J. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, Vol.

31(4) 423-439, 2002-2003

MOTIVATION AND LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS

AFFECTING ONLINE LEARNING AND
LEARNING APPLICATION

DOO H. LIM

HYUNJOONG KIM

Uni ver sity of Ten nes see, Knox ville

ABSTRACT

Many studies have been conducted to verify the effect of learner charac -
teristics and motivation in traditional classroom, but very few are found in
online learning research. This study sought to identify what learner character-
istics and motivation types affected a group of undergraduate students’
learning and application of learning for a course conducted online. Utilizing
quantitative and qualitative analyses, the study found that gender and
employment status affected online learners’ learning and learning application.
Several motivation variables were also found to significantly influence
online learners’ learning application. Discussions of instructional strategies to
promote learner motivation and satisfaction in online learning environment
were included.

INTRODUCTION
Learning and teaching in a virtual learning environment has been an alternate
method for several decades to overcome limitations of traditional classroom
instruction and meet diverse learning and instructional needs from students and
teachers. Even though many studies have attempted to answer research questions
about online teaching and learning from various perspectives in instructional
design and technology, very few have sought to address motivational issues in

423
 2003, Baywood Pub lishing Co., Inc.
424 / LIM AND KIM

online teaching and learning. Some motivational variables were found to influence
learning in general, but others are unique to online learning environment as they
influence online learners’ performance and satisfaction [1]. Learner character -
istics are another variable known to affect students’ learning achievement both
for traditional and online instruction. Some example learner characteristics
identified are gender [2], previous work experience [3], computer experience
[4], and previous online learning experience [5]. As more learners are exposed
to online learning environment in public and private organizations, the
need to identify instructional conditions and strategies that promote online
learning motivation and accommodate learner characteristics is growing more
than ever.
One problematic situation in online learning as well as traditional classroom
environment is that most instructors tend to focus on mastering the subject
content of a course without providing opportunities to apply and transfer the
learned content to individual learner’s jobs, tasks, and personal career [6, 7].
Imposing significant challenges on recent research studies focusing only on
learning aspect of online instruction, identifying what instructional and learner
variables facilitate application of learning in such learning environment is
believed to be a meaningful study that researchers should seek for. To address
this kind of learning application issue in online instruction, the findings of this
kind of study are expected to reveal valid motivational and learner characteristics
variables that influence online learners’ application of learning as well as learning
achievement.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF ONLINE

LEARNING MOTIVATION
In reviewing many research studies on learning motivation, several theories
were considered valid to explain how individual learner is motivated to learning.
First, social learning theorists propose that an individual’s belief about the con-
tingency of reinforcement influences learner behavior [8, 9]. According to them,
learners will attain a high degree of learning achievement when they can relate
their ability or effort to instructional rewards such as grades and instructional
feedback. Other researchers adopt a similar motivation construct with the social
learning theorists. In Vroom’s expectancy theory, certain behaviors are followed
by desirable outcomes or incentive awards [10]. Pajares and Miller suggest
learner’s behavior will occur if there are various stimuli, known as stimulus-
outcome relations, or if she or he follows certain behaviors, known as behavior-
outcome relations [11]. Attribution theorists such as Atkinson [12] and Weiner
[13] perceive a more elaborate view on human motivation. While Rotter [8]
regards ability and effort as intrinsic motivation sources that are both con -
trollable, Weiner refers ability as a stable cause that is uncontrollable and effort
as controllable from one situation to another. Atkinson’s expectancy-value theory
 ONLINE LEARNING AND LEARNING APPLICATION / 425

