College instruction has experienced a significant movement toward increased online learning course options. Without appropriate supports, students in virtual learning environments often face greater challenges with self-regulation, motivation, and recognizing the personal relevance of course content.
Objective
The current study focuses on the prevalence of personal relevance and its associated impact on cognitive and motivational variables including achievement emotion, intrinsic value, self-efficacy, test anxiety, cognitive strategy use, self-regulation, and metacognition in a virtual learning environment.
Method
Students in two online graduate level human development courses completed a series of questionnaires (N = 73) for course credit.
Results
Results show the high transformative experience (TE) group reported significantly higher positive emotions, interest, intrinsic value, self-efficacy, cognitive strategy use, test anxiety, and self-regulation, giving them more cognitive and motivational benefits than those who experienced low levels. They also show no relationship between TE and course grade.
Conclusion
Future research in this area may benefit from focus on ways to intentionally increase TEs from online contexts to real-life contexts.
Teaching Implications
Such research would allow instructors intentionality in pedagogical endeavors while allowing students to integrate course information into their daily lives.
AinleyM. (2010). Interest in the dynamics of task behavior: Processes that link person and task in effective learning. In UrdanT. C.KarabenickA. (Eds.), The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (volume 16A): Advances in in motivation and achievement (pp. 235–264). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A010.
2.
ArtinoA. R.Jr.JonesK. D.II. (2012). Exploring the complex relations between achievement emotions and self-regulated learning behaviors in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.01.006.
3.
ArtinoA. R.Jr.StephensJ. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3–4), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.02.001.
4.
AzevedoR.GuthrieJ. T.SeibertD. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1–2), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.2190/DVWX-GM1T-6THQ-5WC7.
5.
BakerC. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2010.1.2.
6.
BanduraA. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L.
7.
BanduraA. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3.
8.
BarnardL.LanW. Y.ToY. M.PatonV. O.LaiS.-L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005.
9.
BolligerD. U. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 61–67. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/2226/.
10.
BradleyR. L.BrowneB. L.KelleyH. M. (2017). Examining the influence of self-efficacy and self-regulation in online learning. College Student Journal, 51(4), 518–530.
11.
BroadbentJ. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner’s self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.004.
12.
BroughtonS. H.SinatraG. M.NussbaumE. M. (2013). “Pluto has been a planet my whole life!” Emotions, attitudes, and conceptual change in elementary students’ learning about Pluto’s reclassification. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9274-x.
13.
CassadyJ. C.GridleyB. E. (2005). The effects of online formative and summative assessment on test anxiety and performance. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(1), 1–31. www.jtla.org.
14.
CassadyJ. C.JohnsonR. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1094.
15.
ChoM.-H.KimY.ChoiD. (2017). The effect of self-regulated learning on college students’ perceptions of community of inquiry and affective outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.04.001.
16.
ClearyT. J.VelardiB.SchnaidmanB. (2017). Effects of the self-regulation empowerment program (SREP) on middle school students’ strategic skills, self-efficacy, and mathematics achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 64, 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.004.
17.
de BruinA. B. H.ThiedeK. W.CampG.RedfordJ. (2011). Generating keywords improves metacomprehension and self-regulation in elementary and middle school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(3), 294–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.005.
18.
DeciE. L.KoestnerR.RyanR. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.
19.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. Collier Books.
20.
ElliotA. J.HarackiewiczJ. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461.
21.
ElliotA. J.McGregorH. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 628–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.628.
22.
FlavellJ. H. (1971). First discussant’s comments: What is memory development the development of?Human Development, 14(4), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271221.
23.
FrenzelA. C.Becker-KurzB.PekrunR.GoetzT.LüdtkeO. (2017). Emotion transmission in the classroom revisited: A reciprocal effects model of teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(5), 628–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000228.
24.
FrenzelA. C.GoetzT.PekrunR.WattH. M. G. (2010). Development of mathematics interest in adolescence: Influences of gender, family, and school context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 507–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00645.x.
25.
GeX. (2001). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes on an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions[Doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
26.
GirodM.TwymanT.WojcikiewiczS. (2010). Teaching and learning science for transformative, aesthetic experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 801–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9175-2.
27.
GoetzT.PreckelF.ZeidnerM.SchleyerE. (2008). Big fish in big ponds: A multilevel analysis of test anxiety and achievement in special gifted classes. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 21(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800701628827.
28.
GoldmanJ.CavazosJ.HeddyB. C.PughK. J. (2021). Emotions, values, and engagement: Understanding motivation of first-generation college students. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000263.
29.
GreeneJ. A.AzevedoR. (2007). Adolescents’ use of self-regulatory processes and their relation to qualitative mental model shifts while using hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.2190/G7M1-2734-3JRR-8033.
30.
GreeneB. A.MillerR. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0015.
31.
GreeneB. A.MillerR. B.CrowsonH. M.DukeB. L.AkeyK. L. (2004). Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 462–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.006.
32.
GreeneJ. A.MoosD. C.AzevedoR.WintersF. I. (2008). Exploring differences between gifted and grade-level students’ use of self-regulatory learning processes with hypermedia. Computers and Education, 50(3), 1069–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.004.
