Owner Prof. Dr. Naci GUNDOGAN (Anadolu University Rector)
Editor-in-Chief Dr. T. Volkan YUZER (Anadolu University)
Associated Editor Dr. Gulsun EBY (Anadolu University)
International Affairs Dr. Ugur DEMIRAY (Anadolu University)
Editorial Board in English Language Dr. Zulal BALPINAR (Anadolu University) Dr. Ilknur KECIK (Anadolu University)
Proof Reading Team Dr. Ali MERC (Anadolu University) Dr. Ozgur YILDIRIM (Anadolu University) Dr. Ipek KURU GONEN (Anadolu University) Dr. Gonca SUBASI (Anadolu University)
Web Support Team Dr. Nilgun OZDAMAR KESKIN (Anadolu University) Abdulkadir KARADENIZ (Anadolu University) Altan DEVRIM (Anadolu University)
Editorial Board Members Dr. Abdul Waheed KHAN (Canada) Dr. Anna RYBAK (Poland)
Dr. António TEIXEIRA (Portugal) Dr. Antonis LIONARAKIS (Greece) Dr. Asha KANWAR (Canada) Dr. Bobby HARREVELD (Australia) Dr. Carmencital CASTOLO (Philippines) Dr. Cleborne D. MADDUX (Canada) Dr. David METCALF (USA) Dr. Dursun GOKDAG (Turkey) Dr. Ene KOITLA (Estonia) Dr. Ezendu ARIWA (United Kingdom) Dr. Fahriye ALTINAY AKSAL (Turkey) Dr. Farhad SABA (USA) Dr. Ferhan ODABASI (Turkey) Dr. Feyzi ULUG (Turkey) Dr. Fons NOUWENS (Australia) Dr. Francis GLASGOW (South America) Dr. Gilly SALMON (United Kingdom) Dr. Gonca Telli YAMAMOTO (Turkey) Dr. Hakan TUZUN (Turkey) Dr. Hanafi ATAN (Malaysia) Dr. Jack KOUMİ (United Kingdom) Dr. Jim FLOOD (United Kingdom) Dr. John TRAXLER (United Kingdom) Dr. Katherine M. SINITSA (Ukraine) Dr. Kinshuk (New Zealand) Dr. Kay Mac KEOGH (Ireland) Dr. Loreta ULVYDIENE (Lithuania) Dr. Marina McISAAC (USA) Dr. Mark BULLEN (Canada) Dr. Meena HWANG (South Korea) Dr. Michael R. SIMONSON (USA) Dr. Michail KALOGIANNAKIS(France) Dr. Mihai JALOBEANU (Romania) Dr. Nabi Bux JUMANI (Pakistan) Dr. Natalija LEPKOVA (Lithuania) Dr. Patrick DANAHER (Australia) Dr. Paul KAWACHI (China) Dr. Piet KOMMERS (Netherlands) Dr. Ramesh C. SHARMA (India) Dr. Roza DUMBRAVEANU (Moldova) Dr. Rozhan B. M. IDRUS (Malaysia) Dr. Santosh PANDA (India) Dr. Sarah GURI-ROSENBLIT (Israel) Dr. Shivakumar DEENE (India) Dr. Simon STOBART (United Kingdom) Dr. Som NAIDU (Australia)
Dr. Stephen DOWNES (Canada) Dr. Steve WHEELER (United Kingdom) Dr. Tamar LOMINADZE (Georgia) Dr. Ugur DEMIRAY (Turkey) Dr. William John FRASER (South Africa) Dr. Yavuz AKBULUT (Turkey) Dr. Zehra ALTINAY GAZİ (Turkey) Dr. Zeki KAYA (Turkey) Dr. Zdena LUSTIGOVA (Czech Republic) Dr. Zhang WEI-YUAN (Hong Kong)
Honorary Editorial Board of TOJDE (Ordered alphabetically) Prof. Dr. Cevat ALKAN - The pioneer of educational technology in DE in Turkey (Turkey) Prof. Dr. Engin ATAC - Former Rector of Anadolu University for 1999-2006 period (Turkey) Prof. Dr. John BAATH - The well-known Swedish distance educator (Sweden) Prof. Dr. Tony BATES - Father of DE in Canada (Canada) Prof. Dr. Yılmaz BUYUKERSEN - The founder of DE in Turkey (Turkey) Prof. Dr. Chris CURRAN - The founder director of National DE Centre in Ireland (Ireland) Prof. Dr. Chere Campbell GIBSON - She studied for DE all her life. Emeritus Professor (USA) Prof. Dr. Börje HOLMBERG - He studied for DE. Emeritus Professor (Sweden) Prof. Dr. James MARAJ - The pioneer of the open university movement (Australia) Prof. Dr. Charles A. WEDEMEYER - The pioneer of DE in the world (USA)
TOJDE is abstracted, indexed and cited by the following databases around the world:
ASOS The Education Resources Information Center – ERIC The Directory of Open Access Journals – DOAJ EBSCOhost Research Databases Genamics JournalSeek Google Scholar InfoBase Index International Institute of Organized Research - I2OR Scientific Indexing Service SCOPUS UlrichsWeb - Global Serials Directory
Table of Contents
From The Editor Welcome to the Volume 17, Number 2 of TOJDE Marcela Gerogina GOMEZ-ZERMENO & Lorena ALEMAN DE LA GARZA Research Analysis on Mooc Course Dropout and Retention Rates
Hasan UCAR & Mujgan YAZICI BOZKAYA Pre-Service EFL Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Goal Orientations, and Participations in an Online Learning Environment
Djoko RAHARDJO, SUMARDJO, Djuara P. LUBIS & Sri HARIJATI Internet Access and Usage in Improving Students’ Self-Directed Learning in Indonesia Open University
Gurhan DURAK, E. Emre OZKESKIN & Murat ATAIZI QR Codes in Education and Communication
Jose CAPACHO Teaching and Learning Methodologies Supported by ICT Applied in Computer Science
Muhammad Razuan ABDUL RAZAK & Ahmad Zamzuri MOHAMAD ALI Instructional Screencast: A Research Conceptual Framework
Moanes H. TIBI Essential Components in Structuring Asynchronous Discussion Forums
Harun CIGDEM & Mustafa OZTURK Critical Components of Online Learning Readiness and Their Relationships with Learner Achievement
Indrajeet DUTTA Open Educational Resources (OER): Opportunities and Challenges for Indian Higher Education
Reviewed By Hakan ALTINPULLUK REVEW: E-Learning Paradigms and Applications Agent-Based Approach Edited By Mirjana Ivanovic And Lakhmi C. Jain
Reviewed By Aylin OZTURK REVIEW: Educational Data Mining: Applications and Trends Edited by Alejandro Pena-Ayala
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE April 2016 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 17 Number: 2
Dear TOJDE Readers, Welcome to the Volume 17, Number 2 of TOJDE, In April 2016 issue, there are 9 articles and 2 book reviews. 18 authors from 7 different countries write the articles. All these articles are from Colombia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, and Turkey. The 1st article is written by Dr. Marcela Gerogina GOMEZ-ZERMENO and Lorena ALEMAN DE LA GARZA. The title of this article is RESEARCH ANALYSIS ON MOOC COURSE DROPOUT AND RETENTION RATES. This article researches terminal efficiency of the Massive Online Open Course “Educational Innovation with Open Resources” offered by a Mexican private university. A quantitative methodology is used in this research. The reasons of dropout and retention rates is explained by the writers in the article. PRE-SERVICE EFL TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS, GOAL ORIENTATIONS, AND PARTICIPATIONS IN AN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT is the title of the 2nd article. Hasan UCAR and Prof. Dr. Mujgan YAZICI BOZKAYA are the writers. Embedded mixed design was used in the study. In the quantitative part of the study, the participants were 186 senior pre-service EFL teachers and data were collected on two scales and a questionnaire. Qualitative data were collected in form of one-on-one interviews from 2 preservice EFL teachers. Results shows several positive associations between teachers’ goal orientations and self-efficacy beliefs. The writers also presents future research suggestions in the end of article. The 3rd article’s title is INTERNET ACCESS AND USAGE IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SELFDIRECTED LEARNING IN INDONESIA OPEN UNIVERSITY. Djoko RAHARDJO, Prof. Dr. SUMARDJO, Dr. Djuara P. LUBIS, and Dr. Sri HARIJATI are the writers of the article. This study aims to analyze the relationship between internet access and usage in improving students' self-directed learning which is using structural equation model method. The result shows that the internet usage is still low in Indonesia due to limited internet facilities that affect the knowledge