explains an individual’s achievement motivation as a function of “the motive

to achieve success (Ms),” “the probability of success (Ps),” and “the incentive
value of success (Is).” That is, individual learning motivation can be explained by
the combined force of Ms × Ps × Is. Other motivation theorists such as Deci [14],
Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman [15] also share a very similar motivation
construct with the Expectancy Theory, expressed as “Motivation forces =
Expectancy × Instrumentality × Valence.” Malone considers challenge, fantasy,
curiosity, and control as the four intrinsic dimensions of learning motivation [16].
In an attempt to apply various motivation theories to instructional design, Keller
[17] has developed a model of motivational instruction design known as the ARCS
model [17]. Keller’s ARCS model comprises four sub-components for learning
motivation. Attention is to arouse and sustain curiosity and interest. Relevance is
to provide close links between course content and learners’ needs, interests, and
motivation. Confidence is related to how learners expect to succeed in an
instruction. Personal expectation for success, difficulty of tasks, locus of control,
and personal causation contribute to learner confidence. Satisfaction is derived
from achieving performance goals.
While the above mentioned motivation theories and constructs tried to explain
how an individual is motivated to learn in traditional classroom settings, a
common set of motivation variables that are unique to online instruction is
needed to be identified. To establish a theoretical base to address the purpose of
the study, the researchers developed a conceptual framework of online learning
motivation based on various motivation theories and constructs. Reinforcement
is the first type of motivation used for the study. Grades, instructor feedback,
peer support, and technical support are some examples of reinforcement moti-
vation. Several theorists have noted reinforcement as an important learning
motivation [9, 13, 18]. Relevance refers to the value of course content related
to learner’s jobs and studies. Atkinson [12], Deci [14], Herzberg, Mausner, and
Snyderman [15] indicate value residing in learning content decides the level
of motivation. Interest is another type of motivation promoting learner involve-
ment. When a learning task is challengeable and utilizes fantasy to present
learning content, learners will be motivated [16]. Self-competence is influenced
by feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy which is internal to learners. Self-
competence can be generally described as the degree to which one believes
that he or she is able to achieve a given task [19]. Dweck suggests that self-
competence can positively or negatively affect learner motivation [20]. Affect
influences a learner’s feeling and emotion in learning and transferring of
learning. An individual’s affect is influenced by corporate culture and climate,
opinions of co-workers and supervisors, family situations, present state of
mental health, attitude toward incorporating newly acquired knowledge and
skills into everyday tasks, attitude toward change, and degrees of frustration,
joy, determination, and gratification in utilizing newly acquired knowledge
and skills [21].
426 / LIM AND KIM

METHODOLOGY
Purpose
Even though there have been abundant research studies to verify the effect of
learner characteristics and motivation on learning performance in traditional
learning environment, very few have been conducted to assess the effect of those
variables on learner’s application of learning during online instruction. Here, the
term “application of learning” refers to the degree to which learners use and apply
learned knowledge and skills during instruction or to current jobs. To investigate
the purpose of this study, several research questions were developed.
1. What is the degree of learning and application of learning perceived by
a group of online learners in taking an online course.
2. What kinds of learner characteristics affect the online learners’ learning and
learning application?
3. What types of motivation affect the online learners’ learning and learning
application?

Methodology
This study utilized qualitative and quantitative research methods to explore the
research questions. The subjects for this study included 77 undergraduate students
(23 male and 54 female) who took an online course between 2000 and 2001 at a
southeastern university. Regarding employment status, 12 students were full-time
students, 33 students had part-time jobs, and 32 students had full-time jobs.
A questionnaire was developed to obtain the students’ level of motivation and
perceived degree of learning and learning application in taking an online course.
The students were asked to participate in the pre and post survey conducted online
at the beginning and the end of each semester. The online questionnaire used
a 5-point Likert-type scale to measure the degree of the learning (1 for “do not
understand” to 5 for “completely understand”), learning application (1 for “none”
to 5 for “frequently use”), and motivation (1 for “strongly disagree” to 5 for
“strongly agree”). The questionnaire included question items composed of 18
learning objectives of the online course, and the average score of them served for
the perceived degree of learning and learning application. The level of motivation
was measured by a motivation questionnaire composed of 20 question items.
The average scores were also calculated and used for the subsequent analysis.
Basic descriptive statistics was used to analyze the degree of learning, appli-
cation of learning, and motivation perceived by all students. Paired t-test was used
to compare population mean scores for the perceived learning increase before and
after the course. Analysis of covariance was carried out to verify the dependence
of motivation and the degree of learning and learning application. Qualitative
analysis was conducted to categorize the reasons that promote or hinder learning
and application of learning responded by all students.
 ONLINE LEARNING AND LEARNING APPLICATION / 427

