1201Jones

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012, pp. 42 – 58.

Factors that impact students’ motivation in an online course:
Using the MUSIC model of academic motivation

Brett D. Jones1, Joan Monahan Watson2, Lee Rakes3, and Sehmuz Akalin4

Abstract: The aim of this study was to examine the factors that motivate students
in large online courses. Specifically, the purposes were: (a) to document how
highly men and women rated motivational beliefs in a large online course; (b) to
determine why men and women rated their motivational beliefs the way in which
they did; and (c) to provide recommendations for how to intentionally design
online courses to motivate students. Using a mixed methods design, we used a
questionnaire to assess undergraduate students’ perceptions of the components of
the MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation (i.e., eMpowerment, Usefulness,
Success, Interest, and Caring) in an online course and their suggestions for
changing the course. Overall, men and women provided high ratings for their
motivational beliefs in the course. The suggestions students provided for changing
the course were similar for both sexes and revealed a preference for instructional
strategies that were consistent with the tenets of the MUSIC Model of Academic
Motivation, including: offering more and/or varied assessments, providing
interactive activities, including videos and/or video lectures, and offering face-to-
face meetings. Other suggestions for improving the online course design are
provided.

Keywords: motivation, MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation, online teaching,
engagement, student perceptions

I. Introduction.

Although online courses are becoming more prevalent in higher education, the literature related
to student motivation in online courses is only in its nascent stages (e.g., Dixson, 2010).
Instructors and instructional designers of online courses must consider how engaging students in
online course content might be similar to, yet possibly different from, face-to-face courses. In
one study of a course that was taught face-to-face in one semester and then taught online in
another semester, the researcher found that the students in the online section of the course
provided higher ratings for several motivational beliefs than the students in the face-to-face
section of the course (Jones, 2010a). Although this study documented differences in students’
beliefs, it did not explore why students rated their motivational beliefs higher in the online
section than in the face-to-face section of the course. The aim of the present study was to address
this issue by examining why students in online courses might provide higher ratings for
motivational beliefs than students in face-to-face courses. Specifically, the purposes of the
present study were: (a) to document how highly men and women rated motivational beliefs in a

1 Virginia Tech, School of Education (0313), Blacksburg, VA 24061
2 Virginia Tech, Undergraduate Academic Affairs Office, College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, 232B Wallace Hall
(0426), 295 West Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24061
3 Virginia Tech, School of Education (0313), Blacksburg, VA 24061
4 Virginia Tech, School of Education (0313), Blacksburg, VA 24061

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

large online course, (b) to determine why men and women rated their motivational beliefs the
way in which they did, and (c) to provide recommendations for how to intentionally design
online courses to motivate students.

A. Background.

Motivation is a varied construct that can be examined through the lens of many theories and
principles. To help instructors design courses that engage students in learning, Jones (2009)
developed the MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation, which consists of five components that
have been derived from research and theory as ones that are critical to student engagement in
academic settings: empowerment, usefulness, success, interest, and caring. The name of the
model, MUSIC, is an acronym based on the second letter of “eMpowerment” and the first letter
of the other four motivational components. The MUSIC model has been used as a framework for
instructors in designing instruction (Jones, 2009; Jones, 2010b) and for researchers in
understanding the impact of instruction on students’ motivation (Jones, 2010a; Jones, Ruff,
Snyder, Petrich, & Koonce, 2012). Interestingly, Jones (2010a) documented that men and
women’s ratings differed for some of the MUSIC components in an online course.

The first component of the MUSIC model, empowerment, refers to the amount of
perceived control that students have over their interactions with their learning environment.
Instructors can empower students by supporting their autonomy, such as by providing them with
choices and the ability to make decisions. In online courses, empowerment has been shown to be
a predictor of undergraduate students’ effort, course ratings, and instructor ratings (Jones,
2010a).

The usefulness component of the MUSIC model involves the extent to which students
believe that the coursework (e.g., assignments, activities, readings) is useful for their short- or
long-term goals as their motivation is affected by their perceptions of the relevance of what they
are learning for the future (De Volder & Lens, 1982; Kauffman & Husman, 2004; Tabachnick,
Miller, & Relyea, 2008). One implication is that instructors need to ensure that students
understand the connection between the coursework and their goals. Students in an online course
have been shown to access examples and exercises more frequently when they were provided
with information about the usefulness of the material (Sansone, Fraughton, Zachary, Butner, &
Heiner, 2011).

For the third MUSIC component, success, instructors need to ensure that students believe
that they can succeed if they have the required knowledge and skills and put forth the appropriate
effort. Instructors can foster students’ success beliefs in a variety of ways, including making the
course expectations clear, challenging students at an appropriate level, and providing students
with feedback regularly. For example, students’ perceptions of their ability to succeed in using
technology in online courses have been shown to be related to their motivation (Kim & Frick,
2011).