and willingness of students to access the internet. In the end, the writers has a suggestion. The strategy in improving student internet usage is applying social media as guidance that can be accessed through cellular phones. Dr. Gurhan DURAK, E. Emre OZKESKIN, and Dr. Murat ATAIZI are the writers of the 4th article. QR CODES IN EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION is the tile of this article. Descriptive data analysis is used in the study. The findings are interpreted on the basis of Theory of Diffusion of Innovations and Theory of Uses and Gratifications. The writers highlight that the students mentioned that they did not have any difficulty using QR Codes. According to students, the content should include both superficial and in-depth information. The 5th article, titled TEACHING AND LEARNING METHODOLOGIES SUPPORTED BY ICT APPLIED IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, is written by Dr. Jose CAPACHO. The main objective of this paper is to show a set of new methodologies applied in the teaching of Computer Science using ICT. Behavioral Theory, Gestalt Theory. Genetic-Cognitive Psychology Theory, and Dialectics Psychology support the theoretical framework of the article. INSTRUCTIONAL SCREENCAST: A RESEARCH CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK is the tile of the 6th article. Muhammad Razuan ABDUL RAZAK and Ahmad Zamzuri MOHAMAD ALI are the writers of this article. According to writers, the cognitive style will ultimately affect how information is processed in the students’ memory structure. Students will also easily process the given information, if it is performed in accordance with their dominant learning
style. In the end of the article, the writers suggest experimental studies are important to determinate the ideal screencast design for specific learning style and cognitive style. The 7th article is titled ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS IN STRUCTURING ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION FORUMS. Dr. Moanes H. TIBI is the writer of this article. This paper reviews the literature regarding the main elements and components that makes an asynchronous discussion forum more effective for knowledge acquisition and thereby increases the quality of online learning. Dr. Harun CIGDEM and Dr. Mustafa OZTURK are the writers of the 8th article. The title of this article is CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF ONLINE LEARNING READINESS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH LEARNER ACHIEVEMENT. This study is aimed to examine the relationship between certain factors of online learning readiness and learners’ end-ofcourse achievements. The results show that the students’ self-direction towards online learning appeared to be the strongest predictor of their achievements within the course; whereas computer/Internet self-efficacy and motivation for learning did not predict the learner achievement significantly. The title of the 9th article is OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES (OER): OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION and the writer is Dr. Indrajeet DUTTA. The writer highlights the easy and widespread availability of high quality educational material will change the paradigm of teaching and learning and thus improve the quality of education. Government of India has started several innovative programs and schemes like SHAKSHAT, NMEICT, NPTEL, OSCAR, E-grid etc. related to developing and disseminating educational resources. This article focuses on the opportunities and challenges with respect to OER in Indian higher education. There are two book reviews in this issue. E-LEARNING PARADIGMS AND APPLICATIONS: AGENT-BASED APPROACH is the title of 1st book. This book is an editorial book. The editors are Mirjana Ivanovic and Lakhmi C. Jain. The reviewer is Hakan ALTINPULLUK. Other book’s title is EDUCATIONAL DATA MINING: APPLICATIONS AND TRENDS. This is another editorial book and the editor is Alejandro Pena-Ayala. This book is reviewed by Aylin OZTURK. Hope to meet you July 2016 issue of TOJDE. Cordially, Dr. T. Volkan YUZER Editor-in-Chief
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE April 2016 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 17 Number: 2 Article 1
RESEARCH ANALYSIS ON MOOC COURSE DROPOUT AND RETENTION RATES Dr. Marcela Gerogina GOMEZ-ZERMENO Tecnológico de Monterrey, School of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, Monterrey, MEXICO Lorena ALEMAN DE LA GARZA Tecnológico de Monterrey, School of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, Monterrey, MEXICO ABSTRACT This research’s objective was to identify the terminal efficiency of the Massive Online Open Course “Educational Innovation with Open Resources” offered by a Mexican private university. A quantitative methodology was used, combining descriptive statistics and probabilistic models to analyze the levels of retention, completion, and desertion, as well as the characteristics of the students who completed the course. The results show a 14% of student retention and an 11.7% of student completion, relative to the total number of participants, who had some common characteristics: having a graduate (master or doctorate), being experienced in online education, committed to the course and self-taught. The participants who abandoned the course expressed the following reasons: problems with the course’s structure, limitations in the use of information and communication technologies or limited English proficiency, family reasons or low time disposition. It is recommended to take actions that will increase the knowledge in order to explain the MOOCs’ desertion rates and to strengthen their structures to improve the retention and completion rates. Keywords: Distance education, Open educational resources, MOOC, Terminal efficiency, School desertion INTRODUCTION The evolution of distance education and technological advances signify an important opportunity to increase education’s access and contribution to the compliance of international commitments regarding education. In this respect, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2002, 2012) has established that free access to educational resources is a strategy to upgrade the quality of education, to facilitate the dialogue about policies, to interchange knowledge and to develop skills. Massive Online Open Courses (MOOC) are an emerging practice in open learning. It began in 2008, when George Siemens and Stephen Downes offered the course Connectivism and Connective Knowledge in the University of Manithoba in Canada; the course had a duration of 12 weeks and 2,300 students enrolled (Fini, 2009; Wiley & Hilton III, 2009). Among their characteristics, MOOCs allow the construction of bonds between hundreds or even thousands of students who self-organize their participation, learning goals, knowledge,
