Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 164–169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Internet and Higher Education

Taiwan college students' self-efficacy and motivation of learning in online peerassessment environments

Sheng-Chau Tseng a, Chin-Chung Tsai b,⁎a National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Graduate Institute of Engineering, #43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwanb National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Graduate School of Technological and Vocational Education, #43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 27376511; fax:E-mail address: cctsai@mail.ntust.edu.tw (C.-C. Tsai)

1096-7516/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.01.001

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Accepted 21 January 2010

Keywords:Online learningPeer assessmentHigher educationWeb-based learning

Online peer assessment is an innovative evaluation method that has caught both educators' andpractitioners' attention in recent years. The purpose of this study was to develop relevant questionnairesfor teachers to understand student self-efficacy and motivation in online peer assessment learningenvironments. A total of 205 college students with experience in online peer assessment participated in thisstudy. Two questionnaires measuring students' online peer assessment self-efficacy (OPASS) and theirmotivations in online peer assessment learning environments (MOPAS) were developed. The formerincluded three self-efficacy scales: evaluating, receiving and reacting. The latter included two scales: intrinsicmotivation and extrinsic motivation. Through factor analysis, both revealed highly satisfactory validity andreliability in assessing students' self-efficacy and motivation in online peer assessment learningenvironments. Moreover, the students' responses also showed that they were highly confident and stronglyintrinsically motivated when participating in an online peer assessment learning environment. Finally, theinterplay between the scales of OPASS and those of MOPAS was explored and the reciprocal relationshipbetween students' self-efficacy and motivation in an online peer assessment learning environment was alsohighlighted.

+886 2 27376433..

l rights reserved.

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Self-efficacy, which refers to specific beliefs about what onebelieves one can do, is a key variable in Bandura's social cognitivetheory (Bandura, 1982). Self-efficacy beliefs affect one's thoughtpatterns, determine one's level of motivation, dominate one'semotional reactions, and even guide one to make choices at importantdecisional points (Bandura, 1997). In clarifying the relationship ofself-efficacy and performance, perceptions of efficacy are regarded asbehavioral predictors (Bandura, 1986). More specifically, the greaterone's perceived self-efficacy, the higher the goals onemay set for him/herself and the stronger his/her devotion to them (Wood & Bandura,1989). Therefore, when more precise and detailed measurements ofefficacy are made, a high correspondence between efficacy andperformance is found (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Kagima & Hausafus,2000). Indeed, a meta-review of 39 educational studies revealed thatself-efficacy was strongly related to student performance across avariety of subjects and situations in traditional learning settings(Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). Interestingly, in a web-basedenvironment, Wang and Newlin (2002) also presented a positive

relationship between students' perceived self-efficacy for the coursecontent and their performance.

Apart from self-efficacy, motivation is also regarded as a mediatingrole in producing competent performances or generating greaterinterests in the activity (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). Studentswith motivation to learn about a topic would tend to engage andenhance more in their learning activities (Zimmerman, 2000). Theirmotivation varies not only in different levels (i.e., how muchmotivation), but also in different orientations (i.e., intrinsic orextrinsic). As an example, a student can be highly motivated to dohomework out of curiosity and interest or, alternatively, he or shewants to get the approval of teachers or parents. Decades of studieshave shown that the quality of performance can be very differentwhen one is behaving for motivations with different orientations(Bénabou & Tirole, 2003; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Recently, with theInternet being fast growing to be a valuable educational asset, manyresearchers also maintain that motivation is an essential prerequisitefor learning in web-based environments (Hoskins & van Hooff, 2005;Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004).