The interest MUSIC component includes two theoretically distinct constructs: situational
interest and individual interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Situational interest, which is akin to
curiosity, refers to immediate, short-term enjoyment of instructional activities, whereas
individual interest refers to internally activated personal values about a topic that are more
enduring. Instructors can create situational interest by designing instruction and coursework that
incorporates novelty, social interaction, games, humor, surprising information, and/or that
engenders emotions (Bergin, 1999). Instructors can develop students’ individual interest in a

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

topic by providing opportunities for them to become more knowledgeable about the topic and by
helping them understand its value (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Studies of undergraduate and
graduate students in online courses have documented that when instructors make the online
course content more useful and relevant to students’ interests, students’ motivation increases
(Kim & Frick, 2011).

The underlying principle of the caring MUSIC component is that all humans have a need
to establish and sustain caring interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan &
Deci, 2000). The caring component can be divided into two components: academic caring and
personal caring (Johnson, Johnson, & Anderson, 1983). Academic caring specifies that
instructors need to demonstrate to students that they care about whether or not they successfully
meet the course objectives. Personal caring involves the idea that students need to perceive that
their instructor cares about their welfare. Having an online presence in online courses, providing
students with well-conceived immediate feedback, supporting students’ critical and independent
perspectives, offering invitations for personal discussions and interactions, and encouraging
students to engage with one another in learning communities are all strategies for communicating
a sense of caring in online courses that can lead to increased student motivation (Baker, 2010;
Weiss, 2000).

B. Research Questions.

Because Jones (2010a) documented differences between men and women for some of the
MUSIC model components, we designed the present study to examine not only why students
have certain motivational beliefs in online courses, but also whether these beliefs vary by gender.
We addressed the following two research questions in this study.

1. How highly do men and women rate each of the components of the MUSIC model?
2. What online course characteristics do men and women perceive as ones that could be

changed to increase their perceptions of the MUSIC components?

II. Methodology.

A. Design.

We implemented a partially mixed, concurrent design whereby the quantitative and qualitative
components have approximately equal status (Onwuegbuzie, & Collins, 2007). This study
includes some of Newman, Ridenour, Newman, and DeMarco’s (2003) goals for conducting
research, such as: understanding a complex phenomena (i.e., how course characteristics affect
student motivation), adding to the knowledge base in the areas of motivation and the scholarship
of teaching and learning, and informing constituencies (e.g., educators, instructional designers)
of the findings.

B. Participants.

Participants in this study included 609 of the 651 undergraduates (a 93.5% response rate)
enrolled in a fully online “Personal Health” course at a large, public university in the United
States. About half of the participants were women (n = 303; 49.8%) and about half were men (n
= 306; 50.2%). The majority of students were White or Caucasian (not Hispanic; n = 466;

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

76.5%), whereas others self-reported their race/ethnicity as Asian or Pacific Islander (n = 73;
12.0%), Black or African American (n = 30; 4.9%), Other (n = 21; 3.4%), Hispanic (n = 17;
2.8%), or Native American (n = 2; 0.3%). The reported academic level of the participants
reflected students at their Freshman (n = 33; 5.4%), Sophomore (n = 109; 17.9%), Junior (n =
187; 30.7%), and Senior (n = 280; 46.0%) years.

C. Course Description.

The syllabus description of the Personal Health course stated, “This on-line course is designed to
provide students with health information based on scientific principles that will enable him/her to
make sound decisions regarding his/her health. The major emphasis is wellness and the
importance of individual responsibility for health related matters through health promotion
efforts.” The course included material from thirteen chapters of a textbook covering topics such
as wellness, mental health, substance abuse, alcohol, tobacco, cardiovascular health, cancer,
communicable diseases, consumer health, nutrition, fitness, and human sexuality. Students were
assessed with four exams that were weighted equally toward students’ final course grade. The
exams included questions in the format of true/false and multiple-choice and assessed content
material from the textbook. To prepare for the exams, students read the textbook and studied
questions provided by the instructor that were similar to the questions on the exams. Students
were also required to attend one workshop at the campus health center or to complete five online
self-assessments. Final grades were calculated based on the following percentages: the exams
accounted for 84.5%, the workshop or online assessments accounted for 14.1%, and a
questionnaire about the course accounted for 1.4% of students’ final grade. The course was not a
requirement for any of the students as part of their university coursework.

D. Measures.

Participants completed a questionnaire that contained items from previously validated
instruments, as well as items written by the authors. The instruments that we used were the same
as those presented in Jones (2010a). Students rated each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale with
descriptors at each point; one example item of each is presented here. The instruments measured
seven constructs: five items measured empowerment (α = 0.93; “My instructor listens to how I
would like to do things.”), three items measured usefulness (α = 0.95; “In general, the material in
this course is useful to me.”), four items measured success (α = 0.93; “In this course, I feel that I
am able to perform well.”), three items measured situational interest (α = 0.90; “In general, how
interested are you in learning the content material in this course?”), three items measured
individual interest (α = 0.84; “Learning the course content material is very valuable to me.”),
four items measured academic caring (α = 0.93; “I believe that my instructor cares about how
much I learn.”), and four items measured personal caring (α = 0.92; I believe that my instructor
really cares about me as a person.”). We found the reliability estimates for the scales to be
acceptable.