abilities and interests (McAuley, Stewart, Siemens & Cormier, 2010). Additionally, their free online access enables the enrollment of a large number of students (SCOPEO, 2013). Currently, Coursera, EdX, and Udacity are among the platforms that host MOOCs. For Latin American participants, MiriadaX and RedunX are available (Lushnikova, Chintakayala, Rodante, 2013; SCOPEO, 2013). Many Latin American universities have developed their own MOOCs in their institutional platforms or even through social networking sites such as Facebook. Nevertheless, only three Latin American universities are part of the Coursera community. In developing countries, the use of MOOCs is an alternative educational offering for professionals who look for complementary training and education. In addition, these courses allow the acquisition of new knowledge and skills in fields that could provide them the opportunity for a better income or to continue learning throughout life. Massive courses attract thousands of participants who are interested in the offered topic; however, it is important to note that approximately only 10% of the registered students complete the course (Lushnikova et al., 2013). Such case is reported by the University of Toronto (Harrison, 2013), where the percentage of terminal efficiency varied between 3% and 16%. On a similar note, SCOPEO (2013) reported an average of 13.5% of students who completed the course, out of 188,802 registered participants in 58 courses from 18 universities. The low terminal efficiency rates of MOOCs reveal a lack of self-regulation and self-motivation in students (Lushnikova et al., 2013). Likewise, Clow (2013) remarks that the student’s compromise level may diminish as the courses move forward. On this respect, Siemens and Tittenberg (2009) established that desertion rates could be minimized by providing more attention to the students regarding the components of effective learning, motivation, institutional support and free access to educational resources, in order to promote the development of interpersonal relationships among peers, faculty, and teaching staff. A dropout in online courses refers to the persons who inconspicuously discontinue their participation in the course; however, they are different from passive participants, students who do not unregister and continue the course without active collaboration in it (Rodríguez, 2012). Additionally, the author signals that the desertion rates and passive behavior of some MOOCs’ participants are among the educators’ concerns. In Latin America, experiences related to MOOCs are still developing; due to the growing research demand for these educational practices, it is necessary to identify and overcome the difficulties and obstacles in order to increase their dissemination and implementation, as well as the promotion of this type of initiatives, so they can be integrated in the public agenda of countries, institutions and inter-institutional projects in Latin America (Mortera, 2012). These circumstances have been confirmed by Liyanagunawardena, Adams and Williams (2013), who signal a lack of research and information about MOOCs that can explain why participants do not complete a course. According to Gómez-Zermeño (2012), it is important to create a context that supports innovative practices to evaluate the results of the undertaken efforts when new ways of teaching and learning are promoted. Given the research demands about the potentialities of MOOCs, it is important to inquire into the terminal efficiency of an MOOC offered in Spanish. This investigation generated information about the MOOC Educational Innovation through Open Resources, offered in Coursera on September of 2013. The study had the following research questions: What was the terminal efficiency of participants in the course Educational Innovation through Open Resources? What are the characteristics of the participants who successfully completed the course? With a quantitative methodology that combines
descriptive and econometric statistics, the research results show the retention and terminal efficiency rates of the course, the features of students who completed the course, as well as the causes of dropout and abandonment. A probabilistic model was used to identify the weight of each one of the dropout factors and thus evaluate the terminal efficiency of the MOOC “Educational Innovation through Open Resources”. RESEARCH METHOD Based on the research questions, the study opted for a quantitative methodology, combining the use of descriptive and econometric statistics, which allowed to identify the MOOCs’ participants profile and to calculate the dropout rates and terminal efficiency. Probabilistic models were used to identify the weight of each one of the dropout factors. The dependent variable is a binary variable (if the student abandoned the course, it was assigned the value of 1 and 0 on the contrary) and the independent or explanatory variables include factors such as gender, age, previous experience in virtual education and electronic media, educational level, English proficiency, and intrinsic characteristics such as being proactive, innovative and selftaught. The quantitative approach was used to analyze information through statistical methods; participants answered a diagnostic and final survey to inform about their opinions and perspective, this allowed understanding better the numerical data. Recognizing the participants’ experiences allowed the comprehension of the phenomenon (Alemán & GómezZermeño, 2012; Gómez-Zermeño, Rodríguez Arroyo & Márquez Guzmán, 2013). From an explanatory point of view (Creswell & Plano, 2011), the study sought to understand why the dropout phenomenon occurs and under what conditions, in order to identify the reasons why MOOC’s participants decide to dropout and not complete the course. We used a non-experimental, cross-section and ex-post-facto design, and the participants’ information was collected during August-September of 2013 (Valenzuela y Flores, 2012). MOOCS’s Description and Context The MOOC “Educational Innovation through Open Resources”, offered in Coursera, can be catalogued as continuous training; although it’s access was not restricted, it was designed mainly for basic education teachers in Mexico. Two Head Professors who have ample experience in the design of online courses, the use of Open Education Resources and Educational Technology designed it. The context of the MOOC’s creation is within a prominent Mexican University, leader in Educational Technology and the first Mexican University to impart courses via satellite in the mid 90’s. This University has offered online courses through their virtual campus for over 20 years. The course covers the subject of the selection, use and reuse of open educational resources, the possibilities the repositories that house these materials have, search strategies and integration into educational processes, as well as measuring and assessing their impact on learning of the participants. Thus, the participant would develop digital skills and instructional design skills to integrate open educational resources (OER) in their learning environments through open educational practices. In four modules, participants were able to watch videos or read about the course’s topics, and interacted with other participant in discussion boards by answering opinion questions. Digital portfolios and self and peer evaluations were used to assess the students’ understanding of how to integrate OER in institutional and learning processes in their own learning environment.
