SUPPORTING LEARNING ENVIRONMENT OF RURAL STUDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBODIA AND ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE LOCATED IN PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA

CHHUN SEAKKEAV

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER DEGREE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION BURAPHA UNIVERSITY NOVEMBER 2015 COPYRIGHT OF BURAPHA UNIVERSITY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and deepest appreciation to Her Royal Highness Princess Mahachakri Sirindhorn, who provided the scholarship for me to study at Burapha University. I would like to express my special gratitude and deep appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Tuomo Rautakivi, co-advisor, Dr. Ritthikorn Siriprasertchok, the dean of Graduate School of Public Administration, Associate Professor Dr. Patchanee Taraseina, and all faculty members for their guidance, and valuable advice through this study. Great appreciation is offered to all panels involved in validating the instruments, Dr. Thanawat Pimoljinda, Mr. Chum Chandarin, and Mr. Khleang Sovann. I would like to thank all faculty members, staffs, teachers, and especially the presidents of University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture who granted me permission and assistance to conduct the study. Great thank to Mr. Chheang Sangvath, dean of undergraduate studies division of University of Cambodia, Miss. Prum Sophea, member of economic and rural development faculty of Royal University of Agriculture, friends and my senior students especially Mr. Dam Soksan, and Mr. Prak Lyna who helped and facilitated in the process of data collection, analysis, and verification. I am very grateful to all professors and members of Graduate School of Public Administration who help and support me while I am studying here. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my beloved father, Seak Ngov, mother, Seng Mouykea, uncle, aunt, and siblings who always gives me the warmest and greatest love and support. Unforgettable, I offer special thanks to all of my relatives and friends for their help, encouragement, and support.

Chhun Seakkeav

iv

57930001: MAJOR: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MANAGEMENT; M.P.A (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) KEYWORDS: LEARNING ENVIRONMENT/ RURAL STUDENTS/ HIGHER EDUCATION CHHUN SEAKKEAV: SUPPORTING LEARNING ENVIRONMENT OF RURAL STUDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBODIA AND ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF ARGRICULTURE LOCATED IN PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA. ADVISORY COMMITTEES: TUOMO RAUTAKIVI, Ph. D., RITTHIKORN SIRIPRASERTCHOK, Ph. D. 135 P. 2015.

The purposes of this study were: 1) to investigate the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in private university in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2) to investigate the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in public university in Phnom Penh, 3) to study the differences in factor supporting rural students‟ learning environment between a private and a public university in Phnom Penh. The sample of this study was 668 rural students learning in The University of Cambodia (300 students) and Royal University of Agriculture (368 students) in Phnom Penh. They were selected by using convenient sampling. The research instruments were questionnaires consisting of three parts. Part one was personal information, part two focused on factors supporting learning environment with 25 items, and part three is general comment and suggestion to enhance rural students‟ learning environment. The statistics which employed to analyze the data were mean, standard deviation, and independent T-test analysis. The research findings were as follows: 1. The level of family support and teacher support for rural students learning in private university (The University of Cambodia) in overall was at high level. The factors of peer support, school administration, and socio-economic status of study were rated at moderate level. 2. The level of family support, peer support, and school administration for rural students learning in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) in

overall was at high level. The factors of peer support, and school administration support of study were rated at moderate level. 3. Family support is the highest factors supporting rural students‟ learning in both private and public university (The University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture). In average, teacher support place in the second rank after family support while peer support, school administration, and socio-economic status present moderate significant factors on learning environment. Moreover, the result suggests that there is no significant difference found between the factor of family support, peer support, teacher support, and socio-economic status, however, there is a significant difference between school administration factor between rural students in public and private university.

CONTENTS

Page ABSTRACT ...... iv CONTENTS ...... vi LIST OF TABLES ...... viii LIST OF FIGURES ...... x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 Background of the study ...... 1 Statement of the problem...... 5 Objectives of the study ...... 6 Research questions ...... 6 Conceptual framework...... 7 Contributions of study ...... 9 Scope and limitation of the study...... 9 Operational definition of the terms ...... 10 2 RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH REVIEWS ...... 13 Concepts and definitions of motivation ...... 13 Variables in the study ...... 15 Major theories of learning motivation ...... 27 Related studies ...... 41 Overview of University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture ...... 44 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 46 Research design ...... 46 Population and sample ...... 47 Research instrument ...... 48 Research measurement ...... 49 Data collection method ...... 50 Data analysis ...... 52

vii

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

CHAPTER Page Time frame ...... 54 4 RESEARCH RESULTS ...... 55 Respondant‟s information ...... 55 1. Analysis of private university (The University of Cambodia) ...... 58 2. Analysis of public university (Royal University of Agriculture) ...... 64 3. Analysis between private and public university ...... 71 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 79 Summary of research findings ...... 79 Discussion...... 83 Recommendation ...... 94 Limitations and suggestions for further studies ...... 95 REFERENCES ...... 97 APPENDICES ...... 114 Appendix A ...... 115 Appendix B...... 120 Appendix C...... 130 Appendix D ...... 133 BIOGRAPHY ...... 135

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Labor Force (by Occupation), The World Factbook (CIA, 2010) ...... 4 2 Number of universities in Cambodia, by location ...... 5 3 Factor supporting students‟ learning motivation ...... 40 4 Herzberg model of the motivator-hygiene theory (1959)...... 40 5 Summary of data analysis...... 54 6 Gender of all respondents from both Universities ...... 55 7 Age of all respondents from both Universities ...... 56 8 Family income of all respondents from both Universities ...... 57 9 Family occupation of all respondents from both universities ...... 58 10 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of factors supporting learning environment of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia) ...... 59 11 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of family support factor of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia) ...... 60 12 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of peer support factor of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia) ...... 61 13 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of teacher support factor of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia) ...... 62 14 Mean, standard deviation, level, and rank of school administration factor of rural students learning in private university (The University of Cambodia) ...... 63 15 Mean, standard deviation, level, and rank of socio-economic status factor of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia) ...... 64 16 Mean, standard deviation, level, and rank of factors supporting learning environment of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) ...... 65 17 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of family support factor of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) ...... 66 18 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of peer support factor of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) ...... 67 ix

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

Table Page 19 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of teacher support factor of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) ...... 68 20 Mean, standard deviation, level, and rank of school administration factor of rural students learning in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) .. 69 21 Mean, standard deviation, level, and rank of socio-economic status factor of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture)...... 70 22 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of factors supporting learning environment of rural students in both private and public university (The University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture)...... 71 23 The mean difference in factor supporting learning environment of rural students between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture) ...... 72 24 The mean difference in family support factor of rural students between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture)...... 73 25 The mean difference in peer support factor of rural students between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture)...... 74 26 The mean difference in teacher support factor of rural students between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture)...... 75 27 The mean difference in school administration factor of rural students between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture) ...... 76 28 The mean difference in socio-economic status factor of rural students between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture) ...... 77 29 The result summary of factor supporting students‟ learning environment between private and public university ...... 94

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1 New conceptual framework of this research ...... 8 2 Maslow‟s hierarchy of needs pyramid (Maslow, 1954) ...... 28 3 Alderfer‟s ERG theory (1969) ...... 31 4 McClelland‟s achievement need theory (1961) ...... 33 5 Vroom's expectancy theory (1964) ...... 35 6 Herzberg‟s two factor theory (1959) ...... 38

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Background of the study Cambodia is a developing country and also one of the oldest countries in Southeast Asia which has 15,458,332 populations according to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA, July 2014 est.). After its tragic political history, Cambodia remains high rates of poverty and limited human resource therefore; education plays an important role in developing this country through enhancing human resource and poverty reduction. Education Strategy Plan 2009-2013 of Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport (Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport, 2010) shows that there is a significant stage that the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport should carry on reforming the educational sector in Cambodia following other reforms of the Royal Government of Cambodia. Moreover, The Government has been organizing more resources to widen scholarships for poor and outstanding students in the purpose of ensuring equal access to education services. In relation to this, Education Strategic Plan 2014-2018 (Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport, 2014) states that further work and increased resources will be required to ensure that poor, more talented, and disadvantaged students who come from disadvantage backgrounds can access higher education through scholarship programs or possibly student loan schemes. Students from poor or rural backgrounds had fewer resources and motivation to learn in higher education. When schools have limited external resources, as it is geographically remote rural schools, they must depend on other kinds of resources in order to achieve the goals of achievement and persistence. Even though at-home resources are available for some rural students to support their positive academic outcomes, many still have limited at-home and community resource result to low achievement and dropout risk (e.g., low socioeconomic status, single-parent families, low parental education, low parental and community valuing of education); (Fowler & Walberg, 1991). Comparing to urban students, rural students face more inequitable situations such as different economies, opportunities, and possibly different peers and social capital. These areas have different unemployment rates, poverty rates, racial 2 demographics, average age of population, and educational attainment rates (Tosha, 2013). Although learning in higher education is costly and time consuming, the benefits provided are long term and far exceeding the initial investment cost (Dohm & Wyatt, 2002). Rural students already aware of the difficulties of continuing their college education but they keep their struggling for a better future of their employment for themselves, families, and communities. Regarding to Jongsma (2007), unemployment of college graduates is less often occurs during their career or for shorter periods of time and they have higher incomes than the rest of the labor force. “Many employers feel that college-educated workers are more motivated, learn tasks more quickly, are better able to meet deadlines, and have better problem-solving and communication skills compared to non-college educated employees” (Knutsen, 2011, p. 3). These factors are capable to lead the decreased training time that employers need to spend on college educated workers and therefore, this make college graduates become the first choice for employers (Dohm& Wyatt, 2002). The purpose of this research paper is to find out the most important factors supporting learning environment among rural students who are studying in higher education within two universities by one is public and another is private university located in Phnom Penh City, Cambodia. Moreover, the intention of this study is to explore and compare major factors which support rural students‟ learning environment in a private university (The University of Cambodia) and a public university (Royal University of Agriculture) located in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The motivation of students is an essential concern in higher education, especially related to the necessity of academic performance in their professional life. Motivation is an essential role in fastening students to be successful in their studies. Without motivation, students are not able to achieve their learning. Reid (2007, p. 2) mentioned that when learners can develop self-motivation properly, their learning is more effective. A successful learning relies on motivation that encourages students to try hard on their study. To develop learning effectively is the same as to build a house which consists of individual bricks and it needs solid foundations otherwise when under stain, it will collapse (Reid, Motivating learners in the Classroom: Ideas and Strategies, 2007). The process that goal-directed activity is inspired and sustained is known as Motivation. It involves goals that pushing forward for and directing to 3 action (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008). Regarding to Brown (1987, p. 114), he states that “countless studies and experiments in human learning have shown that motivation is a key to learning.” Motivation is a type of intrinsic transfer mode. It can encourage and drive students to discover knowledge until they get success in learning achievement (Harmer, 2001). He continues that the students who are supported and motivated to learn from families as well as society usually achieve their future goals. Furthermore, a good relationship between teachers and students is necessary for motivating students. Teachers have to provided students unconditional acceptance and at the same time providing them with accurate feedback. “As long as students know their worth is secure they will absorb accurate feedback about what they do.” (McLean, 2003, p. 20). Motivation is needed to maintain the stability of students‟ learning because if they satisfy their learning, as a result, they will not drop out of school. Bridgeland et al. (2006) found out that there are some vital variables which contribute to a lack of motivation and lead to students‟ dropping out of school. It is also extremely crucial for school that has a lot of disadvantaged and rural students who are poor. Motivation is usually characterized in to two different categories such as intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation refers to the internal factors that may result from the pleasure the individual obtains from learning. However, extrinsic motivation refers to the external reasons to perform the tasks. It may be motivated by external rewards, such as marks (Jordan & Porath, 2006). Cambodia situation According to The World Factbook (CIA, 2011), urban population in Cambodia is 20% while 80% of population is in rural area. Base on U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID, 2015), among the rural population, 70 % rely on agriculture, fisheries, and forestry for their livelihoods (see Table 1). The vast majority of the population in rural areas lives in poverty and the economic development expenditure and assistance programs is overly concentrated on the capital, Phnom Penh (Judy, 1998). The education system faces wide range of obstacles such as lacking of facilities, unwell-trained staff, lacking of book and materials, offering low pay for teacher, and an ineffective curriculum (Asian Development Bank (ADB), 1994). 4

Table 1 Labor Force (by Occupation), The World Factbook (CIA, 2010)

Labor Force (by Occupation) Percentage (100%) Agriculture 55.8% Industry 16.9% Service 27.3%

The research based assumption is that family support factor plays as the most important factor supporting rural students‟ learning environment in higher education. The total number of students enrolment in the academic year 2009-2010, there were 145,596 students, of which 51,596 (34.44%) were female. Comparing this numbers with the figures for school year 2005-2006, the total enrolment had increased; yet, these numbers remain below the target which is largely due to the insufficient finance for Higher Education (MoEYS, 2010). Additionally, the gross enrollment ratio for bachelor‟s programs is about 13%, higher than in Laos (6%) but lower than in the other Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. Due to high dropout rates, the gross graduation ratio for bachelor‟s degrees is much lower at about 5%, lower than in Laos (7%), Myanmar (11%) and Vietnam (13%), (UNESCO, 2014, p. 18). By 2012, the country‟s socio-economic surveys demonstrates that there was only about 5% of Cambodian adults (3% of women and 7.3% of men) had achieve post-secondary education (Srinivasa, 2014). The annual report of the Cambodian National Council for Women states that barriers to young women finishing higher education are involved in the scholarships scarcity, family financial problem and a lack of accommodation close to educational institutions (Phnom Penh Post, March 07, 2014). Mostly, Cambodian girls encounter much burden that lead to drop out of school and work for contributing to their families‟ incomes. Therefore, the number of university-educated women in Cambodia is lack and there‟s a limitation of women‟s leadership roles especially in businesses, communities, and politics (The Asia Foundation, 2015). 5

Regarding to Harpswell Foundation (2014), the universities location in Cambodia mostly are in Phnom Penh and Siam Reap (59 in Phnom Penh and 29 in the provinces-see Table 2) but the majority of the population does not live in these cities, in the provinces, and the universities housing for students are not provided. Provincial students have to face with the boarding and lodging cost in order to pay for tuition and those who manage to find somewhere to live are at risk of being drawn into drug usage or being recruited into prostitution (Cambodian Communities out of Crisis , 2015). For students in the provinces who have willingness of pursuing a career that requires university, it can be difficult to make the move to higher education (Phnom Penh Post, 17 Mar 2010). Likewise, on Phnom Penh Post, 22 Aug 2008, Mr. Rong Chhun, president of the Cambodian Independent Teachers Association, said he had witnessed an increase in the number of students moving from the provinces to universities in Phnom Penh by saying that “Education in the provinces is not good so many chose to study in Phnom Penh.”

Table 2 Number of universities in Cambodia, by location

Location Public Private Total Phnom Penh 37 22 59 Provinces 17 12 29

Statement of the problem Because the number of HEIs and its quality of education in rural area are limited, demotivated rural students decided to quit higher education after high school completion while highly motivated students in rural zones decided to enroll higher education in Phnom Penh city even though they already aware of the difficulties of living and studying in the city and for the other students who cannot afford living and learning in the city, they gave up and return back to study and live at their hometowns. In fact, rural students in Cambodia are typically belong to families that parents have low levels of education because most educated people in Cambodia were 6 executed during the genocidal war, surviving residents generally have low education so their ability to guide their children through college is minimal (Eng, Zvonkovic, Mulsow & Ritchey, 2010). Hence, parents have few financial resources to help their children and colleges that students attend in rural area are usually poorly provided in terms of service quality and facilities they are, generally, smaller than urban area. In addition, whether studying in public or private universities, students are affected by tuition prices. Almost all public universities were founded by governments in the purpose of providing residents the opportunity to receive public higher education while private universities basically and heavily rely on tuition fees and other private contributions. The matter of costs, class size, academic activities, culture, and environment between public and private universities are involved in students‟ learning environment.

Objectives of the study This study has three objectives: 1. To investigate the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in private university in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 2. To investigate the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in public university in Phnom Penh. 3. To study the differences in factor supporting rural students‟ learning environment between a private and a public university in Phnom Penh.

Research questions In order to provide answers to the research objectives, the following questions are purposed for investigation: 1. What is the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in private university in Phnom Penh? 2. What is the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in public university in Phnom Penh? 7

3. Is there any significant difference in factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment between private and public university in Phnom Penh? And if they are different, why?

Conceptual framework Factors supporting learning environment concentrates on learning motivation of rural students who are currently studying in higher education in Phnom Penh. Dependent variables of this study are the variables that produce outcomes of motivation while independent variables are the factors that contribute to the motivation. The conceptual framework has been proposed to describe the factors that support students‟ learning motivation. Researcher has adopted these factors from the results of other following researches. Several factors that support students‟ learning motivation are: family support (Henderson & Mapp, 2002), peer support (Hamjah et al., 2011), teacher support (Ryan & Patrick, 2001), school administration support (Jamian & Baharom, 2012; Jordan & Porath, 2006) and socio-economic status (Fan, 2011). The newly developed research model arises from the theories in the literature review and guided in this study (see Figure 1).

8

INDEPENDENT DEPENDENT VARIABLE VARIABLE

Family Support

1. Children Recognition

2. Responsibility

2. Pay

Peer Support

1. Interpersonal relation

Teacher Support 1. Recognition & promote students‟ sense of achievement Learning Motivation

2. Meaningful of Learning

3. Growth and Promotion

School Administration Support 1. School Policy

2. Learning Condition

Socio-economic Status

1. Status

Figure 1 New conceptual framework of this research (Henderson & Mapp, 2002, Hamjah et al., 2011, Ryan & Patrick, 2001, Jamian & Baharom, 2012, Jordan & Porath, 2006, Fan, 2011 and Herzberg, 1959) 9

Contributions of study Due to this study has never or rarely conducted before, the study is beneficial as to articulately illustrate the factors supporting learning environment of rural students who is learning in higher education in Phnom Penh city, Cambodia. This study can enable students to develop self-motivation in order to improve their learning persistence and achievement in a capital city. Moreover, it is also crucial for teachers, peer, families as well as university or college to take in to account for consideration and put more action to adjust the difficult situations in the purpose of improving students‟ learning. The results of this study would be essential in proposing some guidelines for school principals and teachers to find the way out to strengthen the learning quality of rural students. This consequence would use as a tool for other researchers who conduct the research related to the factor supporting learning environment of students. Besides, it would be beneficial for concerned organizations to exactly know regarding the condition and environment of rural students‟ learning and support them in diverse means. The study will serve as a guide for Cambodia Government as well as related parties to develop policies and strategies which will improve its overall rural students‟ needs. Finally, the study will serve as a guideline for further research in finding factor supporting learning environment of rural students in any kind of education or related field.

Scope and limitation of the study The sample chosen for the study is conducted regarding to the population of rural students in The University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture. The study scope consists of three criteria as the following: 1. Scope of content: To study factor supporting rural students‟ learning environment in higher education located in Phnom Penh, Cambodia only. This is a case study focuses on two universities in Phnom Penh by one is private and another is a public university only. Other branches of these universities in the country are not included in this study. 10

2. Scope of population: This study focuses on factors supporting learning environment of rural students who are studying Bachelor degree in two Universities in Phnom Penh, Cambodia in the academic year of 2015 only. 3. Scope of time: the period of collecting data will take a month in exact field study from 1st July 2015 to 30th July 2015 and take place in The University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture located in Phnom Penh city only. 4. Limitation of the study: This study was conducted on the common factors which support rural students‟ learning environment that might appear in the different ways. This study focuses on the University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture only and may not implement directly for other similar institutions, depending the structure of the institutions. Moreover, this study focuses on students who are studying in the university not the students who already quit their study and not concentrate the factors that affect the reason of quitting the university studies.