As a measure of the perceived quality of the course, students were asked on a 7-point
Likert-type scale with descriptors at each point (1 = terrible; 7 = excellent): “My overall rating of
the course is:” Open-ended items were written by the authors to gain further insight into those
aspects of the course that contributed to or detracted from the MUSIC components. The exact
wording of the eight open-ended items is provided in the “Results” section.

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

E. Procedures.

Participants were introduced to the questionnaire through the course syllabus, which was
provided at the start of the semester. At three weeks prior to the availability of the questionnaire
and again at one week prior to the availability of the questionnaire, the course instructor
reminded the participants via email that they needed to complete the questionnaire assignment
when it became available. A link to the online questionnaire was made available to the
participants during the ninth week of a 16-week semester via email notification and on the course
website.

F. Data Analysis.

We used SPSS 12.0 to analyze students’ responses to the Likert-type and descriptive items on the
questionnaire. To compare the differences between men and women on the MUSIC model
components, we conducted t-tests and set the alpha level at 0.01 to address the problem of
multiple comparisons.

For analysis of the open-ended items, we used a thematic whole text analysis, which was
informed by the analytic procedure developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967; also see Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). An initial coding scheme for the item responses was developed after the authors
read all of the responses, identified themes, and created coding categories within the themes.
Once codes were established for all open-ended items, the authors independently coded all 609
potential responses for each question. Their responses were compared and the disagreements
were noted. Because it was possible for participants to provide a response that warranted more
than one code, the inter-rater reliability was computed using the percentage of responses, not
respondents. The inter-rater reliability ranged from 91% to 98% for the open-ended items.

III. Results.

A. Research Question 1: Ratings for MUSIC Model Components.

The first research question asked: How highly do men and women rate each of the components
of the MUSIC model? To address this question, we computed the mean scores and conducted t-
tests to determine whether there were differences between females and males in their ratings.
The means, standard deviations, and results of the t-tests are presented in Table 1.

Both men and women rated all of the variables highly in that all of the mean values were
greater than 5.0 on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Women provided statistically higher ratings than
men for usefulness, success, situational interest, and individual interest. We found no statistical
differences between men and women for empowerment, academic caring, or personal caring.
Men and women’s overall rating of the course was similar (t = 1.86, df = 607, p = .06). The
average course ratings were slightly above 6 on the 7-point scale (M = 6.11, SD = 0.97 for men;
M = 6.26, SD = 1.02 for women), indicating that their overall rating of the course was between
very good (a “6” on the scale) and excellent (a “7” on the scale).

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and t-test results of students’ ratings of the MUSIC
model components by sex.

Variable

Femalesa
M (SD)

Malesb
M (SD)

Mean
difference

Empowerment 5.46 (1.04) 5.25 (1.19) 0.21 2.32 597.9 0.19
Usefulness 6.02 (0.96) 5.81 (1.04) 0.21 2.63** 607.0 0.21
Success 6.45 (0.64) 6.29 (0.76) 0.16 2.78** 591.2 0.23
Situational interest 5.93 (0.88) 5.67 (0.96) 0.26 3.47*** 603.4 0.28
Individual interest 6.20 (0.71) 5.96 (0.84) 0.23 3.70*** 591.2 0.31
Academic caring 6.15 (1.03) 6.00 (1.02) 0.15 1.85 607.0 0.15
Personal caring 5.30 (1.54) 5.36 (1.46) -0.05 -0.45 607.0 0.04
Note: All items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale.
** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001
an = 303; bn = 306

B. Research Question 2: Course Characteristics Related to MUSIC Components.

Our second research question asked: What online course characteristics do men and women
perceive as ones that could be changed to increase their perceptions of the MUSIC components?
Participants were asked a series of open-ended questions for which they provided information
about those aspects of the course that could be changed to enhance their motivation. Responses
to these questions are summarized in the following sections.

Empowerment. We asked participants the following question related to empowerment:
“What could be changed in this course to make you feel you had more control over your
learning?” We received 614 responses (310 from males and 314 from females); the results are
presented in Table 2. Over half of the students reported that nothing could be changed to give
them more control and 16.3% of the responses indicated that they already had sufficient control.
The other responses reflect more varied suggestions on how the course could be changed to give
students more control over their learning, including eliminating exam deadlines, requiring more
or varied assessment opportunities, offering face-to-face meetings with the professor, providing
opportunities for interactive activities with other students in the class, finding ways to include
videos and video lectures into the course, and incorporating more workshop opportunities (see
Table 2 for the complete list).

To determine which aspects of the course gave students a sense of control, we asked
them: “Which aspects of this course give you control over this course?” We received 983
responses (458 from males and 525 from females), which are summarized in Table 3. Of the
overall responses, 18.1% indicated that the availability of practice questions to prepare for the
course exams gave them control over the course; 16.4% indicated that the ability to work at their
own pace/teach themselves gave them control over the course; 14.6% of the overall responses
indicated that “everything” about the course gave them control over the course; and 12.7% of the
responses indicated that the choice to either read the textbook or answer the practice questions
gave them control over the course. Varied responses comprised 34.6% of the overall data for this
question and indicated that the online format and its subsequent flexibility for testing and
completing assigned work, the correspondence with the instructor, and the choice to attend
workshops outside of class contributed to the their sense of control in the course.