Research Population and Sample According to the statistics provided by the platform, 20,400 people registered for the course, which started in September of 2013. From the initial population, 4,407 participants completed the instrument called, “Pre-diagnosis survey” and 3,547 people answered the “Initial survey.” The data of each participant was given a unique identification code, which cannot be duplicated; by combining these two registers, we obtained 5,854 participants who were considered as the study sample. Table 1 shows the results of both surveys. Table: 1 Results from Pre-diagnostic and Initial Survey Instrument Participants Pre-diagnostic survey 2,307 Initial survey Both instruments Participants of the research population
1,447 24.7 2,100 35.9 5,854 100.0
Considering the information of 5,854 out of 20,400 people who registered, it was important to confirm if the number of existing cases permitted a statistical analysis in order to identify significant differences among the constructs. The formula to calculate the sample of finite populations was used; in Social Sciences research, the maximum sampling error is 5%, and although this data was not available, 5,854 of the participants who completed either the prediagnosis or the initial survey correspond to a sampling error of 1.2%, considered statistically significant. Instruments The data collection instruments were created by the head professors of the MOOC; there following 6 surveys were applied and used for collecting data: Ø
Ø Ø Ø Ø
Pre-diagnosis survey: is a structured questionnaire with 49 questions, combining closed questions, multiple options and weighted options using Likert rating scale. This instrument collects information about: general student data, MOOCs perceptions, skills and knowledge of information technologies, use of search engines, use of OER, Innovation and open education movement, Initial survey: collects general information on participants such as age, sex, marital status, country of residence, education, experience in online education, computer and internet connection type, social networks used, among others. Additionally, survey asked about the reasons for registering in the course, the level of commitment and hours per week to devote to the course. Topic 1 self-assessment: 15 multiple choice questions regarding the topic 1 Open educational movement. Topic 2 self-assessment: 15 multiple choice questions regarding the topic 2 Search of educational resources. Topic 3 self-assessment: 15 multiple choice questions regarding the topic 3 Use of open educational resources in learning processes. Topic 4 self-assessment: 15 multiple choice questions regarding the topic 4 Mobilization of open educational resources in learning environments.
These instruments do not have psychometric test results and do not correspond to an evaluation research design, but rather an exploratory design. They were completed online by participants using the platform Coursera.
Research Procedure During the first week of the course, the pre-diagnosis and initial electronic surveys were administrated; a link was provided thru the platform, and e-mail notification was sent to all the registered participants. The instruments were completed virtually and voluntarily; the results show that more than 70% of the enrolled students did not answer the surveys. The self-assessment instruments for topics 1 to 4 were provided at the end of each week thru a direct link. As the course moved forward, the number of participants who completed the instruments decreased. Table 2 shows that at the end of the first week, 30% of the participants delivered evidence of their work, which diminished to a 15.6% in the last week of the course. Table: 2 Level of participation throughout the course Instrument Participants % Research population 5854 100.0% Topic 1 Self-assessment 1779 30.4% Topic 2 Self-assessment 1165 19.9% Topic 3 Self-assessment 967 16.5% Topic 4 Self-assessment 911 15.6%
RESULTS ANALYSIS Using a quantitative method, in this research, descriptive and econometric statistics were used to calculate the retention and terminal efficiency rates of the course, to identify the features of students who completed the course, as well as the causes of dropout and abandonment. Finally, a probabilistic model was created to identify the weight of each one of the dropout factors and thus evaluate the terminal efficiency of the MOOC “Educational Innovation through Open Resources”. Retention and Terminal Efficiency Rates The databases were processed in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and STATA, in order to calculate the MOOCs’ retention rate by dividing the number of participants who completed the last self-assessment (Topic 4) by the total number of students who fulfilled the first instruments (pre-diagnosis and initial survey). Table 3 shows the retention and terminal efficiency results of the MOOC, regarding the gender and total participants. 14.5% of retention was reported, meaning 818 participants who remained engaged until the last week of the course; while 11.7%, 683 participants, delivered all four topic’s self-assessments. Table: 3 Terminal efficiency according to gender
Desertion Retention Incomplete Completed
82.2% 17.8% 85.5% 14.5%
82.4% 17.6% 84.3% 15.7%
86.0% 14.0% 88.3% 11.7%
Total number 5,036 818 5,171 683
It is interesting, that when comparing the retention results (14%) and terminal efficiency (11.7%) of the course, the percentages are similar to those denoted by the University of Toronto which reported 8% average of terminal efficiency (Harrison, 2013), 10% reported by Miriadax (SCOPEO, 2013), and 10% reported by Lushnikova et al. (2013).
Features of Students who Completed the Course Researchers carried out a comparative analysis of the characteristics of the persons who abandoned the course against those who remained, and the features confrontation of those who completed the course and those who did not deliver the self-evaluation assessments. This analysis shows that the students who possess a master’s degree or higher are more likely to remain in the course, rather than those who only have a professional degree or lower educational level (Table 4). The persons who did not have previous experience with online education had lower rates of completion and terminal efficiency (Figure 1). Table: 4 MOOCs Terminal efficiency according to educational level Educational Level Student’s retention Terminal efficiency High school 11.4% 10.7% Technical career 9.0% 8.0% Undergraduate degree 14.4% 12.1% Master’s degree 19.0% 15.9% Doctorate Post-doctorate
20 15 10 5 0 Retention
Experienced in online education Unexperienced in online education
Figure: 1 Terminal efficiency in the MOOC according to experience with online courses. Additionally, results show that the participants who expressed more initial commitment presented higher completion and terminal efficiency rates; these participants planned to complete all the activities and evaluations to obtain a diploma and registered to the course as a way to complement their previous studies. On the contrary, the people who registered out of curiosity or who were not committed to the activities registered lower completion and terminal efficiency rates. These results confirm the statements by Cabrol & Székely (2012), regarding the importance of relevant education as a strategy to avoid academic failure and desertion. Likewise, Alemán, Sancho-Vinuesa y Gómez-Zermeño (2015) highlight the need for resource and strategy analysis under selection criteria. Individuals who expressed to have economic stability, either full-time or part-time workers, business owners, at home work or people who have a flexible schedule, reported higher completion and terminal efficiency rates, as opposed to those who study in high school or a undergraduate degree. It is important to mention that the participants who described themselves as self-learners obtained higher completion and terminal efficiency rates.