Con text of the On line Course

The online course was developed to teach curriculum content in program
evaluation for undergraduate students. The online course included 13 learning
modules and the workload of one module was equivalent to that of one week’s
classroom instruction. Four sub-learning sections comprised one learning module.
All students were asked to attend a class meeting for course orientation and
another one for group project presentation at the end of each semester. At the
orientation meeting each student was allowed to choose a learning schedule option
among the two: weekly fixed schedule and self-paced flexible schedule. After
selecting a schedule option, students in each schedule option were divided into
peer groups composed of three to five students. Each peer student group was
involved in a group project and various online discussion activities for group
engagement and learning.

RESULTS

De gree of Learning and Learning Ap pli ca tion

The mean scores of students’ learning are summarized in Table 1. The differ-
ences between the pre and post learning scores are averaged and the paired t-test
was conducted. Furthermore, descriptive statistics and paired t-tests are imple -
mented for each category of the characteristics variables such as gender, work
experience, marital status, distance education experience, and age.
Overall, a significant learning increase was observed when compared between
the beginning and the end of the course (p < .0001). Furthermore, a significant
learning increase has occurred for all categories except those who have no distance
education experience (p = .0617). In order to measure the statistical significance
of the influence of learner characteristics on learning, an Analysis of Covariance
(ANCOVA) was performed. In this analysis, the post learning score was cal-
culated as response and the pre learning score as covariate. Gender, work experi-
ence, marital status, distance education experience, and age were simultaneously
considered as factors in the ANCOVA model. Table 2 lists each factor’s estimated
effect and their p-values. It turns out that only gender variable is statistically
significant. That is, female students show significantly higher degree of learning
than male students; but other variables in student characteristics do not have
significant effect on learning difference.
From the qualitative analysis of the reasons for high leaning and application
of learning during instruction, several findings explain what may cause the gender
difference in the online learning (see Table 3). First, female students perceived
the instructional quality of the course relatively better than the male students.
Among several instructional factors, female students perceived some factors such
as instructional effectiveness, previous learning experience, and opportunity to
 Table 1. Learning Dif fer ences between the Pre and Post Survey

Learning mean scores

T-test
No. Pre (SD ) Post (SD) Mean diff. (SD) P-value

Gender
Male 23 3.09 (.15) 3.73 (.15) 0.64 (.13) < .0001
Female 54 3.15 (.09) 4.16 (.08) 1.01 (.12) < .0001

Work Experience
Full-time 12 3.02 (.10) 3.97 (.11) 0.94 (.15) <.0001
Part-time 33 3.09 (.16) 4.07 (.13) 0.98 (.16) < .0001
Not employed 32 3.54 (.36) 4.44 (.13) 0.90 (.28) 0.012

Marital Status
Married 53 3.09 (.16) 3.96 (.12) 0.87 (.14) < .0001
Single 24 3.14 (.12) 4.14 (.10) 1.00 (.13) < .0001

DE Experience
No 7 2.83 (.28) 3.83 (.31) 1.00 (.43) .0617
Yes 70 3.16 (.08) 4.05 (.08) 0.89 (.09) < .0001

Age
18-29 67 3.14 (.09) 4.06 (.09) 0.92 (.11) < .0001
30 or higher 10 3.11 (.16) 3.96 (.14) 0.84 (.15) < .0001

