evidence that
listening to former students’ explanations about the module had a positive effect on
students’ learning. It was consistent with the findings that showed a significant effect on
students’ final grades. Given that the major objectives of educational psychology are to
help pre-service teachers better understand and apply the complex psychological
processes of learning and science, changes in students’ abilities to apply those to real-life

problems represent improvements in students’ learning.

54

CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of providing a rationale for
learning a lesson on students’ motivation and learning in the context of an online
educational psychology course. Specifically, the study explored the effects of student and
instructor rationales which provided verbal explanations about the value of the lesson.
Rationales were given six times throughout a semester and both quantitative and
qualitative data on students’ motivation and learning were collected.

For motivation, results did not support the hypotheses that students’ perception of
value of the course and their interest would increase after listening to rationales. Findings,
however, supported two out of four hypotheses. First, results showed that students’ sense
of autonomy (i.e., the perception of control over their own actions) increased over time
with both rationale conditions in contrast to no rationale condition. Second, results also
showed that students who listened to instructor rationales reported gains in their sense of
relatedness to instructors while students who listened to student rationales reported a
decrease in their sense of relatedness to instructors.

For learning, results showed that the source of rationale had different effects on
students’ final grades and development of knowledge, which includes use of terminology,
definition of terminology, and application of concepts and ideas in real-life problems, in
educational psychology. Results of both quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest that
student rationale condition demonstrated the highest level of learning, followedby no

rationale condition. Students in the instructor rationale condition performed had the

55

lowest scores on the learning measures. No significant group difference was observed in
students’ perceived learning across the three conditions.
Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, the final sample size was
relatively small which yielded weak power. A priori power calculation based on the
effect sizes reported in Jang’s study (2008) suggested that a sample size of eighty would
yield a strong power. Unfortunately, several students in each condition dropped out the
course and as a result the final sample size became fifly—nine which eventually hurt the
power of this study. Another potential issue was the unequal sample size of each
condition. Since there were four sections of the course, two sections had to be assigned to
be assigned to the same condition. In this study two sections were assigned to the no
rationale condition and as a result it became an unbalanced design. This was unavoidable
as the study was conducted within the context of a real undergraduate course.

Since the experiment was conducted on a fifteen-week online course, it was also
exposed to various threats that could have weakened its internal validity. Internal validity
refers to the validity of inferences about cause—effect relations (Thorndike, 2005). It
addresses the questions of “Did the treatments in the experiment indeed cause the specific
experimental instance?” (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). There were several confounding
variables that might have affected the internal validity of this study. First, students’ prior
attitudes regarding the content covered in each module could have had an impact on
students’ motivation and learning. Although the format of rationales was kept Consistent
throughout the semester, the content that was covered in each module was not the same.

Students might have had different background knowledge about, interest in, and attitudes

56

towards different content even before they start the course. For instance, students may
have had negative attitudes towards behaviorism, but more positive attitudes towards the
topic of social interaction prior to taking the course.

Future Research

The current study was one of the first experiments where rationales for learning a
lesson were provided throughout a semester in an online learning environment. A
replicate study conducted in a semester-long face-to-face undergraduate course may be
necessary to demonstrate that explaining to students why they need to learn a particular
lesson has a positive influence on students’ motivation and learning whether delivered
face-to-face or online. In addition, a follow-up study conducted in an intact course that is
taught by a single instructor can also help us understand the effects of rationales on
students’ motivation and learning more clearly.

Another research topic that needs to be further investigated is “when and how
many times should we provide rationales for learning?” In this study, rationales were
provided multiple times at the beginning of each major module. Although this approach
is desirable in the sense that students should be exposed to various kinds of rationales, in
some cases, it may not be plausible to develop and provide a specific rationale for each
lesson taught in the course. To find out what the most effective way is provide a rationale
for learning, we need to test the effects of frequency and timing of the provision of the
rationales. For instance future studies should examine whether providing a rationale for
learning multiple times throughout the course is more effective than providing it once at

the very beginning of the course.

57

Finally, we need to investigate whether providing a rationale for learning is
effective in improving students’ learning and motivation when it is given in a course
where its value is less intuitive to appreciate. An introductory educational psychology
course, which was the context of this study, is specifically designed to help students
understand the underlying psychological processes of learning and teaching. It is also a
requirement for teacher education majors to complete their degrees. Therefore, the value
of the course is relatively straightforward. However, there are some courses in which
their values are harder to appreciate. For instance, students taking a course on Western
philosophy may not fully understand the value of what they learn in the class.

