Online learning,classroom quality,and student motivation: Perspectives from students,teachers,parents,and program staff

Abstract

The purpose of this concurrent mixed-methods study was to assess the quality of online learning with a focus on student motivation in the context of a talent development program. Data were collected from 221 Indian students from fifth to tenth grades for three academic years during their participation in 14 online and 10 in-person courses. Students, teachers, and parents responded to a measure of classroom quality assessing five constructs—appeal, meaningfulness, academic self-efficacy, challenge, and choice. In addition, 41 online sessions were observed by program staff using an additional measure of instructional quality. Participants rated online learning to be highly supportive of learning motivation. No significant differences were observed in student motivation by program format, gender, or program level. Qualitative analysis revealed specific affordances and challenges in supporting student motivation in online learning. Implications in the context of out-of-school programs for students with intellectual gifts and talents are discussed.

Keywords

online learning talent development gifted students learning motivation classroom quality India concurrent mixed-methods pandemic

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Cavanaugh

(2007). Effectiveness of K–12 online learning. In Moore

(Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 157–168). Lawrence Erlbaum

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Corwith

(2018). Programming for talent development outside of school. In Olszewski-Kubilius

Subotnik

R. F.

Worrell

F. C.

(Eds.), Talent development as a framework for gifted education (pp. 63–93). Prufrock.

Creswell

J. W.

Clark

V. L. P.

(2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage publications.

Fasching-Varner

K. J.

Bickmore

S. T.

Hays

D. G.

Schrader

P. G.

Carlson

D. L.

Anagnostopoulos

(Eds.). (2020). The corona chronicles: On leadership, processes, commitments, and hope in uncertain times. DIO Press.

Gentry

Owen

S. V.

(2004). Secondary student perceptions of classroom quality: Instrumentation and differences between advanced/honors and nonhonors classes. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2004-464

Housand

B. C.

Housand

A. M.

(2012). The role of technology in gifted students' motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 706–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21629

10.

Hrastinski

(2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55.

11.

Jarvin

Subotnik

R. F.

(2015). Understanding elite talent in academic domains: A developmental trajectory from basic abilities to scholarly productivity/artistry. In Dixon

F. A.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), The Handbook of secondary gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 217–235). Prufrock.

12.

Moore

M. J.

(1993). Three types of interaction. In Harry

John

Keegan

(Eds.), Distance education theory (pp. 19–24). Routledge.

13.

Nicholas

(2010). A progressive pedagogy for online learning with high-ability secondary school students: A case study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0016986209355973

14.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Lee

S. Y.

(2004). Gifted adolescents’ talent development through distance learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F016235320402800102

15.

Peters

S. J.

Gates

J. C.

(2010). The teacher observation form: Revisions and updates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210369258

16.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. 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

17.

Sanderson

Greenberger

(2010). Evaluating online programs through a gifted lens. Gifted Child Today, 34(3), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621751103400311

18.

Seward

K. K.

(2017). Using gifted student perceptions of motivational techniques to inform teacher reflection [Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University].

19.

Thomas

D. R.

(2006). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

20.

Thomson

D. L.

(2010). Beyond the classroom walls: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on how online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4), 662–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002100405

21.

Jen

Gentry

(2018). Validating a classroom perception instrument for gifted students in a university-based residential program. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(3), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X18764450