Overall 77 3.13 (.08) 4.03 (.08) 0.90 (.09) < .0001

 ONLINE LEARNING AND LEARNING APPLICATION / 429

Table 2. Esti mated Effect of Stu dent Char ac ter is tics

on Learning Increase

Esti mated effect ANCOVA

Variable Description of effect (Stan dard error) P-value

Gender Female–Male 0.42 (.16) 0.011

Full time–Not employed –0.41 (.16)

Work Experience 0.201
Part time–Not employed –0.38 (.22)

Marital Status Single–Married 0.27 (.20) 0.182

DE Experience No–Yes 0.04 (.34) 0.918

Age “18-29”–“30 or higher” 0.25 (.21) 0.239

Pre Learning Score 0.24 (.10) < .0001

Table 3. Rea sons for High Learning and Appli ca tion by Gender

Reason category Male (%) Female (%) All (%)

Reasons for high learning

Instructional effectiveness 16 (36) 49 (53) 65 (47)
Related to my current or future jobs 5 (12) 9 (10) 14 (10)
Previous learning 3 (7) 11 (12) 14 (10)
Opportunity to practice learning 2 (4) 11 (12) 13 (10)
High interests in the learning content 6 (14) 6 (6) 12 (9)
Personal motivation for learning 7 (16) 3 (3) 10 (7)
Personal learning effectiveness 3 (7) 4 (4) 7 (5)
Other reasons 2 (4) 0 (0) 2 (2)
44 93 137

Reasons for high application

Opportunity to use learning 13 (48) 48 (68) 61 (62)
Because of high learning 5 (18) 7 (10) 12 (12)
Applicable learning content to my work 3 (12) 9 (13) 12 (12)
Personal motivation to apply 5 (18) 0 (0) 5 (5)
Personal interest 1 (4) 4 (6) 5 (5)
Because of repetition of information 0 (0) 2 (3) 2 (2)
27 70 97
430 / LIM AND KIM

practice learning as positively promoting factors for their learning. Opportunity

to use learning was responded relatively frequently by the female students as
it positively promoted their learning application. Unlike the degree of learning,
learning application was surveyed only one time at the end of the course.
Therefore, the researchers used the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test
the significance of each variable on learning application. The mean learning
application scores, their standard errors, and the p-values from the one-way
ANOVA are listed in Table 4. In this analysis it was identified that the female
students had significantly higher application score than male students and full-
time employed students showed significantly lower learning application score
than non-employed students. Because the variables can be confounded each
other, the researchers also fitted the multi-way ANOVA by putting all variables
simultaneously in the model. It turns out that the same conclusion still holds.

Learner Mo ti va tion
Ef fect on Learning

Five different types of motivation—course relevancy (CR), course interest (CI),

affect/emotion (AE), reinforcement (RI), self-efficacy (SE)—were included in
this study. Among the five motivation variables, CR was indicated as the most
important factor followed by SE and RI. To identify how each motivation variable
affected students’ learning and application of learning, the motivation scores
were tabulated by the low and high motivation group where the two groups were
divided by the median of the motivation scores (see Table 5).
In this analysis, the ANCOVA model was used in order to measure if the
different level of each motivation variable affected students learning. Since gender
was a significant variable that affected the learning score, it was also included in
the ANCOVA model. Two-step processes were utilized in the analysis. First, the
ANCOVA model was fitted individually for each motivation variable. That is, the
researchers considered one type of motivation at a time as a covariate; the post
learning score was treated as response, the gender as factor, and the pre learning
score as another covariate. Second, the researchers included all types of moti-
vation simultaneously as covariates in the model. The results are included in
Table 6. It was found that all motivation variables except CI showed a significant
effect on student learning in the individual ANCOVA model. However, in the
simultaneous ANCOVA model, only RI and SE were identified as the significant
motivation variables influencing students’ learning. This inconsistent result
implies there may exist some confounding effects among the motivation variables
and they may be correlated and difficult to separate one from another.
To verify what caused such inconsistent result, the correlation analysis and
Factor analysis were carried out. The correlation analysis in Table 7 indicates that
there are significant linear relationships among motivation variables; especially
among CR, AE, RI, and SE. It is also noticeable that CI does not have strong
 ONLINE LEARNING AND LEARNING APPLICATION / 431