Operational definition of the terms 1. Motivation: “is a theoretical construct used to explain the initiation, direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of behavior, especially goal-directed behavior” (Maehr & Meyer, 1997, p. 3). According to education professionals and experts on the subject, motivation is defined by a student's desire to participate in the learning process, supported by personal and external factors (The Psychology Career Center, 2014). 2. Motivation to learn: is an obtained competence which developed by general experience; yet, stimulated directly via modeling, communication of expectations, and direct instruction or socialization by others especially parents or teachers (Brophy, 1987). Moreover, motivation to learn of students is defined as long- term, quality learning involvement, and commitment to the learning process (Carole, 1990). 3. Higher education (tertiary education): refers to all post-secondary education including institute, college, and universities. Universities are obviously a major part of all tertiary systems which includes public or private institutions that support the production of the higher-order capacity needed for development 11

(World Bank, 2014). Regarding to Southampton Solent University, higher education is where students can study at an advanced level, normally after they turn 18 years old. Higher education courses are usually studied at universities, university colleges and higher education institutions. However, they can be studied at specialist colleges, for example art and music, and some further education colleges. 4. Urban area: is a location identified by high human population density and vast human-built features in comparison to the areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations, but the term is not commonly extended to rural settlements such as villages and hamlets (National Geographic (b), 2014). 5. Rural area: is a geographic area that is located outside cities and towns (WordNet, 2014). The Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines the word “rural” as encompassing “...all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Whatever is not urban is considered rural” (Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA), 2014). 6. Rural students: refer to students who come from rural or remote areas. Rural areas are usually defined as “what is not urban” (UN, 1998, 2004). Related to the definition of National Geographic (a) (2014), a rural area is an open swath of land that has few homes or other buildings, and not very many people. A rural area‟s population density is very low. 7. Self-determination: is the ability to make choices and exercise a high degree of control, such as what the student does and how they do it (Deci et al., 1991; Reeve, Hamm, & Nix, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Self-determination theory centers its attention on different types of motivation from the ones proposed by Gardner: extrinsic and intrinsic (Dörnyei, 2005). 8. Family support: refers to families of all cultural backgrounds, education, and income levels encourage their children...and keep them focused on learning and homework. In other words, all families can, and often do, have a positive influence on their children‟s learning (Henderson & Mapp, 2002, p. 34). 9. Teacher support: Teacher support student learning by offering and adjusting support to learners depending on their needs, also called scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Through a good relationship with the teacher, students might 12 gain some confidence and probably will get rid of the tension that they might have when they are in the class (Yunus et al., 2011). 10. School administration support: Schools play an important role in students‟ motivation by picking up where parents leave off or stepping in when parents are unable or reluctant to be actively engaged. The organization of the school itself can be important, studies show. The size of the student body, methods of grouping students, school and class schedules, and school climate can all have an effect on engagement (Center on Education Policy, 2012). In work motivation, the administration is one among other factors (socioeconomic background and benefits) which are independent variables of the factor affecting motivation (Siriprasertchok, 2011). 11. Peer support: Jaroenrat (2010) argued that friends or peers were salient factors influenced the motivation and achievement of students, because students are the developmental period in which the individual is most affected by their peers. Moreover, Jordon mentioned that “greater potential for interaction with positive peers who share similar goals...and can encourage and inspire them to do well in school” (Jordan & Nettles, 1999, p. 1). .

CHAPTER 2 RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH REVIEWS

In this part of the study, researcher explores theories and concepts relating to the research topic. In order to provide detailed background for this study, the following topics are addressed: 1. Concepts and definitions of motivation 2. Variables in the study 3. Major theories of learning motivation 4. Related studies 5. Overview of University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture

Concepts and definitions of motivation Keller (1983, p. 389) stated that “Motivation refers to the choice people make as to what experiences or goals they will approach or avoid and the degree of effort they will exert in this respect”. Generally, student motivation “refers to a student's willingness, need, desire and compulsion to participate in, and be successful in, the learning process” (Bomia et al., 1997, p. 1). In accordance to this definition, Skinner and Belmont (1991) developed the definition further by stating that students who are motivated to engage in school “select tasks at the border of their competencies, initiate action when given the opportunity, and exert intense effort and concentration in the implementation of learning tasks; they show generally positive emotions during ongoing action, including enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest” (p. 3). On the other hand, they noticed that students with less motivation or disengagement “are passive, do not try hard, and give up easily in the face of challenges” (Skinner & Belmont, 1991, p. 4). Westerman and Donoghue (1989) described that motivation is a process that empower people‟s behavior and directs them to go forward and achieve their goals. Accordingly, Luthans (1995) defined motivation as the drive in the purpose of fulfilling any specific needs and expectations. Wiley (1997) argued that the strongest motivator is something that people value, but lack. So if what an individual values 14 were exactly known, an enhancement of motivate can be established so that individual is able to perform a task they desire in a manner which will achieve that value. According to Vallerand (1992) motivation is one of the most important concepts in education field, and the self-determination scale is used to measure motivation in individuals. Accordingly, Harmer (2001) identified motivation as a kind of transfer mode existed intrinsically. It can foster and drive students to discover knowledge until they accomplish successfully. Additionally, students usually achieve their future goals in the case that they are supported and motivated to learn from families as well as from the society. Likewise, Hanson (2003) pointed out that an inner state that stimulate energy, moves, channels, and sustains behavior toward goals, is known as motivation. Motivation is a process managing alternative options among other forms of voluntary activities and this process is also governed by each and every individual (Vroom, 1964). According to Cole (2000) motivation is known as a term used to explain the processes, both initiative and rational that people find out to satisfy the basic drives, anticipated needs and individual goals, which trigger human behavior. Student motivation is normally separated into two types such as intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Relying on Ryan and Deci (2000, p. 54) “Intrinsic motivation remains an important construct, reflecting the natural human propensity to learn and assimilate. However, extrinsic motivation is argued to vary considerably in its relative autonomy and thus can either reflect external control or true self-regulation”. In general, intrinsic motivation related to the fact of doing activities for themselves and the pleasure and satisfaction evolved from participation (Deci & Ryan, 1991). However, students who can be considered as extrinsically motivated when they engage in learning “purely for the sake of attaining a reward or for avoiding some punishment” (Dev, 1997). Bandura (1986) suggested that efficacy expectations among individuals, or their beliefs which they think they can achieve a task or activity provided, are an important set of activity choice, eagerness to broaden effort, and endurance. Some evidence also demonstrates that students‟ academic performance and general adjustment to school are strongly influenced by students‟ social motivation, and their relations with teachers and peers (Juvonen & Wentzel, 1996). “Motivation is a central 15 part of a student‟s educational experience from preschool onward, but it is has received scant attention amid an education reform agenda focused mainly on accountability, standards and tests, teacher quality, and school management” (Center on Education Policy, 2012, p. 1). Additionally, the report added that “higher motivation to learn has been linked not only to better academic performance, but to greater conceptual understanding, satisfaction with school, self-esteem, social adjustment, and school completion rates” (Center on Education Policy, 2012, p. 2).

Variables in the study Independent variables Independent variables are those variables are presumed to have caused or determined a dependent variable (Babbie, 2008, p. 19). Moreover, Sekaran (2009, p. 72) notes that an independent variable is one that influences the dependent variable in either positive or negative ways. 1. Family support Following Henderson and Mapp (2002) model, the study concluded that there is a positive relationship between family engagement and the improvement of students‟ academic achievement. This study encourages all stakeholders to get engaged to design production strategies in order to involve parents at school. They mention in the research that “a positive and convincing relationship between family involvement and benefits for students, including improved academic achievement. This relationship hold across families of all economic, racial/ethnic, and educational backgrounds and for students at all ages” (Henderson & Mapp, 2002, p. 24). Families concerned very much about their children‟s education and they understand the importance of their involvement for their children‟s success. The study added that family partnerships can only establish in an atmosphere of trust, respect, and inclusion. The research finds out that the evidence for the influence of family involvement on children‟s development and achievement is “consistent, positive, and convincing” (Henderson & Mapp, 2002, p. 7). Similarly, Lawrence-Lightfoot (2003) discussed about the relationships with families to support children‟s academic success that “ a stand of welcoming parents, seeking their alliance, listening to their perspectives, honoring the ways in 16 which they see and know their child, and seeing them as a valuable and essential resource for working successfully with their children” (p. 237). Researchers found out that parent-child interactions, particularly encouraging and active parenting practices, are crucial influences on a development of child's academic (Christian, Morrison, & Bryant, 1998). There are some other researches that indicates similar ideas which shown that achievement levels improve when students‟ parents are partners in students‟ education (Villa-Boas, 1993; Henderson, 1987; Sanders, 1997; Epstein, 2001). Parents carry educational attitudes to their children during out-of-school hours and those attitudes are reflected in the children‟s classroom behavior and in the teacher's communication with children and parents (Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, & Bloom, 1993). The way that family especially parents provide a suitable place to work, create a daily schedule to study, find more opportunities for students choices, monitor about each subject, ask their children, and teach them are ways that parents can be involved in their child‟s education. It is truly essential to remarkably note that parents have “different skills and differing levels of comfort when it comes to school involvement” (Fager & Brewster, 1999, p. 7). Accordingly, families with low-income who have experienced on going patterns of discrimination, maybe especially sensitive to the presence of respect for their children, community and culture, and respect report that they are far more likely to become involved when they sense this respect (McDermott & Rothenberg, 2000). Parents who value the engagement and promote their children‟s educational experiences illustrate an extremely stronger connection to a successful learning experience for their children. In conclusion, family support is a warmly support from parents and providing intellectual development, encouragement and learning for most children. Hence, family support has an important effect on their children‟s learning. 2. Peer support Hamjah et al. (2011) did a quantitative study with 291 Malaysian university students from the Faculty of Islamic Studies. This research aims is carried out to identify factors to improve motivation in learning and to determine methodology in order to enhance the learning motivation of the students. The result of this study shows that the method that is possible to put into practice and improve 17 learning motivation of Islamic Studies students are improvement of the identified contributing factors such as the students‟ personality development, lecturers‟ career awareness, family‟s encouragement, choice of peers, students‟ spiritual connection with Allah, students‟ financial aid and learning facilities at the school. Peer groups have influences on students‟ motivation. There are important research observing the connection between social competence and successful academic result. This study suggests that comparing to socially rejected adolescents; those adolescents who are accepted by their peers normally demonstrate higher feelings of self-esteem, self-worth, as well as achievement (Brown & Lohr, 1987; Eccles et al., 1998). A study of middle school students‟ motivation, researcher illustrates that adolescents‟ sense of classroom belonging and support was linked with higher level of expectancies for success and interest (Goodenow, 1993). Peer can also have positive influence on the process of students‟ motivation by supporting and expanding the learning of their classmates, known as collaborative learning. Peers are integration part of collaborative process. Related to this environment, peers play as “colearners,” primarily by helping their group members to understand and implement the material effectively, by sharing resources and modeling specific learning strategies (Eccles et al., 1998). These findings are associated with the work on peer groups as socializing agents of academic engagement and achievement (Ryan, 2000). This work found out that peer groups could have a socializing influence on students‟ academic beliefs and behaviors. Ashwin‟s works on the approaches of studying and academic outcomes of students that participated in peer group study, “Peer Support,” when examining for prior levels of academic achievement. He seeks the idea of peer learning which refers to “situation where students support each other in educational settings” (Ashwin, 2003, p. 159). In addition to this study, Loke and Chow (2007) study the learning partnership which refers to the experience of peer tutoring among nursing students showed that peer tutoring plays an essential role to help each and other students to learn. Peer tutoring help assisting cooperative learning and create more opportunities for students in discovering their inadequacies and correcting mistakes or misunderstandings. It is also marked as a system of partnership in the learning process that makes the students able to achieve a deeper knowledge of the subjects matter by 18 coordinating the existing knowledge, clarifying and illustrating the knowledge, and applying that knowledge into practice. Loke and Chow, (2007) added that the influence of peers engaging in school setting provided positive features including learning skill enhancement, intellectual gains and personal growth. Jaroenrat (2010), furthermore, argued that friends, fellow classmates or peers were spectacular factors which influenced motivation and achievement of the students, because students are the developing period and the individuals are mostly affected by their peers. Considerable research proposed that peers could be extremely crucial in academic outcomes and goal commitment of all students (Dennis et al., 2005). Moreover, peers can also provide support by forming groups to study, sharing experiences as well as knowledge and notes, and giving advice about studying sessions. Individuals who have this support are more likely to achieve academic success, as they feel warm that they have someone to rely on when problem arise (Dennis et al., 2005). Razak and See (2010) made a research concerning “Improving academic achievement and motivation through online peer learning”. This study purposely conducted to investigate the effectiveness of online peer learning in enriching academic achievement and promoting motivation of the students. Peer learning also leads to the development of learning outcomes, group work, team activity, critical question and reflection, communication skills, and learning meaningfully. This study also illustrated the success of online peer learning in improving students‟ academic achievement and accelerating their motivation. In conclusion, peer support is one of the most remarkable factors in fostering students to learn, facilitating learning cooperatively, and providing chances of discovering their inadequacies and then correcting misunderstanding. The way to promote motivation, achievement, academic outcome, and goal commitment for students are considered as collaboration in learning process. This enhances communication skill, learning skill, intellectual gains, teamwork, personal growth, and critical inquiry and reflection. 3. Teacher support Ryan and Patrick (2001) made a study about motivation and the engagement of adolescents in middle school as their functional perceptions of classroom social environment. Teacher‟s facilitation on positive social environment and promoting peers interaction which includes exchanging opinions mutually, taking 19 perspective, and thinking reflectively are truly essential. As Ryan and Patrick observe (2001, p. 437) “Four distinct dimensions of the social environment were differentially important in explaining changes in various indices of motivation and engagement. In general, however, students‟ perceptions of teacher support, and the teacher as promoting interaction and mutual respect were related to positive changes in their motivation and engagement.” They confirmed “… conceptualization of several discrete dimensions of the social environment of the classroom: teacher support, the promotion of interaction with peers around academic tasks, the promotion of mutual respect among classmates, and the promotion of performance goals among classmates.” (p. 454). To explain specifically about teacher support, Ryan and Patrick (2001) stated that teacher support may involve in respecting students‟ opinions, understanding students‟ feelings, help student when frustrated or upset or need support in schoolwork. Teacher encourages, accepts, trusts, respects, and this illustrates that they take care students‟ emotional well-being. The study suggested that when the relationship among teacher and students is extremely supportive; students experience joy and interest in fulfilling their schoolwork, have higher positive self- concept and higher self-efficacy, possibly can use self-regulatory strategies, and persist in the face of difficulty. In other word, if students aware that their teacher promoted performance goals; negative impacts on motivation and engagement emerged. Moreover, supportive teachers lead students to a higher self-efficacy and improve self-regulated learning, whereas with performance- goal-oriented teachers, students are remarkably engage in more disruptive behaviors. Ryan and Patrick make a conclusion that in order to become more students-centered means to attend social conditions in the classroom environment and accepted by students, and to provide practices that enhance students‟ perceptions of support, respect, and interaction. Klem and Connell (2004) stated that teacher support is found to lead to improve student academic performance and achievement. The implication of the research is the importance of creating more education environments, reinforcing relationships between students and teachers, and taking more focus on collective responsibility for all students‟ success. This work added that teachers provide emotional support by involving themselves in students‟ welfare and getting to know each and every student individually. Regarding to Huang‟s (2009), there was a study 20 in the purpose to investigate “student social capital in Norwegian secondary schools and its effects on student achievement”. This study demonstrates that students‟ connection and interaction is not only with their parents but also with others environment outside their homes especially peers groups and teachers at school. The work of this study showed that student social capital gain from social relations of students with their parents, teachers and peer groups so that it has a noticeable influence on student achievement. In relation to this point of view, there is another study about “The role of teachers‟ cognitive support in motivating young Hong Kong Chinese children to read and enhancing reading comprehension” conducted by Law (2011). The research showed that when teachers offered more cognitive support and used more motivating instructional practices to motivate students to read, students seem to have better improvement on their reading comprehension scores. Teachers have a great influence on students‟ academic success. They play a necessary role in succeeding assignment to manageable advancement, contributing study guides, sample problems, groups and partners support, and providing hand-on high-interest activities all aid in developing a positive influence on students (Morse, 1994). Dörnyei (2001) also mentioned that teachers have a vital influence on students‟ learning motivation. They take responsibility in creating the basic motivational status, for setting up and maintaining student motivation, and for encouraging self-evaluation positively. Besides, emotional support and academic guidance from teachers are totally important to improve student‟s academic achievement. Teacher support is especially critical, leads to positive value, self-esteem, and self-confidence (Reddy et al., 2003). Some researchers found out that more closeness and tightly relationship between teachers and students creates higher student motivation. A close relationship will help students, those who are shy, with low self-esteem, or face difficulty in speaking in front of the classroom. Students might gain some confidence and probably will get rid of the problem that they might have when they are in the class if they have a good relationship with the teacher (Yunus et al., 2011). Related to this view, Howard, Horne and Jolliff (2001) suggested that the relationship quality between teacher and student has great influence in bullying reduction. In conclusion, teacher support has high influence on students‟ academic success, specifically in providing a guided way and sample problems to students. 21

Researchers demonstrated that students who feel that they have caring and supportive teachers are obtained higher motivation to try hard and take part in their work academically comparing to the students who feel that their teachers are uncaring and unsupportive (McCombs, 2001). When the nurturing learning environment was established, teachers are able to broaden student achievement by developing lessons that suitable for students that they are in the learning process and push them as quickly and as far as possible in the context of a mixed-ability classroom (Tomlinson, 1995). 4. School administration Jamian and Baharom (2012) successfully did a research related to “The application of teaching aids and school supportive factors in learning reading skill among the remedial students in under enrolment schools”. The study illustrated that teachers‟ concepts on the use of teaching aids and the factors effectively and supportively are able to help to students feel interested. It also found out that the school administration and the supportive factors help improving the students‟ achievement in reading skills. Furthermore, in the endeavor of strengthening reading skill, students must be followed by active support by the school administration. Therefore, unbreakable teachers‟ efforts and the school administration support could enhance the perfection of students in basic skills reading correctly. Schools which value parental involvement the most, expect students‟ ability that all students are capable to master learning curriculum, and encourage positive connection among school personnel and students, are able to establish positive influence on student achievement (Jordan & Porath, 2006). Additionally, it is also crucial to produce a result of educational success of the students if they engaged actively in school (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Students have to participate in all of the school activities in the purpose of acquiring knowledge and skills which is required for a successful development to postsecondary and careers life (Wang & Eccles, 2013). School has to pay pretty much attention with clear consideration in organizing some programs that capable to offer in order to solve the problem regarding to students‟ motivational with simple system (McLean, 2003). According to a study of I. Oriahi Christiana (2009), the results of data analysis of this research showed that motivation of students is absolutely essential for 22 better output in pursuing academic goal. Students‟ motivation contributes a high and positive correlation in academic performance. This study found that there is a significant communication between school environment and structure and also students‟ motivation. The outcome of this study suggested that not only students but also teachers have strong believe that library provision of the government, school equipment, qualified and professional teachers, and good policies, etc. would stand in line along the way to motivate students in their academic success. In addition to this research, Akabogu et al. (1992) pointed out that students‟ academic performance obtain a lot from the educational administration and policies of the school (Asian Development Bank (ADB), 1994). Likewise, satisfying educational needs, good and realizable policies are made as much as possible enable the better performance of students. Further study of McLean (2004) discusses the qualities of a motivated school. He states that school has a responsibility to focus on students‟ motivation and it is quite different from improving students‟ self-esteem. The surrounding factors and the learning experience effects will be contributed to students‟ motivation and these factors can possibly be in the system of the school. The more branches and specific school structural mindset, the higher level of staff satisfaction and the student‟s success encouragement are made. However, before this can be achieved, schools have to possess and value learning principles. The main components that school administration should concentrate on include curriculum, instruction, assessment, social and academic climate, and information sharing between community and school. Schools are associated with building principal, teachers, parents and staff supports. Comer et al. (1996) pointed out that the comprehensive plan of the school provides a structured set of activities in academics, social climate, staff development and public relation which leads the team to priorities establishment and to school improvement coordination. Educational researchers such as Davis (1989), Deal (1987), Deal and Peterson (1990), and Sergiovanni (1987) state that they found very close equivalent between the ways to manage businesses operate and schools function effectively. Deal explore that the culture can be represented and transformed through channels such as the school‟s shared values, heroes, rituals, ceremonies, stories, and cultural networks. 23