Implications

The study contributes to the research literature in several ways. From a theoretical
perspective, findings from this study add to the existing body of research in providing a
rationale as a strategy to promote students’ motivation and learning. Unlike the previous
studies in which an contrived learning task was provided for a short period of time, this
study examines changes in students’ motivation and learning in an actual semester-long
class. Results of this study help us understand whether providing a rationale for learning
on a regular basis throughout the course promotes students’ motivation and learning. The
study also attempts to determine which strategy is the most effective in changing
students’ perceptions about the course and the value of the lessons.

Another contribution this study makes to the field is in its emphasis on exploring
the learning aspects of provisions of rationales. The previous rationale studies either
relied on weak measures (e.g., multiple choice quiz items) or lacked pre-test measures to

assess students’ prior knowledge (Jang, 2008; Reeve et al., 2002). To address these issues

58

several learning measures were collected in this study: total points accumulated
throughout the semester, open-ended responses to movie clips from the first and last
module, and a self-report perceived learning questionnaire. By triangulating different
learning outcome measures, a better understanding of what kind of impact providing a
rationale has on students’ learning has been achieved.

Most studies on providing a rationale were conducted in traditional classroom
settings. This study applied a motivation theory to online learning environments. Whether
face-to-face or online, instructors are often concerned about how to help their students
appreciate the value of a course. Grounded within value and self-determination theories,
the study explores the potential implications of existing motivational perspectives in
online learning environments. Considering the increasing number of undergraduate
courses offered online, more scientific studies of motivation in this context should be
conducted.

Finally, from an instructional perspective, the design of this study demonstrates
how research grounded in theory can be conducted with strong ecological validity when
implemented in regular online courses. Unlike other studies where inauthentic tasks were
given, this project was done in a natural academic setting. In addition, the treatments that
were developed for this study can easily be implemented in actual teaching practices (e. g.,
a testimonial of a former student or a verbal statement by the instructor). To the degree
that researchers design interventions such as the one used in the present study, the
“pedagogical validity” of their research will be increased. Rather than testing hypotheses
in contrived settings in the hope that the results of this research will later be implemented

in practice, researchers whose designs use pedagogically sound interventions will

59

increase the likely impact of their research on practice. Online environments provide an
especially accessible mode of instruction for such researchable systematic design

interventions.

60

Table 1.

Participants ’grade levels by conditions

 

 

 

Grade
. . _ Post Tot
Rational Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Other

Condition BA a]
Student 1 4 4 5 2 0 l 6
Instructor 1 6 3 0 l l 5
N0 0 7 l l 8 0 ’ 2 28
Total 2 1 5 21 l 6 2 3 59

 

61

Table 2.

Degree requirement by conditions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is TB 150 a requirement?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale No Uncertain Yes Total
Condition
Student 3 3 1 0 1 6
Instructor 7 1 7 l 5
No 1 1 3 14 28
Total 2 l 7 3 1 59

 

62

Table 3.

Participants ' desire to pursue teaching careers

 

Are you planning to pursue a teaching career?

 

 

Rationale No Uncertain Yes Total
Condition
Student 3 1 1 2 1 6
Instructor 3 4 8 l 5
No 5 7 1 6 28
Total 1 1 12 36 59

 

63

Table 4.

Participants ' online learning experiences by conditions

 

Rationale

How many online courses have you taken before?

 

 

. . 0 1 2 3 4 or more Total
Condition
Student 8 2 2 0 3 16
Instructor 6 2 1 3 4 15
No 13 6 6 2 1 28
Total 27 10 9 5 8 59

 

64

Table 5.

Initial familiarity with the topics

 

Initial Familiarity with the Topics

 

 

Rationale Student Instructor No
Condrtron
M SD M SD M SD
Behaviorism 3.69 1.50 4.14 1.92 4.65 1.38
Memory 4.31 1.45 5.36 1.00 5.04 1.15
Schemas 3.25 1.77 3.86 1.46 3.81 1.74
Social
5.00 1.21 5.79 0.89 5.12 1.28
Interaction
Motivation 4.75 1.18 5.57 1.22 5.15 1.22
Development 4.25 1.34 5.29 1.27 5.15 1.46

 

65

Table 6.

