Volume 8, Issue 2 (2-2018)                   MJLTM 2018, 8(2): 101-112 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Borna (corresponding author) M, Fouladchang M. The Motivational Outcomes Of Connectivism Theory In EFL . MJLTM 2018; 8 (2) :101-112
URL: http://mjltm.org/article-1-278-en.html
Department of Educational psychology, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract:   (9310 Views)
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of connectivism instructional method in comparison with communicative language teaching method on academic self-efficacy and task value among students in EFL. The current study was a 2 (instructional methods)*2 (genders) factorial design with pre-post-test. Statistical population included all high school students in grade 3 from Ramhormoz city in Iran. Participants included students in four classes that were selected by available sampling method and then completed the motivational beliefs subscale of MSLQ (1991). The results showed the connectivism instructional method was significantly more effective than communicative language teaching method. Based on the results of this research, it is concluded that connectivism instructional method provide unique opportunities for increasing the self-efficacy and task value of students by increasing social intractions and diversity for choosing tasks. Accordingly, this research suggests the application of connectivism instructional method in order to increase academic self-efficacy and task value in EFL classrooms for the students.
Full-Text [PDF 493 kb]   (4803 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Foreign language teaching and learning
Received: 2018/10/10 | Accepted: 2018/10/10 | Published: 2018/10/10

1. Al-Harthy, I. S., & Aldhafri, S. S. (2014). The relationship among task-Value, self-efficacy and academic achievement in Omani students at Sultan Qaboos University. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 7 (2), 15-22.
2. Alqurashi, E. (2016). Self-Efficacy in online learning environments: A literature review. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 9(1), 45-52. [DOI:10.19030/cier.v9i1.9549]
3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
4. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148. [DOI:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3]
5. Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1-43). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
6. Barnett, J., McPherson, V., & Sandieson, R. M. (2013). Connected teaching and learning: The uses and implications of connectivism in an online class. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 685-698. [DOI:10.14742/ajet.243]
7. Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its Place in Theory-Informed Research and Innovation in Technology - Enabled Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 98-118. [DOI:10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.902]
8. Bong M. (2001). Between and within Domain Relations of Academic Motivation among Middle and High School Students: Self- Efficacy, Task value and Achievement Goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 9(93), 23-34. [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.23]
9. Borna, M. (2013). Comparison of Effectiveness of mastery learning approach, community language teaching and combined method on English learning rate, English language instrumental motivation and academic self-efficacy in guidance third grade students in Saveh city. M.A" Thesis.
10. Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge; Essays on meaning and learning networks. ISBN: 978-1-105-77846-9; Version 1.0 – May 19, 2012. This work is published under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC BY-NC-SA.View Legal Code: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc
11. Downes, S. (2008). Places to go: Connectivism & connective knowledge. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1). http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol5/iss1/6
12. Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. (2013). Connectivism as a digital age learning theory. The International HETL Review. Special Issue 2013 (pp. 4-13)
13. Gbollie, c., & Keamu, H. P. (2017). Student Academic Performance: The Role of Motivation, Strategies, and Perceived Factors Hindering Liberian Junior and Senior High School Students Learning. Education Research International. [DOI:10.1155/2017/1789084]
14. Goldie, J. G. S. (2017). Connectivism: a knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064-1069. [DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173661]
15. Golmommadnazhad bahrami. Gh. R. (2015). Role of using internet on self-Efficacy, educational Motivation and educational achievement; Tabriz University of medical sciences. Bimonthly of Education Strategies in Medical Sciences, 8(4), 255-260
16. Hargreaves, D. H. (2004). Learning for Life: the Foundations for Lifelong Learning. Bristol: Policy Press. [DOI:10.2307/j.ctt1t89gwx]
17. Hemin Khezri, A., Lavasani, M. G., Malahmadi, E., & Amani, J. (2010). The role of self- efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning approaches and mathematics achievement. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 942–947. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.214]
18. Heydari Asl, E. (2015). Comparative study of grammar translation method (GTM) and communicative language teaching (CLT) in language teaching methodology. Enternational Journals of Science and Research Methodology, 1(3), 16-25.
19. Hymes, D. H. (1972). ''On communicative competence'' In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings. Harmondsworth, 269-293. (Part 1).
20. Ibrahim, M. K., & Ibrahim, Y. A. (2017). Communicative English language teaching in Egypt: Classroom practice and challenges Issues in Educational Research, 27(2), 285-311.
21. Kibbe, T. (2017). The history of communicative language teaching (CLT) and its use in the classroom. United States Military Academy during Academic Year 2017. https://www.usma.edu/cfe/Literature/Kibbe
22. Kim, J., & Park, M. (2015). E-learning satisfaction by self-efficacy in higher education. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 9(10), 109-116. [DOI:10.14257/ijseia.2015.9.10.11]
23. Koosha, M., & Yakhabi, M. (2013). Problems associated with the use of communicative language teaching in EFL contexts and possible solutions. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 63-76.
