The Online Teaching Motivation Scale (OTMS): Development and Validation of a Survey Instrument
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i4.4035Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to develop and validate the Online Teaching Motivation Scale (OTMS), a survey instrument designed to reliably measure motivational constructs related to online teaching and learning. The widespread prevalence of online and hybrid teaching modalities, many established during the COVID-19 pandemic, has necessitated reliable, valid measures to better understand factors that impact teachers’ motivation for online teaching and learning. The OTMS went through a rigorous validation process, including a pilot survey for content review, digital administration to K–12 teachers (N=379), and confirmatory factor analysis. The result was a 24-item survey designed to measure teacher motivation for online teaching based on three factors: teacher self-efficacy for online teaching, teacher perceptions of online teaching and learning, and perceived administrative support for online teaching. The OTMS was found to have a strong model fit, as well as strong reliability and validity measures. Future research includes wide administration of the OTMS to examine the relationship between K–12 teacher motivation for online teaching and students’ achievement and to inform the development of appropriate support models.
References
An, Y., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., Yang, J., Conan, J., Kinard, W., & Daughrity, L. (2021). Examining K–12 teachers’ feelings, experiences, and perspectives regarding online teaching during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2589–2613.
Ascione, L. (2021). 30 K–12 edtech predictions for 2021. E-School News. https://www.eschoolnews.com/district-management/2021/01/01/K–12-edtech-predictions-2021/
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729–35.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Baroudi, S., & Shaya, N. (2022). Exploring predictors of teachers’ self-efficacy for online teaching in the Arab world amid COVID-19. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 8093–8110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10946-4
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). Academic Press.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(4), 269–283.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factory analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Cardullo, V., Wang, C. H., Burton, M., & Dong, J. (2021). K–12 teachers’ remote teaching self-efficacy during the pandemic. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 14(1), 32–45.
Chandra, S., Chang, A., Day, L., Fazlullah, A., Liu, J., McBride, L., Mudalige, T., & Weiss, D. (2020). Closing the K–12 digital divide in the age of distance learning. Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common_sense_media_report_final_7_1_3pm_web.pdf
Chang, H. N. & Romero, M. (2008). Present, engaged, and accounted for: The critical importance of addressing chronic absence in the early grades. National Center for Children in Poverty.
Crossland, A., Gray, T., & Reynolds, J. (2018). ESSA and digital learning: Closing the digital accessibility gap. American Institutes for Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED602482.pdf
Dansereau, F. J., Graen, G., and Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78. http://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.
Demil, J. (2021). Job satisfaction among educators: Recognizing educators’ motivational needs. [Unpublished manuscript]. Sonoma State University. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/rf55zf346
DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, R. J. (1999). The development and validation of the academic competence evaluation scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 207–225.
DiPerna, J. C., Volpe, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2005). A model of academic enablers and mathematics achievement in the elementary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 43(5), 379–392.
Durak, H. (2021). Modeling of relations between K–12 teachers’ TPACK levels and their technology integration self-efficacy, technology literacy levels, attitudes toward technology and usage objectives of social networks. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(7), 1136–1162.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.
Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736–741. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177
Fishman, B., & Dede, C. (2016). Teaching and technology: New tools for new times. In D. Gitomer & C. Bell (Eds.), American Educational Research Association handbook of research on teaching (5th ed.). Springer.
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023552
Gentry, M., & Gable, R. K. (2001). My class activities: A survey instrument to assess students’ perceptions of interest, challenge, choice, and enjoyment in their classrooms. Creative Learning Press.
Gray, L., & Lewis, L. (2021). Use of educational technology for instruction in public schools: 2019–20 (NCES 2021-017). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2021017
Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Karaferye, F. (2022). Digital teaching and learning: Exploring primary school teachers’ approaches, sources of concern & expectations. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 5(4), 808–824.
Lehrer-Small, A. (2022, November 14). Virtual school enrollment kept climbing even as COVID receded, new data reveal. The 74. https://www.the74million.org/article/virtual-school-enrollment-kept-climbing-even-as-covid-receded-new-data-reveal/
McFarlane, T. A., Hoffman, E. R., & Green, K. E. (1997). Teachers’ attitudes toward technology: Psychometric evaluation of the technology attitude survey. [Conference presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2014). School administrators and K–12 online and blended learning. In R. E. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K–12 online and blended learning (pp. 285–302). ETC Press. http://repository.cmu.edu/etcpress/28
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77–86.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Children’s internet access at home. Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2021/cch_508c.pdf
Nguyen, H. T. T. (2023). Factors affecting high school teachers’ attitudes toward online teaching. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 13(1), 1–15.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107–110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Ogodo, J. A., Simon, M., Morris, D., & Akubo, M. (2021). Examining K–12 teachers' digital competency and technology self-efficacy during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 21(11), 13–27.
Orhan, G., & Beyhan, Ö. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions and teaching experiences on distance education through synchronous video conferencing during COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences and Education Research Review, 7(1), 8–44.
Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Essentials of educational psychology. Merrill Prentice Hall.
Pajares, F. 1996. Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in Education. Prentice Hall.
Plitnichenko, L. (2021). How effective is K–12 education in post-COVID era? Educational Technology. https://elearningindustry.com/how-effective-K–12-education-in-post-covid-era
Rahayu, R. P., & Wirza, Y. (2020). Teachers’ perception of online learning during pandemic COVID-19. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan, 20(3), 392–406.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428
Smart, J., & Linder, S. (2018). Development, validation, and implementation of the Elementary Mathematics Motivation Inventory (EMMI): Examining motivational constructs in elementary mathematics. Fields Journal of Mathematics Education.3 (2), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40928-017-0005-7.
Singh V., & Thurman A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988–2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33(8), 289–306.
Sun, J. (2005). Assessing goodnesss of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37(4), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2005.11909764
Tran, H., & Dou, J. (2019). An exploratory examination of what types of administrative support matter for rural teacher talent management: The rural educator perspective. ICPEL Education Leadership Review,20(1), 133–149.
UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. (2021). SAS Learning Modules. https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/sas/modules/
Van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity.
Reinhart, R. Banister, S. (2009). Validating a measure of teacher technology integration. Chesapeake, Virginia. Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education http://works.bepress.com/savilla_banister/5/
Watt, H. M. G. & Richardson, P. W. (2013) Teacher motivation and student achievement outcomes. In J. Hattie & E.M. Anderman (Eds.), International Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 271–273). Routledge.
Whang, P. A., & Hancock, G.R. (1994). Motivation and mathematics achievement: Comparisons between Asian-American and non-Asian students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 302–322.
Yang, X. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of large-scale online teaching as an epidemic prevention and control strategy in China. ECNU Review of Education, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120922244, 739-744.
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.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Daphne Wiles, Julie Smart, Anna Morrison, Luke Bennett, Scott Peters
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