Regarding the features of the participants with higher completion rates, they displayed a proficient use of information technologies, of digital resources design, intermediate English level, knowledge organization skills, participation in research networks, and other characteristics. In relation to the people who described themselves as pro-active, there were no significant differences in the results of completion and terminal efficiency. On the contrary, the people without knowledge about copyrights, web information administration, use of OER in the classroom, and lack of experience in research networks presented higher abandonment of the course. It must be noted that the previously mentioned characteristics have significant statistic differences, which were validated by the Pearson’s chi-squared test, at 95% confidence interval. Causes of Dropout and Abandonment Coursera politics do not allow e-mail sharing in order to avoid spam. Therefore, it was not possible to administrate a sanctioned follow-up survey to explore the specific reasons some participants had when deciding to dropout or abandon the course. As an alternative, a reflection about various messages shared on the discussion forums was made. Among the stated reasons that may cause the discouragement of the participants and to abandon the course were: Ø Difficulties with the structure of the course, and lack of a tutorial to guide users. Ø The quality of the materials was also criticized. Ø Family reasons and no availability for the course. Ø Limitations on the use of information technology or in the English language. Ø Limitations of the Coursera platform. Probabilistic Model to Evaluate Terminal Efficiency of MOOC Given the results, the terminal efficiency of the MOOC was analyzed through the construction of a probabilistic model in order to quantify the weight of the main features of participants who do not complete the course. The main results of the models (table 5) are: The odds of desertion of the MOOC increases 5.7% when the participant has an undergraduate or lower degree, and the probability rises 5% when the student does not have knowledge about copyrights. On the contrary, the odds of desertion diminishes 7% if the participant is older than 55 years old, 17% when they show a strong commitment to the MOOC and 4.2% when they have a full-time or part-time job Ø The odds to complete the MOOC increases by 3.2 % when the participant is female and 3.8 % when it has no copyrights knowledge. By contrast, the odds of not completing decreases 8% when participants are over 55, 15 % when they have a strong commitment, and another 3.2 % when they are excited by applying course’s knowledge in their practice as teachers or daily life. Ø
Table: 5 Probabilistic model of the participants who do not complete an MOOC Traits of the participant
Older than 55 years old
Experienced in online education
Does not have a degree (high school or technician)
Full-time or part-time job
Plans to accomplish activities and tests to obtain certificate
Null (0 - 20%) - IT domain to create audio, video, images, etc.
Null (0 - 20%) – Knowledge about copyrights
Not important – Research filters
Null (0 - 20%) I do not know the English language
Lack of confidence – During information research
Self-taught (Constantly updating my knowledge)
Null (0 - 20%) - Knowledge of use of techniques and methods to organize knowledge in an accessible and considering scientific objectives, observable facts, and / or measurable Null (0 - 20%) - Domain to communicate in virtual environments Null (0 - 20%) - Domain to determine credibility of information To complement my classes (design and/or prepare courses) Uncertain, because they do not know what students will think of the use of open resources Does not participate in research network
Not willing to participate as facilitator or Teaching 0.0092 0.0166 Assistant Note: ** significant at 95 % confidence level * significant at 90 % confidence.
For probabilistic models, the dependent variable is constrained between zero and one, being derived from the cumulative distribution function (Gujarati, 1997). One way of evaluating the probabilistic models is derived from the goodness of fit (R2); however, when dealing with nonlinear models the goodness of fit is meaningless in terms of the defined coefficient of determination. The pseudo R2 of the model to neglect and no completion corresponds to 0.0249 and 0.0252, respectively. However, note that by supplementing with another statistic shows that the model correctly classifies drops to 75% of cases, whereas the model for not completed correctly classified 78% of instances. So the models can be considered quite acceptable for a multi factorial phenomenon as desertion and abandonment. CONCLUSIONS The main results of this research reveal low terminal efficiency rate of a MOOC, which was offered by a higher education institution. Although there was a positive response from the students, the percentage of participants who successfully completed the course indicates the opposite; therefore, it is important to study the reasons that led the participants to enroll and the causes of desertion.
The MOOC analyzed in this study had a rate of 11.7 % completion rate, which represents the number of students who delivered their respective assessments and answered throughout the course evaluations. In contrast, the high dropout rate of 86% agrees with the statements of Clow (2013), who mentions that the abandonment of online courses is higher than in classroom education. This result is parallel with the report of the University of Toronto, which showed a rate of approximately 8% of students who completed the course (Harrison, 2013). Similarly, Lushnikova et al. (2013) indicate that about 10 % of the students who enrolled in a MOOC managed to complete the course. In this connection, Siemens and Tittenberger (2009) note that desertion rates can be minimized by upgrading the course components that lead to an increase in the motivation levels and better student-faculty relationships. This study identified the main characteristics of the participants who managed to stay and complete the course, being favored those with graduate degrees, online educational previous experience, greater commitment to the course and economic stability. Other found features were the advanced or expert proficiency in the use of information technology, advanced proficiency in creating digital resources, intermediate English language skills, advanced proficiency in the use of techniques and methods to organize knowledge and active participation in research networks, among others. On the other hand, those who decided to leave the course indicated problems with the structure and guidance in the course, limitations on the use of information technology or in English, in addition to the limited availability of time due to family or work reasons. It is noteworthy that among the deserters were participants with a high school or bachelor education who do not participate in research networks, which is consistent with the statement made by Siemens (2005), who defines the research groups as a means to update the knowledge and maintain connections for continuous learning. The results of the probabilistic models constructed to measure the weight of the characteristics of participants who drop out or fail to complete a MOOC course, reflect that the participants’ likelihood to leave the MOOC course increases when the participant has a lower educational degree level and has no knowledge of copyrights. On the contrary, the probability of abandonment decreases when participants are over 55, have a strong commitment to the MOOC and when they have full or partial employment. In terms of completeness, the chances of not completing the MOOC increases when the participant is female and does not have any knowledge of copyrights. By contrast, the odds of not completing decreases when participants are over 55 when they have a strong commitment, and when they are excited by applying knowledge of the course in their practice as teachers or daily life. In light of the results obtained in this research, two possible courses of action arise as strategies to increase the level of awareness of the terminal performance of MOOCs’ participants: First, the application of surveys to students who decide to leave the course to obtain additional information about their reasons. Second, to increase the level of terminal efficiency of MOOCs, it is proposed to include in the course’s structure items such as a welcome tutorial to guide novice users in this type of courses, on their function and structure; organize discussion forums by language, country or thematic affinities, and improve the quality of the videos and captions. These recommendations are consistent with the approach of Aguaded (2013) who states the need to strengthen areas, such as interaction with the facilitators, collaborative and interactive work, respect cultural and linguistic diversity, for MOOC constituting an exceptional learning experience. Similarly, for the effectiveness of these courses you must create a scaffold to guide and help the participants to achieve their learning goals (Salmerón, Rodríguez, & Gutiérrez2010).
This research enables institutions that offer MOOC courses to consider the characteristics of the participants, in order to achieve greater efficiency and lower desertion rates. Thus, the educational practices in MOOC will benefit by improving their implementation and continue gathering information on new experiences in such resources.