Peer assessment (PA) is an arrangement for learners to evaluateand define the quality of performance of other similar-status learners.In PA, peer feedback is available in greater quantity and with greaterimmediacy than teacher feedback (Topping, 2009). Besides, learners'understanding about other students' ideas during the learning processis also enhanced (Butler & Hodge, 2001; Falchikov, 1995). Moreover,

165S.-C. Tseng, C.-C. Tsai / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 164–169

with the aid of online technology, it is shown to allow greater freedomof time and space for learners (Tsai, Lin, & Yuan, 2002) and increasethe effectiveness of learning (Rubin, 2002), thus becoming a potentiallearning avenue in online environments. However, while some of theresearch started to examine the reliability and validity of online PA(Tsai & Liang, 2009; Tseng & Tsai, 2007), little has been concernedabout students' psychological traits such as self-efficacy and motiva-tion in this online learning environment. Therefore, relevant instru-ments are needed to help instructors understand students' self-efficacy and motivation when implementing online PA activities intheir courses.

This study began with developing two questionnaires to survey agroup of college students in Taiwan about their self-efficacy of andmotivation in online PA activities. Then, the validity and the reliabilityof both questionnaires were analyzed. Finally, the relationshipbetween students' self-efficacy and their motivation involved inonline PA activities was also explored.

2. Methodology

2.1. Sample

The initial sample of this study consisted of 205 Taiwanese collegestudents (59 males and 146 females) whose ages ranged from 18 to22, with an average of 19.3. Some of the students were from a tech-nological university while the others were from a medical college inNorthern Taiwan. As self-efficacy is gauged from one's actualperformance and real-life experiences (Schunk & Pajares, 2002),these students were selected for they all had experience in similaronline PA activities through the same online PA learning system(called PALS). The former were asked to design a project in Man-agement course while the latter were required to complete an Englishwriting via an online PA learning system (Yang & Tsai, 2010). All ofthemwere believed to have obtained some understanding about whatan online PA activity was like.

2.2. Questionnaire assessing students' self-efficacy in online PA

The OPASS (Online Peer Assessment Self Efficacy Survey) wasdeveloped in Chinese to assess students' self-efficacy in online peerassessment learning environments. Three scales were generatedbased on previous studies (Falchikov, 2001; Graham & Golan, 1991;Pintrich & De Groot, 1990), which were evaluating scale, receivingscale and reacting scale. A detailed description for each scale, with asample questionnaire item, is presented below.

Evaluating Scale: measuring students' confidence in evaluatingpeers' work in online PA activities. A sample item of this scale is: ‘Inan online peer assessment activity, I can comment on my peers'work anonymously.’Receiving Scale: measuring students' confidence in receiving peers'judgments and recognizing their own weaknesses identified bypeers. A sample item of this scale is: ‘In online peer assessmentactivity, I can recognize my weakness when I get anonymouscomments from peers.’Reacting Scale: measuring students' confidence in making reactionto peers' feedback, including prioritizing and planning theconsecutive tasks based on peers' feedback. A sample item ofthis scale is: ‘When receiving peers' comments in online peerassessment activities, I can identify which of their opinions is ofmore importance.’

In this study, each scale in OPASS included 8, 4 and 7 itemsrespectively, presented in a seven-point Likert mode, ranging from

“not at all confident” to “very confident.” Consequently, a total of 19items were included for developing OPASS. Two experts withexperience in implementing PA were asked to comment on theitems for content validity, and five college students were selected toclarify the wording of each item.

Students' responses were scored as follows. The “very confident”responses were assigned scores of 7 while “not at all confident”responses were assigned scores of 1. Consequently, students gettinghigher scores in a certain scale showed stronger self-efficacy in thespecific ability in PA learning environments.

2.3. Questionnaire assessing students' motivation of online PA

The MOPAS (Motivation of Online Peer Assessment Survey) wasdeveloped in Chinese to assess students' motivation in online PAlearning environments. Two scales were generated based on somerelated research (Harter, 1981; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Schunk et al.,2008), and they were intrinsic motivation scale and extrinsic moti-vation scale. A detailed description for each scale, with a samplequestionnaire item, is presented below.

Intrinsic Motivation Scale: measuring motivation that enablesstudents to engage in the online PA activity for its own sake,such as pleasures they get from the PA task itself or from the senseof satisfaction in working on a PA task. A sample item of this scaleis: ‘In an online peer assessment activity, I like opinions from peersbecause I can get more ideas.’Extrinsic Motivation Scale: measuring motivation that enablesstudents to engage in the online PA activity as a means to anend, such as grades, teacher praise, or avoidance of negative feed-back. A sample item of this scale is: ‘In an online peer assessmentactivity, I turn in every assignment just to meet the teacher'scourse requirements.’