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

Table 2. Things that could be changed to give students more control over their learning.

Response
% Male

Responsesa
% Female

Responsesb
% Overall
Responsesc

Nothing 50.0 58.9 54.4
I have sufficient control 17.4 15.1 16.3
Irrelevant response that did not address the question 9.4 6.6 8.0
No exam deadlines except one at the end of the course 4.8 4.3 4.6
N/A 2.6 4.3 3.4
Require more or varied assessments 3.5 2.6 3.1
Allow for meetings with the professor 3.3 0.3 1.8
Make the course more interactive 1.6 1.3 1.5
Videos or lecture videos 1.9 1.0 1.5
More workshops 1.6 1.0 1.3
Note: Inter-rater reliability = 94%; responses with less than 1.0% overall are not shown.
a310 coded responses, b314 coded responses, c624 coded responses

Table 3. Aspects of the course that give students control over the course.

Response

% Male
Responsesa

% Female
Responsesb

% Overall
Responsesc

Availability of practice questions or tests 17.5 20.2 18.9
Ability to work at my own pace or teach myself 17.5 15.4 16.5
Everything 15.7 13.4 14.6
Choice to read text or answer practice questions 12.4 13.4 12.9
Online course or online tests 9.6 6.7 8.2
Where or when to take multiple choice exams 7.4 7.4 7.4
Correspondence with the instructor 6.1 8.0 7.1
Plenty of time to take tests or flexible deadlines 3.9 5.9 4.9
Attending the workshops 2.8 3.1 3.0
Irrelevant response that did not address the question 3.3 1.3 2.3
Being able to finish early or get ahead in class 1.6 2.1 1.9
Choice between tests or workshops 1.1 1.5 1.3
Note: Inter-rater reliability = 91%; responses with less than 1.0% overall are not shown.
a458 coded responses, b525 coded responses, c983 coded responses

Usefulness. We asked students: “What could be changed in this course to make it more

useful to you?” We received 627 responses (317 responses from males and 310 from females),
which are summarized in Table 4. Over half of the responses reported that there was nothing that
could be changed to make the course more useful to them (52.3%); however, 39.2% of the
responses indicate that there are methods and practices that could be changed to make the course
more useful. Although the suggestions for making the course more useful represented a variety
of ideas (as shown in Table 4), 5.6% of the overall responses indicated that providing more
interactive, group activities throughout the term would make the course more useful, 4.8% of the
overall responses indicated that requiring more workshops would make the course more useful,
and 3.7% of the overall responses indicated that requiring more or varied assessments would
make the course more useful.

Success. We asked students, “What could be changed in this course to help you feel you
could be more successful in it?” and we received 620 responses (309 from males and 311 from
females). The results are presented in Table 5. Over two-thirds of the students reported that
nothing could be changed in the course to make them feel more successful in it. Although varied

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

and fewer in number, the remaining responses indicated that students believed that they would be
more successful if the course required more, varied types of assessments; if the course was more
interactive; if videos and video lectures were included among the instructional materials for the
course; if improvements were made to the textbook, course website, and study guides; if more
workshops were made available; and if other resources were provided to help students better
prepare for exams (see Table 5 for the complete list).

Table 4. Things that could be changed in the course to make it more useful.

Response

% Male
Responsesa

% Female
Responsesb

% Overall
Responsesc

Nothing 51.1 53.5 52.3
N/A or irrelevant response 9.5 7.4 8.5
Provide more interactive, group activities 5.7 5.5 5.6
Require more workshops 4.4 5.2 4.8
Require more or varied assessments 3.8 3.5 3.7
Use a different textbook 3.5 1.3 2.4
Provide a more specific content focus 1.9 2.6 2.2
Do not use a textbook 1.6 2.6 2.1
Provide online tutorials or lectures 2.8 1.3 2.1
Make it a traditional class that is not online 2.2 1.9 2.1
Give shorter, more frequent exams 0.6 3.2 1.9
Use videos to share information 2.8 0.6 1.8
Post presentation slides online 0.9 2.3 1.6
Focus more on current news or health issues 1.6 1.3 1.4
Provide fewer multiple choice questions 1.6 1.0 1.3
Make the content more relevant 1.6 1.0 1.3
Send less email 0.9 1.6 1.3
Use the course management system for everything 1.6 0.6 1.1
Offer more or varied practice questions 0.6 1.3 1.0
Reveal all practice questions at once 0.3 1.6 1.0
Note: Inter-rater reliability = 94%; responses with less than 1.0% overall are not shown.
a317 coded responses, b310 coded responses, c627 coded responses

Table 5. Things that could be changed in the course to help students feel more successful.