BIODATA and CONTACT ADDRESSES of the AUTHORS Prof. Dr. Marcela Gerogina GOMEZ-ZERMENO holds a doctorate in Educational Innovation from Tecnológico de Monterrey, and a master’s degre in Information and Communication Technology Engineering Sciences. INT-CITCOM, France Télécoms Higher Education. She also holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer and Administration Systems from ITESM. She is a tenured lecturer at Tecnologico de Monterrey’s masters degree programs in Education and in Educational Technology, as well as on the doctoral program in Educational Innovation. She is a member of the the Mexican Education Research Council (COMIE). She is the technical manager on educational research projects of the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) and on the ALFA program of the European Commission. She forms part of the National System of Researchers (SNI) Level 1.
Prof. Dr. Marcela Gerogina GOMEZ-ZERMENO Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, Edificio CEDES, Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada, 2501 Sur, CP 64849 Monterrey, N.L., MÉXICO. Phone: +52 81 16461430. Email: [email protected]
Lorena ALEMAN DE LA GARZA is a doctoral candidate on the Education and ICT (e-learning) doctoral program at the Open University of Catalonia (UOC), Spain. She holds a master’s degree, with honors, in Educational Institution Administration from ITESM, and a bachelor’s degree, with honors, in Business Administration from TecMilenio University, Mexico. She has worked as a postgraduate lecturer at Tecnológico de Monterrey’s masters degree programs in Educational Institution Administration, in Education and in Educational Technology. She is the technical manager on educational research projects of the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT). She currently is the director of Continuing Education at Tecnológico de Monterrey. Lorena ALEMAN DE LA GARZA Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, Edificio CEDES, Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada, 2501 Sur, CP 64849 Monterrey, N.L., MÉXICO. Phone: +52 81 16461435. Email: [email protected]
REFERENCES Aguaded, J.I. (2013). La revolución MOOCs, ¿una nueva educación desde el paradigma tecnológico? Comunicar, 41, 07-08. Alemán de la Garza, L.Y., Sancho-Vinuesa, T. & Gómez-Zermeño, M.G. (2015). Indicadores para evaluar la calidad de un curso en línea masivo y abierto para la actualización docente. Revista Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 12(1), 104-118. Alemán, L., & Gómez-Zermeño, M. G. (2012). Liderazgo Docente para la Enseñanza de la Innovación. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 4(2), 2-7. Cabrol, M. y Székely, M. (2012). Educación para la Transformación. Washington, DC: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
Clow, D. (2013). MOOCs and the Funnel of Participation. The Open University. Retrieved from http://dougclow.org/mooc-funnel/ Creswell, J. W. y Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting Mixed Method Research (2a ed.). Thousand Oaks CA, USA: Sage. Fini, A. (2009). The Technological Dimension of a Massive Open Online Course: The Case of the CCK08 Course Tools. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 10 (5). Gómez-Zermeño, M. G. (2012). Digital Libraries: Electronic Bibliographic Resources on Basic Education. Comunicar, 20(39), 119-126. Gómez-Zermeño, M. G., Rodríguez Arroyo, J. A. y Márquez Guzmán, S. (2013). Estudio Exploratorio-Descriptivo ʺCurso Híbrido: Contabilidad Vʺ. Revista de Investigación Educativa de la Escuela de Graduados en Educación, 4(7), 70-79. Gujarati, D. (1997). Econometría Básica. Colombia: McGraw Hill. Harrison, L. (2013). Open UToronto MOOC Initiative: Report on First Year on Activity. Toronto: University of Toronto. Liyanagunawardena, T., Adams, A., y Williams, S. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3). Lushnikova, N., Chintakayala, P. & Rodante, A. (2013). Massive Open Online Courses from Ivy League universities: benefits and challenges for students and educators. XI International Conference “Providing continuity of content in the system of stepwise graduate and postgraduate education", Ukraine, November 15-16, 2012. McAuley, A., Stewart, S., Siemens, G. y Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC Model for Digital Practice. Canadá: University of Prince Edward Island. Mortera, F. (2012). Internet, los Recursos Educativos Abiertos y el Movimiento Abierto. Red Latinoamericana Portales Educativos (RELPE). Retrieved from: http://www.relpe.org/destacados/internet-los-recursos-educativos-abiertos-y-elmovimiento-abierto/ Rodríguez, O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like Courses: Two Successful and Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open Online Courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ982976.pdf Salmerón, H., Rodríguez, S. y Gutiérrez, C. (2010). Metodologías que optimizan la comunicación en entornos de aprendizaje virtual. Comunicar, 34, 163-171. DOI: 10.3916/C34-2010-03-16. SCOPEO (2013). MOOC: Estado de la situación actual, posibilidades, retos y futuro. Scopeo Informe No. 2. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10. Siemens, G. y Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning. Retrieved from: http://elearnspace.org/Articles/HETL.pdf UNESCO (2002). Forum on the impact of open courseware for higher education in developing countries: final report. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2012). Declaración de París de 2012 sobre los REA. Congreso Mundial sobre los Recursos Educativos Abiertos (REA). Paris: UNESCO.
Valenzuela, J. R. y Flores, M. (2012). Fundamentos de investigación educativa, Volumen 2. Monterrey, México: Editorial Digital Tecnológico de Monterrey. Wiley, D., & Hilton III, J. (2009). Openness, Dynamic Specialization, and the Disaggregated Future of Higher Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5).