If motivation and academic achievement are defined as a part of a school‟s culture, they must communicate and celebrate in as much as possible. Accordingly, Maehr (1990) turned his concentration to the correlation between motivation and the organizational culture of schools. The study focus on what he defines the “psychological environment” of the school. He added that school administrators are in the best position to form a psychological environment of the school. To draw the parallel of classroom environment and school environment, Maehr showed the analogies of the leadership roles between teacher and school principals. This work concluded that “goal stresses associated with the school environment seem to relate systematically to student motivation and achievement” (p. 46). In conclusion, school administration plays as an important role in enhancing motivation and achievement of the students as well as the school‟s learning facilities. “An administrator must be aware of the fact that there are variations among people in terms of needs. Since people in organizations differ in their needs, perceptions and satisfaction levels, a rigid approach to motivation may not work.” (Siriprasertchok, 2011, p. 41). School must organize some suitable programs to offer in the purpose of increasing students‟ motivation and to encourage them to engage in school actively. School administrators have to take any actions or take student motivation program into account for consideration for better achievement of the students. Regarding to Renchler (1992), strategy that administrators are seeking to increase students' motivation to learn is to provide and take part in professional development activities related to motivation, student engagement, and effective homework usage. 5. Socio-economic status Socio-economic status does not only have an influence on the achievement of language learning but also has an influence on students‟ learning motivation, self-regulation, and self-related beliefs of the students (Fan, 2011). Regarding to Munoz (2008), the study argued that there are strong connections between socio-economic status and achievement through explaining that students from different social backgrounds have access to different types of schools as an example of public and private schools and varying levels of extracurricular exposure to the language targeted, for example; tuition privately, resources for learning, study 24 abroad opportunities, etc. Motivation subsequent models contained the role of significant others (Williams & Burden, 1997) and the student‟s family (Noels, 2001). As demonstrated in Dörnyei, Csizér and Németh‟s (2006) research, geographical locations that interrelated with students‟ socio-economic status put into a considerable effects on students‟ and parents‟ choice of foreign languages, and as well as on goal orientation. Lamb (2012) research illustrated that learners among the three groups he investigated; the learners who is living in provincial locations had the strongest instrumental goals, which he argued with reference to students‟ needs in order to move to urban areas to access further education. Socio-economic factors could have an influence on independent learning behavior in some possible ways. Moreover, accessing to learning resources at home and at school which is known as important economic factors can also have an influence on students‟ autonomous learning behavior (Benson, 2007). Related to Crnic and Lamberty (1994), they expressed about the socioeconomic status impact on children's readiness for school. “The segregating nature of social class, ethnicity, and race may well reduce the variety of enriching experiences thought to be prerequisite for creating readiness to learn among children. Social class, ethnicity, and race entail a set of „contextual givens‟ that dictate neighborhood, housing, and access to resources that affect enrichment or deprivation as well as the acquisition of specific value systems” (Crnic and Lamberty, 1994, p. 12). Low socio-economic status families are mostly lacking of financial, social and educational supports which identified comparing to families with high socio-economic status (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2004). It stated that limited access to community resources that promote and support children‟s development and school readiness generally occurs within poor families. Moreover, limited skills of parents for doing some activities such as reading to and with their children could results in lacking information about childhood adaptation and nutrition. Particularly according to Ramey and Ramey (1994), they also drew his view of the relationship of family‟s socio-economic status which effects to students‟ readiness for school. “Across all socioeconomic groups, parents face major challenges when it comes to providing optimal care and education for their children. For families 25 in poverty, these challenges can be formidable. Sometimes, when basic necessities are lacking, parents must place top priority on housing, food, clothing, and health care. Educational toys, games, and books may appear to be luxuries, and parents may not have the time, energy, or knowledge to find innovative and less-expensive ways to foster young children's development. Even in families with above-average incomes, parents often lack the time and energy to invest fully in their children‟s preparation for school, and they sometimes face a limited array of options for high-quality child care both before their children start school and during the early school years. Kindergarten teachers throughout the country report that children are increasingly arriving at school inadequately prepared.” (Ramey and Ramey, 1994, p. 195) Zill, Collins, West, and Hausken (1995) stated that lacking resources and having insufficient access to available resources lead to a negative impact on families‟ decisions relating to their children's learning development. As a result, children who came from family with low socioeconomic status are at higher risk of enrolling kindergarten without any preparation than their peers who are from families with median or high socioeconomic status. According to Hunt (1972), higher socio- economic families‟ education is commonly more important in topic in the household and local community. In rural or poor areas that prioritize food and safety, education is considered to be in latter option. Moreover, American Psychological Association (2012) also illustrated in the research which shows that the academic achievement of lower socio-economic status students is lower and slower than the students of higher socio-economic status. When teachers basically consider socio-economic status to make judgments about their students, teachers is pushing students backward which is not different from forbidding them from having the same opportunity for academic achievement. Working as an educator, teacher need to help blown away the improper judgment in terms of poverty. Students who are in low socio-economic status and self-esteem should not be reinforced by teachers. Teachers, as an educator, have to view students individually and never judge students as a member of a socio-economic status group (Gollnick, & Chinn, 2013). In order not to be bias towards students of socio-economic status groups, teachers should look at students in manner. All of educators are also required to be open and put more concentration on class and 26 socio-economic status differences due to its importance for all students are educated, understand, and capable to explore something openly about socio-economic status (Stanek, 2012). Catsambis (2001) analyzed and searched the data which aims to find specific prove to assess the 6 types of involvement and implementing them for measuring student achievement. As a final result, family socio-economic status and previous attainment which are the background variables were factored out before examining the impact of family support on student achievement. Dependent variables Dependent variable in this study is learning motivation. Dependent variables are caused by independent variable(s) (Babbie, 2008, p. 19). Another way of explaining, as Sekaran and Bougie (2009, p. 72) described, is that dependent variables are the variable of primary interest by the researcher. McLean (2003) expressed that the word motivation comes from motive which derives from the Latin movere meaning to move. Therefore, motivation is defined as the sum of all that moves a person to action and to motivate means that teacher provide a student with a motive to do something. Motivation is a theoretical construct which is adopted to describe the initiation, objective, intensity, endurance, and quality of behavior, notably goal-directed behavior (Maehr & Meyer, 1997). Motivation demonstrates why people decide to choose any activities particularly, how long people commit to struggle or persist at it and what effort they devote in it (Dörnyei, 2001). These three fundamental of motivation correlated to goals and the initiation and fulfillment of the learning effort. Furthermore, motivation is the movement that goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained. Motivation is relevant with goals that offer momentum for and direction to action (Schunk et al., 2008; Eggen & Kauchak, 2010). Similarly to the above definitions, Robbins (1989) defines motivation as the commitment to display high degree of effort forwarded to organizational goals which is set by the effort‟s ability to fulfill some individual needs. Motivation is something that empowers, guide direction, and sustains behavior and more than this, it moves students, shows them to exact direction, and keeps them struggling (Ormrod, 2006). Not different from other scholars, Woolfolk (2007) explained that motivation is a state that arouses internally, directs, and maintains behavior. Motivation is an absolute 27 factor fostering engagement, learning, and achievement of the students within academic locations (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011). Motivation was referred to a processes which work emotionally, desirably, or psychologically that allow us to do particular things (Long, 2000; Charles & Senter, 2008). In short, an inner state, emotion, desire, psychological process that empower, move, channel, stimulate, and sustain behavior toward targeted objective and drive people to implement something until they get successful achievement and also essential in providing impetus for and direction to action. Corno (1992) mentioned in his study that “Where motivation denotes commitment, volition denotes follow-through” (p. 72). The study described motivated to learn as self-regulated learners. Students are interested in doing school tasks because of their learning value not just pretending perform in front of others. In some cases, even though they are not intrinsically motivated by those tasks, they are intended to get benefit from it. Therefore, learners know well about what and why they are studying and their reactions and choices are self-determined and without any controlled from others. The study‟s perception of motivated to learn is that knowledge and motivation need self-regulated or self-discipline to be added. However, Gavin Reid (2007) stressed the concept of “Motivating to Learn and Learning to Motivate”. These two phrases, motivating to learn and learning to motivate, are crucial for effective learning. As an example; without fuel a car will not run so without motivation children will not learn-the „fuel‟ of learning. Not all children‟s motivated to learn are intuitive and intrinsic while some other children need teacher to motivate, hence, teacher has to enhance the means and methods to drive and facilitate this motivation.

Major theories of learning motivation Maslow’s hierarchy of needs Maslow (1943, 1954) Hierarchy of needs consists of five motivational needs which often drawn as hierarchical levels in a pyramid. This is an essential theory in psychology suggested by Abraham Maslow 1943 paper “A theory of human motivation” and 1954 paper “Motivation and personality”. His theories particularly focus on describing the level of human needs growth. Hence, Maslow used the term 28 physiological, safety, belongingness and love, self-esteem, and self-actualization needs to explain the pattern of human motivations movement. Maslow‟s study stated that “the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy” (Maslow, 1943). Moreover, Maslow (1954) distributed a well-known figure in the field of professional psychology and psychologist who believes that in order to fulfill the needs, individuals behaves and display in a certain manner. Human feel satisfied only when their needs are accomplished. Maslow hypothesized there are five hierarchies of needs which exists within every human being as in Figure 2 bellow.

Self-actualization Needs: achieving one's full potential, including creative activites

Esteem needs: prestige and feeling of accomplishment

Social and Belongings Needs: intimate relationship, friends

Security and Safety Needs: security, safety

Physiological Needs: food, water, warmth, rest

Figure 2 Maslow‟s hierarchy of needs pyramid (Maslow, 1954)

Level 1: Physiological needs: this includes food, air, shelters, clothing, medicines, sex, water, sleep, warmth, exercise, etc. which are known as physical survival needs. Furthermore, socioeconomic status which includes family income, 29 parents‟ occupations, and parents‟ educational levels are the main factor which involved in physiological needs. Whether a family‟s socioeconomic status (SES) is high, middle, or low, they reflects a sense of their community stands. Students‟ socioeconomic status and school performance is correlated with each other. Students with higher SES are likely to achieve higher academic status, and lower-SES students are facing with the risk of school dropping out while low-SES students face many problems both in their learning and living condition. Some come from families that are lacking of food, warm clothes and proper shelter (Ormrod, 2006). Level 2: Security and safety needs: safety was known as the quality of being safe, with a secured condition, and the absence of danger, injury, or damage (Jaroenrat, 2010). Students don‟t see school as a safe and interesting place to study which leads them not to feel a sense of belonging if they become victims of bullying or being rejected or neglected by their peers (Jordan & Porath, 2006). Psychological needs such as relatedness, competence and autonomy are relevant to human values which include respect, responsibility, peaceful, friendship, tolerance and honesty (Bozgeyikli, 2010). Level 3: Social needs: it refers to acceptance, group participation, and successful team recognition. Some students highly prioritize social relationships and in fact all students probably have some needs for relatedness or respect from their peer and other counter parts. Peer relationship can be a remarkable source of emotional support which enhances psychological well-being of students. However, students need good relationships with teacher not only in terms of academic assistance but also the cognitive support and positive feedback from teachers in order to foster their sense of self-worth (Ormrod, 2006). Students‟ interactions with others such as friend relationship or intimate social relationships enable students to achieve goals, take part of a cohesive, jointly support group, get other people‟s approval, help others, and ensure their welfare (Davis, 2003). Level 4: Esteem needs: this kind of needs refers to the desire to become popular, praised, recognition from others, prestige, and status. By maintaining positive evaluations, students desire to get high self-esteem for enhancing motivation (Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001). Self-esteem means to provide an inner measure of students‟ likelihood to obtain social acceptance and the significant roots of 30 self-esteem is getting social approval and belief that learner is an attractive partner or follow group member (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). The way that learner should behave is self against the threatening awareness of mortality through taking part in a valued system collectively and living up to standards (Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007). Level 5: Self-actualization needs: it‟s the highest level of needs which relevant to challenging tasks, innovation and creativity opportunities, a high level of learning and creating. Learners put more concentration on their legacy, the need of mankind, and making more contribution to the society as well as inhabitants (Hamel, Leclerc, & Lefrançois, 2003). Additionally, to reach self-actualization level learner is required to live in a harmony in any life dimensions (Schultz & Schultz, 2000). The top two types of needs was named as growth needs because they motivate behavior as an intrinsic need to grow, to become, and to actualize oneself (Lefrançois, 2000). In fact, Maslow‟s hierarchy of needs is very useful for enhancing students‟ motivation through addressing students‟ needs from lower to higher level that are closely associated with school learning even though in some cases, Maslow‟s hierarchy was not acted orderly by students. For example, learners probably deny sleeping in order to study for a test, or deeply interested in an activity that they forget about their health, hunger, or personal problems (Neher, 1991; Wahba & Bridwell, 1976). Alderfer’s ERG theory Clayton Alderfer's ERG theory is an expansion and revision of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, appeared in psychological review in an article “An empirical test of a new theory of human need.” Alderfer's demonstrates his theory in relation to organizational behavior named as ERG theory (Existence, relatedness, and growth) and established to match with Maslow's motivation theory more closely with empirical research (Alderfer, 1969). Alderfer added that there‟s no any order of needs and any willingness to fulfill a need can be modified at any time. This results that in the lower level of needs, it‟s not necessary to be satisfied in order to reach a higher level of need. Alderfer found that there are three levels of needs-existence, relatedness, and growth.

31

Growth

Relatedness

Existence

Figure 3 Alderfer‟s ERG theory (1969)

Existence needs: is related to providing basic material existence requirements which include the items that Maslow considered physiological and safety needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. In facilitating the existence and improvement, learners‟ some basic needs should be met for their learning. Particularly, to constitute the fundamentals of their behaviors, learners should deserve better physiological and psychological needs (Bozgeyikli, 2010). Relatedness needs: is the desire for maintaining important interpersonal relationships. These social and status needs mutual interaction between one and another in the case that they align with Maslow‟s social need and the external component of esteem classification. Need for relatedness is identified by the need to feel connected to society and secure others‟ love and respect and this need is also crucial from an evolutionary standpoint especially for those who live in cohesive, cooperative social groups that tend to survive and reproduce than learners who are alone (Ormrod, 2006). In the case that students show their interest of other people‟s welfare or peers assistance in doing classroom assignments, it can be an example of prosocial behaviors which can address students‟ need for relatedness as well (Dowson & McInerney, 2001). 32

Growth needs: is an intrinsic desire for personal development for example; desire to be innovative, productive and to achieve meaningful tasks. These needs involved the intrinsic component from Maslow‟s esteem category and the characteristics included under self-actualization (Alderfer, 1969). Learners can learn to respect each other and make better communication with others at school and also learn how to arrange their schedules better for their learning and share concern about their study for finding solution (Loke & Chow, 2007).Learners are able to enhance their personal growth especially such as communication, time management, and social gain through the participation from peers in learning. ERG theory of Alderfer is consistently matched with the knowledge of differences among individuals. Education, family background, and cultural environment can modify the importance or driving force that a group of needs holds for specific individual (Robbins, 1993). Robbins (1993) stated that in overall, ERG theory represents a more valid version of the need hierarchy even though several studies have supported the ERG theory while the other studies show evidence that it doesn‟t work in some organizations. McClelland's achievement motivation theory For a better understanding of student motivation, Abraham Maslow suggested a hierarchy of needs and then David McClelland formed a new theory following needs theory. McClelland identified types of motivators through his experimental work. He found out that these needs were socially acquired and these motivators are presented variedly from one to another, and depends on the individual backgrounds (McClelland, 1961). This theory illustrates that there are three needs which have an effect on human behavior such as needs for achievement, affiliation, and power.

33

Needs for achievement

Needs for affiliation

Needs for power

Figure 4 McClelland‟s achievement need theory (1961)

Needs for achievement (nAch): is the desire to excel, to achieve something related to a set of standards, and to struggle to get success. This is characterized by willingness to take responsibility for problem solving solution, complex tasks comprehension, goals setting, and getting feedback on success level. Martin‟s (2008) believed that students‟ engagement in appropriate learning activities can achieve their goals setting. To achieve educational outcome, learners should be aware of their exact knowledge level and fulfill the insufficient gaps (Bruno & Santos, 2010) and develop complex tasks (Reid, 2007). Likewise, students should choose certain goals in order to favor their outcome for academic achievement (Tuominen-Soini, Salmela-Aro, & Niemivirta, 2011). According to Lee et al. (2010), the study suggested that teachers should encourage students to maintain intrinsic achievement goal orientations and future goals to achieve students‟ learning motivation. Needs for affiliation (nAff): is a positive, sometimes intimate, and personal relationship (Zimbardo & Formica, 1963). This needs include “concern over establishing, maintaining, or restoring a positive affective relationship with another person or group of persons” (Heyns, Veroff, & Atkinson, 1958, p. 205). The characteristic of this need is related to the belonging desire, teamwork enjoyment, interpersonal relationships concern, and reducing uncertainty needs. The involvement of parents (Long, 2000; Spera, 2006), teachers (Yunus et al., 2011), and peers (Razak & See, 2010) in learning activities were considered as interpersonal relationships that 34 allows the development of students‟ educational attainment. Academic motivation can be accomplished when students feel personally, respected, included, accepted and supported by others such as teachers and other peers in the school social environment (Goodenow & Grady, 1993). In relation to this view, Kenny, Dooley, & Fitzgerald‟s (2013) revealed that boy have less positive qualities than girl in terms of the relationships with mothers and best friends while younger students have more positive qualities of their relationship with parents than older students. Needs for power (nPow): is a strong urge to be influential and controlling over others or a need to win arguments, to persuade, and prevail. Having high needs for power, students often have low self-esteem. They are motivated because they need reputation and self-esteem. They tend to engage and struggle in doing school tasks in the purpose of gaining their teacher‟s praise (Davis, 2003). Students with a high need for power are easily given up by peer pressure and the fear that they probably be rejected (Ormrod, 2006). In short, McClelland states that those who are motivated by the need of power enjoy gaining recognition, winning debates, competition, and influencing others. Moreover, this type of motivation creates a need for personal prestige as well as for a better personal status. On the contrary, Atkinson (1964) confirmed that there are two key elements of achievement motivation such as motivation to succeed and motivation to avoid failure. Motivation to succeed refers to the strength of people‟s overall need for achievement, people‟s prediction on success probability of doing the task at hand, and the value levels of the rewards that such success would bring. However, motivation to avoid failure known as the strength of people‟s overall need to avoid failure, people‟s estimation of the failing probability of doing the task, and the degree to which one fears the negative outcomes that such failure would bring. Vroom’s expectancy theory Vroom developed the expectancy theory by seeking for motivations behind decision making in 1964 and the study suggested that people will make a decision to act in a particular way due to the motivation that used to select a certain behavior over another behaviors depending on the result they expected that behavior will be (Oliver, 1974). Expectancy theory demonstrated that humans behave base on their conscious expectations and their behaviors will lead to reach desirable goals. This study 35

conducted regarding the systematic explanatory theory of motivation at workplace and it indicated that the motivation to specific behavior is determined by individual‟s expectation behavior which create a specific outcomes, multiplied by the instrumentality or valence that individual has for that outcome not the same as Maslow and Herzberg who focus on needs. Vroom‟s expectancy theory is classified into three elements:

Expectancy X Instrumentality X Valence = Motivation

Figure 5 Vroom‟s expectancy theory (1964)

Expectancy (E → P): the belief that people‟s effort (E) will result in fulfillment of desired performance (P) goals. If learners don‟t have successful expectation, they will be de-motivated to learn disregarding to how value the activity is. Learners who have high success expectations hold stronger persistence in implementing tasks, choose more challenging activities, and generate higher achievement than students with lower expectation (Eggen & Kauchak, 2010). Therefore, teachers are capable to enhance motivation to learn of students with lower expectation via designing learning experiences and then provide the scaffolding necessary to ensure leaners‟ success. Instrumentality (P → R): the belief that people will receive rewards (R) if the performance (P) expectation is accomplished. To develop students‟ motivation, rewards are importantly used in educational field. Whether students can get tangible or intangible rewards from their teachers or parents, their performance will be well conducted in academic year (Chen & Wu, 2010). When the reward has no influence to all performances given, instrumentality can be considered as in low level. In some demonstration of researchers, students‟ intrinsic motivation was undermined when the 36 rewards were no longer available (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001). However, rewards can be considered as a tool to increase the possibilities of desired behaviors. Valence: The value of the expected reward (outcome) according to individuals. Some students are able to perform well at school only if tangible rewards are provided while some can get only praise. The use of tangible rewards in the classroom enables students to succeed higher academic achievement and proper behavior (Hoffmann, Huff, Patterson, & Nietfeld, 2009). In the condition that rewards are used appropriately, they are not only able to increase performance, but also students‟ intrinsic motivation (Cameron, 2001). Edwin Locke’s goal theory Edwin Locke proposed goal theory in 1968 about motivation and performance which can be increased if individuals have specific goals setting which are challenging, acceptable, and possible feedback is provided on performance (Locke, 1968). There are two essential points found in this theory. First of all, setting specific goals establish higher levels of performance rather than setting general goals. Cognitive psychologists and social learning theorists believe that students must participate in self-regulating activities in the purpose of becoming surely effective learners. Self-regulated learners know what they desire to fulfill when they study and also set their goals for a certain learning activity to long-term aspiration goals. In addition, students have to focus on their exact plan, attention control, self-motivation, self-monitoring, flexibility of using learning strategies, asking for needed help from outside, and self-evaluation (Ormrod, 2006). Secondly, the goals that are hard to achieve refers to the goals which directly and positively connected to performance. The harder the goal is set, the more work that individual will do to reach it but such influences on performance are mediated by conditions, feedback, and that the person in question accepts the goal. Educators have to teach students the types of cognitive processes that facilitate learning and memory in order to overcome those hard goals. For instance, encourage students to set their own learning goals, provide learning opportunities and let students accomplish without assistance from teacher, offer guidance needed to help students obtaining self- regulating strategies, and allowing students to make self-evaluate on their performance compare to teacher assessment (Paris & Paris, 2001). 37