33.
HackerD. J.KeenerM. C.KircherJ. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In HackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154–172). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876428.
34.
HancockD. R. (2001). Effects of test anxiety and evaluative threat on students’ achievement and motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598764.
35.
HeddyB.PughK. (2015). Bigger is not always better: Should educators aim for big transformative learning events or small transformative experiences?Journal of Transformative Learning, 3(1), 52–58.
36.
HeddyB. C.SinatraG. M. (2013). Transforming misconceptions: Using transformative experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students learning about biological evolution. Science Education, 97(5), 723–744. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21072.
37.
HeddyB. C.SinatraG. M. (2017). Transformative parents: Facilitating transformative experiences and interest with a parent involvement intervention. Science Education, 101(5), 765–786. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21292.
38.
HeddyB. C.SinatraG. M.SeliH.TaasoobshiraziG.MukhopadhyayA. (2017). Making learning meaningful: Facilitating interest development and transfer in at-risk college students. Educational Psychology, 37(5), 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1150420.
KellerJ. M. (1995). Motivation in cyber learning environments. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(1), 7–30.
41.
KimC.ParkS. W.CozartJ. (2014). Affective and motivational factors of learning in online mathematics courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01382.x.
42.
KizilcecR. F.Pérez-SanagustínM.MaldonadoJ. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001.
43.
KuoY.-C.WalkerA. E.SchroderK. E. E.BellandB. R. (2014). Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001.
44.
Linnenbrink-GarciaL.DurikA. M.ConleyA. M.BarronK. E.TauerJ. M.KarabenickS. A.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 647–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355699.
45.
MarchandG. C.GutierrezA. P. (2012). The role of emotion in the learning process: Comparisons between online and face-to-face learning settings. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.10.001.
46.
MarkmanE. M. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643-655. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128929.
47.
MitchellM. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.424.
48.
MoosD. C.AzevedoR. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 270–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.001.
49.
MuilenburgL. Y.BergeZ. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269.
50.
OrmrodJ. E. (2016). Human learning (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
51.
PekrunR. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9.
52.
PekrunR.FrenzelA. C.GoetzT.PerryR. P. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In SchutzP. A.PekrunR. (Eds.), Emotions in education (pp. 13–36). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50003-4.
53.
PekrunR.SchutzP. A. (2007). Where do we go from here? Implications and future directions for inquiry on emotions in education. In SchutzP. A.PekrunR. (Eds.), Emotions in education (pp. 313–331). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50019-8.
54.
PellasN. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of second life. Computers in Human Behavior, 35(1), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048.
55.
PintrichP. R.De GrootE. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational psychology, 82(1), 33.
56.
PughK. J. (2002). Teaching for transformative experiences in science: An investigation of the effectiveness of two instructional elements. Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1101–1137. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00198.
PughK. J. (2011). Transformative experience: An integrative construct in the spirit of deweyan pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558817.
59.
PughK. J.BergstromC. M.HeddyB. C.KrobK. E. (2017). Supporting deep engagement: The teaching for transformative experiences in science (TTES) model. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(4), 629–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1277333.
60.
PughK. J.Linnenbrink-GarciaL.KoskeyK. L. K.StewartV. C.ManzeyC. (2010). Motivation, learning, and transformative experience: A study of deep engagement in science. Science Education, 94(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20344.
RoebersC. M. (2017). Executive function and metacognition: Toward a unifying framework of cognitive self-regulation. Developmental Review, 45, 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2017.04.001.
63.
RoebersC. M.KrebsS. S.RodererT. (2014). Metacognitive monitoring and control in elementary school children: Their interrelations and their role for test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.003.
64.
RovaiA. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00158-6.
65.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
66.
SchunkD. H.PintrichP. R.MeeceJ. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (3rd ed.). Pearson.
67.
SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560600837578.
68.
SheaP.BidjeranoT. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017.
69.
SinatraG. M.BroughtonS. H.LombardiD. (2014). Emotions in science education. In PekrunR.Linnenbrink-GarciaL. (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 415–436). Routledge.
70.
StowellJ. R.BennettD. (2010). Effects of online testing on student exam performance and test anxiety. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.2.b.
71.
SwanK. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463631022000005016.
72.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2001). Computer-assisted research design and analysis (Vol. 748). Allyn and Bacon.
73.
ThibodeauxJ.DeutschA.KitsantasA.WinslerA. (2017). First-year college students’ time use: Relations with self-regulation and GPA. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16676860.
74.
WaschullS. B. (2005). Predicting success in online psychology courses: Self-discipline and motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 190–192. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3203_11.
75.
WhippJ. L.ChiarelliS. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504714.
76.
WoltersC. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.236.
ZembylasM.TheodorouM.PavlakisA. (2008). The role of emotions in the experience of online learning: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Media International, 45(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980802107237.
79.
ZimmermanB. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3004_8.
80.
ZimmermanB. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909.
81.
ZimmermanB. J.KitsantasA. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.29.