Table 4. Effect of Stu dent Char ac ter is tics on Learning Application

One-way Multi-way
Mean score ANOVA ANCOVA
Variable (Stan dard error) P-value P-value

Gender
Male 3.50 (.14)
Female 3.95 (.09) .0109 .0131

Work Experience
Full-time 3.65 (.22)
.0336 .0423
Part-time 3.87 (.12)
Not employed 4.31 (.13)

Marital Status
Married 3.64 (.14)
.0792 .3552
Single 3.95 (.11)

DE Experience
No 3.75 (.27)
.8016 .9511
Yes 3.82 (.09)

Age
20-29 3.91 (.09)
30- 3.59 (.15) .0735 .8487

Overall 3.82 (.08)

relationships with others. In particular, CI and RI have very low correlation.

The factor analysis also confirmed that CI, AE, RI, and SE belong to the same
factor group and CI is in different factor group. Using the averaged motivation
score and CI as covariates, the researchers performed a similar ANCOVA analysis
as in Table 8.
In summary, as the average motivation score increases the perceived degree of
learning also increases significantly. However, the CI does not show a significant
effect on learning.

Ef fect on Learning Ap pli ca tion

As shown in Table 5, it appears that high motivation group has higher

application scores across all types of motivation. To confirm the significance
of the effect of each motivation variable on learning application, an ANCOVA
432 / LIM AND KIM

Table 5. Moti va tion and Learning Appli ca tion Scores

by High/Low Moti va tion Group

Low-High group
All Moti va tion means (SD) Appli ca tion means (SD)

Low High Low High

Motivation type Mean (SD) group group group group

Course relevancy 4.69 (.43) 4.30 (.38) 5.00 (.00) 3.66 (.14) 4.01 (.13)

Course interest 4.29 (.49) 3.91 (.31) 4.73 (.23) 3.83 (.13) 3.88 (.14)

Affect/Emotion 3.95 (.72) 3.31 (.49) 4.50 (.33) 3.79 (.14) 3.91 (.13)

Reinforcement 4.52 (.71) 4.06 (.37) 4.92 (.14) 3.57 (.13) 4.10 (.12)

Self-efficacy 4.57 (.48) 4.19 (.39) 4.95 (.10) 3.53 (.15) 4.05 (.11)

analysis was performed again. From the previous analysis result found in Table 4,
the researchers acknowledged that gender and work experience had a significant
effect on learning application. To properly detect the effect of motivation, gender
and work experience were also included in the ANCOVA model as factors. Two
ANCOVA models were utilized; individual modeling for each motivation variable
and simultaneous modeling using all motivation variables. Table 9 shows the
results of the two ANCOVA analyses. Both gender and work experience are
significant factors across all models. Female students have higher learning appli-
cation scores than males; non-employed students have higher scores than either
full-time or part-time employed students. Among the five motivation variables,
RI and SE are significant for the individual and simultaneous ANCOVA models.
It is also noted that the results of the individual and simultaneous ANCOVA are
consistent.