With the same developing and scoringmethod as OPASS describedabove, the MOPAS included a total of 17 items, with 8 items inintrinsic motivation scale and 9 items in extrinsic motivation scale,and was presented in a seven-point Likert mode, ranging from“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” An exploratory factor analysiswith varimax rotation was conducted to validate both instruments.Case-wise deletion was used for missing values.

2.4. Procedure of data collection

Copies of OPASS and MOPAS were delivered to sample students atthe same time either in classes or by e-mails at the end of online PAactivities. The researchers collected the completed questionnaires forfurther analysis. The total number of the students selected was 219,only 205 students responded to the items of OPASS and MOPAS. Theresponse rate was approximately 93.6%. For students' non-responses,unintentional skips or unidentifiable marks on some items of thesurvey, this study processed them as “missing” data. Hence, the validnumber of student cases on each item or scale of the survey may havevaried. However, the missing data for any item was not in excess of1.4% of the whole data set.

3. Findings

3.1. Factor analysis of OPASS

This study utilized exploratory factor analysis, principle compo-nent analysis with varimax rotation, to clarify the structure ofstudents' self-efficacy in online PA activities. An item was retainedonly when it loaded greater than 0.50 on the relevant factor and less

Table 1OPASS scales descriptions, factor loadings, and descriptive statistics by item (N=205).

Item Factor 1:Evaluating

Factor 2:Receiving

Factor 3:Reacting

Factor 1: Evaluating α=0.90, mean=4.55, S.D.=1.001. In online PA activity, I can find the strengths of my peers' work when I review it. 0.7372. In online PA activity, I can find the weaknesses of my peers' work when I review it. 0.8293. In online PA activity, I can give helpful opinions or suggestions when I review peers' work. 0.6634. In online PA activity, I can tell whether my peer has done his/her best or not when I review his/her work. 0.7235. In online PA activity, I can identify the strengths of peers' work and provide explanations. 0.8166. In online PA activity, I can identify the weaknesses of peers' work and provide suggestions. 0.775

Factor 2: Receiving α=0.71, mean=5.03, S.D.=0.967. In online PA activity, I can recognize my weakness when I get anonymous comments from peers. 0.7828. In online PA activity, I can decide whether or not to revise my work after I get peers' feedback. 0.6909. In online PA activity, I can ignore unreasonable feedback from peers. 0.57710. In online PA activity, I can examine the problem in my own work when I get comments from peers. 0.702

Factor 3: Reacting α=0.87, mean=4.81, S.D.=0.9411. When receiving peers' comments in online PA activity, I can identify which of their opinions are of more importance. 0.63212. When receiving peers' comments in online PA activity, I can identify which of their suggestions are more helpful to me. 0.59513. After receiving peers' comments in online PA activity, I can make plans to improve my work by steps. 0.75314. After reading peers' comments in online PA activity, I can improve my work with a good strategy. 0.78315. After reading peers' comments in online PA activity, I can make better revision to my work. 0.755

Notes: Loadings less than 0.50 omitted.Total α=0.91; total variance explained is 65.38%.

166 S.-C. Tseng, C.-C. Tsai / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 164–169

than 0.50 on the non-relevant factor. As presented in Table 1, thecollege students' self-efficacy in online PA activities was grouped intothree factors, which were exactly the same as the scales originallyproposed in this study. (The English version of the questionnaireshown in the paper was translated by one expert. To validate theEnglish version, two additional experts were invited to translate theEnglish version back into Chinese version again. Modifications in theEnglish version were made until the original one and the translatedone were found to be similar both in meaning and wording for eachitem.) Fifteen questionnaire items retained in OPASS (19 itemsoriginally) explained 65.38% of the variance. The reliability (alpha)coefficients respectively for the three scales were 0.90, 0.71 and 0.87,and the overall alpha coefficient for all 15 items was 0.91. Thesecoefficients suggested that the scales of the OPASS had highlysufficient reliability in assessing college students' self-efficacy inonline PA activities. For students' mean scores on each scale of OPASS,they were all fairly higher than 3.5 (the average score on a seven-point Likert scale), indicating that students were quite confident withperforming the tasks in online PA environments.