Initial interest in the topics
Initial Interest in the Topics

Rationale Student

. . Instructor Control

Condition

M SD M SD M SD

Behaviorism 5.56 1.09 5.79 1.19 6.12 1.07

Memory 5.38 1.09 6.00 1.18 6.31 0.93

Schemas 5.44 1.09 5.43 1.28 5.62 1.55

Social
_ 6.13 0.89 6.50 0.86 6.42 0.86
Interaction
Motivation 6.19 0.66 6.43 0.85 6.42 0.81

Development 5.94 0.99 6.07 1.14 6.58 0.70

66

Table 7.

A priori power analysis (N =66) using effect sizes reported in Jang (2008)

Variable d r f Power (1 -6)
P ' ed
cm” 0.55 .27 0.28 0.63

 

 

 

Autonomy
Perceived
0.71 . . .

Importance 33 0 35 O 91

Essay 0.56 .27 0.28 0.63

Checklist 0.42 .21 0.21 0.63

concewa’ 0.39 .19 0.19 0.41
Learning

Engf’gemem 0.44 .21 0.21 0.63
(T me 1)

Engagement 0.64 .30 0.31 0.83

 

 

 

(Time 2)
_ M

67

Table 8.

Six role models that represent the former students

 

 

Module Gender Grade Level Subject Role Topic
Behaviorism Female Elementary N/A Teacher Classroom
Management
Memory Male N/A N/A Advertising Cogrntrve
Load
Schemas Female N/A N/A TE Major TE 250
Social
. F l '
Interaction ema e Elementary Sports Coach Modelrng
Motivation Male High School Mathematics Teacher Self-Concept
. St t -
Development Female Krndergarten N/A Teacher a e.
Appropriate

 

68

Table 9.

Example of a script of a student rationale (Module 2)
Component Example
Greetings Hi, fellow TE 150ers!

Introducing him/herself: first My name is Andrea and I am currently an

name, current position (grade elementary teacher in Grand Rapids. I took this

level, subject-matter, location course in 2007 as a requirement in the Teacher

of the school), and when and Education department.

why he/she took the course

Brief explanations about the In this module I learned about a learning theory

module called behaviorism.

Emphasis on intrinsic value As I read through the articles and websites about
praise, punishment, and rewards, I became
fascinated with how our life is affected by
behaviorism.

Emphasis on utility value As an elementary teacher, I have often used
behavioral techniques to manage my students. For
example, I would use clapping or whistling to
quickly get my students’ attention so that they can
move onto a new task.

Another aspect that I found useful in this module
was the notion that praising can be harmful.
Nowadays I try hard to give my kids praise for their
effort and creativity and not for their “smartness.”
What I learned in this module helped me become
reflective about when and howl should provide
rewards and punishments to my kids. 1
Concluding remarks I hope you enjoy this module as much as I did and

have fun!

69

Table 10.

Example of a script of an instructor rationale (Module 2)

Component Example ‘\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction Hello, this is your faculty instructorA and B.
Brief explanation about the In this module you will learn about a learning theory
module called behaviorism.

Emphasis on intrinsic value After reading the articles and websites about praise,
punishment, and rewards, you will be fascinated
with how your life is affected by behaviorism.

Emphasis on utility value When you become a teacher you will probably use
various behavioral techniques to manage your
students. For example, if you are an elementary
teacher, you may use clapping or whistling to
quickly get your students’ attention so that they can
move onto a new task.

Students from the past semesters also found the
notion that praising can be harmful “mind-
boggling.” When you teach your students, be sure to
give them praise for their effort and creativity and
not for their “smartness.”

What you learn in this module will help you become
reflective about when and how you should provide
rewards and punishments to your kids.

Concluding remarks We hope you enjoy this module and have fun!

‘

70

Table 1 1.

Descriptive statistics of motivation measures

 

 

 

 

 