Gavin Reid theory Gavin Reid spoke at a conference with an intriguing title “Motivating to Learn, Learning to Motivate” (Reid, 2002). These two phrases, motivating to learn and learning to motivate, are truly essential for effective learning. His theory about “Motivation to learn” is divided into five key points such as motivation by task, motivation by reward, social motivation (the influence of peer groups), motivation by feedback and motivation by achievement. Motivation by task: is a duty of teachers to develop learners‟ achievement; a great care for making tasks developed to make sure that learners are motivated and especially enhancing their beliefs that the task is achievable (Reid, 2007). Motivated students tend to participate in the task and their effort and persistence are in high level, even when they faced with difficult task. However, low motivated students are not interested in task or school subject and they are likely to have low attention, effort and persistence, especially when faced with challenging task (Viljaranta, Lerkkanen, Poikkeus, Aunola, & Nurmi, 2009). Motivation by reward: is a step towards self-motivation which helps students who acquire advancement while they are looking for a challenging task and to be achievable learners (Reid, 2007). Herschell, Greco, Filcheck, and McNeil (2002) gave a definition of reward as any stimulating token (tangible, edible, or activity-based) to establish appropriate behavior of the student. Rewards are able to enhance both performance and a student‟s intrinsic motivation when it is used properly (Cameron, 2001; Pierce, Cameron, Banko, & So, 2003; Luis, 2011). Social motivation (the influence of peer groups): is a way to develop useful social skills like taking turn, sharing information, listening and understanding other people‟s opinions; pull the resources of all the members of the group together; a strong motivating force (Reid, 2007). In order to contribute appropriate behavior, academic outcomes, safety and emotional nurturing to student, social supports from teachers and peers were critical factors (Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney, 2010). Motivation by feedback: refers to grading or correcting learners; a way teacher runs the risk of de-motivating the learners (Reid, 2007; Moylan, 2009). Feedback is conceptualized as information provided by teachers to students regarding given aspects of a student‟s performance or understanding (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) 38 or as a learning efforts outcome, and its self-reflective roles to understand, motivate, and strengthen student‟s efforts to learn (Moylan, 2009). Motivation by achievement: is an achievement which depends on the learners and their task readiness; aware of their own success; need to be revised the task until it is acceptable (Reid, 2007). One of the most essential factors which are in relation to this achievement is the learning styles or learning strategies (Bakar et al., 2010; Rahmani & Jahanbakhsh, 2012). Herzberg’s two-factor theory Frederick Herzberg who is a behavioral scientist proposed a two-factor theory or the motivator-hygiene theory in 1959. The research he conducted is related to workplace job satisfaction and there are some job factors which result in satisfaction while other prevents satisfaction. He found the motivational factors which can change people‟s lifetime; yet, one of the high motivating factors at any condition of life is the respect individual as a person. According to Herzberg, the contrary term of “Satisfaction” is “No satisfaction” and the opposite term of “Dissatisfaction” is “No Dissatisfaction” (Herzberg, 2003). Herzberg classified these job factors into two categories:

Hygiene Factors Motivators

Figure 6 Herzberg‟s two factor theory (1959)

1. Hygiene factors: are essential factors for motivational existence at school. These factors do not create long-term positive satisfaction but if these factors are absent or lack at school, then they lead to dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors are defined as maintenance factors as they are needed to avoid dissatisfaction. These factors explain the learning environment and they are extrinsic factor to learn. The hygiene 39 factors represented as the physiological needs which are all individuals‟ desire and expectation that need to be achieved. Hygiene factors include: 1.1 Pay: The pay of school fees or other related fees should be reasonable, proper, equal, and competitive to all students in school as well as other schools. 1.2 School policies and administrative policies: The school policies should not be too strict or too loose. They should be fair and clear with flexible studying hours, uniforms, breaks, vacation, etc. 1.3 Fringe benefits: The students should be offered health care service, family support program, student help program etc. 1.4 Physical learning conditions: The learning conditions and environment should be safe, clean and hygienic. The learning equipment should be well-maintained and updated. 1.5 Status: The students‟ status within the school should be familiar and retained. 1.6 Interpersonal relations: The relationship of the students with their peers and teachers should be appropriate and acceptable. 2. Motivational factors: The motivators stand for the psychological needs that are noticed as an additional benefit. Students find these factors intrinsically rewarding and it creates positive satisfaction. Herzberg clarified that the hygiene factors are not considered as motivators. Motivational factors are inherent to learn and are involved in learning performance. These factors are known as satisfier and it also motivates students for a superior performance. Motivational factors include: 2.1 Recognition: The students should be encouraged by teacher through praising and recognizing their accomplishments. 2.2 Sense of achievement: The students must have a sense of achievement which depends on the learning. Similarly, teachers‟ assessment on students‟ learning should be a continuous feedback which is integrated into the learning process to improve the competency of the learner. Assessments can be applied as opportunities of competencies development as well as the related students‟ sense of achievement. 2.3 Growth and promotional opportunities: growth and advancement opportunities in school are necessary to motivate students to perform well both in the present and future. 40

2.4 Responsibility: Students hold their own responsibilities for learning. Moreover, teachers should give them ownership, minimize control but retain accountability in their learnings while family take responsible for monitoring students learning at home. 2.5 Meaningfulness of learning: Learning itself should be meaningful, interesting and challenging for student to perform and to get motivated.

The development of the conceptual model

Table 3 Factor supporting students‟ learning motivation

Researchers Learning motivation factors

Henderson and Mapp (2002) Family support Ryan and Patrick (2001) Teacher support Hamjah et al. (2011) Peer support Jamian and Baharom (2012); Jordan and School administration support Porath (2006) Fan (2011) Socio-economic status

Table 4 Herzberg model of the motivator-hygiene theory (1959)

Motivators Hygiene factors

Sense of achievement School policies Recognition Pay Meaningfulness of learning Fringe benefits Responsibility Status Growth and promotion Interpersonal relation Learning condition

41

Related studies The research of Hang Thi Thanh Phan (2010) named “Factors affecting the motivation of Vietnamese technical English majors in their English studies” was conducted to seek for the motivation of Vietnamese technical English majors in their English studies and the influences affecting on their motivation. The researcher used qualitative case study approach and used semi-structured interviews as well as students‟ weekly diaries as data collection methods. The study found out that applying a Western-designed motivation theory directly to the Vietnamese context without understanding the social and cultural values in that context could possibly cause an inappropriate application as well as misinterpretation of the Vietnamese students‟ motivation and learning approaches. Ekici (2010) researched under the topic of “Factors affecting biology lesson motivation of high school students”. The research assessed factors affecting biology lesson motivation of high school students that determined study group of 300 students who enrolled in different high schools of Ministry of National Education in Ankara, Turkey. There were 121 male students and 179 female students. Data collection of this research conducted using “Biology lesson motivation questionnaire” and “Personal information form”. The result of the study showed a significant difference between the level of students‟ biology lesson motivation and students‟ sex but there was no meaningful difference of biology teacher sex and class levels. Moreover, it was shown that there is a huge effect of students‟ sexes, high effect of biology classes‟ lesson motivation, and medium effect of teachers‟ sexes. Wong Ruth Ming Har‟s (2007) research is “Factors affecting motivation to learn English: the perspective of newly arrived Hong Kong (NAHK) students” which intends to evaluate and examine how socio-cultural factors and demographic characteristics of this group of students influence on their motivation in learning English in Hong Kong. Data collection conducted by questionnaire and interviews. Questionnaires were distributed to 109 NAHK students' view while semi-structured interviews conducted with 10 students. Statistically, the result found out that teachers have the highest impact on NAHK students' motivation while parents played the least significant role in motivating NAHK students to learn English. Moreover, the study states that even though parents could not assist their children's English learning 42 academically, they supported their children's both spiritually and financially. The demographic characteristics such as age, gender, and place of birth were shown as the essential influence on NAHK students' English learning motivation. Ghazvini and Khajehpour (2011) conducted a research about attitudes and motivation in learning English as second language in high school students. This study investigated Iranian students‟ attitudes and motivations toward learning English. The sample of the study consisted of 123 students from two high schools in the second academic years and the instrument used was a questionnaire which comprised 18 items. As a result, this study demonstrated that female students were more integrative motivated and male students were more instrumental motivated to learning English. Additionally, female students had more positive attitude in learning English than male, they also were more tending to be bilingual. On the contrary, the significant difference among high school students in motivational orientations was not found, while they had great attitude to learn English as a second language. Tuysuz et al. (2010) aimed to explore the motivation of the students in high school and in universities to compare how the students‟ motivation was changing when they chose a science area for studying in the universities. This study was included 302 university students and 294 high school students who selected science area in their schools. Exploratory factor analysis was used to provide evidence to construct validity by conceptualizing students‟ motivation to learn science. The gathered data was then analyzed by descriptive statistics. One of the affective variables was motivation. Motivation itself was a significant factor that increases students‟ achievement. The finding in the study motivation of students in high school and in universities was investigated and it was found that universities students were more motivated to science comparing to high school students. Amrai et al. (2011) studied on “The relationship between academic motivation and academic achievement students”. The study aims to explore correlation between academic motivation and academic achievement among Tehran University students. In this study, 252 Tehran University students were asked to fill the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 43-item to measure 8 aspects of motivation. Analyzing data were conducted by using SPSS 16 by means of Pearson Correlation coefficient and it illustrated positive and significant correlation between 43 academic motivation and academic achievement. In addition, effort, competition, task subscales, social concern within eight subscales and academic achievement had a significant relationship with each other. The result revealed that academic achievement of the students necessarily needs coordination and interaction from all different aspects of motivation. There was a significant relationship between motivations for obtaining self-esteem, encouragement, ability, competitiveness, social affiliation, accomplishing future goals, learning interest, and satisfying others, with students‟ academic achievement. Bakhtiarvand et al. (2011) explore the moderating effect of achievement motivation on relationship of learning approaches and academic achievement. The study demonstrated that learning approaches is related to academic achievement and achievement motivation is in connected to learning approaches itself. In the research, 200 college students (100 female and 100 male) including psychology and educational sciences students were chosen randomly by using simple random sampling. The questionnaire of learning approaches and achievement motivation were conducted; the last academic averages were gathered as academic achievement. The findings showed there is a significant relationship between the achievement motivation of learning approaches and academic achievement. In addition, achievement motivation affects the choice of learning approaches and it effects considerably on academic achievement. The level of academic motivation affects the impact of learning approaches on academic achievement. Yunus et al. (2011) studied about “Teacher-student relationship factor affecting motivation and academic achievement in ESL (English as a second language) classroom”. This study suggested that teachers need to understand in many schools, students come from different cultures and backgrounds and each of them deserves to be respected as an individual and their needs vary from one another. So teacher must establish a positive relationship with their students to provide learning opportunity as well as motivation they needed to be successful in both academic and life lessons. Research overseas has shown that close relationship between teachers and students resulted in higher student motivation. The result indicated that factors such as academic achievement and student motivation were influenced by the quality of the relationship that the students and teachers had with each other. Positive teacher- 44 student relationship improved student behavior and motivation to learn as well as their academic achievement. The successful learning and teaching conduct should be emphasized more at higher level, so that future teachers are equipped with the right mindset when they venture into school.

Overview of University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture The rational for choosing these two universities is that The University of Cambodia (UC) has approximately 80% of students who are holding partial or full scholarship even though UC is young private university and does not receive any government funding for operations. Moreover, One of UC‟s main interests is accessibility and affordability to higher education so that many of UC rural, urban, and poor students would be able to pursue university studies by the support of UC‟s scholarship programs (UC Foundation, 2011). Furthermore, Royal University of Agriculture (RUA) is a leading administrative public institution in Cambodia that plays essential role in educational programs in accordance with agriculture and related sectors (www.rua.edu.kh). In the academic year of 2013-2014, roughly 80% of total students are from provincial or rural area (Royal University of Agriculture Students‟ Statistic 2013-2014). The University of Cambodia The University of Cambodia (UC) was founded in 23 June 2003 and is located on Northbridge Road in Sangkat Toek Thla, Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia. Dr. Kao Kim Hourn who is the university president as well as a Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Cambodia and also an Adviser to Prime Minister Hun Sen founded the school after his return to Cambodia from the US. According to The school uses the American credit-based system as a model and the programs are taught through the medium of the English language but some identical programs have been launched but taught in Khmer. The Chancellor of the university is a noted Japanese philanthropist, Dr. Haruhisa Handa. (www.uc.edu.kh). 45

Moreover, regarding to the university‟s website (www.uc.edu.kh), it is organized to provide Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral programs with six colleges provided such as; the College of Arts and Humanities, College of Education, College of Law, College of Management, College of Science and Technology, and College of Social Sciences, apart from six specific institutes and centers such as the Institute for Research and Advanced Studies (IRAS), Institute for Technical and Professional Training (ITPT), the Asia Leadership Center (ALC), Center for ASEAN and East Asian Studies (CAEAS), Center for International Studies (CIS), and Center for English Studies (CES). The school's establishment of the Asian Economic Forum (AEF) in May 2005 and the Asian Faiths Development Dialogue has raised the profile of the university internationally. In addition, based on the 4 International colleges & Universities, The University, a private entity with due accreditation accorded by the Accreditation Committee of Cambodia has a total enrollment of about 5,000 with both men and women. Royal University of Agriculture The Royal University of Agriculture (RUA) is a public agricultural university in Cambodia, located at Chamcar Daung, Khan Dangkor, Phnom Penh. The university is operated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. RUA was founded in 1964 under the monarch, King Norodom Sihanouk under the name of Royal University of Agronomy Science. It was one of the nine royal universities established to improve Cambodian higher education development at that time. In 1994, the name was officially changed to Royal University of Agriculture (RUA). After that, bachelor's degree programs were introduced. In 2002, there was an official launch of graduate degree programs in agricultural science-related majors. RUA is accredited by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. RUA offers bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees. It is a leading Cambodia's human resources producer in agriculture fields and rural development. Royal University of Agriculture faculties consist of Agronomy, Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Forestry, Fisheries, Agricultural Technology and Management, Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Agro-industry, and Land Management and Land Administration (www.rua.edu.kh).

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purposes of this research is to investigate the most important factors supporting learning environment among rural students who are learning in higher education within a private university and a public university located in Phnom Penh City, Cambodia. This chapter presents the description of the research design and methodology that were used as a guideline to conduct this study. It was structured as the following items: 1. Methodology of the study 2. Research design 3. Population and sample 4. Research instrument 5. Research measurement 6. Data collection method 7. Data analysis 8. Time frame

Research design To answer the research objectives, a quantitative method was employed. The current data is using for this study. The data was analyzed using quantitative statistics. This is a quantitative research in which a cross-sectional survey design was utilized. According to Creswell (2012), this design has the advantage of measuring current attitudes, beliefs, opinions or practices and it also provides information in a short amount of time. Setting This study was carried out in University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture located in Phnom Penh City, Cambodia. The University of Cambodia is a private University providing Bachelor to Doctoral program. However, Royal University of Agriculture is a public university providing Bachelor to Doctoral program and offer various major related to agriculture and forestry. 47

Population and sample Population Rural students in this study are defined by the students who have a previous learning or living background in rural area. Rural area in this study is including areas which are outside the six main cities (urban areas). These six cities populations are more than 100,000 inhabitants. These six urban areas cover around 3,000,000 inhabitants and covers around 20 percent of the population. The rural population covers around 80 percent of Cambodian population following various statistics, example Cambodian Census (2008); World Fact Book (2012). The population of rural students who are currently studying Bachelor degree at The University of Cambodia is 1,200 students and Royal University of Agriculture is 4,577 students, therefore, total population is 5,777 rural students. Sample size In order to ensure the selected sample is representative to the whole population of rural students, researcher followed the calculation of Yamane (1967, p. 886). The researcher planned to be at the 95% confidence level and P = .5 are assumed for Equation 5. This provides a simplified formula to calculate sample sizes. This formula was used to calculate the sample sizes shown below.

N n = 1 N(e)2 Where N: Population size, n: Required sample size, e: Error Therefore, the sample size from the population of 1,200 students of University of Cambodia (UC) is 300 students. Moreover, the sample size from the population of 4,577 rural students of Royal University of Agriculture (RUA) is 368 students. As a result, the total sample size from the population of both universities is 668 students. In this study, convenient sampling method is used to select respondents. This sampling method is easy to carry out with few rules, provides the availability and the quickness of gathering data, required less time and relative cost, and could help gathering useful data and information. The rational to choose this method is regarding 48 that the number of rural students in each class is small, so there are too many classes taken, and too little time constrain permitted. From both universities, researcher selects rural students who are learning in Bachelor degree in the academic year of 2015 only. Researcher enters each class to ask for rural students only to raise their hands; then, researcher delivers the questionnaires for them to fill up. This is implemented until sample size is reached.

Research instrument Survey The survey questionnaires is basically regarding to the model of Henderson & Mapp (2002), Hamjah et al (2011), Ryan and Patrick (2001), Jamian & Baharom (2012), Jordan & Porath (2006), and Fan (2011), and Herzberg (1959). The questionnaire was divided into sections delineating personal information and questions about the independent variable. Questionnaires were used because they are the main method of data collection (Sarantakos, 1997). Questionnaires design This research mainly uses quantitative design, for which data was collected through simple descriptive survey questionnaires. There were two sets of questionnaires which were designed in English then translated into Cambodian language. The instrument used to collect data in this study was questionnaire constructed by the researcher which divided into three parts: Part 1: Background information; age, gender, faculty, and university. Part 2: Factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment. There are five factor consisted of 25 items: 5 items measure family support factor, 5 items measure peer support factor, 5 items measure teacher support factor, 5 items measure school administration factor, and 5 items measure socio-economic status factor. Part 3: Free comment and suggestion for rural students to express their opinions. This part allows free spaces for respondents to fill up freely according to their views of what could be done more to help rural students both living and learning condition in the city. 49

The researcher used a Likert-type scale (1932) to collect and measure each variable of the study. A Likert Scale is a type of psychometric scale frequently used in psychology questionnaires. It was developed by and named after organizational psychologist Rensis Likert (1932). On a survey or questionnaire, a typical Likert item usually takes the format: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree. The questionnaire consists of items answering on 5-point Likert scale (1932) to measure the factor supporting learning environment ranging from 1 to 5 and the last section is the suggestions and recommendations.

Research measurement There are many methods for measuring factor supporting learning environment. However, the most common method for collecting data regarding factor supporting learning environment is the Likert scale (1932). Therefore, this research study adapts Likert scale (1932) to measure factor supporting learning environment of rural students in private and public universities. For the first objective of this research which is to study the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in private university and the second objective which is to investigate the most important factors supporting rural students learning environment in public university, the researcher modifies model Henderson and Mapp (2002), Hamjah et al. (2011), Ryan and Patrick (2001), Jamian and Baharom (2012), Jordan and Porath (2006), Fan (2011) to generate six independent variables such as Family Support, Peer Support, Teacher Support, School Administration Support, and Socio-economic status to combine with Herzberg (1959) model that implied to be some subordinate questions accompanying each variable. The rural students who are selected to be a sample are asked to fill in the questionnaires. By developing from various theories above, the researcher use the Likert rating scale (1932) to designs the rate of factor supporting students‟ learning from “1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree” to applied in measuring objective one and two. Lastly, the open space is added as an additional option for free suggestion or comment is used to propose ideas and 50 suggestion related to improving rural students‟ learning environment in higher education.

Data collection method The data were collected by field survey. The researcher delivers the questionnaire to all selected respondents who are rural students who are currently studying Bachelor degree at The University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture. However, before sending the questionnaires out for data collection, this research instrument was tested for its reliability. 30 questionnaires were sent to rural students in advanced to measure the reliability of the questionnaire by utilizing the “Coefficient Cronbach Alpha”. Quality of research instrument In order to reduce the possibility of getting the answer wrong, attention needed to be paid to tow particular on research instruments: validity and reliability (Saunders & Thornhill, 2003). Validity Three experts in Public Administration field were requested to verify the items of questionnaires by using Indexes of Objective Congruence (IOC) score on a range from -1 to 1(Rovinelli & Hambleton, 1977). The items with scores lower than 0.5 was revised; however, the ones with higher than or equal 0.5 were kept. Congruent = 1 Questionable = 0 Incongruent = -1 The results from three experts were used to find the IOC. The idea of majority of expert and IOC can be calculated as shown below: ∑

Where IOC = Index of Item Objective Congruence R = Scored of comment from expert N = Number of expert If 0.5 1.00 means index of item objective congruence is acceptable. 51

If IOC 0.5 means index of item objective congruence is not suitable and should be withdrawn. Reliability Because the participants are Cambodian, the questionnaires were administered and translated in Khmer language for the sake of clarity. To assure the accuracy and appropriateness of the translation, two Cambodians are invited to modify and verify the translation. After the revising of questionnaires, a pilot study was conducted with 30 rural students who were in the sample group to find out whether an individual‟s score from the instruments were consistent or reliable. The data from the pilot study were used to validate reliability through the use of Cronbach‟s alpha in order to ensure whether there was internal consistency within the items. According to George and Mallery (2003), indicates the following values of Coefficient Cronbach Alpha as follows: Values of Coefficient Cronbach Alpha Meaning _> . 9 Excellent _> . 8 Good _> . 7 Acceptable _> . 6 Questionable _> . 5 Poor _< . 5 Unacceptable Therefore, in order for the instruments to be reliable, its value of Coefficient Cronbach Alpha should be in between 0.7 and 0.9. According to the pre-test, the Cronbach‟s Alpha was 0.842 (see Appendix D), therefore it was reliable. Prior to the field study The researcher wrote a requested letter for granting permission from the data collection to Graduate School of Public Administration (GSPA), Burapha University. Once receiving the approval from GSPA, the researcher sent a permission letter to The University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture located in Phnom Penh City to gain access and support for the data collection.