Response

% Male
Responsesa

% Female
Responsesb

% Overall
Responsesc

Nothing 68.0 69.1 68.6
Irrelevant response that did not address the question 5.2 3.6 4.4
N/A 3.6 5.5 4.6
Require more or varied assessments 2.6 4.0 3.3
Make the course more interactive 2.3 3.6 3.0
Videos or lecture videos 2.8 2.3 2.6
Improved textbook 2.6 0.6 1.6
More practice questions after each chapter 1.3 1.6 1.5
Weekly online lectures 2.3 0.6 1.5
Improved study guides 1.0 1.6 1.3
More Workshops 1.0 1.6 1.3
Improve the website 1.0 1.6 1.3
Use other methods to help prep for exams 1.0 1.3 1.2
Note: Inter-rater reliability = 97%; responses with less than 1.0% overall are not shown.
a309 coded responses, b311 coded responses, c620 coded responses

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

Interest. We asked students “What could be changed in this course to make it more
interesting and enjoyable?” and we received 643 responses (321 from males and 322 from
females). Forty percent of the responses indicated that nothing could be changed to make the
course more interesting and enjoyable; however, nearly 52% of the responses suggested a variety
of changes. The most predominant suggestions for making the course more interesting and
enjoyable included showing videos or including images, and making the class more interactive
by including games and discussion forums. Other responses indicated that requiring more
workshops, incorporating more and varied assessments, and maintaining a more specific content
focus would make the course more interesting and enjoyable, as would making improvements to
the textbook and providing additional instructional materials beyond the textbook (see Table 6
for the remainder of the responses).

Table 6. Things that could be changed in the course to make it more interesting and enjoyable.

Response

% Male
Responsesa

% Female
Responsesb

% Overall
Responsesc

Nothing 40.1 39.8 40.0
Show videos or images 12.1 11.1 11.6
More interactive activities 9.7 12.7 11.2
More Workshops 6.5 7.5 7.0
Irrelevant response that did not address the question 5.3 3.4 4.4
N/A 3.4 4.0 3.7
Require more or varied assessments 3.4 3.4 3.4
More specific content focus 2.8 3.1 3.0
Use real-life examples, stories, or case studies 1.2 4.0 2.6
Opportunities for application or hands-on 1.9 2.8 2.4
Make content more relevant to students’ lives 2.5 2.2 2.4
Textbook improvements 3.4 1.2 2.3
Provide additional materials beyond textbook 2.2 1.2 1.7
More meetings or interactions with instructor 2.2 1.2 1.7
Video-taped lectures or presentation slides 1.2 0.9 1.1
Note: Inter-rater reliability = 98%; responses with less than 1.0% overall are not shown.
a321 coded responses, b322 coded responses, c643 coded responses

Caring. Because the caring component can be divided into academic and personal caring
(Jones, 2010a; Jones & Wilkins, 2012), we asked questions related to both of these caring
subcomponents. Related to academic caring, we asked students: “What could be changed in this
course to make you feel that the instructor cares about whether you learn the course content and
do well in the course?” We received 621 responses (319 from males and 302 from females),
which are summarized in Table 7. Almost half of the students reported that there was nothing
that could be done to increase academic caring. Nearly 16% of the students reported that
academic caring is difficult to convey in an online environment and that it is, therefore, not
expected. Additional responses suggested providing more interaction between the student and the
instructor, providing opportunities to meet the instructor face-to-face, offering the course face-to-
face instead of fully online, and asking students about themselves personally via email (see Table
7 for the remainder of the responses).

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

Table 7. Things that could be changed in the course to increase academic caring.

Response
% Male

Responsesa
% Female

Responsesb
% Overall
Responsesc

Nothing or can’t think of anything 44.0 47.1 45.6
Caring is difficult to convey online or isn’t expected 13.7 17.9 15.8
More interaction between the students and instructor 6.0 6.3 6.2
Opportunities to meet the instructor face-to-face 6.3 4.0 5.2
N/A 4.1 5.3 4.7
Offer the class face-to-face instead of online 6.3 1.7 4.0
Irrelevant response that didn’t answer the question 2.2 2.6 2.4
Ask students about themselves personally by email 2.5 2.0 2.3
Send email about current events in health 2.8 1.7 2.3
More interaction among students 2.2 2.0 2.1
Don’t know 2.8 1.3 2.1
Instructor should hold “live” office hours online 1.9 1.3 1.6
Meet with students to discuss their performance 0.9 1.3 1.1
Class is too large for the instructor to show caring 0.9 1.3 1.1
Video lectures online 1.3 0.7 1.0
Note: Inter-rater reliability = 96%; responses with less than 1.0% overall are not shown.
a319 coded responses, b302 coded responses, c621 coded responses

To gather additional data related to academic caring, we asked students: “What does the
instructor do to provide you with the impression that she cares about whether you learn the
course content and do well in the course?” We received 667 responses (327 from males and 340
from females), which are summarized in Table 8. Of the responses, 73.9% indicated that the
instructor’s continual communication via email to the class gave the impression that she cared
about whether they learned the course content and did well in the course, with an overall 8.3% of
the responses indicating that prompt, thorough responses to students’ questions via email gave
them the impression that the instructor cared about their academic success in the course. Among
the remaining 14.3% of responses, students cited the accessibility of the instructor, the
instructor’s encouragement for students to ask questions, her accommodations and flexibility to
meet the needs of her students, and her personal, individualized responses to students’ emails as
things the instructor did to provide the impression that she cared about whether the students
learned the course content and did well in the course.