Dependent Sub- Student Instructor No
Variable Constructs Rationale Rationale Rationale
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Perceived . .
Value Utrlrty Value Pre- 0.86 (0.12) 0.82 (0.15) 0.89 (0.12)
Post- 0.88 (0.10) 0.81 (0.13) 0.85 (0.13)
Intrinsic
value Pre- 0-71 (0.17) 0.75 (0.14) 0.80 (0.14)
Post- 0.72 (0.19) 0.74 (0.18) 0.75 (0.17)
Interest in the
Course Pre- 0.75 (0.20) 0.81 (0.12) 0.80 (0.12)
Post- 0.75 (0.18) 0.79 (0.15) 0.76 (0.17)
Self-
Determination Competence Pre- 0.88 (0.12) 0.89 (0.14) 0.86 (0.12)
Post- 0.87 (0.11) 0.91 (0.09) 0.87 (0.10)
Autonomy Pre- 0.72 (0.13) 0.65 (0.19) 0.80 (0.19)
Post- 0.81 (0.19) 0.74 (0.23) 0.78 (0.21)
Relatedness Pre- 0.66 (0.13) 0.70 (0.14) 0.70 (0.14)
- Peers Post- 0.72 (0.18) 0.72 (0.23) 0.66 (0.20)
Relatedness Pre- 0.66 (0.13) 0.66 (0.14) 0.75 (0.14)
- Instructor Post- 0.60 (0.18) 0.78 (0.15) 0.74 (0.18)
Autonomous Amonolnous Pre- 0.90 (0.13) 0.84 (0.12) 0.89 (0.10)
Regulation Regulation
M3 0.77 (0.20) 0.68 (0.15) 0.72 (0.22)
MS 0.65 (0.22) 0.59 (0.07) 0.65 (0.15)
Post- 0.84 (0.17) 0.83 (0.08) 0.83 (0.16)
comm?" Pre- 0.90 (0.12) 0.90 (0.10) 0.95 (0.09)
Regulation
M3 0.79 (0.21) 0.72 (0.20) 0.74 (0.24)
MS 0.74 (0.23) 0.64 (0.14) 0.75 (0.17)
Post- 0.89 (0.12) 0.84 (0.16) 0.89 (0.13)

 

71

Table 12.

Descriptive statistics of post-test learning measures

Rationale

Condition Student InSU'UCtOF No

 

 

 

 

Dependent Variable M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
T Final Grades 91.88 (3.86) 85.84 (9.44) 90.10 (5.73)
Perceived Learning

0.75 (0.14) 0.76 (0.16) 0.73 (0.14)

 

 

72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M<
_ 5;. comm. in. *NM. 31%. item. 1.3.... 1.00. 1.34. 3,00. **mm. 100. Elm: **WW. 0.5

_ 1.3.. cm. ram. town. .Lm. nom. M2. Ian. *nov. :34. .Ibm. :. E. “mom
_ we. *3“. non. 1mm. 2. mm. Lm. 1.3V. *mm. 1.94. .2. from. 0.5

and
_ 1.6%. .ILW. 0N. *avv. *VM. 1.9». aamm. 1.0m. *om. .va. :. «mom

 

AM
_ ON. IBM. VD. *hN. VN. .1an. *Nm. *abm. ON. *wN. 0.5
3<
_ invw. nine. 33%. .Inmh. Isom. tomb. tam. aiwv. *rwm. “mom
36..
_ mm. 1.9m. aimm. from. .Ibw. 1&0. tam. .Inwv. 0.5
CU
_ tumm. teem. .I.wm. .Inwv. .IOV. 10v. LN. “mom
CU
_ 1.0%. *imw. 15v. aamv. *om. 4.1%. 00m
=—
_ name. niww. *amm. 1.0m. .Ibm. “mom
:—
_ 31%. “ion. nimv. 3.94. 0.5
hp:
_ 1.00. from. 3.24. “mom
.5:—
D .Ibv. from. 00m
ED
_ “ion. «mom
ED
n 0.5
MD MD M< M744 mm mm AM mm 3< :< 00 0U E E .55 55 ED ED

“mom 2m “mom 2m “mom 05 Son 05 “mom 05 “mom 05 .mom 05 50m 05 “mon— 05

 

$33.8; Runaways $823 .323meer

.2 2an

73

 

 

..__m. :3. 8.- mm. mo. 5.- mo: .1. co. om. oo. ram. mm. mm. 2. 2. co. Mow

_ non. ion. LN. new. we. 2. on. 2. *mm. .333. smm. I9. rum. :3. in. :9. WW.

_ 1?. mm. mo. ram. mm. 1?. ram. 1?. Ion. 1.8. 1.3. 1%. 1.30. 1.3. 13. “We“
$853600

.m_ 038.

74

Table 14.

Analysis framework: Evidence of knowledge

 

 

Categories Definitions Indicators Examples
Use of Using terms that A vocabulary used “It is important for
terminology are relevant to in the course teachers to recognize the

Definition of
terminology

Application in
real-life

course content

Defining terms in
their own words

Applying major
ideas and concepts
to interpret the
educational
phenomenon
depicted in the
movie montage

Definition or
explanation of a
vocabulary used in
the course

Interpretation of the
movie scenes based
on the ideas
discussed in the
course

75

learning styles of their
students”

“ZPD is an idea that
consists of two ideas.
One, you begin to...”