Table 2MOPAS scales descriptions, factor loadings, and descriptive statistics by item (N=205).

Item

Factor 1: Intrinsic motivation α=0.89, mean=5.25, S.D.=0.931. In online PA activity, I like opinions from peers because I can get more ideas.2. In online PA activity, I know some ideas better by discussing them with my peers.3. In online PA activity, I will be triggered to learn more if I have the chance to review4. In online PA activity, getting praise from peers will give me more confidence than ge5. In online PA activity, I expect to get some opinions from peers or teachers when I fin6. In online PA activity, learning will be more impressive if I could get peers' comment7. In online PA activity, I will still learn something even if I get an unsatisfied score on

Factor 2: Extrinsic motivation α=0.71, mean=4.24, S.D.=1.048. I only expect to get comments or suggestions back from the teachers when I finish m9. I turn in every online PA assignment just to meet the teachers' course requirements10. In online PA activity, I think the opinions of my work from teachers are more impo11. I am a diligent student if I can complete the online PA work assigned by teachers.12. In online PA activity, I would feel that I have learned nothing if I get a low peer sco

Notes: Loadings less than 0.50 omitted.Total α=0.78; total variance explained is 55.60%.

3.2. Factor analysis of MOPAS

The same analysis and criteria were utilized to clarify the structureof students' motivation in online PA activities. As presented in Table 2,the college students' motivation in online PA activities was dividedinto two factors, including intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motiva-tion. (Again, the English version of the questionnaire was validated bytwo experts.) Likewise, these factors were similar to the scalesoriginally proposed in this study. The two factors with 12 question-naire items retained in the MOPAS (17 items originally) explained55.60% of the variance. The eigenvalues of the two factors fromprinciple component analysis were both larger than one. The alphacoefficients respectively for two scales were 0.89 and 0.71, and theoverall alpha coefficient for all 12 items was 0.78. These coefficientssuggested that the scales of theMOPAS had highly sufficient reliabilityin assessing college students' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation inonline PA activities. In addition, students' high questionnaire scoresindicated positive responses to these items, especially in the intrinsicmotivation scale (Mean=5.25).

Factor 1:Intrinsicmotivation

Factor 2:Extrinsicmotivation

0.8050.821

peers' work. 0.774tting that from the teachers. 0.700ish an assignment. 0.773s on my work. 0.819my work. 0.659

y online PA assignment. 0.632. 0.718rtant than those from peers. 0.723

0.639re on my work. 0.606

167S.-C. Tseng, C.-C. Tsai / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 164–169

3.3. Correlations between OPASS and MOPAS

The correlations among the scores measured on each scale ofOPASS and MOPAS are presented in Table 3. An examination ofsignificance revealed some interesting relationships between thescales of OPASS and MOPAS. The results showed that the “IntrinsicMotivation” scale was more correlated with all three scales in OPASSthan the “Extrinsic Motivation” scale. The students with higherintrinsic motivation tended to have greater confidence in evaluatingpeers' work, receiving peers' opinions and making reaction to peers'feedback (r=0.47, 0.52, 0.60 respectively, p<0.01). However,students with higher extrinsic motivation only tended to be certainabout their ability in making comments on peers' work and makingadaptations in response to peers' feedback, but the correlationcoefficient values, though significant, were relatively low (r=0.15).