With respect to personal caring, we asked students: “What does the instructor do to
provide you with the impression that she cares about you as a person?” We received 643
responses (326 from males and 317 from females), which are summarized in Table 9. Of the
responses, 35.0% indicated that the instructor’s frequent email reminders and notifications gave
the impression that she cared about students personally. Additionally, 13.5% of the responses
indicated that prompt, personalized email responses gave students the impression that the
instructor cared about them personally, with 6.1% of the responses indicating that the tone of the
email (e.g., polite, friendly, encouraging) made the students feel as if the professor cared for
them personally. The instructor’s approachability and willingness to help was found in 7.3% of
the responses. Overall, 7.3% of the responses indicated that the professor did “nothing” to
provide the students with the impression that she cared about them personally, whereas 6.6% of
the responses asserted that personal caring was not possible in an online environment and 4.0%
of the responses noted that personal caring is not possible because students have no personal
interaction with the professor. The remaining responses are presented in Table 9.

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

Table 8. Things that the instructor does to provide academic caring.

Response
% Male

Responsesa
% Female

Responsesb
% Overall
Responsesc

Continual communication via email to the class 74.9 72.3 73.6
Prompt, thorough responses to email inquiries 7.5 9.1 8.3
Irrelevant response that didn’t answer the question 5.2 2.6 3.9
Nothing 3.1 1.8 2.5
Accessibility of instructor 1.2 3.5 2.4
Encourages students to ask questions 1.5 3.2 2.4
Accommodating and flexible to meet student needs 1.8 1.5 1.7
Personal, individualized responses to student email 0.9 1.5 1.2
N/A 1.8 0.3 1.1
Clear, detailed course documents and materials 0.3 1.8 1.1
Provides practice exams 0.9 1.2 1.1
Note: Inter-rater reliability = 97%; responses with less than 1.0% overall are not shown.
a327 coded responses, b340 coded responses, c667 coded responses

Table 9. Things that the instructor does to provide personal caring.

Response

% Male
Responsesa

% Female
Responsesb

% Overall
Responsesc

Frequent email reminders and notifications 36.6 33.4 35.0
Prompt, personalized email responses 11.3 15.6 13.5
Approachability or willingness to help 6.1 8.5 7.3
Nothing 9.8 4.7 7.3
Irrelevant response that did not address the question 8.6 5.7 7.2
Personal caring not possible in online environment 5.9 7.3 6.6
Tone of email was polite, friendly, or encouraging 6.1 6.0 6.1
Office hours and availability 4.9 3.5 4.2
Have had no personal interaction with instructor 3.1 5.0 4.1
N/A 3.7 2.8 3.3
Patience or assistance with technology issues 0.3 3.5 1.9
Allowed students to force-add or enroll late in course 1.8 0.3 1.1
Flexibility of due dates 0.6 1.6 1.1
Note: Inter-rater reliability = 97%; responses with less than 1.0% overall are not shown.
a326 coded responses, b317 coded responses, c643 coded responses

IV. Discussion.

A. Research Question 1.

Both men and women rated each of the components of the MUSIC model higher than 5.0 on a 7-
point Likert-type scale. These findings indicate that, overall, men and women were satisfied in
this type of course. As further evidence, students’ average overall course ratings were between
very good and excellent. Additional research is needed to determine why women provided
statistically higher ratings than men for usefulness, success, situational interest, and individual
interest; however, as Jones (2010a) speculated, based on research in the field of interest (Jones,
Howe, & Rua, 2000; Von Bothmer & Fridlund, 2005), women might value some aspects of the
health content more than men (i.e., they might find it more useful and interesting). Being

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

interested in the course content and finding it useful might also lead them to feel more successful
which could result in higher ratings than men on all of these MUSIC components.

B. Research Question 2.

When students responded to what they would do to change the instruction to make it more
consistent with each MUSIC model component, the suggestions provided by men and women
appeared to be similar in quantity. Therefore, we grouped men and women’s responses together
and discuss them together in this section.
Student recommendations across MUSIC components. Students’ responses across the
MUSIC components included recommendations for the addition and/or change of specific course
characteristics. Each of these characteristics and their perceived benefits is discussed in detail in
the following sections and is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Summary of the main course characteristics that could be changed to enhance the
MUSIC model components.