DISCUSSIONS

Learner Char ac ter is tics

As the findings indicate, the online course seemed to meet the course goal to
achieve significant learning increase before and after the course. In terms of the
learner characteristics, this study supports the argument that female students learn
better than male students in an online learning environment [2]. One unique
finding from this study, however, is the fact that the gender effect also exists on the
aspect of learning application. Moreover, the qualitative findings revealed that
 Table 6. ANCOVA Models for the Effect of Moti va tion on Stu dents’ Learning

Indi vid ual ANCOVA Simultaneous

Motivation P -value, Coef fi cient (stan dard error) ANCOVA

Course relevancy P = .0103, P = .5693,

0.45 (.17) 0.10 (.18)

Course interest P = .5566, P = .5807,

0.09 (.16) –0.08, (.14)

Affect/Emotion P = .0091, P = .4598,

0.28 (.10) 0.08 (.11)

Reinforcement P = .0003, P = .0503,

0.53 (.14) 0.31 (.15)

Self-efficacy P = .0002, P = .0251,

0.61 (.15) 0.40 (.17)

Gender P = .0094, P = .0203, P = .0066, P = .0147, P = .0019, P = .0027,

0.42 (.16) 0.40 (.17) 0.45 (.16) 0.37 (.15) 0.48 (.15) 0.45 (.14)

Pre-score P = .0094, P = .0104, P = .0097, P = .0310, P = .1172, P = .1200,

0.25 (.09) 0.26 (.10) 0.25 (.09) 0.20 (.09) 0.14 (.09) 0.14 (.09)
434 / LIM AND KIM

Table 7. Cor re la tion among the Dif fer ent Types of Motivation

Course Course Affect/ Self-

relevance interest Emotion Reinforcement efficacy

Course relevance 1 0 .24 0 .46** 0 .36** 0.43**

Course interest 0 .24 1 0 .33* 0 .08 0.23

Affect/Emotion 0 .46** 0 .33* 1 0 .41** 0.38**

Reinforcement 0 .36** 0 .08 0 .41** 1 0.44**

Self-efficacy 0 .43** 0 .23 0 .38** 0 .44** 1

*p-value < .05. **p-value < .01.

Table 8. ANCOVA Anal y sis Using Aver age

Score of the Fac tor Group

Esti mated effect ANCOVA

Independent variables (stan dard error) P -value

Average of CR, AE, RI, and SE 0.82 (.17) < .0001

Course interest –0.11 (.14) .4479

Gender 0.46 (.14) .0021

Pre-score 0.18 (.08) .0366

female and male students had utilized different learning strategies throughout the
course. Compared to male students, female students considered some instructional
factors and learning activities more valuable for their learning than other factors.
Those include clear and concise learning content, usefulness of class assignment
and projects, review and repetition of previous learning, and opportunity to use
learning. Male students considered high interest and personal motivation to
learning as more meaningful reasons for their high learning. From this finding, it
can be naturally interpreted that female students seemed to attribute their
successful learning experiences from external sources such as instructional design
factors while male students find those from internal orientation such as personal
interest and motivation.
 Table 9. Effect of Each Moti va tion Vari able on Learning Application

Indi vid ual ANCOVA Simultaneous

Motivation P -value, Coef fi cient (stan dard error) ANCOVA

Course relevancy P = .0672, P = .7345,

0.37 (.20) 0.07 (.21)

Course interest P = .2751, P = .4651,

0.20 (.18) 0.12, (.17)

Affect/Emotion P = .3989, P = .1525,

0.10 (.12) –0.19 (.13)

Reinforcement P = .0004, P = .0085,

0.60 (.16) 0.49 (.18)

Self-efficacy P = .0006, P = .0305,

0.61 (.17) 0.42 (.19)

Gender P = .0047, P = .0055, P = .0064, P = .0054, P = .0010, P = .0024,

0.54 (.16) 0.55 (.19) 0.54 (.19) 0.48 (.17) 0.59 (.17) 0.53 (.16)

Work experience P = .0194, P = .0115, P = .0226, P = .0339, P = .0122, P = .0189,

Full-time –0.71 (.18) –0.80 (.19) –0.72 (.19) –0.59 (.17) –0.70 (.17) –0.65 (.17)
Part time –0.49 (.25) –0.56 (.26) –0.50 (.25) –0.52 (.22) –0.49 (.23) –0.55 (.22)
436 / LIM AND KIM