3.4. Clustering students' self-efficacy in online PA

On the basis of students' scores for OPASS, we used a k-meansclustering analysis method (k=3) to classify college students intothree approximately equivalent groups. Table 4 shows the averagescore of each scale in OPASS in each cluster. In order to determine theunique composition of each cluster, we compared the mean scoreswithin each cluster to the total mean scores for the whole data set. InTable 4, for example, the mean scores of Evaluating, Receiving andReacting in cluster 1 were all greater than the mean scores ofEvaluating, Receiving and Reacting for the whole sample, suggestingthat students in cluster 1 showed greater self-efficacy in evaluatingpeers' work as well as receiving and reacting on peers' feedback. Asthese students displayed higher self-efficacy in all aspects of onlinePA, cluster 1was called Achiever cluster. Following the same rationale,students in cluster 2 (labeled as Weaker cluster) showed relativelylower self-efficacy in reviewing peers' work, receiving peers' feedbackand reacting on peers' suggestions. Students in cluster 3 (calledReceiver cluster), on the contrary, showed less confidence in bothreviewing peers' work and reacting on peers' opinions but muchhigher confidence in receiving peers' feedback.

Table 4Students' online PA self-efficacy among clustering groups.

3.5. The role of students' self-efficacy in their motivation of learning inonline PA environments

In this study, the relationship between students' online PA self-efficacy (divided into three clusters, as shown in Table 4) andstudents' motivation of learning in online PA environment was alsoexplored. A series of ANOVA test analyses were conducted to evaluatethe possible role of students' self-efficacy in students' motivation oflearning in online PA environments. The results of the analysesbetween different PA self-efficacy clusters and students' motivation oflearning in online PA environment are presented in Table 5.

The ANOVA tests showed that students' PA self-efficacy played asignificant role in students' intrinsic motivation (p<0.001). TheScheffe tests revealed that students who tended to show greater self-efficacy in all three aspects of online PA (i.e., those who belonged tothe Achiever cluster) scored significantly higher on the ‘intrinsicmotivation’ scale than students who were classified in the other twoclusters (F=50.70, p<0.001).

Table 3The correlation between OPASS scales and MOPAS scales.

Evaluating Receiving Reacting

Intrinsic Motivation 0.47** 0.52** 0.60**Extrinsic Motivation 0.15* 0.03 0.15*

*p<0.05, **p<0.01.

4. Conclusion and discussion

Integrating instruction with the Internet is one of the currenttrends in education at all levels. Therefore, it would be vital toexamine whether the psychological nature of some results reportedearlier would repeat itself with regard to the Internet learning. Bygathering 205 college students' responses, this study developed twoquestionnaires, OPASS and MOPAS, to investigate their self-efficacyand motivation of learning in online peer assessment environments.OPASS included three scales, which were evaluating, receiving andreacting. MOPAS included two scales, which were intrinsic motivationand extrinsic motivation. These scales, by employing factor analysis,showed adequate validity and reliability in assessing students' self-efficacy and motivation of learning in online PA environments.

In OPASS, students attained high scores on each of the scales,suggesting that they were with high self-efficacy in the online PAactivities. It is noted that those people would have more confidencewhen they feel less anxious toward computer-based activities(Barbeite & Weiss, 2004). In addition, when self-efficacy is high,individuals tend to complete tasks that are far beyond their skills andresult in more desirable learning outcomes (Bandura, 1997). One maysay that the present online PA activities have brought a morecomfortable learning environment for students to feel confidentwith all learning tasks, and therefore generating better learningperformance.

In MOPAS, it was found that students were highly motivated whenengaging in online PA activities. As Lin, Liu, and Yuan (2001) stated,students were found to learn effectively only if they were highlymotivated in online PA activities. It is also interesting to note thatstudents got higher scores on the intrinsic scale, indicating that mostof them participated in the online PA activities for enjoyment orchallenge. Hamid (2002) mentioned that in an e-learning situation,good designs would evoke positive tension to motivate learning.Obviously, online PA activities in this study have served as the so-called intrinsically motivated activities which can provide learnerswith satisfaction of innate psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