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

Students suggested that the instructor provide more and/or varied types of assessments to
increase their perceptions of empowerment, usefulness, success, and situational interest.
Currently, the course is constructed such that 84.5% of the students’ final grade for the course is
based on the results of exams that include true/false and multiple-choice questions. Although
these types of summative assessments might be appropriate for the evaluation of students’
comprehension of specific curricular objectives, they do not allow for formative development of
students’ understanding of the content. Adopting a course design that includes more and/or
varied types of assessments may improve students’ perceptions of empowerment by providing
them with more choices; improve students’ perceptions of usefulness by creating formative
assessments that “inform future learning experiences” (Doolittle, 1999, p. 8); improve students’
perceptions of success by providing other types of assessments (besides true/false and multiple
choice exams) for which some students’ believe that they have a better chance of succeeding at;
and improve students’ perceptions of situational interest by reducing redundancy of assessment
methods and introducing a sense of novelty.

Students suggested that the instructor include more activities that involve student
interaction within the course. This response was highest for situational interest, followed by
academic caring, usefulness, success, and empowerment. Thus, interactive activities were
perceived as a means to improve perceptions in all of the MUSIC components. Counter to
isolated learning assignments, interactive activities require social negotiation and mediation,
allowing for multiple perspectives and representations of content (Doolittle, 1999). Further
contributing to an effective learning environment, interactive activities allow for formative
assessment opportunities in which students are engaged in higher-order cognitive processes—
including analysis, synthesis, elaboration, and evaluation—as they provide one another with
ongoing feedback and validation (Marra & Jonassen, 2001). Because of the significance of the
role of interaction with respect to student motivation that was identified in this study, future
researchers should examine exactly what students consider “interactive activities” and which of
them might be the most effective at increasing students’ perceptions of the MUSIC components.
We believe that interactive activities would increase students’ perceptions of situational interest
if they are novel, involve social interaction, include games or puzzles, or require physical
movement (see Bergin, 1999, for evidence and a discussion).

Students suggested that the instructor include videos and/or provide video lectures. This
suggestion was highest for situational interest, but also appeared as a suggestion for
empowerment, usefulness, success, and academic caring. Videos could enhance situational
interest by providing a medium that is novel to the text-heavy nature of the course; they may also
be incorporated to illustrate the usefulness of the material in ways that are not as easily (or
quickly) transmitted through text. Further, videos (particularly appropriate motion pictures in
which characters and situations are developed in emotionally evocative ways) serve to construct
authentic, albeit vicarious, environments in which the course content may be accessed and
contextually engaged. Videos allow for a shared framework within a course and provide a
common narrative from which students can derive relevance and authenticity, critical
components of an effective learning environment (Marra & Jonassen, 2001).

Because the course was offered completely online, students recommended meeting face-
to-face with the instructor as a means to increase academic caring, interest, and empowerment.
Certainly, “in person” conversations better facilitate “personal” connections, incorporating
queues such as eye contact, facial expressions, tone of voice, and immediate responses to
dynamic questions, and these factors may increase the perception of caring. Interest may also be

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

heightened in these face-to-face sessions through the enthusiasm of the teacher and her ability to
provide immediate, personal examples of the content in light of student questions and
experiences. Finally, students may feel more empowered through face-to-face meetings,
particularly if their ideas and knowledge are heard and validated. Offering face-to-face
opportunities in an online course also provides students with another choice through which to
receive guidance about the course content.
Student recommendations within each MUSIC component. In this section, we highlight
some of the other student recommendations that were more common in one of the MUSIC
components and less common in the other components (see Figure 1).

To feel more empowered, students suggested removing the exam deadlines, which would
provide them with more choices as to when to complete the course work. This recommendation
is simple for the instructor to implement; however, one problem with this recommendation is that
students might not self-regulate their learning well in an online environment without regular
queues and reminders. The danger of removing exam deadlines is procrastination: some students
might wait until the end of the course to take all of the exams and, subsequently, perform poorly
in the course. As Jones (2010b) states, the empowerment and success components must be
balanced carefully so that one does not hinder the other. In this case, too much empowerment in
the form of no deadlines might hinder students’ ability to be successful. A possible compromise
would be to have deadlines, but allow students to complete the work and receive grades on it
anytime prior to the deadline. This way, students have a choice as to when to do the work, as
long as it is completed before the instructor-set deadline. In fact, students reported that the ability
to work at their own pace was one aspect of the course that provided them with control.
Students’ suggestions that appear consistent with the usefulness component of the
MUSIC model focused on the content of the course. Some students recommended using a
different textbook or not using a textbook at all. Such suggestions should be considered if the
textbook content is not related to students’ lives or to the real-world in some manner. We
acknowledge that not all learning objectives can be personally useful to all students, but to the
extent possible, the instructional materials should be presented within a framework of the
learners’ experiences and prior knowledge. In this way, learners can find relevance in newly
introduced material. Other suggestions by students included focusing on more relevant and
current health issues, which might be easier to do through web-based resources and real-world
case studies, which could be made more current than those provided in a paper textbook.
Over two-thirds of the students reported that there was nothing about the course that
could be changed to help them feel more successful. This finding was also evidenced with the
quantitative data in that the success component was rated higher than any of the other MUSIC
components by both the men and the women. These results indicate that the structure of the
course is sufficient for most students to feel successful. Most of the recommendations for success
were about factors related to the exams, which seems reasonable given the high importance of
the exams for students’ final course grade. The suggestions included providing more practice
questions, giving other methods to help prepare for the exams, and providing the correct answers
after the tests. These techniques would provide students with formative and constructive
feedback about their increasing content knowledge, which could help them to succeed on the
exams. The suggestion to provide more exams would allow each exam to include less content,
which is another method that could help students succeed.
Students provided some specific examples for how the course could be more interesting
and enjoyable, such as providing more workshops; using real-life examples, stories, and/or case