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE April 2016 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 17 Number: 2 Article 2
PRE-SERVICE EFL TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS, GOAL ORIENTATIONS, AND PARTICIPATIONS IN AN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Hasan UCAR Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, Bilecik, Turkey Prof. Dr. Mujgan YAZICI BOZKAYA Open Education Faculty Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey ABSTRACT This study examined the pre-service EFL teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, goal orientations, and participations in an online learning environment. Embedded mixed design was used in the study. In the quantitative part of the study, the participants were 186 senior pre-service EFL teachers and data were collected on two scales and a questionnaire. Qualitative data were collected in form of one-on-one interviews from 2 pre-service EFL teachers, the most representative of the population, to understand the motivation and behaviour variables. The findings of this research revealed that pre-service EFL teachers’ self-efficacy believes are high but fragile. However, some of the participants had more than one goal orientation. The mastery and performance oriented pre-service teachers displayed different characteristics of motivation. Moreover, few of the pre-service EFL teachers participate in the online learning environment. Results also showed several positive associations between teachers’ goal orientations and self-efficacy beliefs. The results as well as their implications are discussed and suggestions for future research are presented. Keywords: Pre-service EFL teacher, self-efficacy, achievement goal orientation INTRODUCTION Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and goal orientations have significant implications in education settings. Teachers are one of the most important components in education systems. Their beliefs and attitudes during education process affect their behaviours in teaching (Bandura, 1997). Recent studies done in the field of education have showed that knowledge and skills are not adequate for active teaching. Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs have also been found to be contributing to their effectiveness as educators (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Even though there are many studies on students’ motivation for learning, there has been little research on teachers’ motivation for teaching (Retelsdorf, Butler, Streblow, & Schiefele, 2010). One of main objective in education process is to reach a goal. To achieve this goal, many variables interact with each other. The main variables that affect the teachers, the learners, and the teaching and learning environment are self-efficacy and goal orientation constructs. The first construct, self-efficacy belief, has been mostly studied in education area in the last two decades. Self-efficacy belief refers to perception of one’s own ability in organizing and completing a task successfully (Bandura, 1997). It has been applied to understanding how teachers’ thoughts about their competence in classroom teaching, students’ achievement and management of the classroom. Chacon (2005) also reported that teachers’ sense of efficacy influences teachers’ actions and student outcomes. It is also accepted that one of the most important factors affecting students’ perception and 15
goal orientation is the teacher (Afsaneh & Safoura, 2015). Beghetto (2007) and Egel (2009) also stated that it is important for researchers to examine pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs about student motivation. Achievement goal orientation is the second construct, which has been pointed to affect the teaching and learning environment in numerous studies. This concept is about purposes and motives that individuals had in a task. This variable has been used to assess the students’ motivation for learning but later it has begun to be used to understand the teachers’ motivation, as well (Butler, 2007). Kucsera, Roberts, Walls, Walker, and Svinicki (2011) reported that achievement goal theory affects many motivation and behaviour variables in the student and work literatures, but it is still applied specifically to teachers and teaching. Nitsche, Dickhäuser, Fasching, and Dresel (2011) reported that teachers’ goal orientation is a significant factor for teachers’ individual development of competence. According to Retelsdorf et al., (2010) achievement goal construct may also be useful for defining motivation of pre-service teachers. Pre-service teachers, when compared with experienced in-service teachers, are in closer touch with updated teaching approaches and in fact, often bring information about new methodologies to the in-service teachers through teaching practicum (Tang, Lee & Chun, 2012) . However, pre-service teachers’ achievement goals and efficacy belief may change in terms of learning environments. To date, no study has researched online distance preservice EFL teachers’ psychological incentives, achievement goals, and efficacy belief. In the present study, we attempt to examine the mentioned variables and assess the relationships between pre-service teachers’ participation in an online learning environment and psychological incentives, achievement goals and efficacy belief. This may help those concerned both educators and administrators in making policy decisions about the learning environment in order to maintain or increase psychological incentives of the pre-service ELT teachers. LITERATURE REVIEW Historically, the first theory that influenced the first studies on teacher efficacy was grounded in Rotter’s social learning theory (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998). This theory also known as Rotter’s locus of control. Locus of control defined teacher efficacy as the extent to which teachers believed that they could control events that affect them. There are two kinds of locus of control, internal locus of control and external locus of control. Teachers with internal locus of control believe that their own actions determine the outcomes they obtain, while teachers with external locus of control believe that their experiences are not determined by themselves but by sources outside themselves like chance, and fate. Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1997) is another theory, which has been shown to have a connection to the educational psychology for the last two decades. Bandura’s theory consists of three components: human agency, outcome expectancy, and efficacy belief. As Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy belief is “the beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments”. According to Bandura, self-efficacy belief affects individuals in many ways. If the people have high efficacy, in turn, they will have high effort to accomplish the work that they deal with (Pajares, 2002). Bandura defined teacher efficacy as a kind of efficacy. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) described teacher efficacy as teachers’ belief about their capabilities to get the desired outcomes of student engagement and learning. Henson (2001) stated that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs have been repeatedly associated with positive teaching behaviours and student outcomes. In addition, self-efficacy is even a stronger positive predictor for self-regulation (Daal, Donche, & Maeyer, 2014). Bandura (1997) stated that teachers’ efficacy beliefs are generally open to change during the preservice time. Therefore, this construct should be examined deeply.
Achievement goal theory is the third theory that affects the pre-service teachers. It is very common in the achievement motivation literature. This construct is about the purposes and motives the individuals get in achievement task (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). It consists of four constructs. These are: mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance achievement goal orientations (Elliot & Murayama, 2008). Learners with approach goals try to master learning tasks and they do their best to completely acquire the subjects, while students with avoidance goals avoid negative results such as failure while mastering the tasks (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). In other words, in approach aspects (mastery-approach and performance-approach) learners believe in themselves to do well but in avoidance aspects (performance-avoidance and masteryavoidance) these learners doubt about their ability to perform well (Coutinho & Neuman, 2008). Kucsera et al., (2011) reported that achievement goal theory affect many motivation and behaviour variables in the student and work literatures, but it is still applied specifically to teachers and teaching. Nitsche et al. (2011) reported that teachers’ goal orientations are significant factors for teachers’ individual development of competence. Retelsdorf et al. (2010) cited that achievement goal construct may also be useful for defining motivation of pre-service teachers. The literature provides proofs that self-efficacy and achievement goal orientations are contributing factors of success of learners and pre-service teachers (Afsaneh & Safoura, 2015; Bandura, 1997; Coutinho & Neuman, 2008; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). However, there is a gap in the literature that identifies and links self-efficacy and achievement goal orientation to online pre-service EFL teachers. This study adds evidence and knowledge to the literature. Goal of the Study and Research Questions The study aimed to explore pre-service EFL teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, goal orientations, and participation in the online learning environment and examine the relationships among these variables. The research questions that guide this research are as follows: What is the level of self-efficacy beliefs of the pre-service EFL teachers? What kind of achievement goal orientations do the pre-service EFL teachers have? Is there a relationship between the pre-service EFL teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and achievement goal orientations? Do pre-service EFL teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs change according to status of participation in the online learning environment? Do pre-service EFL teachers’ achievement goal orientations change according to status of participation in the online learning environment? METHOD Research Design Embedded mixed design, which is one of the mixed method design, was used for this study. The purpose of the embedded design is to collect quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously or sequentially, but to have one form of data play a supportive role to the other form of data (Cresswell, 2012:544). In this study a sequential design was used with the embedded design. That is to say, quantitative data as a primary form was used to inform the qualitative phase. For the quantitative part of the study, pre-service EFL teachers who volunteer and who agree attended the study. The data were collected from 186 convenient participants. The representative sample is accepted at 95% confidence level, 5.95% margin of error, and 50% response distribution. Three instruments, namely English Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (ESTES), Achievement Goals Questionnaire-Revised (AGQ-R), and demographic and online learning environment questionnaire were used. The quantitative information represented a major source of information for this study. For the qualitative part, data were collected in the form of one-on-one interviews to understand the beliefs, goals and perceptions of the pre-service teachers at first hand. 17
Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis Interpretation
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
Figure: 1 The study design (Creswell, 2012) Participants of the Study The population consisted of pre-service EFL teachers enrolled at Distance English Language Teacher Education BA program at College of Open Education, Anadolu University in Turkey. This program has a blended model of instruction, supplies both face to face, and distance education. The first two years of the program are conducted mainly through traditional classroom instruction, and the third and fourth years of the program are conducted by means of distance education supported by online courses through the online learning environment, that is asynchronous Web-based course management tool. Online component of the program aims to provide guidance to students. Before the main quantitative study, 38 pre-service EFL teachers consented to participate voluntarily to the face-to-face pilot study. For the main study, 186 pre-service teachers participated. There were 144 females and 42 males students. The age range of the sample was 21 years to 30 years. Table 1 provides the demographic information for the population, and for the sample used in this study. As seen in Table 1, the proportions of the gender and age within the sample are generally representative of the population. Table: 1 The proportions of the gender and age within the sample and population Sample (n=186)
Qualitative part of the study was consisted of two one-on-one interviews. Participants of the interviews were two pre-service EFL teachers. The participants were purposefully selected from 186 pre-service EFL teachers who completed the English Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (ESTES) and Achievement Goals Questionnaire - Revised (AGQ-R), and the questionnaire. They were selected for the one-on-one interviews because their scores on the scales and the questionnaire identified them as the most representative of the population.