This study also explored the correlation among the scoresmeasured on each scale of students' online PA self-efficacy (OPASS)and their motivation in online PA learning environments (MOPAS).The results showed that students' intrinsic motivation was morerelated to their self-efficacy thanwas extrinsicmotivation in online PAlearning environments. This is consistent with Bandura and Schunk's(1981) emphasis that intrinsic motivation plays an influential role inthe cultivation of self-efficacy and Harter's (1981) finding thatchildren with an intrinsic orientation in a given domain would havehigher self-efficacy in that domain. Interestingly, those acted out ofextrinsic orientation showed no tendency for their confidence inreceiving peer feedback. As performance can be very different whenstudents are behaving for intrinsic or extrinsic reasons (Bénabou &Tirole, 2003; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Teo, Lim, & Lai, 1999), it could beconcluded in this study that only when students acted out of intrinsicinternal values (i.e., fun, interest, or curiosity), would they beconfident with receiving peers' feedback.

This study also used a clustering analysis method to classify collegestudents into three approximately equivalent groups of unique

Scales Total(n=205)Mean (S.D.)

Cluster (1)(n=73)Mean (S.D.)

Cluster (2)(n=91)Mean (S.D.)

Cluster (3)(n=41)Mean (S.D.)

F(ANOVA)

Evaluating 4.55 (1.00) 5.42 (0.71) 4.24 (0.63) 3.69 (1.00) 85.54***Receiving 5.03 (0.96) 5.81 (0.64) 4.17 (0.49) 5.49 (0.61) 182.17***Reacting 4.81 (0.93) 5.73 (0.58) 4.34 (0.59) 4.18 (0.77) 125.00***

***p<0.001.Note: cluster (1): achiever; cluster (2): weaker; cluster (3): receiver.

Table 5Students' motivation in online PA among different self-efficacy groups.

Scales Total(n=205)Mean (S.D.)

(1) AchieverCluster(n=73)Mean (S.D.)

(2) WeakerCluster(n=91)Mean (S.D.)

(3) ReceiverCluster(n=41)Mean (S.D.)

F(ANOVA)

Scheffe test

Intrinsic motivation 5.25 (0.92) 5.95 (0.68) 4.77 (0.74) 5.04 (0.90) 50.70*** (1)>(2)(1)>(3)

Extrinsic motivation 4.24 (1.04) 4.35 (1.27) 4.24 (0.73) 4.05 (1.08) 1.10

***p<0.001.

168 S.-C. Tseng, C.-C. Tsai / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 164–169

composition, which were Achiever cluster, Weaker cluster andReceiver cluster (as shown in Table 4). Students in Achiever clustershowed greater self-efficacy in evaluating peers' work as well asreceiving and reacting on peers' feedback. On the contrary, students inWeaker cluster showed lower self-efficacy in reviewing peers' work,receiving peers' feedback and reacting on peers' suggestions. Studentsin Receiver cluster showed less confidence in reviewing peers' workand reacting on peers' feedback but higher confidence in receivingpeers' comments.

Finally, the role of students' self-efficacy in students' motivation oflearning in online PA environments was examined. Students inAchiever cluster (students with greater self-efficacy in criticizing,receiving and reacting scales) showed the most in their intrinsicmotivation. This result appeared to be consistent with Bandura's(1997) notion that efficacy beliefs play a central role in the cognitiveregulation of motivation. Stronger self-efficacy and positive outcomeexpectations raise intrinsic motivation and lead to further learning(Bandura, 1986, 1993). Therefore, it may be concluded that sufficientself-efficacy from students may be of importance for students'intrinsic motivation to engage in an online PA learning environment.