52

During the field study The researcher distributed the questionnaires to respondents by self- administering with a request for their cooperation and explained how to fill up the questionnaires. Each of the questionnaire took about 15 minutes long to complete. After the field study Last but not least, all data will be collected, inputted and interpreted by self- administering and measured by using the statistical program for social analysis.

Data analysis Quantitative data analysis This study is the quantitative research and the computer calculation application software was employed to analyze the collected data. Descriptive statistic method (T-test) was adopted to figure out the value of frequencies and the percentage, and it is also used to calculate the Value of Compared Means (x ). This method is used to evaluate the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in private and public universities in Phnom Penh and study the difference of factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment between private and public university. Regarding to Best (1981, pp. 179-187), the interpretation of the mean score was applied during the data analysis is shown as the following:

Thehighest score  Thelowestscore The range fromeach level  Number of levels 5 1  5 = 0.80 The effectiveness can be interpreted as the following levels: Range from each level Meaning 4.21-5.00 = Strongly Agree 3.41-4.20 = Agree 2.61-3.40 = Neutral 1.81-2.60 = Disagree 53

1.00-1.80 = Strongly Disagree The range of each level which interprets the data of factors supporting learning environment employed the scales in the following: 4.21-5.00 = highest supporting 3.41-4.20 = high supporting 2.61-3.40 = moderate supporting 1.81-2.60 = low supporting 1.00-1.80 = lowest supporting Moreover, the significant difference in factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment between private and public university employed the calculation as the following: P > .05 = Not significant P < .05 = Significant

54

Table 5 Summary of data analysis

Objectives Instruments Mean of analysis 1. To investigate the most Questionnaires Descriptive statistic important factors supporting (Compare means, standard rural students‟ learning deviation) environment in private university in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 2. To investigate the most Questionnaires Descriptive statistic important factors supporting (Compared means, standard rural students‟ learning deviation) environment in public university in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 3. To study the differences Questionnaires Descriptive statistic (t-test) in factor supporting rural students‟ learning environment between a private and a public university in Phnom Penh.

Time frame This research study was conducted in The University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture located in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Therefore, in order to successfully conduct this research, the time was necessarily acquired and collected data for one month starting from 1 July 2015 to 30 July 2015.

CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH RESULTS

This chapter presents the findings of the study based on the responses obtained from the survey. Descriptive statistics analysis was adopted to interpret the data in order to answer the three research questions. The profile of the sample was as follows: 1. What is the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in private university in Phnom Penh? 2. What is the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in public university in Phnom Penh? 3. Is there any significant difference in factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment between public and private university in Phnom Penh? And if they are different, why?

Respondents’ information University of Cambodia (UC) is a private university Royal University of Agriculture (RUA) is a private university 1. Gender

Table 6 Gender of all respondents from both Universities

Frequency Percentage Gender Private Public Private Public Both Both (UC) (RUA) (UC) (RUA) Male 155 237 392 51.70% 64.4% 58.70% Female 145 131 276 48.30% 35.6% 41.30% Total 300 368 668 100% 100% 100%

The respondents to the questionnaire of supporting learning environment of rural students in higher education from The University of Cambodia are 300 students 56 which consist of male 155 (51.7%) and female 145 (48.3%). Moreover, the respondents from Royal University of Agriculture are 368 students which contain mostly male 237 (64.4%) and female 131 (35.6%). Therefore, respondents in total from both universities are 668 students that consist of male 392 (58.7%) and female 276 (41.3%). 2. Age

Table 7 Age of all respondents from both universities

Frequency Percentage Age Private Public Private Public Both Both (UC) (RUA) (UC) (RUA) 17 4 3 7 1.3% 0.8% 1.0% 18 22 3 24 7.3% 0.8% 3.6% 19 41 27 68 13.7% 7.3% 10.2% 20 72 66 138 24.0% 17.9% 20.7% 21 44 75 119 14.7% 20.4% 17.8% 22 33 78 111 11.0% 21.2% 16.6% 23 31 55 87 10.3% 14.9% 13.0% 24 20 31 51 6.7% 8.4% 7.6% 25 8 15 23 2.7% 4.1% 3.4% 26 11 5 16 3.7% 1.4% 2.4% 27 4 5 9 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 28 5 2 7 1.7% 0.5% 1.0% 29 5 3 8 1.7% 0.8% 1.2% Total 300 368 668 100% 100% 100%

The age of respondents from The University of Cambodia have most relevant age range between 19 and 21 while the age of respondents from Royal University of Agriculture most relevant age range is between 20 and 22. Furthermore, the overall most relevant age range of respondents from both universities is between 20 and 22. 57

3. Family Income (Monthly)

Table 8 Family income of all respondents from both Universities

Frequency Percentage Family income Private Public Private Public (monthly) Both Both (UC) (RUA) (UC) (RUA) Less than 200$ 133 215 348 44.3% 58.4% 52.1%

200$-500$ 117 119 236 39.0% 32.3% 35.3%

500$-800$ 30 18 48 10.0% 4.9% 7.2%

More than 800$ 20 16 36 6.7% 4.3% 5.4%

Total 300 368 668 100 100% 100%

The data of respondents‟ family monthly income range from The University of Cambodia shows mostly less than 200$ is 44.3% while Royal University of Agriculture shows mostly less than 200$ (58.4%). Moreover, the data of respondents‟ family monthly income range from both universities shows mostly less than 200$ (52.1%).

58

4. Family Occupation

Table 9 Family occupation of all respondents from both universities

Frequency Percentage Family Occupation Private Public Private Public Both Both (UC) (RUA) (UC) (RUA) Government official 57 37 94 19.0% 10.1% 14.1% Private official 26 20 46 8.7% 5.4% 6.9% Merchant 49 64 113 16.3% 17.4% 16.9% Farmer 158 236 394 52.7% 64.1% 59.0% Other 10 11 21 3.3% 3.0% 3.1% Total 300 368 668 100% 100% 100%

The respondents‟ family occupations from The University of Cambodia are mostly farmer 158 (52.7%) while from Royal University of Agriculture are also mostly farmer 236 (64.1%). Moreover, the overall respondents‟ family occupations from both universities are mostly farmer 394 (59%).

1. Analysis of private university (The University of Cambodia) The first objective of this study is to find the most important factors supporting learning environment of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia) located in Phnom Penh. In order to answer the question, the data from the students‟ responses on the factors supporting learning environment questions in which score from 1 to 5 were used. To illustrate explicitly, this research question was answered through descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation as shown in Table 8. The interpretation of the mean score of factors supporting learning environment employed the scales in the following: 4.21-5.00 = highest supporting 3.41-4.20 = high supporting 2.61-3.40 = moderate supporting 59

1.81-2.60 = low supporting 1.00-1.80 = lowest supporting The symbols and abbreviations used: N = Population size n = Sample size

= Mean SD = Standard deviation df = Degree of freedom Sig. = Statistical significance t = t-statistics

Table 10 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of factors supporting learning environment of rural students in private university

Factors supporting learning n = 300 environment SD Level Rank 1. Family Support 3.97 .907 High 1 2. Peer Support 3.30 .802 Moderate 3 3. Teacher Support 3.56 .828 High 2 4. School Administration 3.19 .875 Moderate 4 5. Socio-economic Status 3.30 1.114 Moderate 3

The most important factors supporting learning environment of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia) is family support. In average, students perceive family support and teacher support at the highest priority while peer support, school administration, and socio-economic status present moderate significant factors on rural students‟ learning.

60

Table 11 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of family support factor of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia)

n = 300 Family support SD Level Rank 1. My parents support my school fees 3.59 1.302 High 5 and study material. 2. My parents always explain me not 3.95 1.264 High 4 to give up when I fail in learning. 3. My parents praise me when I get 4.14 .956 High 3 good study result. 4. My parents encourage me to focus 4.33 .916 Highest 2 on my study. 5. My parents prefer me to study in 4.35 .958 Highest 1 university. Total 3.97 .907 High -

The level of family support for rural students‟ learning in private university (The University of Cambodia) in overall was at high level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “My parents prefer me to study in university.”; “My parents encourage me to focus on my study.” and “My parents praise me when I get good study result.” respectively.

61

Table 12 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of peer support factor of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia)

n = 300 Peer support SD Level Rank 1. My friends explain the lesson to me 3.25 .948 Moderate 4 when I cannot catch up. 2. My friends teach me how to work in 3.14 .953 Moderate 5 group. 3. My friends always share their 3.37 .904 Moderate 2 knowledge and experience with me. 4. Most of my classmates and I have 3.75 .901 High 1 good relationship both in class and outside. 5. My friends encourage me to present 3.36 .945 Moderate 3 in front of the class. Total 3.30 .802 Moderate -

The level of peer support for rural students‟ learning in private university (The University of Cambodia) in overall was at moderate level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “Most of my classmates and I have good relationship both in class and outside.”; “My friends always share their knowledge and experience with me.” and “My friends encourage me to present in front of the class.” respectively.

62

Table 13 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of teacher support factor of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia)

n = 300 Teacher support SD Level Rank 1. My teachers praise me whenever I 3.48 1.007 High 4 get good study result. 2. My teachers use technology 3.44 .896 High 5 effectively to advance my learning. 3. My teachers give me feedbacks to 3.59 .851 High 3 improve my work. 4. My teachers use effective teaching 3.62 .828 High 2 methods that enhance my learning. 5. My teachers always pay attention to 3.64 .909 High 1 students‟ effort. Total 3.56 .828 High -

The level of teacher support for rural students‟ learning in private university (The University of Cambodia) in overall was at high level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “My teachers always pay attention to students‟ effort.”; “My teachers use effective teaching methods that enhance my learning.” and “My teachers give me feedbacks to improve my work.” respectively.

63

Table 14 Mean, standard deviation, level, and rank of school administration factor of rural students learning in private university (The University of Cambodia)

n = 300 School Administration SD Level Rank 1. My university has scholarship 3.56 1.136 High 1 program to provide financial aid to support students. 2. My university provides me good 3.31 .940 Moderate 2 services. 3. My university has a dormitory for 2.14 1.198 Low 5 students. 4. My university offers rewards for 3.20 1.167 Moderate 3 outstanding students. 5. My university arranges field trip for 2.83 1.143 Moderate 4 students to learn from community. Total 3.19 .875 Moderate -

The level of school administration for rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia) overall was at moderate level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “My university has scholarship program to provide financial aid to support students.”; “My university provides me good services.” and “My university offers rewards for outstanding students.” respectively.

64

Table 15 Mean, standard deviation, level, and rank of socio-economic status factor of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia)

n = 300 Socio-economic status SD Level Rank 1. I have to work part time to afford 3.21 1.462 Moderate 5 my study. 2. I have to study harder to compete 4.11 .904 High 1 with urban students. 3. I have to adapt new culture of living 3.72 .996 High 3 in the capital city. 4. I have to strengthen communication 3.75 .950 High 2 with urban people for more opportunities. 5. I have limited learning resource. 3.41 1.177 High 4 Total 3.30 1.114 Moderate -

The level of socio-economic status of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia) in overall was at moderate level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “I have to study harder to compete with urban students.”; “I have to strengthen communication with urban people for more opportunities.” and “I have to adapt new culture of living in the capital city.” respectively.

2. Analysis of public university (Royal University of Agriculture) The most important factors supporting learning environment of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) located in Phnom Penh. In order to answer the question, the data from the students‟ responses on the factors supporting learning environment questions in which score from 1 to 5 were 65 used. To illustrate explicitly, this research question was answered through descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation.

Table 16 Mean, standard deviation, level, and rank of factors supporting learning environment of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture)

Factors supporting learning n = 368 environment SD Level Rank 1. Family Support 4.07 .889 High 1 2. Peer Support 3.19 .702 Moderate 5 3. Teacher Support 3.55 .709 High 3 4. School Administration 3.57 .829 High 2 5. Socio-economic Status 3.31 1.022 Moderate 4

The most important factors supporting learning environment of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) is family support. In average, students perceive family support, teacher support and school administration support at the highest priority while peer support and socio-economic status present moderate significant factors on learning environment.

66

Table 17 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of family support factor of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture)

n = 368 Family support SD Level Rank 1. My parents support my school fees 3.83 1.196 High 4 and study material. 2. My parents always explain me not 3.75 1.322 High 5 to give up when I fail in learning. 3. My parents praise me when I get 3.98 1.061 High 3 good study result. 4. My parents encourage me to focus 4.22 .961 Highest 2 on my study. 5. My parents prefer me to study in 4.33 .978 Highest 1 university. Total 4.07 .889 High -

The level of family support for rural students learning in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) in overall was at high level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “My parents prefer me to study in university.”; “My parents encourage me to focus on my study.” and “My parents praise me when I get good study result.” respectively.

67

Table 18 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of peer support factor of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture)

n = 368 Peer support SD Level Rank 1. My friends explain the lesson to me 3.13 .901 Moderate 4 when I cannot catch up. 2. My friends teach me how to work in 2.97 .916 Moderate 5 group. 3. My friends always share their 3.28 .916 Moderate 2 knowledge and experience with me. 4. Most of my classmates and I have 3.74 .900 High 1 good relationship both in class and outside. 5. My friends encourage me to present 3.26 .850 Moderate 3 in front of the class. Total 3.19 .702 Moderate -

The level of peer support for rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) in overall was at moderate level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “Most of my classmates and I have good relationship both in class and outside.”; “My friends always share their knowledge and experience with me.” and “My friends encourage me to present in front of the class.” respectively.

68

Table 19 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of teacher support factor of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture)

n = 368 Teacher support SD Level Rank 1. My teachers praise me whenever I 3.42 .904 High 5 get good study result. 2. My teachers use technology 3.51 .812 High 3 effectively to advance my learning. 3. My teachers give me feedbacks to 3.49 .870 High 4 improve my work. 4. My teachers use effective teaching 3.74 .789 High 1 methods that enhance my learning. 5. My teachers always pay attention to 3.68 .834 High 2 students‟ effort. Total 3.55 .709 High -

The level of teacher support for rural students learning in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) in overall was at high level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “My teachers always pay attention to students‟ effort.”; “My teachers use effective teaching methods that enhance my learning.” and “My teachers give me feedbacks to improve my work.” respectively.

69

Table 20 Mean, standard deviation, level, and rank of school administration factor of rural students learning in public university (Royal University of Agriculture)

n = 368 School Administration SD Level Rank 1. My university has scholarship 3.51 1.049 High 2 program to provide financial aid to support students. 2. My university provides me good 3.19 .931 Moderate 4 services. 3. My university has a dormitory for 3.40 1.078 Moderate 3 students. 4. My university offers rewards for 3.12 1.257 Moderate 5 outstanding students. 5. My university arranges field trip for 3.65 0.977 High 1 students to learn from community. Total 3.57 .829 High -

The level of school administration of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) overall was at high level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “My university arranges field trip for students to learn from community.”; “My university has scholarship program to provide financial aid to support students.” and “My university has a dormitory for students.” respectively.

70

Table 21 Mean, standard deviation, level, and rank of socio-economic status factor of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture)

n = 368 Socio-economic status SD Level Rank 1. I have to work part time to afford 3.26 1.342 Moderate 5 my study. 2. I have to study harder to compete 3.77 .889 High 1 with urban students. 3. I have to adapt new culture of living 3.45 .881 High 3 in the capital city. 4. I have to strengthen communication 3.69 .909 High 2 with urban people for more opportunities. 5. I have limited learning resource. 3.37 1.102 Moderate 4 Total 3.31 1.022 Moderate -

The level of socio-economic status for rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) in overall was at moderate level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “I have to study harder to compete with urban students.”; “I have to strengthen communication with urban people for more opportunities.” and “I have to adapt new culture of living in the capital city.” respectively.

71

3. Analysis between private and public university

Table 22 Mean, standard deviation, level and rank of factors supporting learning environment of rural students in both private and public university (The University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture)

Factors supporting learning n = 668 environment SD Level Rank 1. Family Support 4.02 .898 High 1 2. Peer Support 3.24 .750 Moderate 5 3. Teacher Support 3.55 .764 High 2 4. School Administration 3.40 .870 Moderate 3 5. Socio-economic Status 3.31 1.064 Moderate 4

Family support is the highest factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in both private and public university (The University of Cambodia and Royal University of Agriculture). In average, teacher support place in the second rank after family support while peer support, school administration, and socio-economic status present moderate significant factors on learning environment. Accordingly, the third objective of this study is to find the significant differences in factor supporting rural students‟ learning environment between a private and a public university in Phnom Penh. In order to answer the question, the data from the students‟ responses on the factors supporting learning environment questions from both universities above were used. Descriptive statistics for demographic information and t-test was performed in order to find out the difference of each factor between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture) as shown in Table 23.

72

Table 23 The mean difference in factor supporting learning environment of rural students between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture)

Variable Sector N SD t df Sig. (2-tailed) 1. Family Support Private 300 3.97 .907 -1.539 666 .124 Public 368 4.07 .889 2. Peer Support Private 300 3.30 .802 1.829 599 .068 Public 368 3.19 .702 3. Teacher Support Private 300 3.56 .828 .151 666 .880 Public 368 3.55 .709 4. School Administration Private 300 3.19 .875 -5.755 666 .000 Public 368 3.57 .829 5. Socio-economic Status Private 300 3.30 1.114 -.136 666 .892 Public 368 3.31 1.022

The result suggests that significant difference was found between factors supporting learning environment of the students in private and public university on the variable of School Administration (t=-5.755, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on the variable of Family Support (t=-1.539, p >.05); Peer Support (t= 1.829, p> .05); Teacher Support (t=.151, p >.05) and Socio-economic Status (t=-.136, p >.05).

73

Table 24 The mean difference in family support factor of rural students between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture)

Variable Sector N SD t df Sig. (*)

1. My parents Private 300 3.59 1.302 -2.452 614.827 .014 support my school Public 368 3.83 1.196 fees and study material. 2. My parents Private 300 3.95 1.264 2.044 666 .041 always explain me Public 368 3.75 1.322 not to give up when I fail in learning. 3. My parents Private 300 4.14 .956 1.972 666 .049 praise me when I Public 368 3.98 1.061 get good study result. 4. My parents Private 300 4.33 .916 1.585 666 .114 encourage me to Public 368 4.22 .961 focus on my study. 5. My parents Private 300 4.35 .958 prefer me to study .325 666 .745 Public 368 4.33 .978 in university. (*) Sig(2-tailed)

The result suggests that significant difference was found between family support factor from rural students in private and public university on “My parents support my school fees and study material.” (t=-2.452, p <.05); “My parents always 74 explain me not to give up when I fail in learning.” (t=2.044, p<.05); and “My parents praise me when I get good study result.” (t=1.972, p<.05). However, no significant difference was found on “My parents encourage me to focus on my study.” (t=1.585, p >.05); and “My parents prefer me to study in university.”(t=.325, p >.05).

Table 25 The mean difference in peer support factor of rural students between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture)

Variable Sector N SD t df Sig. (*)

1. My friends explain the Private 300 3.25 .948 1.713 666 .087 lesson to me when I Public 368 3.13 .901 cannot catch up. 2. My friends teach me Private 300 3.14 .953 2.259 666 .024 how to work in group. Public 368 2.97 .916

3. My friends always share Private 300 3.37 .904 1.319 666 .188 their knowledge and Public 368 3.28 .916 experience with me. 4. Most of my classmates Private 300 3.75 .901 .108 666 .914 and I have good Public 368 3.74 .900 relationship both in class

and outside. 5. My friends encourage Private 300 3.36 .945 1.324 608.280 .186 me to present in front of Public 368 3.26 .850 the class. (*) Sig(2-tailed)

The result suggests that significant difference was found between peer support factor from rural students in private and public university on “My friends 75 teach me how to work in group.” (t=2.259, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on “My friends explain the lesson to me when I cannot catch up.” (t=1.713, p >.05); “My friends always share their knowledge and experience with me.”(t=1.319, p >.05); “Most of my classmates and I have good relationship both in class and outside.” (t=.108, p >.05) and “My friends encourage me to present in front of the class.” (t=1.324, p >.05).

Table 26 The mean difference in teacher support factor of rural students between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture)

Variable Sector N SD t df Sig. (*) 1. My teachers praise Private 300 3.48 1.007 .794 607.482 .427 me whenever I get good Public 368 3.42 .904 study result. 2. My teachers use Private 300 3.44 .896 -1.039 666 .299 technology effectively Public 368 3.51 .812 to advance my learning. 3. My teachers give me Private 300 3.59 .851 1.414 666 .158 feedbacks to improve Public 368 3.49 .870 my work. 4. My teachers use Private 300 3.62 .828 -1.995 666 .046 effective teaching Public 368 3.74 .789 methods that enhance my learning. 5. My teachers always Private 300 3.64 .909 -.614 666 .540 pay attention to Public 368 3.68 .834 students‟ effort. (*) Sig(2-tailed)

76

The result suggests that significant difference was found between teacher support factor from rural students in private and public university on “My teachers use effective teaching methods that enhance my learning.” (t=-1.995, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on “My teachers praise me whenever I get good study result.” (t=.794, p >.05); “My teachers use technology effectively to advance my learning.”(t=-1.039, p >.05); “My teachers give me feedbacks to improve my work.” (t=1.414, p >.05) and “My teachers always pay attention to students‟ effort.” (t=-.614, p >.05).