24. Kultawanicha, K., Koraneekija, P., & Na-Songkhlaa, J. (2015). A Proposed Model of Connectivism Learning Using Cloud-based Virtual Classroom to Enhance Information Literacy and Information Literacy Self-efficacy for Undergraduate Students. Social and Behavioral Sciences 191, 87 – 92. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.394]
25. Lawanto, O., Santoso, H. B., Goodridge, W., & Lawanto, K. N. (2014). Task Value, Self-Regulated Learning, and Performance in a Web-Intensive Undergraduate Engineering Course: How Are They Related? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10 (1), 97-111.
26. Lester, D. (2013). A Review of the Student Engagement Literature. Focus On Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 7(1), 1-8.
27. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Adaptive motivation and emotionin education: Research and principles for instructional design. Policy Insights fromthe Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 228-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2372732216644450 [DOI:10.1177/2372732216644450]
28. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned. New York: Oxford University Press. Second Edition.
29. Maryslessor, A. O., Barasa, P. L., & Omulando, C. A. (2014). Challenges teachers face in the use of the communicative language teaching approach in the teaching listening and speaking lessons in Lugrari District, Kenya. International Journal of Science and Research, 3(9), 83-92.
30. Muhammad, Z. (2016). Pakistani government secondary schools students' attitudes towards Communicative language teaching and grammar translation in Quetta, Balochistan. Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education English Language Teaching, 9(3), 258-270. [DOI:10.5539/elt.v9n3p258]
31. Neuville, S., Frenay, M., & Bourgeois, E. (2007). Task value, self-efficacy and Goal orientations: Impact of self-regulated learning, choice and performance among university students. Psychological Belgica, 47(1), 95-117. [DOI:10.5334/pb-47-1-95]
32. Noytim, U. (2010). Weblogs enhancing EFL students' English language learning, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2010), 1127–1132. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.159]
33. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
34. Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: an overview. Learning Styles & Strategies/Oxford, GALA, 1-25.
35. Ozan, O. (2013). Scaffolding in connectivist mobile learning environment: Distance Education-TOJDE, 14(2).
36. Palos, R., Munteanu, A., Costea, I., & Macsinga, I. (2011). Motivational and cognitive variables with impact on academic Performance Preliminary study. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15. 138–142. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.063]
37. Papa, L. A. (2015). The Impact of Academic and Teaching Self-Efficacy on Student Engagement and Academic Outcomes. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/4361
38. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33]
39. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). Amanual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ).National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
40. Prince, B. (2017). Improving the self-efficacy of math learners using a direct and focused Approach to vocabulary clarification. A Project Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of the University of Lethbridge in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree master of education.
41. Power, T. (2003). Communicative Language Teaching: The appeal and poverty of Communicative Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (7), 87-96. Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://www.btinternet.com/~ted.power/esl0404.html
42. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge University Press.
43. Richards J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2003). Approaches and methods in language teaching, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Sánchez-Rosas, J. & Esquivel, S. (2016). Instructional Teaching Quality, Task Value, Self-Efficacy, and Boredom: A Model of Attention in Class. Revista de Psicología, 25(2), 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.5354/0719-0581.2017.44966
45. Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching state of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 261-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587463 [DOI:10.2307/3587463]
46. Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What's ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 207-220. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.09.004]
47. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231. [DOI:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133]
48. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 1-8.
49. Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform
50. Smart, J. B. (2014). A mixed methods study of the relationship between student perceptions of teacher-student interactions and motivation in middle level science. Research in Middle Level Education, 38(4), 1-19.
51. Tan, Z. X. (2016). An empirical study on the effects of grammar-translation method and task-based language teaching on Chinese college students' reading comprehension. International Journal of Liberal Arts and Social Science, 4(3), 100-109.
52. Veselá, K. (2013). Connectivism in foreign language education. Education and Languages in Europe / Bildung und Sprachen in Europa, 25(17), 320-325.
53. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
54. Yazici, H., Seyis, S. & Fatma, A. (2012). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy beliefs as predictors of academic achievement among high school students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2319–2323. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.100]
55. Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167-177. [DOI:10.1177/1469787410379680]
56. Zimmerman, W. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2016). Online Learning Self-Efficacy in Students With and Without Online Learning Experience. American Journal of Distance Education, 30 (3): 180-191. [DOI:10.1080/08923647.2016.1193801]
57. Zimmerman B. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemp Educ Psychol, 25(1), 82-91. [DOI:10.1006/ceps.1999.1016]
58. Zimmerman, B., & Pons, N. (1990). Student Differences In self- Regulated Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 14(82), 51-59. [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

Developed by : ISCDBU