My research paper on the role of motivation in e-learning context. The study has confirmed that if students have mastery motivational orientation and are learning with combined classroom+remote virtual methodology will report better results and higher overall satisfaction. My research paper was included in the European Distance and E-learning Network (EDEN) publication revisiting research, innovation and professional practice in distance and e-learning. This paper was presented on EDEN (European Distance and E-learning Network) 2006 Annual Conference, E-competences for Life, Employment and Innovation, 14-17 June 2006, Vienna, University of Technology, Austria, Proceedings – ISBN 963 06 0063 3, Pages 320-324.

1. MOTIVATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF E-STUDENTS
Duro Njavro, Katarina Karalic, Karmela Aleksic-Maslac, Zagreb School of Economics and
Management
Abstract:
This study reveals more information about motivational goal orientation of students in e-learning
enviroment, as well as the correlation between motivational goal orientation and variables of
academic performance. Students who score higher on mastery goal orientation scale consider their
college subjects more interesting and useful, report of getting valuable knowledge, find professors
more interesting, competent and righteous, and are more satisfied with the quality of lectures and
materials, as well as with general choice of university. Students who are learning with combination of
traditional approach and e-learning are more satisfied with their studies, have better grades, and more
often attend classes then their peers who learn in a traditional classroom.
Introduction:
The progressive rise of modern technology left its impact on education as well. E-learning
with all it's benefits are applied more and more in classrooms worldwide. Some authors call this
phenomenon «the learning revolution», emphasizing concepts like independent, active, and self-
directed learning [1]. In the sea of information reachable by a touch of a fingertip, the teacher takes on
the role of a mentor and focus shifts from the content of the teaching materials to the question of
motivation and self-regulated learning skills.
Research conducted on 87 american universities that use distance learning showed that 85%
of institutions report that their students learn as effective as those in traditional classrooms [2]. This
«No Significant Difference phenomenom», as Thomas Russel after comparing 355 studies called it
[3], actually supports power of e-learning, proving that, with all its benefits, this way of education
brings the same results as the traditional one.
However, other studies showed significant difference between e-learning and the traditional
classroom approach. Gold and Maitland [4] in their overview of 70 researche studies reported that e-
students are more satisfied with teaching and have more positive feelings and attitudes toward their
learning experience. Results of studies conducted at the University of California showed that e-
students have a higher grade point average and better academic performance than traditional ones [2].
Motivation is defined as an internal process that starts, guides, and maintaines behavior
toward certain goal within a given timeframe. Psychologists differ between two main groups of
motivational goal orientations – mastery and performance goal orientation. Students with mastery
orientation have the goal to achieve knowledge and skills by itself, while students with performance
goal orientation behave in a way that demonstrates their competences in order to be acknowledged by
others and/or to avoid failure [4].
We claim that the constructivistic enviroment of distance learning completly relies on
intrinsic motivation and provides a good enviroment for the development of mastery goal orientation.
Nagel [5] in her research showed that the variable of goal orientation can discriminate between a
group of students who finished an e-learning course from those who gave up.
The above mentioned results support the important role of mastery motivational goal
orientation, making it one of the significant predictors of successful performance in e-learning.
Zagreb School of Economics and Management (ZSEM) is currently the only higher-education
institution in Croatia which requires from its students the regular use of the WebCT software package