Table 27 The mean difference in school administration factor of rural students between private university and public university

Variable Sector N SD T df Sig. (*) 1. My university has Private 300 3.56 1.136 scholarship program .651 666 .515 to provide financial Public 368 3.51 1.049 aid to support students. 2. My university Private 300 3.31 .940 1.684 666 .093 provides me good Public 368 3.19 .931 services. 3. My university has Private 300 2.14 1.198 -14.169 607.949 .000 a dormitory for Public 368 3.40 1.078 students. 4. My university Private 300 3.20 1.167 .843 666 .400 offers rewards for Public 368 3.12 1.257 outstanding students. 5. My university Private 300 2.83 1.143 -9.801 590.580 .000 arranges field trip for Public 368 3.65 .977 students to learn from community. (*) Sig(2-tailed) 77

The result suggests that significant difference was found between school administration factor from rural students in private and public university on “My university has a dormitory for students.” (t=-14.169, p <.05); and “My university arranges field trip for students to learn from community.” (t=-9.801, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on “My university has scholarship program to provide financial aid to support students.” (t=.651, p >.05); “My university provides me good services.”(t=-1.684, p >.05); and “My university offers rewards for outstanding students.” (t=.843, p >.05).

Table 28 The mean difference in socio-economic status factor of rural students between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture)

Variable Sector N SD t df Sig. (*) 1. I have to work part Private 300 3.21 1.462 -.519 614.679 .604 time to afford my study. Public 368 3.26 1.342

2. I have to study harder Private 300 4.11 .904 4.884 666 .000 to compete with urban Public 368 3.77 .889 students. 3. I have to adapt new Private 300 3.72 .996 3.691 602.576 .000 culture of living in the Public 368 3.45 .881 capital city. 4. I have to strengthen Private 300 3.75 .950 .913 666 .362 communication with Public 368 3.69 .909 urban people for more opportunities. 5. I have limited learning Private 300 3.41 1.177 .389 666 .697 resource. Public 368 3.37 1.102 (*) Sig(2- tailed) 78

The result suggests that significant difference was found between socio- economic status factor from rural students in private and public university on “I have to study harder to compete with urban students.” (t=-4.884, p <.05); and “I have to adapt new culture of living in the capital city.” (t=3.691, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on “I have to work part time to afford my study.” (t=-.519, p >.05); “. I have to strengthen communication with urban people for more opportunities.” (t=.913, p >.05); and “I have limited learning resource.” (t=.389, p >.05).

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter will be divided into three sections: summary research findings, discussion of the findings, and recommendations. The purposes of this study were: 1) to investigate the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in private university in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2) to investigate the most important factors supporting rural students‟ learning environment in public university in Phnom Penh, and 3) to study the differences in factor supporting rural students‟ learning environment between a private and a public university in Phnom Penh. The sample of this study was totally 668 rural students from a private university (300 students of The University of Cambodia) and a public university (368 students of Royal University of Agriculture) in Phnom Penh. Data collection was conducted within one month starting from 1 August 2015 to 30 August 2015. They were selected by using convenient sampling. The research instruments were questionnaires consisting of three parts. Part one was based on personal information, part two focused on factors supporting learning environment along with 25 items. Part three focused on students‟ suggestions and comment for enhancing rural students‟ learning environment. The statistics which employed to analyze the data were mean, standard deviation, and the descriptive statistic method (t-test).

Summary of research findings 1. Factors supporting learning environment of rural students in private university (The University of Cambodia) 1.1 The factor of family support was rated at high level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “My parents prefer me to study in university.”; “My parents encourage me to focus on my study.” and “My parents praise me when I get good study result.” 1.2 The factor of peer support was rated at moderate level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “Most of my classmates and I 80 have good relationship both in class and outside.”; “My friends always share their knowledge and experience with me.” and “My friends encourage me to present in front of the class.” 1.3 The factor of teacher support was rated at high level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “My teachers always pay attention to students‟ effort.”; “My teachers use effective teaching methods that enhance my learning.” and “My teachers give me feedbacks to improve my work.” 1.4 The factor of school administration was rated at moderate level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “My university has scholarship program to provide financial aid to support students.”; “My university provides me good services.” and “My university offers rewards for outstanding students.” 1.5 The factor of socio-economic status was rated at moderate level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “I have to study harder to compete with urban students.”; “I have to strengthen communication with urban people for more opportunities.” and “I have to adapt new culture of living in the capital city.” respectively. As a result, the most important factor motivating students‟ learning in private university (The University of Cambodia) is family support which statistically generates the highest level comparing to the other factors. 2. Factors supporting learning environment of rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) 2.1 The factor of family support was rated at high level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “My parents prefer me to study in university.”; “My parents encourage me to focus on my study.” and “My parents praise me when I get good study result.” respectively. 2.2 The factor of peer support was rated at moderate level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “Most of my classmates and I have good relationship both in class and outside.”; “My friends always share their knowledge and experience with me.” and “My friends encourage me to present in front of the class.” respectively. 81

2.3 The factor of teacher support was rated at high level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “My teachers always pay attention to students‟ effort.”; “My teachers use effective teaching methods that enhance my learning.” and “My teachers give me feedbacks to improve my work.” respectively. 2.4 The factor of school administration was rated at high level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks “My university arranges field trip for students to learn from community.”; “My university has scholarship program to provide financial aid to support students.” and “My university has a dormitory for students.” respectively. 2.5 The factor of socio-economic status was rated at moderate level. The ranging mean scores from high to low first three ranks were “I have to study harder to compete with urban students.”; “I have to strengthen communication with urban people for more opportunities.” and “I have to adapt new culture of living in the capital city.” respectively. As a result, the most important factor motivating students‟ learning in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) is family support which statistically generates the highest level comparing to the other factors. 3. The significant difference in factors supporting rural students’ learning environment between private university (The University of Cambodia) and public university (Royal University of Agriculture) For overall result, significant difference was found between factors supporting learning environment of the students in private and public university on the variable of School Administration (t=-5.755, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on the variable of Family Support (t=-1.539, p >.05); Peer Support (t= 1.829, p >.05); Teacher Support (t=.151, p >.05) and Socio-economic Status (t=-.136, p >.05). 3.1 Family support factor The result suggests that significant difference was found between family support factor from rural students in private and public university on “My parents support my school fees and study material.” (t=-2.452, p <.05); “My parents always explain me not to give up when I fail in learning.” (t=2.044, p<.05); and “My parents 82 praise me when I get good study result.” (t=1.972, p<.05). However, no significant difference was found on “My parents encourage me to focus on my study.” (t=1.585, p >.05); and “My parents prefer me to study in university.” (t=.325, p >.05). 3.2 Peer support factor The result suggests that significant difference was found between peer support factor from rural students in private and public university on “My friends teach me how to work in group.” (t=2.259, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on “My friends explain the lesson to me when I cannot catch up.” (t=1.713, p >.05); “My friends always share their knowledge and experience with me.” (t=1.319, p >.05); “Most of my classmates and I have good relationship both in class and outside.” (t=.108, p >.05) and “My friends encourage me to present in front of the class.” (t=1.324, p >.05). 3.3 Teacher support factor The result suggests that significant difference was found between teacher support factor from rural students in private and public university on “My teachers use effective teaching methods that enhance my learning.” (t=-1.995, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on “My teachers praise me whenever I get good study result.” (t=.794, p >.05); “My teachers use technology effectively to advance my learning.” (t=-1.039, p >.05); “My teachers give me feedbacks to improve my work.” (t=1.414, p >.05) and “My teachers always pay attention to students‟ effort.” (t=-.614, p >.05). 3.4 School administration factor The result suggests that significant difference was found between school administration factor from rural students in private and public university on “My university has a dormitory for students.” (t=-14.169, p <.05); and “My university arranges field trip for students to learn from community.” (t=-9.801, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on “My university has scholarship program to provide financial aid to support students.” (t=.651, p >.05); “My university provides me good services.” (t=-1.684, p >.05); and “My university offers rewards for outstanding students.” (t=.843, p >.05).

83

3.5 Socio-economic factor The result suggests that significant difference was found between socio- economic status factor from rural students in private and public university on “I have to study harder to compete with urban students.” (t=-4.884, p <.05); and “I have to adapt new culture of living in the capital city.” (t=3.691, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on “I have to work part time to afford my study.” (t=-.519, p >.05); “. I have to strengthen communication with urban people for more opportunities.” (t=.913, p >.05); and “I have limited learning resource.” (t=.389, p >.05).

Discussion 1. Factors supporting learning environment in private university (The University of Cambodia) 1.1 The factor of family support was rated at high level and this is the most important factor supporting rural students learning environment in private university (The University of Cambodia). The family support factor had a high supporting due to their parents‟ better understanding of education value and benefit including stronger encouragement to their children‟s learning effort. Even though their parents are mostly famers and having average monthly income less than 200$, they prefer seeing their children persist, contribute, and explore their knowledge in higher education level. Moreover, when their children can have a chance to grab scholarship opportunity, parents‟ responsibility for paying school fees is no longer a big deal; therefore, keep motivating their children by praising them when they receive good result, cheer them up when they fall down, and comfort their feeling in order to focus on their study is the best thing to fulfill. This was consistent with Henderson & Mapp (2002) who stated the influence of family involvement on children‟s development and achievement is “consistent, positive, and convincing” (p. 7). In line with other researchers, parent-child interactions, particularly encouraging and active parenting practices, are crucial influences on a development of child's academic (Christian, Morrison, & Bryant, 1998). 1.2 The factor of peer support was rated at moderate level because between rural students and urban students, their group work connection and being 84 helpful for explaining lesson to each other are not good enough. However, rural students agree that their relationship with classmates, their encouragement for each other and the way they share knowledge and experience together works very well. As a matter of fact, peer support is able to enhance a better learning because peers or friends can help each other when they cannot do exercises, homework or assignment. Moreover, peers also provide support by forming study groups, tutoring, sharing notes and experiences, and giving advice about class. Loke and Chow (2007) revealed that peer can facilitate cooperative learning and provides opportunities for students to discover their inadequacies and to correct misunderstanding. In line with Razak and See‟s (2010) study, peer learning also promotes the development of learning outcomes, teamwork, critical enquiry and reflection, communication skills, and learning meaningfully. It also illustrated the success of peer learning in enhancing students‟ academic achievement and facilitating their motivation. 1.3 The factor of teacher support was rated at high level. The policy of Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport has encouraged students from all kinds of living circumstances including rural students to join school so teachers need to treat all students fairly. The teacher support factor is in high level because teachers are capable to apply effective teaching methods for the sake of student‟s understanding, using new effective technology in teaching, give feedbacks to students for improvement, and provide cognitive support such as paying more attention, encouraging, and persuading them to accomplish their study goals. The finding was consistent with the research of Hamjah et al. (2011) regarding methods of increasing learning motivation among students. The results of the study showed that the method that could be implemented to improve learning motivation were the students‟ personality development, lecturers‟ career awareness, choice of peers, students‟ spiritual connection with Allah, family‟s encouragement, students‟ financial aid and learning facilities at school. Among them, the lecturers‟ career awareness were rated the highest score in the item “My teachers always pay attention to students‟ effort.” 1.4 The factor of school administration was rated at moderate level because school principal has provided limited access for students such as accessing dormitory, safety, security as well as community field trip. However, even university tuition fees is high, rural students appreciate the offer from school such as providing 85 good services, scholarship program, computer courses, and English language in order to nurture students‟ learning skills. Therefore, students can have chances to enhance their self-development. This finding was consistent with McLean (2003) who stated that school should pay attention in preparing some programs that offer to solve the students‟ motivational problems with simple system. The study of Wang and Eccles (2013) also revealed that students must be engaged in every school activities in order to acquire the knowledge and skills required for a successful transition into postsecondary and careers. 1.5 The factor of socio-economic status was rated at moderate level. Even though rural students receive strong family encouragement, a number of them still need to work part time to afford their studies as well as their family living condition. Rural students mostly have to work harder to compete with urban students who have better education background. This social class puts rural students in the situation of not having enough learning resource and well treated as urban students. Moreover, they have to adapt new culture and environment of living in the capital city and build network by strengthening their communication with urban people for more opportunities. In contrast, those who cannot adapt, persist, or learn new things may feel overwhelmed and want to drop out. This finding is in line with Fan (2011) demonstrates that socio-economic status does not only have an influence on the achievement of language learning but also has an influence on students‟ learning motivation, self-regulation, and self-related beliefs of the students. Similarly, Lamb (2012) also agreed that socio-economic factors could have an influence on independent learning behavior in some possible ways. 2. Factors supporting learning environment in public university (Royal University of Agriculture) 2.1 The factor of family support was rated at high level and this is the most important factor supporting rural students in public university (Royal University of Agriculture). The family support factor had a high supporting due to their parents‟ better understanding of education value and benefit including stronger encouragement to their children‟s learning effort. Even though their parents are mostly famers and having average monthly income less than 200$, they prefer seeing their children persist, contribute, and explore their knowledge in higher education level. Moreover, 86 when their children can have a chance to grab scholarship opportunity, parents‟ responsibility for paying school fees is no longer a big deal; therefore, keep motivating their children by praising them when they receive good result, cheer them up when they fall down, and comfort their feeling in order to focus on their study is the best thing to fulfill. This was consistent with Henderson and Mapp (2002) who stated the influence of family involvement on children‟s development and achievement is “consistent, positive, and convincing” (p. 7). In line with other researchers, parent-child interactions, particularly encouraging and active parenting practices, are crucial influences on a development of child's academic (Christian, Morrison, & Bryant, 1998). 2.2 The factor of peer support was rated at moderate level because between rural students and urban students, their group work connection and being helpful for explaining lesson to each other are not noticeably good enough. However, rural students agree that their relationship with classmates, their encouragement for each other and the way they share knowledge and experience together work very well. As a matter of fact, peer support is able to enhance a better learning because peers or friends can help each other when they cannot do exercises, homework or assignment. Moreover, peers also provide support by forming study groups, tutoring, sharing notes and experiences, and giving advice about class. Loke and Chow (2007) revealed that peer can facilitate cooperative learning and provides opportunities for students to discover their inadequacies and to correct misunderstanding. In line with Razak and See‟s (2010) study, peer learning also promotes the development of learning outcomes, teamwork, critical enquiry and reflection, communication skills, and learning meaningfully. It also illustrated the success of peer learning in enhancing students‟ academic achievement and facilitating their motivation. 2.3 The factor of teacher support was rated at high level. The policy of Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport has encouraged students from all kinds of living circumstances including rural students to join school so teachers need to treat all students fairly. The teacher support factor is in high level because teachers are capable to apply effective teaching methods for the sake of student‟s understanding, using new effective technology in teaching, give feedbacks to students for improvement, and provide cognitive support such as paying more attention, 87 encouraging, and persuading them to accomplish their study goals. The finding was consistent with the research of Hamjah et al. (2011) regarding methods of increasing learning motivation among students. The results of his study showed that the method that could be implemented to improve learning motivation were the students‟ personality development, lecturers‟ career awareness, choice of peers, students‟ spiritual connection with Allah, family‟s encouragement, students‟ financial aid and learning facilities at school. Among them, the lecturers‟ career awareness were rated the highest score in the item “My teachers always pay attention to students‟ effort.” 2.4 The factor of school administration was rated at high level because school principal has provided acceptable access for students such as accessing dormitory, safety, security, community field trip opportunity, as well as learning environment in the school‟s campus. Although the school service provided and students rewarding system are not perfect, rural students appreciate the offer from school such as scholarship program to provide financial aid to support students and arranging conference or knowledge sharing event that were manipulated in order to nurture students‟ learning skills. Therefore, students can have chances to enhance their self-development. This finding was consistent with McLean (2003) who stated that school should pay attention in preparing some programs that offer to solve the students‟ motivational problems with simple system. The study of Wang and Eccles (2013) also revealed that students must be engaged in every school activities in order to acquire the knowledge and skills required for a successful transition into postsecondary and careers. 2.5 The factor of socio-economic status was rated at moderate level. Even though rural students receive strong family encouragement and support, a number of them still need to work part time to afford their studies as well as their family living condition. Rural students mostly have to work harder to compete with urban students who have better education background. This social class puts rural students in the situation of not having enough learning resource and well treated as urban students. They have to adapt new culture and environment of living in the capital city and build network by strengthening their communication with urban people for more opportunities. However, those who cannot adapt, persist, or learn new things may feel overwhelmed and want to drop out. This finding is in line with Fan 88

(2011) demonstrates that socio-economic status does not only have an influence on the achievement of language learning but also has an influence on students‟ learning motivation, self-regulation, and self-related beliefs of the students. Similarly, Lamb (2012) also agreed that socio-economic factors could have an influence on independent learning behavior in some possible ways. 3. The significant differences in factor supporting rural students’ learning environment between a private and a public university The result of this study shows that there is a significant difference between factors supporting learning environment of the students in private and public university on the variable of School administration (t=-5.755, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on the variable of Family support (t=-1.539, p >.05); Peer support (t= 1.829, p> .05); Teacher support (t=.151, p >.05) and Socio-economic status (t=-.136, p >.05). 3.1 Family support The result suggests that there is no significant difference found between family support factor from rural students in public and private university (t=-1.539, p >.05). Rural students from both private and public university answered 5 questions of family support factor providing the result in each question that there is a significant difference in question 1) “My parents support my school fees and study material.” (t=-2.452, p <.05); 2) “My parents always explain me not to give up when I fail in learning.” (t=2.044, p<.05); and 3) “My parents praise me when I get good study result.” (t=1.972, p<.05). However, no significant difference was found in question 4) “My parents encourage me to focus on my study.” (t=1.585, p >.05); and 5) “My parents prefer me to study in university.” (t=.325, p >.05). Moreover, by comparing mean score between family support factor in private and public university, the result shows that family support for rural students in public university (4.07) is a little higher than private university (3.97). Apparently, family support in private university is statistically a little lower than public university. Due to the tuition fees at private university is higher than public university, rural students‟ parents at private university focus more on children‟ tuition fees rather than mental encouragement or spiritual support unlikely rural students‟ parent at public university. Wong Ruth Ming Har‟s 89