By using both OPASS and MOPAS above, educators can wellunderstand students' self-efficacy as well as their motivation oflearning in online PA learning environments. The observations withOPASS and MOPAS in this study appeared to be crucial and timelysince the relationship evidenced in previous research between self-efficacy and motivation (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Bandura & Schunk,1981; Harter, 1981) in traditional learning settings (e.g., studentslearning through paper-and-pencil methods) remains valid in anonline PA learning environment. As self-efficacy beliefs are assumedto be situation specific, one's self-efficacy for a specific task on a givenday might change due to the individual's condition and social milieu(Schunk & Pajares, 2002). And motivation, like self-efficacy, is alsotime and context dependent. It characterizes people at a given point intime in relation to a particular activity (Schunk et al., 2008). The keypoint is that self-efficacy and motivation bear a reciprocal relation tolearning and performance; that is, self-efficacy or intrinsic motivationinfluences learning and performance and what students do and learninfluences their self-efficacy or motivation (Bandura, 1997; Pintrich,2003; Schunk, 1995). That is to say, higher self-efficacy or intrinsicmotivation is predictive of better learning performance, which in turnpromotes even higher self-efficacy or intrinsic motivation. Therefore,when implementing online PA activities, educators are encouraged topay more attention to the roles that students' self-efficacy andmotivation play in their learning outcomes in this kind of learningenvironment. With the help of OPASS andMOPAS, we are also hopefulthat future research will provide more detailed results regarding therelevance of students' self-efficacy or motivation to actual learning inonline PA learning environments.

Finally, the sample of this study is limited in two groups ofundergraduate-aged students from two higher education institutes inNorthern Taiwan. In order to further test the instruments developedas well as the implications of this study, it would be valuable to seefuture studies involving students of different ages, different subject-areas, and from different cultures. A large-sample survey is alsorecommended to validate the findings derived from this study.

Acknowledgement

Funding of this research work is supported by National ScienceCouncil, under grant numbers 98-2511-S-011-005-MY3 and 98-2631-S-011-001.

References

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,37(2), 122−147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117−148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic

interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 41(3), 586−598.

Barbeite, F. G., & Weiss, E. M. (2004). Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for anInternet sample: Testing measurement equivalence of existing measures anddevelopment of new scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 1−15.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effectson self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3),497−505.

Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Review of EconomicStudies, 70, 489−520.

Butler, S. A., & Hodge, S. R. (2001). Enhancing student trust through peer assessment inphysical education. Physical Educator, 58, 30−41.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum.

Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovationsin Education and Training International, 32(2), 175−187.

Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. New York:RoutledgeFalmer.

Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement,ego involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 83(2), 187−194.

Hamid, A. A. (2002). e-Learning: Is it the “e” or the learning that matters? The Internetand Higher Education, 4, 311−316.

Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in theclassroom:Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology,17(3), 300−312.

Hoskins, S. L., & van Hooff, J. C. (2005). Motivation and ability: Which students useonline learning and what influence does it have on their achievement? BritishJournal of Educational Technology, 36, 177−192.

Kagima, L. K., & Hausafus, C. O. (2000). Integration of electronic communication inhigher education: Contributions of faculty computer self-efficacy. The Internet andHigher Education, 2, 221−235.

Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback forstudents with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4),420−432.

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs toacademic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychol-ogy, 38, 30−38.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of studentmotivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667−686.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learningcomponents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33−40.

Rubin, L. (2002). “I just think maybe you could…”: Peer critiquing through onlineconversations. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 29(4), 382−392.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitionsand new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54−67.

Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.),Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application(pp. 281−303). New York: Plenum Press.

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A.Wigfield, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 29−52).Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

169S.-C. Tseng, C.-C. Tsai / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 164–169

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,research, and applications, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning:Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet andHigher Education, 7, 59−70.

Teo, T. S. H., Lim, V. K. G., & Lai, R. Y. C. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation inInternet usage. Omega, 27(1), 25−37.

Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48, 20−27.Tsai, C. -C., & Liang, J. -C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer

assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37(3),293−310.

Tsai, C. -C., Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, M. -J. (2002). Developing science activities through anetworked peer assessment system. Computers & Education, 38, 241−252.

Tseng, S. -C., & Tsai, C. -C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peerfeedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49,1161−1174.

Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2002). Predictors of web-student performance: The role ofself-efficacy and reasons for taking an on-line class. Computers in Human Behavior,18, 151−163.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatorymechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 56(3), 407−415.

Yang, Y. -F., & Tsai, C. -C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning throughonline peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 72−83.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation(pp. 13−39). San Diego: Academic Press.