2. for distance learning in their education. All teaching materials, work books, presentations, and tasks
are available on-line, as well as discussions, comments, and examples of previous tests. Students of
this school learn through combination of the traditional classroom approach with distance learning
[6,7]
ZSEM students (N=154) are compared with a sample of students from the Economic Faculty
of J.J.Strossmayer at the University in Osijek (EFOS, N=160), evaluating their satisfaction
considering general conditions of studying, as well as 8 choosen subjects which are identical on both
faculties in order to avoid possible effect of content of material on student's satisfaction. All students
also filled out questionnarie that measured motivational goal orientations [8].
Research will show if there is significant statistical difference between e-students and
traditional ones considering grade point averages, class attendance, satisfaction toward studies, and
motivational goal orientation. Students with higher scores on mastery goal orientation scale will be
analysed by their academic performance, class attendance, and attitudes toward professors, subjects
and general satisfaction toward studies.
Results and discussion:
Table 1. shows that e-students are statistically different then their peers in traditional
classrooms considering general satisfaction toward studies (t=20.81 , p<0.01), average grade by
subject (t=4.73, p<0.01), as well as current overall grade (t=4.97, p<0.01) and class
attendance(t=4.35, p<0.01). E-students have higher average results in all mentioned variables, which
means that they are more generally satisfied with studies and have better grades, as well as higher
class attendance. These results support previous research on the same topic [2,3].
TABLE 1. Group differences among ZSEM and EFOS students considering satisfaction, academic perfromance,
class attendance and motivational goal orientation
* difference is significant on level p<0.01
But when we look at the level of satisfaction with specific subjects and professors, there was
no significant difference found between e-students and traditional ones. No significant difference is
found among groups of e-students and traditional students considering mastery and avoiding failure
goal orientation. However, significant difference (t=2.68, p<0.01) is found when comparing results on
the scale of demonstrating competence goal orientation.
To see how do e-students differ within themselves considering frequency of the WebCT use,
and to strengthen some of the assumptions, ZSEM students are divided into three groups of students
who use WebCT “rarely”, “often” and “always” and comparisons are made. Table 2. shows that these
students don’t differ from each other considering general satisfaction toward studies, nor the
satisfaction with specific professors and subjects. However, they significantly differ considering
current overall grade (f=8.665, p<0.01) – as expected, students who “always” use the WebCT have
WebCT M F-value
“rare” /
“often” /
General satisfaction toward studies
“always” /
1.836
“rare” /
“often” /
Satisfaction with professors and
subjects
“always” /
1.937
“rare” 2.9
“often” 3.3
Current overall grade
“always” 4.1
8.665 *
“rare” 3.4
“often” 3.7
Mastery motivational goal orientation
“always” 3.9
3.341 **

3. better grades (M=4.1) then those who use it “often” (M=3.3) or “rarely” (M=2.9). There is one more
interesting result that table 2. shows –significant statistical difference of the mastery motivational
orientation goal (F=3.341, p<0.05) which shows that e-students who are more regular users of
WebCT score higher on mastery goal orientation, as some research studies have already shown [5].
TABLE 2. Group differences considering satisfaction, grades and mastery motivational orientation
among students with different frequency of WebCT use
* difference is significant on level p<0.01
** difference is significant on level p<0.05
Table 3. shows correlations between results on scales of motivational goal orientation and
attitudes of students toward satisfaction with subjects, professors, and general study conditions.
Results show that students who score higher on mastery goal orientation generaly consider subjects
more interesting and useful then their peers who have higher results on performance (demonstrating
competence and avoiding failure) orientation scales. Mastery goal oriented students consider that in
classes they got valuable knowledge that they will use in their profession and would take the same
subject again if they had a choice. They evaluate professors as more interesting and competent, have
better opinion on their presentation skills and ability to motivate students, find them more fair while
giving grades and assigning tasks. These students are more satisfied with the quality of lectures and
teaching materials, as well as with their general choice of college.
Conclusion:
Results showed that e-students statisticaly differ from their traditional peers in a direction that
they are more generally satisfied with their studies, their overall grades are higher as well grades of
specific subject, and they attend classes more often. There are no difference in mastery goal
orientation between e-students and traditional ones, but a difference is found within groups of e-
students, and results showed that students who use the WebCT regulary have higher scores on
mastery goal orientation scale. In general, in both groups students with mastery goal orientation
consider their college subjects more interesting and useful, they say that they get valuable knowledge
at school that they will use in their future profession, find professors more interesting, competent and
fair, and are more satisfied with the quality of lectures and materials, as well as with their general
choice of university.
faculty N M SD t-test
EFOS 159 2.4 0.53General satisfaction toward studies
ZSEM 153 3.6 0.53
20.81 *
EFOS 121 3.8 0.49Satisfaction with professors and
subjects
ZSEM 160 3.8 0.68
0.61
EFOS 160 3.1 0.65Average grade by subject
ZSEM 137 3.6 0.92
4.73 *
EFOS 159 3.0 1.01Current overall grade
ZSEM 149 3.7 1.41
4.97 *
EFOS 160 3.8 0.89Class attendance
ZSEM 141 4.3 0.87
4.35 *
EFOS 155 3.6 0.71Mastery goal orientation
ZSEM 142 3.8 0.66
1.70
EFOS 154 2.6 0.79Demonstrating competence goal
orientation
ZSEM 144 2.9 0.90
2.68 *
EFOS 157 2.5 0.74Avoiding failure goal orientation
ZSEM 142 2.6 0.86
1.25