“It reminds me of the
locus of control topic we
learned about a few
modules back. By
having...”

Table 15.

Descriptive statistics of knowledge development

Eowledge M

 

 

 

Development Categorres

Rationale

(N=15)

Rationale

(N=13)

Rationale

(N=28)

M(SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Terminology

Definition of
Terminology

Application
in Real-Life

Post-

Pre-

Post-
re-

Post-

7.53 (2.83)
0.07 (0.26)
0.80 (1.01)
1.60 (1.06)
4.33 (1.40)

 

 

 

 

 

6.69 (3.15)
0.08 (0.28)
0.92 (1.11)
1.23 (0.93)
2.77 (1.17)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

7.04 (3.16)
0.04 (0.19)
0.43 (0.69)
2.21 (1.10)
4.25 (1.71)

APPENDICES

77

APPENDIX A: MOTIVATION MEASURES

A.l. Motivation Measures

Please read the following statements carefully and indicate your agreement with each of
the items on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.

Strongly Stron
Disa ee Neutral A f: y
l 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived Value (8 items)
WhatIarnleaming in this class is relevant to my life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The topics in this class are important for my career 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I think that taking this course is usefill for developing the key
skills I need to advance my career

I think this class is important because its ideas and concepts
can used in other courses

The content in this class is intriguing l 2 3 4 5 6 7

The activities in the course are filn to do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

When I am engaged in an activity in the course, I think about
. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
how much I enjoy lt

Ienjoy reading course materials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Interest (4 items)

I think what I learn in this course is very interesting I 2 3 4 5 6 7

I enjoy taking this course very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

* I would like to take more courses about learning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

* My experience in this course has made me want to take 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

more courses about learning

Self-Detemiination (10 items)

I feel confident in my ability to learn the course materials 1 2 3 4 ' 5 6 7

I am capable of learning the material in this course 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am able to achieve my goals in this course

I feel able to meet the challenge of performing well in this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
course

78

During the course I felt I was doing what I wanted to be
doing

I felt I had control to decide what to do and whether to do it 1 2

I would like a chance to interact with my classmates more

often 1 2
It is likely that my classmates and I could become friends if 1 2
we interacted a lot

I felt like I could really count on my instructor(s) 1 2
I feel close to my instructor(s) 1 2
Autonomous Regulation (4 items):

I participate actively in the course because:

I feel like it is a good way to improve my understanding of 1 2
the material

a solid understanding of the materials that are covered in this 1 2
course is important to my intellectual grth

I will feel proud of myself if I do well in this course (R) 1 2
a good grade in this course will look positive on my record 1 2

(R)
* : Items that have been added to the interest measures in the post-test
(R): Items that need to be reverse coded

79

APPENDIX B: LEARNING MEASURES

B.l. Perceived Learning

"Perceived Learning (3 items): On a scale of 1 to 7,

How much did you learn in this course, with I meaning you

learned nothing and 7 meaning you learned more than in any I 2 3 4 5 6 7
other course you 've had?

How much do you think you could have learned in this

course if it had been a traditional face-to-face course that

met regularly in a classroom, with I meaning you learned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
nothing and 7 meaning you learned more than in any other
course you 've had?

How much do you think you could have learned in this
course if you had the ideal instructor, with 1 meaning you
learned nothing and 7 meaning you learned more than in any
other course you ’ve had?

234567

B.2. Knowledge Development
1. Pre-Test Question (presented in module 1)

You've just watched the montage of video clips. If you need to see those clips again to
help you with this part at any time, just click here. Otherwise, in about 500 words, make a
posting that answers these questions:

0 What are different ways that people learned in these movies?
0 What evidence could you see in the movies that people were learning?
0 What are factors that helped or hindered people from learning?”

2. Post-Test Question (presented in module 8)

Do you remember the video montage we saw at the very beginning of this class? What
we would like you to do is revisit this video and review it carefully. After watching the
Video you will be asked to write a 500 word response on what you see. More specrfically,

you will be asked to answer the following questions:

0 What are different ways that people learned in these movies?
0 What evidence could you see in the movies that people were leamrng?

80

o What are factors that helped or hindered people from learning?"