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

studies; providing opportunities for application of the content; improving the textbook; using
materials beyond the textbook; and incorporating videos and/or presentation slides. Most of these
recommendations would vary the style of the course presentation, which is one way to improve
situational interest (Jones, 2009).
Given that email was the only means of communication between the instructor and her
students, many of the suggestions for the caring component related to the use of email. Table 8
and 9 show that students felt cared for (academically and personally) through the instructor’s
continual email communications and her prompt, polite, and personalized responses to students’
email inquiries. These findings are consistent with the findings of a study by Clayton, Blumberg,
and Auld (2010), which found that students in online courses want “engaging learning
environments that promote direct interaction with professor(s) and students, spontaneity,
immediate feedback, and relationships with faculty and other students” (p. 362). Possible ways
for the instructor to do more to be perceived as caring include asking students about themselves
by email and by promoting interaction among the students (Dixson, 2010).

V. Conclusions.

Although men and women differ in the amount of some of their quantitative ratings of the
MUSIC components, there does not appear to be a need to design an online course differently for
men and women because the suggestions provided in the open-ended items for changing the
course were similar for both sexes. Students’ responses to the open-ended items revealed a
preference for instructional strategies that are consistent with the tenets of the MUSIC Model of
Academic Motivation; thus, providing validity evidence for the use of the MUSIC model in
online courses. It is notable that several of the strategies provided could increase students’
perceptions in more than one component of the MUSIC model, such as providing varied types of
assessments, including interactive activities, providing videos and/or video lectures, and meeting
face-to-face with the instructor. It is our hope that instructors can use the recommendations
provided in this study and that doing so will lead to greater student engagement in online
courses.

References

Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective
learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30.

Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34, 87-98.

Clayton, K., Blumberg, F., & Auld, D. P. (2010). The relationship between motivation, learning
strategies and choice of environment whether traditional or including an online component.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 349-364. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.00993.x

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

De Volder, M., & Lens, W. (1982). Academic achievement and future time perspective as a
cognitive-motivational concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(3), 566–571.

Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do
students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13.

Doolittle, P. E. (1999). Constructivism and online education. Retrieved
from http://www.trainingshare.com/resources/doo2.htm

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & Anderson, A. (1983). Social interdependence and classroom
climate. Journal of Psychology, 114(1), 135-142.

Jones, B. D. (2009). Motivating students to engage in learning: The MUSIC Model of Academic
Motivation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(3), 272-
285.

Jones, B. D. (2010a). An examination of motivation model components in face-to-face and
online instruction. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(3), 915-944.

Jones, B. D. (2010b, October). Strategies to implement a motivation model and increase student
engagement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Exploring
Teaching and Learning, Nashville, TN.

Jones, B. D., Ruff, C., Snyder, J. D., Petrich, B., & Koonce, C. (2012). The effects of mind
mapping activities on students’ motivation. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1-21.

Jones, B. D., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2012). Testing the MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation
through confirmatory factor analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences,
interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180-192.

Kauffman, D. F., & Husman, J. (2004). Effects of time perspective on student motivation:
Introduction to a special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 16(1), 1-7.

Kim, K., & Frick, T. W. (2011). Changes in student motivation during online learning. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 1-23.

Jones, B. D., Watson, J. M., Rakes, L., and Akalin, S.

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2012.
jotlt.indiana.edu

Marra, R. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (2001). Limitations of online courses for supporting
constructive learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(4), 303-317.

Newman, I., Ridenour, C., Newman, C., & DeMarco, G.M.P., Jr. (2003). A typology of research
purposes and its relationship to mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, (Eds.)
Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 167-188). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs
in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Sansone, C., Fraughton, T., Zachary, J. L., Butner, J., & Heiner, C. (2011). Self-regulation of
motivation when learning online: The importance of who, why and how. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 199-212.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tabachnick, S. E., Miller, R. B., & Relyea, G. E. (2008). The relationships among students’
future-oriented goals and subgoals, perceived task instrumentality, and task-oriented self-
regulation strategies in an academic environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3),
629-642.

Von Bothmer, M. I. K., & Fridlund, B. (2005). Gender differences in health habits and in
motivation for a healthy lifestyle among Swedish university students. Nursing & Health
Sciences, 7(2), 107-118.

Weiss, R. E. (2000, Winter). Humanizing the online classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton,
& B. W. Speck (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 84, Principles of effective
teaching in the online classroom (47-51). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.