4. TABLE 3. Correlation between motivational goal orientation and items of questionarrie of attitudes toward satisfaction with studies,
subjects and professors
* correlation is significant on level p<0.01
** correlation is significant on level p<0.05
References:
1. MARTENS, R.L., GULIKERS, J., BASTIANES, T. (2004). The impact of intrincis motivation on
e-learning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 20, 368-376.
2. STROTHER, J.B. (2002). An Assessment of the Effectiveness of e-learning in Corporate Training
Programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1-12.
3. PHIPPS, R., MERISOTIS, J. (ed) (1999). What's the Difference. A Review of Contemporary
Research on the Effestiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education. Washington: The
Institute for Higher Education Policy.
4. AMES, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. Student
perceptions in the classroom. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 327-348.
5. NAGEL, T. (2004). Distance Education: The Impact of Goal Orientation, Motivational Beliefs
and Strategies, and Course Satisfaction. Unpublished.
Questionnarie items
Mastery goal
orientation
Demonstrating
competence
orientation
Avoiding
failure
orientation
“Subject was interesting for me.” .344(**) .095 .085
“I consider the subject as useful.” .355(**) .051 .056
“I gained valuable knowledge on this subject.” .329(**) .095 .097
“I will benefit from this subject in my profession.” .324(**) .037 .100
“I would take the subject again if I had the opportunity to choose.” .242(**) .086 .136(*)
“I consider the professor interesting.” .259(**) .077 .098
“I consider the professor competent.” .209(**) .062 .012
“I consider the professor patient.” .088 .126(*) .159(**)
“I consider the professor available.” .167(**) .174(**) .181(**)
“The professor’s relationship with students.” .196(**) .141(*) .155(**)
“Presentational skills of the professor.” .265(**) .197(**) .168(**)
“Ability of the professor to motivate students l.” .186(**) .105 .115(*)
“The professor is fair in evaluating students.” .192(**) .087 .077
“The professor gives adequate tasks.” .224(**) .065 .018
"I am satisfied with the quality of lectures at my school." .254(**) .166(**) .157(**)
"I am satisfied with the professors who are teaching at my school." .242(**) .191(**) .150(**)
"I am satisfied as a student on this school." .270(**) .195(**) .172(**)
"I am satisfied that I choose this school." .356(**) .109 .078
"I am satisfied with the content of the materials that we learn from." .288(**) .214(**) .175(**)
"I am satisfied with the way the materials are presented in class.” .241(**) .201(**) .132(*)
"Courtesy of the employees at the student office." .069 .166(**) .090
"Availability of the employees in the student office. “ .086 .143(*) .114(*)
"Time needed to get information from the student office.” .149(*) .152(**) .125(*)
"Working hours of the student office." .070 .123(*) .100
"Classrooms where lectures are held." .021 -.049 -.027
"Technology that is used during lectures." .139(*) .184(**) .117(*)

5. 6. ALEKSIC-MASLAC, K., NJAVRO, D., LIPLJIN, I. (2004). Advanced Solutions in Study Using
ICT. International Conference on Engineering Education 2004 (ICEE 2004), Gainesville (Florida,
USA), Oct. 17-21, 2004.
7. ALEKSIC-MASLAC, K., NJAVRO, D., JERKOVIC, H. (2004). “E-Learning on Zagreb School
of Economics and Management”, Best Practice Showcase, Online Educa Berlin 2004, Dec. 1 – 3,
2004, Berlin (Germany).
8. MIDGLEY, C., MAEHR, M.L., HRUDA, L.Z., ANDERMAN, E., ANDERMAN, L.,
FREEMAN, K.E., GHEEN, M., KAPLAN, A., KUMAR, R., MIDDLETON, M.J., NELSON, J.,
ROESER, R., URDAN, T. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales.
Michigan: University of Michigan.
Authors:
Zagreb School of Economics and Management (ZSEM)
Jordanovac 110, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
www.zsem.hr
Dr Duro Njavro, Dean, ZSEM
duro.njavro@zsem.hr
Karmela Aleksic-Maslac, ZSEM
karmela.aleksic@zsem.hr
Katarina Karalic, ZSEM
katarina.karalic@zsem.hr
(katarina.karalic@gmail.com)