Remember to try and make connections to all the ideas and topics we have covered (you
are free to browse through the previous modules to refresh your memory). All the
previous modules are available for review, with one exception. You will not be able to
access what you had written the first time you had viewed the montage. We will make
this available in due time. Use as many details as you can in your answer. You may have
to watch the montage more than once.

81

APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

C.l. Background Information

Background Information (8 items)

What is your major?
What is your minor (if

applicable)?

What is your gender? Female Male

In what year were you

born?

What ’8 your grade Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior POSt Other
level? B A -

IS TI; 150 a Yes NO
requlrement for you?

Are you lnterested ln Yes No

becoming a teacher?
How many online
courses have you taken
before?

Please read the following statements carefully and indicate your agreement with each of
the items on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.

3:21;: Neutral 82:;ng
l 2 3 4 5 6 7

Familiarity and Interest in the Course Content (1 2 items)

I am familiar with the concepts and ideas of behaviorism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am interested in learning about behaviorism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am familiar with the concepts and ideas of memory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am interested in learning about memory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am familiar with the concepts and ideas of schemas l 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am interested in learning about schemas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am familiar with the concepts and ideas of social 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
interaction

I am interested in learning about social interaction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am familiar with the concepts and ideas of motivation I 2 3 4 5 6 7

82

lam interested in learning about motivation I 2 3 4 5 6 7
lam familiar with the concepts and ideas of development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

lam interested in learning about development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

83

APPENDIX D: REFLECTION ITEMS

D.1. Reflection Items

Please read the following statements carefully and indicate your agreement with each of
the items on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.

 

ISDtrongly Neutral Strongly
lsagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Reflections (3 items)
: After listening to the explanation

Ibecame more interested in this module than I was before 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ibecame more interested in this course than I was before 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In 25 words or less, please explain why the explanation
was helpful or unhelpful

84

APPENDIX E: TRANSCRIPTION OF MOVIE MONTAGE

E.1. Transcription of Movie Montage

[man climbs to stand on desk]

Why do I stand up here? Anybody.

To feel taller

No. [rings bell] Thank you for playing, Mr. Dalton. I stand upon my desk to remind
myself that we must constantly look at things in a different way. [turns to look around
room] See, the world looks very different from up here. You don’t believe me? Come see
for yourselves. Come on. Come on [students walk toward front of room] Just when you
think you know something, you have to look at it in another way. Even though it may

seem silly or wrong, you must try

[change of scene; Matrix]

1: Now, supposed to start with these operation programs first. __ Let’s do
something a little more fun. How about combat training? [loads disk into machine]
2: Jujitsu? I’m going to learn jujitsu?

[1 types on keyboard; 2 begins to convulse, opens eyes]

2: Holy shit.

1: Hey, Mikey, I think he likes it. How about some more?

2: Hell, yes. Hell, yeah.

[computer screen, third man enters]

[looking through window]
3: How is he?
1: Ten hours straight. He’s a machine

2: I know kung fu. [end]

[change scene, Bobby Fisher Sequence]
W: Come on, Josh. Let’s go.
M1: That the best you got? You ain’t got nothing. You sure this game? Maybe we go

on down to Chinatown.

85

M2: N0. That ain’t it. Hm, that ain’t it either. That’s

[boy watches two men who are playing cards]

(inaudible) No, you got to take her out of here. You got to leave with that. What you want,
to trade queens? You can’t trade queens with me. I ain’t in the trading business. What I
look like, a merchant to you? What you trying to do?

Back up, check this out before you wreck yourself. You can’t have it. Hello. See that.
Run. That’s right, run. [chessboard shown] Run. Run. Somebody call the police. The man
is loitering.

[change of scene - boy plays with palace & figurines]

[change of scene - boy sits down and plays chess with older man]

B: Check

[woman and men watch]

[older man grumbles inaudibly, moves chess pieces, boy moves chess pieces]

M3: Nyet, nyet. It’s over. You lose.

B: [looks around] Thanks.

M1: what’s his name?

B: Josh

M1: Josh what?

W: Let’s go, Josh. Don’t tell him your last name

Ml: Potts, I used to watch you play in the park like Bobby Fisher used to show him
this [points to newspaper]

W: Come on

M1: Your boy uses pieces in combination to attack, lady.

That’s what I’m talking about, make him run. Got me in trouble. I’m on the run. What
can I do? Where can I go? Come on.