Table: 2 Features of the participants in the qualitative phase Use of the Online Learning Environment
Pre-service EFL Teachers
High mastery Low performance
Yes / Active
Low mastery High performance
Yes / Not Active
Data Collection Instruments The data were obtained, primarily, via two scales, namely English Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (ESTES) (Chacon, 2005) and Achievement Goals Questionnaire - Revised (AGQ-R) (Elliot & Murayama, 2008). The participants also responded to the demographic and online learning environment questionnaire. For the qualitative part, data were collected through two one-on-one interviews. English Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (ESTES) consists of five subscales. In this research, only adapted version of Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) (TschannenMoran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), with 12 items including four items for each of the three dimensions was used to assess pre-service EFL teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. The measured three subscales are: Teachers’ efficacy for engaging students learning in EFL, teachers’ perceived efficacy for managing EFL classes, and teachers’ perceived efficacy for implementing instructional strategies to teach EFL. Achievement Goals Questionnaire - Revised (AGQ-R). The AGQ-R is a 12 item, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire used to measure achievement goal orientations namely masteryapproach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach and performance-avoidance. The demographic information section, which was developed by the researchers, includes questions about gender, age, educational background, and teaching and learning experience of the pre-service EFL teachers. The last part of the questionnaire, which was developed by the researcher and includes both Likert type and open-ended questions, is about the students’ perceptions of and participation in online learning environment. In qualitative one-on-one interviews, open-ended questions below were asked to the preservice EFL teachers: How do you describe yourself as a teacher/student? What are your goals (personal/academic/professional)? What do you do when you faced a very difficult academic task? What do you think about the relationship between ability and success? What do you do when you faced a challenging situation in the classroom? What do you do to get students to believe they can do well in English? How do you react when your students are confused? Do you participate in online learning environment? What is your intend use of online learning environment? Procedure A pilot study was conducted before the main quantitative study. The aims of conducting this pilot study were to find out whether the questions were clear or not and understandable enough and to learn whether an addition to the data collection tool was necessary. To conduct the pilot study, the researchers emailed all the pre-service EFL teachers. Out of the 588 teachers, 38 consented to participate voluntarily to the face-toface pilot study. After the piloting procedure, which lasted for a month, the researchers performed minor revisions regarding to language and grammar of the survey. The survey 19
link was then put on the online course room and the discussion board and participants were asked to complete the survey thoroughly. If the learner agreed to participate in the study, he/she completed the survey, and then submitted the completed the one-time survey through the secure online link. The participants voluntarily consented to participate in the study without incentives. At the end of the survey, which stayed for a month in the online learning environment, 186 participants were attended the study. To support the primary quantitative data, supportive qualitative data were added. Out of the 186 participants, 2 pre-service EFL teachers were purposefully selected for the one-on-one interviews. The representative pre-service teachers were contacted by telephone for the interview and each interview was scheduled for an hour. Data Analysis The quantitative data analysis was done using the SPSS program for Windows, and content analysis was conducted in order to analyse the qualitative data obtained from the interviews. The answers to each question in the interviews were coded and categorized by the authors. RESULTS Quantitative Data
Research Question 1: What is the level of self-efficacy beliefs of the pre-service EFL teachers? Descriptive statistics for self-efficacy belief are presented in Table 3.
Table: 3 Descriptive statistics and Cronbach alpha measures for self-efficacy beliefs scale (n=186)
The results shown in Table 3 suggest that most of the pre-service EFL teachers in the Distance English Language Teacher Education Program have high efficacy beliefs. That is to say, the pre-service EFL teachers believe that they are efficacious in engaging students learning, managing EFL classes, and implementing instructional strategies. This result is noteworthy as Bandura (1997) stated that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in their instructional efficacy affect the learning environment. In addition, as Lee & Yuan (2014) stated, pre-service teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs might be able to think positively of their future teaching practice and feel more motivated towards teaching despite the possible challenges they may encounter.
Research Question 2: What kind of achievement goal orientations do the pre-service EFL teachers have? Descriptive statistics for achievement goal orientations are presented in Table 4.
Table: 4 Descriptive statistics and Cronbach alpha measures for achievement goal orientations scale (n=186)
According to Table 4, results indicated a difference in the pre-service EFL teachers’ goal adoptions. These results suggest that the pre-service EFL teachers adopt more than one achievement goal, and mostly mastery goals for learning are adopted. This result can be interpreted as positive since teachers adopting mastery goal orientations seek challenging tasks and do well in difficult situations. However, mastery goal orientations involve the 20
Engaging Students Learning
Managing EFL Classes
Implementing Instructional Strategies
Managing EFL Classes
Implementing Instructional Strategies
development of competence through task mastery and the emphasis is placed on developing new skills (Lindsay, 2010). Table: 5 Difference in the pre-service EFL teachers’ goal adoptions
Research Question 3: Is there a relationship between the pre-service EFL teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs and achievement goal orientations? The present study also aimed at exploring the possible association between the subscales of goal orientation and self-efficacy. The results of the third research question revealed the effect of mastery goal on self-efficacy and it showed among goal orientations, mastery goal is also positively but not significantly predicts self-efficacy. Correlation analyses performed between the pre-service EFL teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and achievement goal orientations are reported in Table 5. According to the Table, there are significant correlations at p