The Impact of Motivation and Social Interaction on the E-Learning at Arab Open University, Kingdom of Bahrain


E-learning can be considered as a useful tool for enhancing the quality of the educational process. However, the success of any technology application is dependent on how good it would satisfy the needs of its key stockholders, who compose the constituency of an organization and address their concerns. In the context of e-learning, students are the main stakeholders. Therefore, there is an emergent need to understand the factors that influence the use of e-learning to satisfy the students and improve their learning. The main aim of the current study is to investigate the factors that affect the use of e-learning by the postgraduate students at the Arab Open University. Factors such as motivation and social interaction were selected to be potential factors for using e-learning. Moreover, the effect of e-learning on the students’ perceived satisfaction and performance was examined. The study sample is comprised of postgraduate students enrolled in the AOU—the Kingdom of Bahrain branch. One hundred and fifty surveys were distributed both in person and as a web survey. The results provide a great indication about the use of e-learning at the KingdomofBahrain. Results on the research model and hypotheses show that motivation is the main factor that has the most significant impact on using e-learning at the AOU, followed by student-student interaction. Student-instructor interaction has shown to have an indirect impact on e-learning via motivation.

Share and Cite:

Essam, S. and Al-Ammary, J. (2013) The Impact of Motivation and Social Interaction on the E-Learning at Arab Open University, Kingdom of Bahrain. Creative Education, 4, 21-28. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.410A004.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Alstete, J., & Beutell, N. (2004). Performance indicators in online distance learning courses: A study of management education. Journal of Quality Assurance in Education, 12, 6-14.
[2] Baker, G. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7.
[3] Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379-439.
[4] Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25, 351370.
[5] Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[6] Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[7] Busch, T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 147-158.
[8] Cain, J. (2008). An analysis of motivation orientations and social interactions on successful and poor learners in an e-learning environment. Doctoral Dissertation, Tui University, College of Education, Available Online at ProQuest.
[9] Cao, J., Crews, J., Lin, M., Burgoon, J., & Nunamakr, J. (2008). An empirical investigation of virtual interaction in supporting learning. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 39, 51-68.
[10] Certo, S., & Certo, S. (2006). Modern management (10th ed.). New Jersy: Pearson Prentice Hall.
[11] Colaric, S., & Jonassen, D. (2001). Information equals knowledge, searching equals learning, and hyperlinking is good instruction: Myths about learning from the World Wide Web. In C. D. Maddux, & D. L. Johnson (Eds.), The web in higher education: Assessing the impact and fulfilling the potential (pp. 159-169). New York: Haworth.
[12] Coldwell, J., Craig, A., Paterson, T., & Mustard, J. (2008). Online students: Relationships between participation, demographics and academic performance. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6, 19-30.
[13] Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
[14] DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 9-30.
[15] Ergul, H. (2004). Relationship between student characteristics and academic achievement in distance education and application on students of Anadolu University. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5, 81-90.
[16] Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of the oppressed (3rd ed.). New York: Continuum Publishing Company.
[17] Glass, J., & Sue, V. (2008). Student preference, satisfaction, and perceived learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4, 325-338.
[18] Hammoud, L., Love, S., & Brinkman, W. (2008). The affect of lecturers’ attitude on students’ use of an online learning environment. Proceeding of the 15th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: The Ergonomics of Cool Interaction, Portugal.
[19] Hennessey, B., & Amabile, T. (2005). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Blackwell, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior, 1-1.
[20] Hong, K. (2002). Relationships between students’ and instructional variables with satisfaction and learning from a Web-based course. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 267-281.
[21] Ilias, K., & Nor, M. (2012). Influence of teacher-student interaction in the classroom behavior on academic and student motivation in teachers’ training institute in Malaysia. Academic Research International, 2.
[22] Intel Corporation (2010). The positive impact of elearning.
[23] Lee, B., Yoon, J., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Journal of Computers & Education, 53, 1320-1329.
[24] Lee, J., & Lee, W. (2008). The relationship of e-learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-Learning environmental quality. Journal of Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 32-47.
[25] Lee, L., & Kao, C. (2010). The effect of learning motivation, total quality teaching and peer-assisted learning on study achiment: Empirical analysis from Vocaland University or Colleges’ student in Taiwan. The Journal of Human Resource Adault learning, 6.
[26] Lou, Y., Bernard, R., & Abrami, P. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education: A theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54, 141-176.
[27] Miller, M. (2005). Usability in e-learning.
[28] Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3, 1-6.
[29] Moore, M., & Thompson, M. (1990). The effects of distance learning: A summary of literature. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED330 321.
[30] Murray, M., Perez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrich, A. (2012). Student interaction with online course content: Build it and they might come. Journal of Information Education: Research, 11.
[31] Neo, K. (2003). Using multimedia in a constructivist learning environment in the Malaysian classroom. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19, 293-310.
[32] Neo, M., & Neo, T. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated constructivist learning—Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 254-266.
[33] O’Malley, J., & McCraw, H. (1999). Students’ perceptions of distance learning, online learning and the traditional classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2.
[34] Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Journal of Computer & Education, 54, 222-229.
[35] Pask, G. (1995). Conversation, cognition, and learning. New York: Elsevier.
[36] Price, L. (2004). Individual differences in learning: Cognitive control, cognitive style, and learning style. Educational Psychology, 24, 681698.
[37] Roi, K. (2006). The impact of learning styles on interactivity in asynchronous e-learning. Performance Improvement, 45, 21-26.
[38] Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3.
[39] Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18, 57-73.
[40] Selim, H. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computer and Education, 49, 396-413.
[41] Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8, 102-120.
[42] Singh, G., O’Donoghue, J., & Worton, H. (2005). A study into the effects of e-learning on higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2, 13-24.
[43] Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43, 51-54.
[44] Siritongthaworn, S., & Krairit, D. (2006). Satisfaction in e-learning: The context of supplementary instruction. Campus-Wide Information Systems Journal, 23, 76-91.
[45] Smith, R. (2010). Motivational factors in e-learning.
[46] Stash, N., Cristea, A., & De Bra, P. (2010). Adaptation to learning styles in e-learning: Approach evaluation.
[47] Sun, P., Tasi, R., Finger, G., Chen, Y., & Yen, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computer and Education, 50, 11831202.
[48] Teare, R. (2000). Modeling the virtual university. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12, 111-123.
[49] Thompson, A., & Strickland, A. (2001). Crafting and executing strategy: Text and readings. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[50] Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2002). Critical success factors in online education. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14, 216-223.
[51] Wagner, E. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 6-29.
[52] Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2008). Who is responsible for e-learning success in higher education? A stakeholders’ analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 11, 26-36.
[53] Wanstreet, C. (2006). Interaction in online learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7, 399-411.
[54] Young, J. (2002). Online teaching redefines faculty members’ schedules, duties, and relationships with students. Washington DC: Chronicle of Higher Education.
[55] Young, M. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facilitating self-regulated learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 25-40.
[56] Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. The Teachers College Record, 107, 1836-1884.
[57] Zurita, G., Baloian, N., Baytelman, F., & Farias, A. (2007). Developing motivating collaborative learning through participatory simulations. In G. Goos, J. hartmanis, & J. V. Leeuwen (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science (p. 807). Heidelberg : Springer.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.