[group of men watching]

Young Fisher

Come after me, come after me. There you go. Outstanding.

[repeats Bobby Fisher clip]

M: [man knocks chess pieces to floor, boy and man both look at empty chessboard]

B: Knight to C8.

86

M: Yes. [man smiles, reaches into briefcase and withdraws a pad of paper, places
sticker in pad] It’s a mysterious and powerful thing. It’s only been given out, I don’t
know, a few times in history and then only to those who achieve a lot of master class
points. Then there’s a big ceremony and so on.

B: How do you get master class points?

M: You earn them.

[scene change]

To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme, figures of
speech then ask two questions. One, how artfully has the objective of the poem been
rendered and two, how important is that objective? Question one rates the poem’s
perfection, question two rates its importance. And once these questions have been
answered, determining the poem’s greatness becomes a relatively simple matter. If a
poem’s score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph, and its importance is
plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of
its greatness. As you proceed through the poetry in this book, practice this rating method.
As your ability to evaluate poems in this manner grows, so will, so will your enjoyment
and understanding of poetry.

Excrernent. That’s what I think of J. Edgar Prichard. Rip out that page. Rip out the entire
page. You heard me. Rip it out. Rip it out. Go on, rip it out.

[student rips out paper]

Thank you, Mr. Dalton. Gentlemen, tell you what. Don’t just tear out that page, tear out
the entire introduction. I want it gone, history. Leave nothing of it. Rip it out. Rip it out.
Be gone, J. Edgar Prichard, Ph.D.. Rip, lip, tear, rip it out. I want to hear nothing but
ripping of Mr. Prichard. We’ll perforate it, put it on a roll. Armies of academics going
forward, measuring poetry. No, we will not have that here. N o more of J. Edgar Prichard.
In my class, you will learn to think for yourselves again. You will learn to savor words

and language. No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.

[change to spellbound]

87

Mrs. Slaughter, what if I don’t win? And I said so you don’t win. You know, you’re
already, you’ve, you’ve won. So you don’t spell the right word. Okay. I said then you
don’t have to study for the next month. She said, yeah, you know how she is. Yeah.
[scene change]

I have been waiting for tomorrow, for that day, I’ve been waiting for it forever.

All year

All year. And it’s, I can finally say tomorrow is the regional spelling bee. I can finally say
that.

[scene change-Nupur]

[sitting near computer; taking notes in notepad]

My parents were very pressured to succeed especially in India because academics there
are taken very, very seriously.

Parag: She always liked big words for some reason. Yeah, the bigger the word, the better
she liked it.

Meena: She would say things like I don’t have any opportunities when she had no idea
what opportunity meant but she would always liked the sounds. So _ 2 1/2 and she had no
opportunities. Munchausen

N: Oh, Munchausen syndrome. M U N C H A U S E N.

[scene change]

Spelling is kinda just like I do it because, I don’t know, my competitive side kinda comes
out. I don’t love spelling. I do it cuz I wanta compete, I wanta say hey, look at me, I’m
good at this. Cuz I ride with people who are better than me and I sing with people who

are better than me

[scene change]

I go higher, my goals go higher also. And so I just gotta keep on reaching, keep on
reaching. So this year, I rose above all of my problems and I went straight through the
local, straight through the regional. I was determined that I was going to city wide

spelling bee. I told the photographer, he was like so what are you going to do when you

get to city wide? I said I’m going to win. And sure I did. I won city wide spelling bee.

Now, I’m going to the nationals.

[scene change]

88

Darshana: We were close but this was like a crisis and we all had to pitch in to help
whichever way we could. If I could help him pull his clothes out and make sure that
they’re ready for him, he can shower and he can save two minutes, that also was
important. When you fight in a war, everybody has the same goal.

[boy is doing push-ups; scene change—man in chair, boy at desk]

I want you to step back, take a deep breath and use your technique again. Repronounce
the word, please, for me. What are you trying to spell?

Neil: S A D E R.

Great, Neil. Not missing a single word. __ I ’ll be the first one to admit it is hard but what

is, what is valuable in life that is easy to achieve? Nothing [end]

[scene change—Washington Heights. 8 weeks until competition]

What can you tell me about a fox?

A fox look like a dog but it’s like a dangerous dog that lives in the woods.

Yeah? Okay.

He go quietly and then he jump on the chicken.

