Heuristic Projects in Open Learning Environments: Time Phase in Individual and Collective Determinants
Shinyi Lin 1  
More details
Hide details
National Taichung University of Education, TAIWAN
Online publish date: 2019-09-09
Publish date: 2019-09-09
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2020;16(1):em1797
Given the inquiry-based nature of research projects, this study aims to investigate how graduate students in business administration majors are being involved in developing, achieving, and completing their master theses. Taking into account of two perspectives including the individual factors and collective environment supported by ICTs, the research purpose is to explore the perception of diverse innovation and to validate its critical determinants while using cloud technologies to collaborate as the research premise. In such an open learning environment (OLE), we adopt a sequential research design to 288 management students of two management colleges in central Taiwan. The research participants were at their three phases, i.e., concept, intermediate, and closure, for their thesis projects. Based on the PLS-SEM analysis, the extent of being in community of practice (CoP) was validated statistically as a partial mediator in the two paths: between self-efficacy (SE) and immerse in knowledge ecology (KE), and between self-determination (SD) and KE. Similarly, the perception of individual self-efficacy (SE) identified as another partial mediator between SD and CoP. The differential effect resultant of the time phase on determinants and consequences is also examined. Regardless of the generalized caveats that result from using a non-randomized, regional sample pool, the contribution of this study remains its practical and academic implications in management education and knowledge ecology enhanced in the OLE.
Arthur, W., Woehr, D. J., & Maldegen, R. (2000). Convergent and discriminant validity of assessment center dimensions: A conceptual and empirical reexamination of the assessment center construct-related validity paradox. Journal of Management, 26(4), 813-835.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 432-445.
Berson, Y., Halevy, N., Shamir, B., & Erez, M. (2015). Leading from different psychological distances : A construal-level perspective on vision communication, goal setting, and follower motivation. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 143-155.
Bishop, K., & International, S. A. (2002). New Roles, Skills and Capabilities for the Knowledge-focused Organisation: Standards Australia International.
Bodenheimer, T., & Handley, M. A. (2009). Goal-setting for behavior change in primary care : An exploration and status report. Patient Education and Counseling, 76(2), 174-180.
Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Second Edition: Taylor & Francis.
Cassuto, L. (2010). Advising the Struggling Dissertation Student. Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(11), A51-A53.
Catania, G. (2014). The unintended consequences of motivational techniques : Goal setting and unethical behavior in the Maltese financial services Industry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1375-1385.
Chatti, M. A. (2012). Knowledge management: a personal knowledge network perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 829–844.
Chen, K.-C., & Jang, S.-J. (2010). Motivation in online learning : Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741-752.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Debowski, S. (2007). Knowledge Management: Wiley India Pvt. Limited.
Fang, E., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2005). The moderating effect of goal-setting characteristics on the sales control systems–job performance relationship. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1214-1222.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 18(1), 39-50.
Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. (2004). Enriching goal-setting theory with time: An integrated approach. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 404–422.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26(4), 657-684.
Grolnick, W. S. (2015). Mothers’ motivation for involvement in their children’s schooling : mechanisms and outcomes. Motivation and Emotion, 39(1), 63-73.
Hagström, E., & Lindberg, O. (2013). Three theses on teaching and learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(2), 119-128.
Hair, J. F. (2013). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): SAGE Publications.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM).
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
Henseler, J., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Computational Statistics, 28(2), 565-580.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., . . . Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182-209.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
Hildreth, P. M., & Kimble, C. (2004). Knowledge Networks: Innovation Through Communities of Practice: Idea Group Pub.
Huang, T.-C., Jeng, Y.-L., Hsiao, K.-L., & Tsai, B.-R. (2016). SNS collaborative learning design: enhancing critical thinking for human–computer interface design. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1-10.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204.<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7.
Hunt, C. (2001). Climbing Out of the Void: Moving from chaos to concepts in the presentation of a thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 351-367.
Kimble, C., Hildreth, P. M., & Bourdon, I. (2008). Communities of Practice: Creating Learning Environments for Educators: Information Age Pub.
Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., & Callan, R. C. (2017). Gamification of task performance with leaderboards: A goal setting experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 508-515.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212-247.
Lin, S., Hung, T.-C., & Lee, C.-T. (2015). Revalidate forms of presence in training effectiveness: Mediating effect of self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 32-54.
Lindsay, S. (2015). What works for doctoral students in completing their thesis? Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 183-196.
Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3(2), 157-189.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation : A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2015). Chapter Four - Breaking the Rules: A Historical Overview of Goal-Setting Theory. In J. E. Andrew (Ed.), Advances in Motivation Science (Vol. Volume 2, pp. 99-126): Elsevier.
Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N., & Knerr, C. S. (1970). Studies of the relationship between satisfaction, goal-setting, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5(2), 135-158.
O’Leary-Kelly, S. W., & Vokurka, R., J. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct validity. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 387-405.
Roberts, C. M. (2004). The Dissertation Journey: A Practical and Comprehensive Guide to Planning, Writing, and Defending Your Dissertation: SAGE Publications.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2008). Measures of quality in online education: an investigation of the community of inquiry model and the net generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(4), 339-361.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312.
Sonnentag, S. (2012). Time in organizational research: Catching up on a long neglected topic in order to improve theory. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(4), 361-368.
Stößlein, M., & Kanet, J. J. (2016). Undergraduate research experiences: Identifying lessons learned and challenges for business schools. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(3), 349-367.
Thomas, R. M., & Brubaker, D. L. (2000). Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research, and Writing: Bergin & Garvey.
Vinzi, V. E. (2010). Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge: Harvard Business Press.
Zhao, L., Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Huang, W. (2011). What makes them happy and curious online? An empirical study on high school students’ Internet use from a self-determination theory perspective. Computers & Education, 56(2), 346-356.