Regarding learning application, job employment status was found to signifi-

cantly affect students’ application of learning along with the gender effect. It
would be logically assumed that students with employment status would experi-
ence more learning application opportunities than those who without jobs, but
the finding revealed a reverse result. Several reasons may account for this result.
First, the questionnaire asked the perceived degree of learning application during
their learning period. Considering each individual student’s different learning
condition, one possible inference might be that fulltime students would have
had a greater intention to apply their learning to the class learning activities,
assignments, and course projects. Second, as possibly explained, full-time
students would have committed more to their learning in terms of the time spent
on studying learning modules and interactions with the instructor and other
students than those students with jobs who had less time to apply learning due to
work constraints during their study period.

On line Learning Mo ti va tion

The major finding of this study is that all motivation variables except course
interest seemed to affect students’ learning while reinforcement and self-efficacy
influenced students’ learning application. It is worth devoting some discussions as
to why course interest did not make a significant influence on students’ learning
and learning application. From the qualitative findings, students perceived
personal interest as a relatively less important reason to their high learning and
application compared to other reason categories. Among all responded reasons
for high learning and application, only 12 (9 percent) and 5 (5 percent) responses
were accounted for course interest as it helped students’ learning and learning
application respectively. Course interest also did not show strong relationship
with other motivation variables (except affect/emotion) and the learning and
application scores as well.

In struc tional Strat egies to Aug ment Learning

The focus of this research study was to identify if learner characteristics and
different types of motivation influence students’ learning and their application of
learned content during their studies. As discussed, gender and job employment
status were found to be such learner characteristics affecting students’ learning
and application. Motivation variables, as a whole (except course interest), seemed
to signifcantly influence students’ learning. The remaining question is then
how to design online instructions that fully accommodate those differences in
learner characteristics and promote learner motivation to result in better learning
outcomes and transfer. Stemming from various learning theories, several
instructional strategies are recommended as viable options. First, making online
instruction in such ways that provide ample opportunities to practice learning is
critical for meaningful learning and transfer. Reflective learning theorists refer this
 ONLINE LEARNING AND LEARNING APPLICATION / 437

method as action oriented learning that stretches learning experiences into new
appreciations of novel situation and working knowledge [22]. Customizing
assignments and class projects to incorporate students’ own job examples and
experiences would be another strategy to expand the application opportunities
for those students with jobs. Situated learning theory presses the critical role of
real-world practice during learning by engaging learners in authentic, problem-
solving situations [23]. In problem-based learning, realistic problems are believed
to provide motivation to apply learning to the real situation [24]. To best promote
active and engaged learning for students, several motivational strategies deem to
be effective. Among the studied motivation variables, course relevancy, reinforce-
ment, course interest, and affect/emotion are controllable, but self-efficacy is
not. To facilitate these types of controllable learning motivation, applying collab-
orative learning principles to designing interactive learning activities is considered
a very valid strategy. This is because the collaborative learning activities empha-
size the co-construction process of student learning and idea sharing to solve real
life problem [25]. Through the diverse learning interactions such as observation,
interpretation, construction, contextualization, multiple manifestation, ownership
of knowledge, and self-awareness of learning process, students will attain a high
degree of learning motivation and involvement [26, 27]. Timely feedback and
support are another considerations for learner motivation. The weakest aspect of
online instruction has been said to be the lack of instructor student relationship
through “eye to eye” and “tongue to tongue” communication that creates online
learners’ emotional involvement in the learning process. Checking students’
learning progresses and sending frequent e-mails for feedback and encouragement
will be an easy but effective strategy to increase students’ emotional involvement
with the instructor and in the learning process.