(2007) research illustrates that even though parents could not assist their children's learning academically, they supported their children's both spiritually and financially. Additionally, family support is the most important factor of rural students‟ learning environment in both private and public university in Phnom Penh. Family support between a private and a public university is remarkably and similarly in high level due to parents‟ better understanding of education value and benefit including stronger encouragement to their children‟s learning effort. Even though their parents are mostly famers and having average monthly income less than 200$, they prefer seeing their children persist, contribute, and explore their knowledge in higher education level. Parents keep motivating their children by praising them when they receive good result, cheer them up when they fall down, and comfort their feeling in order to focus on their study. This was consistent with Henderson and Mapp (2002) who stated the influence of family involvement on children‟s development and achievement is “consistent, positive, and convincing” (p. 7). In line with other researchers, parent- child interactions, particularly encouraging and active parenting practices, are crucial influences on a development of child's academic (Christian, Morrison, & Bryant, 1998). 3.2 Peer support The result suggests that there is no significant difference found between peer support factor from rural students in public and private university (t= 1.829, p> .05). Rural students from both private and public university answered 5 questions of peer support factor providing the result in each question that there is a significant difference in question 2) “My friends teach me how to work in group.” (t=2.259, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found in question 1) “My friends explain the lesson to me when I cannot catch up.” (t=1.713, p >.05); 3) “My friends always share their knowledge and experience with me.” (t=1.319, p >.05); 4) “Most of my classmates and I have good relationship both in class and outside.” (t=.108, p >.05) and 5) “My friends encourage me to present in front of the class.” (t=1.324, p >.05). Moreover, by comparing mean score between peer support factor in private and public university, the result shows that peer support for rural students in private university (3.30) is a little higher than public university (3.19). Apparently, peer support in public university seems to be statistically a little lower than private 90 university due to the lower academic activities or group working involvement. Razak and See‟s (2010) study, peer learning also promotes the development of learning outcomes, teamwork, critical enquiry and reflection, communication skills, and learning meaningfully. Peer support in both universities support students‟ learning environment similarly in moderate level. Between rural students and urban students, their group work connection and being helpful for explaining lesson to each other are not noticeably good enough. However, rural students agree that their relationship with classmates, their encouragement for each other and the way they share knowledge and experience together work very well. As a matter of fact, peer support is able to enhance a better learning because peers or friends can help each other when they cannot do exercises, homework or assignment. Moreover, peers also provide support by forming study groups, tutoring, sharing notes and experiences, and giving advice about class. Loke and Chow (2007) revealed that peer can facilitate cooperative learning and provides opportunities for students to discover their inadequacies and to correct misunderstanding. It also illustrated the success of peer learning in enhancing students‟ academic achievement and facilitating their motivation. Peer support is one of the important factors motivating students‟ learning just like Jordon mentioned that “greater potential for interaction with positive peers who share similar goals...and can encourage and inspire them to do well in school” (Jordan & Nettles, 1999, p. 1). 3.3 Teacher support The result suggest that there is no significant difference was found between teacher support factor from rural students in public and private university (t=.151, p >.05). Rural students from both private and public university answered 5 questions of teacher support factor providing the result in each question that there is a significant difference in question 4) “My teachers use effective teaching methods that enhance my learning.” (t=-1.995, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found in question 1) “My teachers praise me whenever I get good study result.” (t=.794, p >.05); 2) “My teachers use technology effectively to advance my learning.” (t=-1.039, p >.05); 3) “My teachers give me feedbacks to improve my work.” (t=1.414, p >.05) and 5) “My teachers always pay attention to students‟ effort.” (t=-.614, p >.05). Moreover, by comparing mean score between teacher support factor in private and public university, the result shows that teacher support for rural 91 students in private university (3.56) is slightly higher than public university (3.55). Apparently, teacher support in public university seems to be slightly lower than private university due to the quality of teaching techniques, having good relationship, and mental encouragement. However, both teacher supports at public and private university is in high level because teachers are capable to apply effective teaching methods for the sake of student‟s understanding, using new effective technology in teaching, give feedbacks to students for improvement, and provide cognitive support such as paying more attention, encouraging, and persuading them to accomplish their study goals. Students might gain some confidence and probably will get rid of the problem that they might have when they are in the class if they have a good relationship with the teacher (Yunus et al., 2011). Teacher support is also one of the essential factors for rural students‟ learning motivation that students need good relationships with teacher not only in terms of academic assistance but also the cognitive support and positive feedback from teachers in order to foster their sense of self-worth (Ormrod, 2006). The research finding was consistent with the research of Hamjah et al. (2011) regarding methods of increasing learning motivation among students. The results of his study showed that the method that could be implemented to improve learning motivation were the students‟ personality development, lecturers‟ career awareness, choice of peers, students‟ spiritual connection with Allah, family‟s encouragement, students‟ financial aid and learning facilities at school. 3.4 School administration The result suggest that there is a significant difference between school administration factor from rural students in public and private university (t=-5.755, p <.05). Rural students from both private and public university answered 5 questions of school administration factor providing the result in each question that there is a significant difference in question 3) “My university has a dormitory for students.” (t=-14.169, p <.05); and 5) “My university arranges field trip for students to learn from community.” (t=-9.801, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found on question 1) “My university has scholarship program to provide financial aid to support students.” (t=.651, p >.05); 2) “My university provides me good services.” (t=-1.684, p >.05); and 4) “My university offers rewards for outstanding students.” (t=.843, p >.05). Moreover, by comparing mean score between school administration 92 support factor in private and public university, the result shows that school administration support for rural students in public university (3.57) is higher than private university (3.19). The different found in school administration factor between private and public university by public university generate high level while private university generate moderate level which is due to the context, curriculum, learning environment, and school management which is implemented in different ways. School administration support at public university was rated at high level because school principal has provided acceptable access for students such as accessing dormitory, safety, security, community field trip opportunity, learning environment in the school‟s campus, scholarship program which provide financial aid to support students as well as arranging conference or knowledge sharing event that were manipulated in order to nurture students‟ learning skills. Munoz (2008) mentioned that students from different social backgrounds have access to different types of schools as an example of public and private schools and varying levels of extracurricular exposure to the language targeted, for example; tuition privately, resources for learning, study abroad opportunities, etc. McLean (2003) added that school should pay attention in preparing some programs that offer to solve the students‟ motivational problems with simple system. The study of Wang and Eccles (2013) also revealed that students must be engaged in every school activities in order to acquire the knowledge and skills required for a successful transition into postsecondary and careers. 3.5 Socio-economic status The result suggest that there is no significant difference between socio- economic status factor from rural students in public and private university (t=-.136, p >.05). Rural students from both private and public university answered 5 questions of socio-economic status factor providing the result in each question that there is a significant difference in question 2) “I have to study harder to compete with urban students.” (t=-4.884, p <.05); and 3) “I have to adapt new culture of living in the capital city.” (t=3.691, p <.05). However, no significant difference was found in question 1) “I have to work part time to afford my study.” (t=-.519, p >.05); 4) “I have to strengthen communication with urban people for more opportunities.” (t=.913, p >.05); and 5) “I have limited learning resource.” (t=.389, p >.05). Moreover, by comparing mean score between socio-economic status factor in private and public 93 university, the result shows that socio-economic status factor for rural students in public university (3.31) is slightly higher than private university (3.30). Both statistical results had shown almost similarly in moderate level. Even though rural students receive strong family encouragement and support, a number of them still need to work part time to afford their studies as well as their family living condition. Rural students mostly have to work harder to compete with urban students who have better education background. This social class puts rural students in the situation of not having enough learning resource and well treated as urban students. They have to adapt new culture and environment of living in the capital city and build network by strengthening their communication with urban people for more opportunities. However, those who cannot adapt, persist, or learn new things may feel overwhelmed and want to drop out. This finding is in line with Fan (2011) demonstrates that socio- economic status does not only have an influence on the achievement of language learning but also has an influence on students‟ learning motivation, self-regulation, and self-related beliefs of the students. Similarly, Lamb (2012) also agreed that socio- economic factors could have an influence on independent learning behavior in some possible ways. Due to socio-economic factor is counted as one of the crucial factors motivating students, this is consistent with the theory of McClelland (1961) which illustrates that there are three needs which have an effect on human behavior and these needs were socially acquired as well as these motivators are presented variedly from one to another, and depends on the individual backgrounds. Furthermore, it is necessary to provide an inner measure of students‟ likelihood to obtain social acceptance and the significant roots of self-esteem which means to get social approval and belief that learner is an attractive partner or follow group member (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). There was a significant relationship between motivations for obtaining self-esteem, encouragement, ability, competitiveness, social affiliation, accomplishing future goals, learning interest, and satisfying others, with students‟ academic achievement (Amrai et al., 2011).

94

Table 29 The result summary of factor supporting students‟ learning environment between private and public university

Variable Private University Public University Result

1. Family support High High Similar

2. Peer support Moderate Moderate Similar

3. Teacher support High High Similar

4. School administration Moderate High Different

5. Socio-economic status Moderate Moderate Similar

Recommendation The findings of the current study revealed that most of predictor variables supporting students‟ learning environment. Therefore, some implications to peers, schools, students and government should be provided. Implication for peers Peers or friends not only in private university but also in public university should help each other when they cannot do their homework, encourage them to present in front of the class to get rid of any tension. Moreover, peers should teach others to work in group to share knowledge and guide them to be successful learners as well as get rid of any bad influence from other peers as well as the society. Implication for schools Both public and private university should provide more scholarship to rural or poor students and seek out other development partners such as international universities or other related institutions in order to support their students in studying abroad, getting scholarship, exchanging culture, and competing with other students internationally. University should improve their quality to international standard, manage rule and regulation properly, and adjust or update their learning curriculum. Moreover, making a reasonable tuition fees and providing dormitory is very necessary for rural students to afford their studies and feel safe to stay in the campus. University should reward outstanding students properly according to their academic 95 achievement, and provide job opportunity consultation for student by creating student center. In addition, sufficient school facilities and learning equipment should be provided so that it is easier for students to improve their learning. Implication for students Learning enables to change the students‟ living condition to be better so that students should encourage themselves to learn by improving their communication skill. Even though their livelihood is difficult, they should attempt to finish their education goals by studying hard, being a good student, a good child, a good friend, and not getting bad influence from other peers or their own community. Self-study, self-motivation, strong commitment, be brave, be careful, never give up and struggle obstacles is much more important for rural students who are studying in the city. Implication for Government Government has the power and authority to control better circumstance of the country. Therefore, rural students suggested that in order to improve education sector, they should build more school and universities in rural area and strengthen education system both in urban and rural area to become standardized. Due to the insufficient fund for studying in the university, Government should consider about enhancing quality of human resource by focusing on education through increasing education budget especially in research field and provide student loan for poor or rural students so that they can have an equal chance to school. Finally, the unemployment issue is still concerning, hence, improving employment opportunity policy for people especially graduated students is considerable.

Limitations and suggestions for further studies The findings of current study identified not only factors supporting learning environment of rural students but also addressed some limitations regarding statistical analysis. The limitation and recommendation for further studies were as follows: First, the study conducted only 668 rural students from one private university (300) and one public university (368), the findings in this study may not be generalized to the whole universities and population in the Phnom Penh City. Therefore, further researchers should be considered to conduct in the larger samples from more universities in the whole city to see the differences between factors 96 supporting learning environment of rural students for the sake of applying in universities. Second, the instruments used in quantitative approach of questionnaire. The survey questionnaire in this study was used in order to measure the factors supporting learning environment of rural students learning in Phnom Penh City. For further research, the researcher suggests using qualitative method in order to get more details from in-depth interviews. Third, further researchers should study correlation between learning achievement and motivation of rural university students in Phnom Penh in order to find solutions to nurture their learning. Fourth, further researchers should study the requirements which can help develop rural students‟ learning. Fifth, further researchers should study the reason why students quit their studies.

REFERENCES

4 International Colleges & Universities. (n.d.). University of Cambodia. Retrieved from http://www.4icu.org/reviews/11083.htm Alderfer, C. P. (1969, May). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 142-175. American Psychological Association. (2012). Education & socioeconomic status. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet- education.aspx. Amrai, K., Motlagh, S. E., Zalani, H. A., & Parhon, H. (2011). The relationship between academic motivation and academic achievement students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Siences, 15, 399-402. Ashwin, P. (2003). Peer facilitation and how it contributes to the development of a more social view of learning. Research in Post-compulsory Education, 8, 5-17. Asian Development Bank (ADB). (1994). Using both hands: Woman and education in Cambodia. In Akabogu, G.C., A. Ndu, & B.O. Ukeje, 1992 (Eds.), Educational Administration (pp. 16-17). Manila: Fourth Dimension Publishing, Enugu, Nigeria. Atkinson, J. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton: NJ: VanNostrand. Babbie, E. R. (2008). The basics of social research. Belmont, CA: Thomson/ Wadsworth. Bakar, K. A., Tarizi, R. A., Mahyuddin, R., Elias, H., Luan, W. S., Ayub, A. F. (2010). Relationships between Universtiy students' achievement motivation, attitude and academic performance in Malaysia. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 4906-4910. Bakhtiarvand, F., Ahmadian, S., Delrooz, K., & Farahani, H. A. (2011). The Moderating effect of achievement motivation on relationship of learning approaches and academic achievement. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 486-488. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 98

Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21-40. Best, J. W. (1981). Research in education (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 925). Bozgeyikli, H. (2010). The relationship between high school students‟ psychological needs and human value perceptions. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1798-1804. Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio Jr, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts.Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises. Brophy, J. (1987). On motivating students. Occasional Paper No. 101. East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, October 1986. 73 pages. ED 276 724. Brown, B. B., & Lohr, M. J. (1987). Peer groups affiliation and adolescent self- esteem: An integration of ego-identity and symbolic-interaction theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 47-55. Brown, H.D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching (2nd ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall. Bruno, I., & Santos, L. (2010). Written comments as a form of feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36, 111-120. Cambodian Communities out of Crisis. (2015). Giving back the education that Pol Pot tried to steal education in Cambodia. Retrieved from http://cambcomm.org.uk/education.php Cameron, J. (2001). Negative effects of reward on intrinsic motivation-A limited phenomenon: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 29-42. Carole, A. (1990). Motivation: what teachers need to know. Teachers College Record, 91, 3 (Spring 1990), 409-421. 99

Catsambis, S. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children‟s secondary education: connections with high school seniors‟ academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5(2), 149-177. Center on Education Policy. (2012). Student motivation-an overlooked piece of school reform. Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2013). The World Factbook 2013-14, Washington, D. C. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html Charles, C. M., & Senter, G. W. (2008). Elementary classroom management boston (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Chen, P. H., & Wu, J. R. (2010). Rewards for reading: their effects on reading motivation. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 31(8), 1-8. Christian, K., Morrison, F. J., & Bryant, F.B. (1998). Predicting kindergarten academic skills: Interactions among child care, maternal education, and family literacy environments. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 501-521. Cole, G. A. (2000). Management theory and practice. London: Letts Educational Aldine Place. Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., & Joyner, E. T. (1996). The school development program. In J. P. Comer, N. M. Haynes, E. T. Joyner, & M. Ben-Avie (Eds.), Rallying the whole village: The Comer process for reforming education (pp. 1-26). New York: Teachers College Press. Corno, L. (1980). Individual and class level effects of parent-assisted instruction in classroom memory support systems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 278-292. Crnic, K., & Lamberty, G. (1994, April). Reconsidering school readiness: conceptual and applied perspectives. Early Education and Development, 5(2), 99-105. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children's social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207-234. 100

Davis, J. (1989). Effective schools, organizational culture, and local policy initiatives. In Educational Policy for Effective School. edited by M. Holmes, K Leithwood, and D. Musella. New York: Teachers College Press. Deal, T. E. (1987). “The culture of schools.”. In Leadership:Examining the Elusive. edited by Linda T. Sheive and Mariam B. Schoenheit. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Deal, T. E., & Kent, D. P. (1990). The principal‟s role in shaping school culture. Washington, D.C: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: reconsidered Once Again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1-27. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determining perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-346. Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The Role of motivation, parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Department, 46(3), 223-236. Dev, P. C. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and academic achievement: What does their relationship imply for the classroom teacher? Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 12-19. Dohm, A., & Wyatt, I. (2002). College at work: Outlook and earnings for college graduates, 2000-2010. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 46, 2-15. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, England: Longman. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Motivation and self-motivation. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition, 65-118. Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K., & Németh, N. (2006). Motivational dynamics, language attitudes and language globalisation: A Hungarian perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 101

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele,U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.),. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development, (pp. 1017-1095). New York: Wiley. Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2010). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Ekici, G. (2010). Factors affecting biology lesson motivation of high school students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2137-2143. Eng, S., Zvonkovic, A., Mulsow, M., & Ritchey, E. (2010, November). College enrollment among Cambodian students: A qualitative analysis. Minneapolis. Epstein, J. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Fager, J., & Brewster, C. (1999, March). By request: Parent partners: Using parents to enhance education. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Fan, W. (2011). Social influences, school motivation and gender differences: An application of the expectancy-value theory. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 157-175. Fowler, W. J., Jr., & Walberg, H. J. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 189-202. Gailliot, M. T., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Self-esteem, belongingness, and worldview validation: Does belongingness exert a unique influence upon self-esteem? Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 327-345. George, M., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for window step by step: A sample guide and reference. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ghazvini, S. D. (2011). Attitudes and motivation in learning english as second language in high school students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1209-1213. Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (2013). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson. 102

Goodenow, C. (1993). The Psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79-90. Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The Relationship of school belonging and friends' values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(1), 60-71. Gordin, D. N., Edelson, D. C., & Gomez, L. M. (1996). Scientific visualization as an interpretive and expressive medium. In D. C. Edelson & E. A. Domeshek (Eds.). Proceeding of the International Conference on the Learning Sciences, July 1996, Evanston, IL, (pp. 409-414). Charlottesville, VA. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Hachfeld, A., Anders, Y., Schroeder, S., Stanat, P., & Kunter, M. (2010). Does immigration background matter? How teachers‟ predictions of students‟ performance relate to student background. International Journal of Educational Research, 49, 78-91. Hamel, S., Leclerc, G., & Lefrançois, R. (2003). A Psychological outlook on the concept of transcendent actualization. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13(1), 3-15. Hamjah, S. H., Ismail, Z., Rasit, R. M., & Rozali, E. A. (2011). Methods of increasing learning motivation among students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 18, 138-147. Hang Thi, T. P. (2010). Factors affecting the motivation of vietnamese technical english majors in their english studies. University of Otago. Hanson, E. M. (2003). Educational administration and organizational behavior (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of english language teaching. Essex, UK: Longman Press. Harpswell Foundation. (2014). Harpswell dormitory and leadership centers for women. Retrieved from http://harpswellfoundation.org/center/ Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. 103

Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA). (2014). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Rural health, defining the rural population, Retrieved from http://www.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/policy/definition_of_rural. html Henderson, A. T. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parent involvement improves student achievement. Annotated bibliography. National Committee for Citizens in Education, Columbia, MD. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (with Averett, A., Buttram, J., Donnelly, D., Fowler, M., Jordan, C., Myers, M., Orozco, E., & Wood, L.). (2002). A New wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections of student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Herschell, A. D., Greco, L. A., Filcheck, H. A., & McNeil, C. B. (2002). Who is testing whom? ten suggestions for managing the disruptive behavior of young children during testing. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(3), 140- 148. Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2003/01/one-more-time- how-do-you-motivate-employees/ Heyns, R. W., Veroff, J. & Atkinson, J. W. (1958). A scoring manual for the affiliation motive. Em J. W. Atkinson (Org.). In Motives in fantasy, action and society (pp. 205-218). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Hoffmann, K. F., Huff, J. D., Patterson, A. S., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Elementary teachers' use and perception of rewards in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 843-849. Howard, N. M., Horne, A. M., & Jolliff, D. (2001). Self-efficacy in a new training model for the prevention of bullying in schools. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2-3), 181-191. Huang, L. (2009). Social capital student achievement in Norwegian secondary schools. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 320-325. Hunt, J. (1972, October 4). Early education and social class, Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org.proxy.bc.edu/journals/cap/13/4/305 104

I. Oriahi Christiana . (2009). Influence of motivation on students‟ academic performance. The Social Sciences, 4, 30-36. Industrial Research Institute. (2010). Research management. Michigan: Industrial Research Institute. Jamian, A. R., & Baharom, R. (2012). The application of teaching aids and school supportive factors in learning reading skill among the remedial students in under enrolment schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 187-194. Jaroenrat, K. (2010). A Causal model of factors influencing the university choice of international students in thailand . In A Dissertation Summitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Administration, Faculty of Education, Burapha University. Thailand: Burapha University Library. Jongsma, A. (2007). Grab a master‟s and double your income. University World News. Jordan, E. A., & Porath, M. J. (2006). Educational psychology: a problem-based approach. Boston: Peason International Edition. Jordan, W. J., & Nettles, S. M. (1999). How students invest their time out of school: Effects on school engagement, perceptions of life chances, and achievement (Report No. 29). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. Judy, L. L. (1998). Rural development in Cambodia: The View from the Village, in Brown, Frederic Z & Timberman, David, G. (eds) (1998) Cambodia and the International Community-the Quest for Peace, Development and Democracy, USA and Singapore: Asia Society and ISEAS. Juvonen, J., & Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social motivation: understanding children‟s school adjustment. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kellaghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., & Bloom, B. (1993). The Home environment and school learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 105

Kenny, R., Dooley, B., & Fitzgerald, A. (2013). Interpersonal relationships and emotional distress in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 351-360. Klem, A. M. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273. Knutsen, D. W. (2011). Motivation to pursue higher education. Illinois: Olivet Nazarene University. Lamb, M. (2012). A self-system perspective on young adolescents‟ motivation to learn English in rural and urban settings. Language Learning, 62, 997-1023. Law, Y. K. (2011). The role of teachers‟ cognitive support in motivating youn Hong Kong Chinese children to read and enhancing reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 73-84. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The Essential conversation: What parents and teachers can learn from each other. New York: Ballantine Books. Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1-62. Lee, J. Q., McInerney, D. M., Liem, G. A., & Ortiga, Y. P. (2010). The relationship between future goals and achievement goal orientations: An intrinsic- extrinsic motivation perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 264-279. Lefrançois, G. R. (2000). Psychology for teaching (10th ed.). Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning. Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55. Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 3(2), 157-189. Loke, A. J., & Chow, F. L. (2007). Learning partnership-the experience of peer tutoring among nursing students: A qualitative study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, 237-244. Long, M. (2000). The Psychology of education. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Lorraine, P. S. (2013). Education in South-East Asia. Bloomsbury Acadamic.

106

Luis, M. A. (2011). Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and achievement in intact classrooms. In A Dissertation in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor Philosophy in the Graduate School of Education of Fordham University. New York: Fordham University. Luthans, F. (1995). Organizational behavior (7th ed.). New York, NY: Houghton Miffilin. Maehr, M., & Meyer, H. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we‟ve been, where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 371-409. Maehr, Martin L. (1990). “The „psychological environment‟ of the school: A focus for school leadership”. Urbana, Illinois: National Center for School Leadership. Martin, A. J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 239-269. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. McCombs, B. L. (2001). Young children's perspectives on learning and teacher practices in different classroom contexts: Implications for motivation. Early Education and Development, 12(2), 253-273. McDermott, P., & Rothenberg, J. (2000). Triangulating data about exemplary urban teachers with focus groups. Paper Presented at the 21st Annual Ethnography in Education Research Forum Center for Urban Ethnography University of Pennsylvania, March 3-5. McLean, A. (2003). The Motivated school. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. McLean, A. (2004). The Motivated school. London: Sage. Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport. (1995-2012). Higher education statistics. Phnom Penh: Department of Higher Education.