Right. Very good. The fox sneaks up. He’s quiet, right? So that’s what, how we’re gonna
dance this dance. We’re gonna be, we’re gonna be smooth, we’re gonna be sneaky.
We’re gonna be quiet when we do a Foxtrot. Okay?

[students dance in twos]

5,6,7,8. Slow, slow, quick, quick, slow. Slow, away. Slow, slow

What do you do at the end of a dance?

You bow

You turn to the lady and give a little bow, right?

[students dancing; text on screen translates teacher talk: “Why are you laughing?
Everything you’re doing is ugly.” Students continue dancing]

Teacher: Everything is my fault?

[Translation of teacher’s talk: “You’re just laughing. You’re not doing anything else.”]
Step and _. Michael, that was terrible. Last year, we won gold but there was one final

competition that involved a huge, huge giant trophy and we didn’t get it. But this year, I

89

want that trophy. It’s like Susan Lucci, I want that Emmy. I want that trophy. Even if it’s
once and that’s it. Just one time and that’s it. I won’t bother you anymore.
6,7,go.TANGO.TA,again.TANGO.

Backwards. T A N G again. Tango face. A N G O. T A N G 0.

Make believe, everyone, when you’re doing tango, you’re imitating (inaudible) very,
very sneaky way.

[scene change—kids are outside]

S: Okay, my turn.

[third child comes into view, starts dancing]

[two children dancing]

S: T A N G O

90

REFERENCES

91

REFERENCES

Bergin, D. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34, 87—98.

Bianco, A. T., Higgins, E. T., & Klem, A. (2003). How “fun/importance” fit affects
performance: Relating implicit theories to instructions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1091-1103.

Brock, T. C. (1965). Communicator-recipient similarity and decision change. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 650-654.

Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education:
Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities.
Educational Psychologist, 34, 75-85.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Brophy, J. (2008a). Developing students’ appreciation for what is taught in school.
Educational Psychologist, 43, 132-141.

BrOphy, J. (2008b). Scaffolding appreciation for school learning: An update. In M. Maehr,
S. Karabenick, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement
(Volume 15) (pp. 1-48). New York: Elsevier.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. ( 1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: Testing three
conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of
Education, 11, 323-346.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating
internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality.
62, 119-142.

92

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-2688.

Eccles, J., Adler, T. F ., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L.', &
Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T.
Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San
Fransico, CA: Freeman.

Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review
of Psychology, 53, 109-132.

Harackiewicz, I. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting
success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability
measures as predictors of interest and performance fiom freshman year through
graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562—5 75.

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of
Educational Research, 60, 549-571.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion:
Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task
values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100, 398-416.

Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an
uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 798-811.

Keller, J. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and
Instruction, 26, 1-7.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.

Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L. (2006). Why do high school students lack
motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic arnotivation
and the role of social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 567-582.

93

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., Fedor, M. C., Francis, A. P., DeSchryver, M., &
Heintz, A. E. (2009, August). Reflections on teaching “Reflections on Learning. "
Paper presented at the Conference on the Teaching of Educational Psychology,

Toronto, Canada.

Oades, 0., & Harackiewicz, J. (2007, April). Boosting students’ interest in math with
utility value: Two experimental tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Peterson, P. L., Clark, C. M., & Dickson, W. P. (1990). Educational Psychology as a
“foundation” in teacher education: Reforming an old notion. Teachers College

Record, 91, 322-346.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a
determinant of argument based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 41, 847-855.

Reeve, J ., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an
autonomy-supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting

activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 183-207.

Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2004). Experimental research methods. In D.H. Jonassen
(Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd
ed., pp. 1021-1043). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roca, J. C., & Gagne, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the
workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24, 1585-1604.

Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of
student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education,

18, 57-73.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational PsycholOgy, 25, 54-67.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-detennination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,

55, 68-78.

94

Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. In P. A. Alexander, & P. H.
Winne (Eds), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 245-264).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thorndike, R. M. (2005). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (7th
edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person Education.

Urdan, T., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal
structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School

Psychology, 44, 331-349.

Vallerand, R. J ., Fortier, M.S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-deterrnination and persistence in a
real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161-1176.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The developmental achievement task values: A
theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 1-46.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.

Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Intemalization of biopsychosocial values by
medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70, 767-779.

Xie, K., DeBacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom
through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 34, 67-89.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Leippe, M. R., (I 991). The psychology of attitude change and social
influence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

95

 

IU' I

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

3 1293 03063 8625

 

 

a

A_

‘_ 32.“.