REFERENCES
1. S. Vafa, Web-based Instruction and Motivation: Some Useful Guidelines for Edu -
cators, Proceedings of the 1999 Society for Information Technology and Teacher
Education, San Antonio, Texas, pp. 1900-1904, 1999.
2. J. V. Koch, How Women Actually Perform in Distance Education, The Chronicle of
Higher Education, http://chronicle.com/weekly/v45/i03/03a06001.htm, 1998.
3. M. Knowles, The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, 1990.
4. M. M. Robb, Exploring Individual Characteristics Associated with Learning to Use
Computers in Preservice Teacher Preparation, Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 31 :4, pp. 402-425, 1999.
5. J. C. Ory, C. Bullock, and K. Burnaska, Gender Similarity in the Use of and Attitudes
about ALN in a University Setting, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1 :1,
pp. 1-17, 1997.
6. M. G. Dolence, Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st
Century, Society for Colleges and Universities, New York, 1995.
438 / LIM AND KIM

7. D. Laurillard, Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use

of Educational Technology, Routledge, London and New York, 1993.
8. J. Rotter, Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement: A Case History of a
Variable, American Psychologist, 45, pp. 489-493, 1990.
9. M. R. Lepper and T. Malone, Intrinsic Motivation and Instructional Effectiveness
in Computer-Based Education, in Aptitude, Learning and Instruction: Cognitive and
Effective Process Analysis, R. Snow and M. Fars (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New
Jersey, 1987.
10. V. H. Vroom, Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, 1964.
11. F. Pajares and M. D. Miller, Role of Self-Efficacy and Self-Concept Beliefs in
Mathematical Problem Solving: A Path Analysis, Journal of Education Psychology,
86, pp. 193-203, 1994.
12. J. Atkinson, An Introduction to Motivation, Van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey,
1964.
13. B. Weiner, Integrating Social and Personal Theories of Achievement Striving, Review
of Educational Research, 64, pp. 557-573, 1994.
14. E. L. Deci, Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Reinforcement and Inequality, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77:22, pp. 3-120, 1977.
15. F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work, John Wiley,
New York, 1959.
16. T. Malone, Towards a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction, Cognitive
Science, 4, pp. 333-369, 1981.
17. J. M. Keller, The Systematic Process of Motivational Design, Performance &
Instruction, 26:9-10, pp. 1-8. 1987.
18. S. Graham, Classroom Motivation from an Attrition Perspective, in Motivational:
Theory and Research, M. Drillings (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
New Jersey, 1994.
19. J. J. Foster, Why Technology is Being Integrated into the Classroom at Such a Slow
Rate: A Discussion of Self-Efficacy, Motivation, and Utility, Proceedings of the 2001
Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando, pp. 2178-2179,
2001.
20. C. S. Dweek, The Development of Early Self-Conceptions: Their Relevance for
Motivational Processes, in Motivation and Self-Regulation across the Life Span,
J. Heckhausen and C. S. Dweck (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
21. R. J. Wlodkowski, Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn (2nd Edition), Jossey-Bass
Inc., San Francisco, 1999.
22. D. Baud, R. Keogh, and D. Walker, Promoting Reflection in Learning: A Model, in
Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, D. Boud, R. Keogh, and Y. D. Walker
(eds.), Kogan Page, London, 1985.
23. J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.
24. A. Sfard, On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One,
Educational Research, 27 :2, pp. 4-12, 1998.
25. C. Crook, Computers and the Collaborative Experience of Learning, Routledge,
London, 1994.
26. J. B. Black and R. O. McClintock, An Interpretation Construction Approach to
Constructivist Design, in Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in
 ONLINE LEARNING AND LEARNING APPLICATION / 439

Instructional Design, B. G. Wilson and D. N. Perkins (eds.), Educational Technology

Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 25-32, 1996.
27. P. C. Honebein, Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments,
in Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design,
B. G. Wilson and D. N. Perkins (eds.), Educational Technology Publications,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 11-24, 1996.

Direct reprint requests to:

Doo H. Lim
University of Tennessee
408 Stokely Management Center
Knoxville, TN 37996-0545
e-mail: dhlim@utk.edu