107

Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport. (2010, September). Education strategic plan 2009-2013. Retrieved from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/ Cambodia/Cambodia_Education_Strategic_Plan_2009-2013.pdf Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. (2014, March ). Education strategic plan 2014-2018. Retrieved from http://www.moeys.gov.kh/en/policies-and- strategies/559/559-559.html#.VGcrhUwiu3o Morse, W. C. (1994). Comments from a biased view point [Special issue, Theory and Practice of Special Education: Taking Stock a Quarter Century after Deno and Dunn]. Journal of Special Education, 27, 531-542. Moylan, A. R. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning on a novel mathematical task through modeling and feedback. In A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Educational Psychology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The City University of New York. Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics 29, 578-96. Naidu, S., Anderson, J., & Riddle, M. (2000). The virtual print exhibition: A case of learning by designing. In R.Sims,, M. O‟Reilly, & S. Sawkins, (Ed.), Learning to choose: choosing to learn (Short papers and works in progress) (pp. 109-114). Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University Press. National Geographic (a). (2014). Education, Encyclopedic Entry, rural area. Retrieved from http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/search/? q=rural+area&ar_a=1 National Geographic (b). (2014). Education, Encyclopedic Entry, urban area. Retrieved from http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/ encyclopedia/urban-area/?ar_a=1 Neher, A. (1991). Maslow‟s theory of motivation: A critique. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31, 89-112.

108

Noels, K. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards a model of intrinsic extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivations. In Z. Dörnyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (Vol. Technical Report#23, pp. 43-68). Honolulu, HI: The University of Hawai‟i, Second Language & Curriculum center. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2004). Socioeconomic status. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/earlycld/ ea7lk5.htm Oliver, R. (1974, August). Expectancy theory predictions of salesmen‟s performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 243-253. Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: developing learners (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education. Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self- regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101. Phnom Penh Post Newspapers. (2008, Aguest 22). Cambodia‟s emerging„brain- drain‟. Retrieved from http://m.phnompenhpost.com/national/cambodias- emerging-brain-drain Phnom Penh Post Newspapers. (2010, March Wed, 17). The Long Road from Province to University. Retrieved from http://m.phnompenhpost.com/lift/ long-road-province-university Phnom Penh Post Newspapers. (2014, March 07). Women still falling off higher education ladder. Retrieved from http://www.phnompenhpost.com/7days/ women-still-falling-higher-education-ladder Pierce, W. D., Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & So, S. (2003). Positive effects of rewards and performance standards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Record, 53, 561-579. Jahanbakhsh, R. (2012). Learning styles and academic achievement: a case study of Iranian high school girls‟ students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 1030-1034. Ramey, S. L., & Ramey, C. T. (1994, November). The transition to school: Why the first few years matter for a lifetime. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(30), 194-198. 109

Razak, R. A., & See, Y. C. . (2010). Improving academic achievement and motivation through online peer learning. Precedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 358-362. Reddy, R., Rhodes, J. E., & Mulhall, P. (2003). The influence of teacher support on student adjustment in the middle school years. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 119-138. Reeve, J., Hamm, D., & Nix, G. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self- determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 375-392. Reid, G. (2002). Dyslexia: Research and implications for practice. Paper presented at the RTLB national conference, Learning to Motivate, Motivate to Learn, Dunedin, New Zealand, 18 September. In Reid, G. (2003). Dyslexia: A practitioner‟s handbook (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Reid, G. (2007). Motivating learners in the classroom: Ideas and strategies. Scotland: Paul Chapman, A Sage. Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing research in business and management, an introduction to process and method. London: Sage. Renchler, R. (1992). School leadership and student motivation. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Robbins, S. P. (1989). Organisational behaviour. Prentice-Hall Internal. Robbins, S. P. (1993). Organizational behavior; concepts, controversies and application (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall. Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K.. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of Educational Research, 2, 49-60. Royal University of Agriculture (RUA). (2014). About RUA, history of RUA. Retrieved from http://www.rua.edu.kh/ Ryan, A. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents‟ motivation,engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35, 101-111. 110

Ryan, A.M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents‟ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Education Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation social development and well-being. American Psychologist, January, 55(1), 68-78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci , & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Sanders, M. G. (1997). Building effective school-family-community partnerships in a large urban school district (Vol. 13). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Sarantakos, S. (1997). Social research. New York: Palgrave. Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2000). A Hitory of modern psychology (7th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1987). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Newton, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 325-339. Siriprasertchok, R. (2011). A study of factors affecting police officers‟ work efficiency and levels of satisfaction using the pairwise comparison techniques and logistics regression model. Bangkok: Ramkhamhaeng University. Skinner, E., & Belmont, M. (1991). A longitudinal study of motivation in school: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement. New York, Rochester: University of Rochester. Southampton Solent University. (2014). What is higher education? Retrieved from http://www.solent.ac.uk/studying/faq/what-is-higher-education.aspx 111

Spera, C. (2006). Adolescents‟ perceptions of parental goals, practices, and styles in relation to their motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 26(4), 456-490. Srinivasa, M. (August, 2014). Cambodia‟s skill gap: An anatomy of issues and policy options. Phnom Penh: A CDRI Publication. Stanek, M. J. (2012). Talking about class: honest conversations about socioeconomic class. Independent School Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nais.org/Magazines-Newsletters/ISMagazine/Pages/Talking- About-Class.aspx Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. Bolton, MA: Anker. The Asia Foundation. (2015). “Equal access to education for women in rural Cambodia”. Retrieved from http://asiafoundation.org/in- asia/2011/03/02/equal-access-to-education-for-women-in-rural-cambodia/ The Psychology Career Center. (2014). Student motivation. Retrieved from http://www.allpsychologycareers.com/topics/student-motivation.html The University of Cambodia. (n.d.). History. Retrieved from www.uc.edu.kh Tomlinson, C. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tosha, K. (2013). Homogeneity, sorting, and social capital: Differences in rural and urban school peer effects. Kentucky: University of Kentucky. Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2011). Stability and change in achievement goal orientations: A person-centered approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 82-100. Tuysuz, M., Yildiran, D., & Demirci, N. (2010). What is the motivation difference between university students and high school students?. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1543-1548. U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID). (n.d.). Agriculture and food security. Retrieved from http://www.usaid.gov/cambodia/agriculture-and- food-security UC Foundation. (2011, January 20). “Supporting scholarships for students”. Retrieved from http://ucfoundation.net/ucf/?p=127 112

UNESCO. (2014). Higher education in Asia: Expanding out, expanding up. Paris: UNESCO. United Nations. (1998). Principles and recommendations for population and housing censuses. New York: United Nations publication. United Nations. (2004). World urbanization prospects, the 2003 revision. New York: United Nations Publication. Vallerand, J. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and motivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1004-1017. Viljaranta, J., Lerkkanen, M. K., Poikkeus, A. M., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2009). Cross-lagged relations between task motivation and performance in arithmetic and literacy in kindergarten. Learning and Instruction, 19, 335- 344. Villa-Boas, A. (1993). The effect of parent involvement in homework on student achievement. Baltimore: Unidad, Winter. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Wahba, M., & Bridwell, L. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 212-240. Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12-23. Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents‟ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 633-662. Westerman, J., & Donoghue, P. (1989). Managing the human resource. New York: Prentice Hall. Wiley, C. (1997). What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys. International Journal of Manpower, 18(3), 263-280. Williams, M., & Burden, L. R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 113

Wong, Ruth Ming Har. (2007). Factors affecting motivation to learn English: The perspective of newly arrived Hong Kong students, Durham theses, Durham University. Retrieved from http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2909/ Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Woolfolk, A. (2007). Educational psychology (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. WordNet. (2014). WordNet Search-3.1, Rural Area, Retrieved from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rural%20area World Bank. (2014). Tertiary education (higher education), overview, What is tertiary education and why is it important?. Retrieved from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATIO N/0,,contentMDK:20298183~menuPK:617592~pagePK:148956~piPK:2166 18~theSitePK:282386,00.html Yamane, T. (1967). Elementary sampling theory. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs. Yunus, M. M., Osman, W. S., & Ishak, N. M. (2011). Teacher-student relationship factor affecting motivation and academic achievement in ESL Classroom. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2637-2641. Zill, N., Collins, M., West, J., & Hausken, E.G. (1995, December). School readiness and children‟s developmental status. Retrieved from http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/1995/zill95.html. Zimbardo, P., & Formica, R. (1963). Emotional comparison and self-esteem as determinants of affiliation. Journal of Personality, 31(2), 142-162. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Taylor & Francis.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Ethical approval Requesting permission letter for data collection

117

118

119

APPENDIX B Questionnaires

Questionnaire for Rural Students (English Version)

SUPPORTING LEARNING ENVIRONMENT OF RURAL STUDENTS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBODIA AND ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF ARGRICULTURE LOCATED IN PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA

My name is CHHUN SEAKKEAV. I am a student at Graduate School of Public Administration (GSPA). This survey is a part of my master degree study, Burapha University. I have developed the questionnaire to measure the factor supporting rural students‟ learning environment in higher education between public and private universities in Phnom Penh City. We would greatly appreciate your time to complete our questionnaires. All information you provide will be used solely for the purpose of this study and it will be kept strictly confidential and will have no effect on your work. Therefore, please take around 10-15 minutes to complete these questionnaires. Thank for your time and corporation. The Questionnaire is divided into 3 parts as follows: Part 1: Personal information Part 2: Factors supporting learning environment Part 3: Other comment and suggestions

122

Part 1: Personal Information

Please tick “” in the “” according to your perception. 1. Gender  Male  Female

2. Age ……………………....

3. Degree ………………… Faculty………………... University…………….

4. Family‟s Monthly Income  Less than or equal 200 $  Between 200-500 $  Between 500-800$  More than 800$

5. Family‟s Occupation  Government official  Private official  Merchant  Farmer  Other…………………………………..

123

Part 2: Factors Supporting Learning Environment Items:

Please give your view about the following statement by marking  ONE box for each in the levels of supporting according to your perception. The scale given for each answer is 1 to 5 and the meaning of each grade is listed below:

1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree

Levels of No Items Supporting 1 2 3 4 5 Family Support Factor 1 My parents support my school fees and study material. 2 My parents always explain me not to give up when I fail in learning. 3 My parents praise me when I get good study result. 4 My parents encourage me to focus on my study. 5 My parents prefer me to study in university. Peer Support Factor 1 My friends explain the lesson to me when I cannot catch up. 2 My friends teach me how to work in group. 3 My friends always share their knowledge and experience with me. 4 Most of my classmates and I have good relationship both in class and outside. 5 My friends encourage me to present in front of the class.

124

Teacher Support Factor 1 My teachers praise me whenever I get good study result. 2 My teachers use technology effectively to advance my learning. 3 My teachers give me feedbacks to improve my work. 4 My teachers use effective teaching methods that enhance my learning. 5 My teachers always pay attention to students‟ effort. School Administration Factor 1 My university has scholarship program to provide financial aid to support students. 2 My university provides me good services. 3 My university has a dormitory for students. 4 My university offers rewards for outstanding students. 5 My university arranges field trip for students to learn from community. Socio-economic Status Factor 1 I have to work part time to afford my study. 2 I have to study harder to compete with urban students. 3 I have to adapt new culture of living in the capital city. 4 I have to strengthen communication with urban people for more opportunities. 5 I have limited learning resource.

125

Part 3: Comments and suggestion for enhancing rural students’ learning environment: ...... Thank you very much for your kind cooperation. 126

ករមងសំណួរសរាប់និសិសតជនបទដែលកំពុងសិកាថ្ននក់ឧតតមសិកានៅរាជធានី

ភនំនពញ

ដផនកទី ១ ៖ ព័ត៌ានផ្ទទ ល់ខ្ួលន “” “” ចូរគូស នៅកុនងរបអប់ ខាងនរោម៖

1. នភទ  របុស  習សី

2. 讶យុ ...... ឆ្នំ

3. កំរិតសិកា ...... មហាវទិ ាល័យ ...... សាកលវទិ ាល័យ ......

4. ចំណូលរគួសាររបចំដខ្

 តិចជាង ២០០$

 ចន្លោះ ២០០-៥០០$

 ចន្លោះ ៥០០-៨០០$

 នរចើនជាង ៨០០$

5. មុខ្របររគួសារ

 មន្តនតីរាជោរ

 បុគគលិកឯកជន

 អនកលក់ែូរ

 កសិករ

 នផសងៗ......

127

ដផនកទី ២ ៖ កត្តត ដែលជោះឥទធិពលនលើោរជរំ ុញនលើកទឹកចិតតកុនងោរនរៀនសូរត

ចូរគូស “” នៅត្តមកំរិតននោរជោះឥទធិពលនលើោរនលើកទឹកចិតតអនកន讶យខ្ំនរៀនសូរត

ត្តមោរយល់ន ើញរបស់អនកែូចខាងនរោម។

1 = ទាបបំផុត 2 = ទាប 3 = មធយម 4 = ខ្ពស់ 5 = ខ្ពស់បំផុត

កំរិតននោរគំរទ No Items 1 2 3 4 5

កត្តតគំរទពីរគួសារ

1 ឪពុកាត យខ្ុ្ំផគត់ផគង់ទាំងនថលសិកានិងសំភារៈសិកាែល់ខ្ុ្ំ។ 2 ឪពុកាត យខ្ុ្ំដតងពនយល់ខ្ុ្ំមិនន讶យន ោះបង់ោរសិការនៅនពលខ្ុន្ំ រៀន នខ្ាយ។ 3 ឪពុកាត យខ្ុ្ំសរនសើរខ្ុន្ំ ពលដែលខ្ុន្ំ រៀន នលទធផលលអ។

4 ឪពុកាត យខ្ុ្ំនលើកទឹកចិតតខ្ុ្ំន讶យនផ្ទត តនលើោរសិកាជាសំខាន់។ 5 ឪពុកាត យខ្ុ្ំនពញចិតតន讶យខ្ុ្ំបនោត រសិកានៅសាកលវទិ ាល័យ។

កត្តតមិតតភកតិ

1 មិតតភកតិខ្ុ្ំពនយល់នមនរៀនែល់ខ្ុន្ំ ៅនពលដែលខ្ុ្ំមិនយល់នមនរៀន។ 2 មិតតភកិតខ្ុ្ំបនរងៀនខ្ុ្ំពរី នបៀបនធោវើ រជារកុម។

3 មិតតភកិតខ្ុ្ំដតងដតដចករដំ លកចំនណោះែឹងនិងបទពិនសាធន៍ែល់ខ្ុ្ំ។

4 មិតតរួមថ្នន ក់ខ្ុ្ំ និងខ្ុ្ំានទំ្ក់ទំនងលរអ 玶ងគន នឹងគន ទាំងកុនងនិងនរៅ ថ្ននក់។ 5 មិតតភកតិខ្ុ្ំជំរុញទឹកចិតតន讶យខ្ុ្ំបង្ហា ញកិចោច រនៅកុនងថ្នន កន់ រៀន។

កត្តតគំរទរបស់រគូ

1 រគូខ្ុ្ំសរនសើរខ្ុ្ំរាល់នពលខ្ុន្ំ រៀន នលទធផលលអ។ 2 រគូខ្ុ្ំនរបើបនចចកវទានែើមបីពននលឿនោរសិការបស់សិសសយ៉ាងានរបសិទធិិ ភាព។ 3 រគូខ្ុ្ំផតល់ព័ត៌ានរតលបន់ ែើមបនី 讶យកិចចោរខ្ុ្ំរបនសើរនឡើង។ 128

4 រគូខ្ុ្ំនរបវើ ធិ ីសាស្រសតបនរងៀនយ៉ា ងានរបសិទធិភាពនែើមបីជំរញុ ោរសិកា

ខ្ុ្ំ ។ 5 រគូខ្ុ្ំដតងដតយកចិតតទុកដាកន់ លើោរខ្ិតខ្រំ បឹងដរបងរបស់សិសស។

កត្តត សាកលវទិ ាល័យ 1 សាកលវទិ ាល័យាន讶ហារូបករណ៍ នែើមបីផតល់ជំនួយហិរ⟒ញវតុថែល់ និសសិត ។ 2 សាកលវទិ ាល័យផតល់នស玶កមលម អែល់ខ្ុ្ំ។

3 សាកលវទិ ាល័យានអននត玶សិកដាា នែល់និសសិតន讶យសាន កន់ ៅ។

4 សាកលវទិ ាល័យខ្ុ្ំផតល់វង្ហវន់ែល់និសសិតនឆនើម។ 5 សាកលវទិ ាល័យខ្ុ្ំនរៀបចំទសសនកិចសច ិកាែល់និសសិតនែើមបីនរៀនពី សហគមន៍។ កត្តតឋានៈសងគម

1 ខ្ុ្ំរតូវនធោវើ រនរៅនា៉ា ងនែើមបីផគត់ផគង់ោរសិកា។

2 រតូវខ្ិតខ្ំសិកាន讶យខាលំងនែើមបីរបកួតរបដជងនិសសិតនៅទីរកុង។

3 ខ្ុ្ំរតូវសរមបខ្ួលនត្តមវបបធមរ៌ ស់នៅថត្តមី មដបបបទននទរី កុង។

4 ខ្ុ្ំរតូវពរងឹងទ្ំ ក់ទំនងលជាអ មួយអនកនៅទរី កុងនែើមប ី នឱោសនរចើន។ 5 ខ្ុ្ំខ្វោះខាតធនធានសំរាប់ជំនួយែល់ោរសិកា។

129

ដផនកទី ៣ ៖ មតិនយបល់ ោរដណ្ំ និងោរនសនើនផសងៗ

ខាងនរោមននោះសូមបន⟒ចញនយបល់និងោរនសនើនផសងៗនែើមបីជំរុញោរនលើកទឹកចិតត

និសសិតជនបទកុនងោរសិកាន讶យោនដ់ តរបនសើរនឡើង។ ......

សូមអរគុណចំន ោះោរបំនពញព័ត៌ានខាងនលើ។

APPENDIX C IOC score

131

Name List of Experts for IOC

1. Dr. Thanawat Pimoljinda Graduate School of Public Administration 2. Mr. Chum Chandarin Lecturer at The University of Cambodia 3. Mr. Khleang Sovann Lecturer at Mean Chey University

Evaluation of index of consistency (IOC) Part 1: Questions of personal information

Dr. Thanawat Total Item Chum Chandarin Khleang Sovann IOC Pimoljinda Score 1 +1 +1 +1 3 1 2 +1 +1 +1 3 1 3 +1 +1 +1 3 1 4 +1 +1 +1 3 1 5 +1 +1 +1 3 1

Evaluation of index of consistency (IOC) Part 2: Questions of factors supporting learning environment Dr. Thanawat Total Item Chum Chandarin Khleang Sovann IOC Pimoljinda Score 1 +1 +1 +1 3 1 2 +1 +1 +1 3 1 3 +1 +1 +1 3 1 4 +1 +1 +1 3 1 5 +1 +1 +1 3 1 6 +1 +1 +1 3 1 7 +1 +1 +1 3 1 8 +1 +1 +1 3 1 9 +1 +1 +1 3 1 132

10 +1 +1 +1 3 1 11 +1 +1 +1 3 1 12 +1 +1 +1 3 1 13 +1 +1 +1 3 1 14 +1 +1 +1 3 1 15 +1 +1 +1 3 1 16 +1 +1 +1 3 1 17 +1 +1 +1 3 1 18 +1 +1 +1 3 1 19 +1 +1 +1 3 1 20 +1 +1 +1 3 1 21 +1 +1 +1 3 1 22 +1 +1 +1 3 1 23 +1 +1 +1 3 1 24 +1 +1 +1 3 1 25 +1 +1 +1 3 1

APPENDIX D Reliability (Coefficient Cronbach alpha)

Reliability of the researching tools

Reliability of factors supporting learning environment of rural students in higher education

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 30 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.842 25

135

BIOGRAPHY

Name Miss Chhun Seakkeav Date of birth November 10, 1990 Place of birth Phsar Kandal I, Khan Daun Penh, Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia Present address 477BEo, Sangkat Beong Tumpun, Khan Mean Chey, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Telephone: (+855)16-494-862 E-mail:[email protected] [email protected] Position held 2011-2012 Teller at Cambodia Mekong Bank, Phnom Penh, Cambodia 2012-2014 Customer Service Consultant at ANZ Royal Bank, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Education 2007-2011 Bachelor of Accounting, Vanda Institute of Accounting, Cambodia 2007-2012 Bachelor of English Literature, University of Cambodia, Cambodia 2014-2015 Master of Public Administration in Public and Private Management, Graduate School of Public Administration, Burapha University, Thailand Awards or Grants 2010-2011 Exchange Program Scholarship, Payap University, Chiangmai, Thailand 2014-2015 Her Royal Highness Princess Mahachakri Sirindhorn Scholarship, Burapha University, Thailand