You are here:

The Relationship Between Self-Regulation and Online Learning in a Blended Learning Context ARTICLE

,

IRRODL Volume 5, Number 2, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Abstract

This study reviewed the distance education and self-regulation literatures to identify learner self-regulation skills predictive of academic success in a blended education context. Five self-regulatory attributes were judged likely to be predictive of academic performance: intrinsic goal orientation, self-efficacy for learning and performance, time and study environment management, help seeking, and Internet self-efficacy. Verbal ability was used as a control measure. Performance was operationalized as final course grades. Data were collected from 94 students in a blended undergraduate marketing course at a west coast American research university (tier one). Regression analysis revealed that verbal ability and self-efficacy related significantly to performance, together explaining 12 percent of the variance in course grades. Self-efficacy for learning and performance alone accounted for 7 percent of the variance. Keywords: self-regulated learning, blended learning, online learning

Citation

Lynch, R. & Dembo, M. (2004). The Relationship Between Self-Regulation and Online Learning in a Blended Learning Context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved November 16, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F. And Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help Design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277 – 320.
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  3. Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  4. Bates, A.W. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance education. New York: Routledge.
  5. Beatty-Guenter, P. (2001). Distance education: does access override success? Paper presented Canadian Institutional Research and Planning Association 2001 conference. Victoria, British Columbia. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from: www.cirpaacpri.ca/prevConferences/victoria2001/papers/bg_paper.htm
  6. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002). Accreditation and assuring quality in distance education. CHEA Monograph Series 2002, Number 1. Retrieved November 14, 2003, from: http://www.chea.org/Research/ Curry, J., Haderlie, S., and Ku, T. (1999). Specified learning goals and their effect on learners’ representations of a hypertext reading environment. International Journal of Instructional Media 26(1), 43 – 51.
  7. Diaz, D.P. (2000). Commentary– Carving a new path for distance education research. The Technology Source March/ April. Retrieved November 14, 2003, from: http://technologysource.org/article/carving_a_new_path_for_distance_education_researc H/
  8. Doherty, P.B. (1998). Learner control in asynchronous learning environments. Asynchronous Learning Networks Magazine, 2(2). Retrieved January 31, 2004, from: http://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v2n2/doherty.aspEastin,M.S.,andLaRose,R.(2000).Internetself-efficacyandthepsychologyofthedigitaldivide.JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,6(1).RetrievedNovember14,2003,from:http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/eastin.html
  9. Gibson, C.C. (1998). The distance learner’s academic self-concept. In C.C. Gibson (Ed.) Distance learners in higher education: institutional responses for quality outcomes (P. 65-76). Madison, WI.: Atwood Publishing.
  10. Hara, N., and Kling, R. (2000). Students’ distress with a web-based distance education course. CSI Working Paper. The Center for Social Informatics, Indiana University. Retrieved November 14, 2003, from: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/wp00-01.html
  11. Henderson, R.W., and Cunningham, L. (1994). Creating interactive socio-cultural environments for self-regulated learning. In D.H. Schunk and B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.) Self-regulation of learning and performance: issues and educational applications (P. 255-281).
  12. Joo, Y., Bong, M., and Choi, H. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic selfefficacy, and Internet self-efficacy in web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development 48(2), 5 – 17.
  13. Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the context of distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 525 – 534.
  14. Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
  15. Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education, (3rd edition). London: Routledge.
  16. Linnenbrink, E.A., and Pintrich, P.R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. The School Psychology Review 31(3): 313 – 327.
  17. Moore, M.G. (1998). Introduction. In C.C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education: institutional responses for quality outcomes (P. 1-7). Madison, WI.: Atwood Publishing.
  18. Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (P. 22-38). London: Routledge.
  19. Moore, M.G., and Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A systems view. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
  20. Olgren, C.H. (1998). The effects of learning strategies and motivation. In C.C. Gibson (Ed.) Distance learners in higher education: institutional responses for quality outcomes (P. 77-96). Madison, WI.: Atwood Publishing.
  21. Palloff, R.M., and Pratt, K. (1999). Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  22. Peters, O. (1998). Learning and Teaching in Distance Education: Analyses and interpretations from an international perspective. London: Kogan Page.
  23. Phipps, R., and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, D.C.: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
  24. Pintrich, P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of Self-Regulation (P. 452-502). San Diego,
  25. Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). 91-B-004. Ann Arbor: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
  26. Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W.J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801 – 813.
  27. Roblyer, M.D. (1999). Is Choice Important in Distance Learning? A study of student motives for taking Internet-based courses at the high school and community college levels. Journal of Research on Computing Education, 32(1), 157 – 171.
  28. Saba, F. (2000). Research in Distance Education: What is research? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 1(1), Retrieved January 28, 2004, from: www.irrodl.org/content/v1.1/farhad.html
  29. Schubert, H.J.P. (1986). Schubert general ability battery manual. East Aurora, NY.: Slosson.
  30. Schrum, L. (1998). On-line Education: Astudy of emerging pedagogy. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 78, 53 – 61.
  31. Schrum, L., and Hong, S. (2002). Dimensions and Strategies for Online Success: Voices from experienced educators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 6(1). Retrieved November 14, 2003, from: http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/index.asp
  32. Sikora, A.C., and Carroll, C.D. (2002). A Profile of Participation in Distance Education: 19992000.National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 2003-154. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved November 14, 2003, from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003154
  33. Whipp, J.L., and Chiarelli, S. (2001). Proposal: Self-regulation in web-based courses for teachers. Retrieved November 14, 2003, from: http://edtech.connect.msu.edu/Searchaera2002/viewproposaltext.asp?propID=1696 Winne, P.H., and Perry, N.E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of self-regulation (P. 532-566). San Diego,
  34. Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: an overview. Theory into Practice,41(2), 64 – 70.
  35. Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of self-regulation (P. 13-39).
  36. Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 81(3), 329 – 339.
  37. Zimmerman, B.J., and Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies, American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614 – 628.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Empowering Learners through Blended Learning

    Ron Owston, York University, Canada

    International Journal on E-Learning Vol. 17, No. 1 (January 2018) pp. 65–83

  2. Metacognition in the e-learning environment: a successful proposition for Inclusive Education

    Giovanna Berizzi, Eugenia Di Barbora & Maddalena Vulcani

    Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep 30, 2017)

  3. The Impact of Self-Regulation Strategies on Student Success and Satisfaction in an Online Course

    Fethi Inan, Texas Tech University, United States; Erman Yukselturk, Kirikkale University, Turkey; Murat Kurucay, Bulent Ecevit University, Turkey; Raymond Flores, Texas Tech University, United States

    International Journal on E-Learning Vol. 16, No. 1 (February 2017) pp. 23–32

  4. Measuring the e-Learning Autonomy of Distance Education Students

    Mehmet Firat, Anadolu University, Open Education Faculty

    Open Praxis Vol. 8, No. 3 (Aug 22, 2016) pp. 191–201

  5. Evaluation of Online Log Variables that Estimate Learners’ Time Management in a Korean Online Learning Context

    Il-Hyun Jo & Yeonjeong Park, Ewha Womans University; Meehyun Yoon, University of Georgia; Hanall Sung, Ewha Womans University

    The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning Vol. 17, No. 1 (Feb 02, 2016)

  6. Technology Acceptance and Disadvantaged Students – The Role of Culture

    Farivar Rahimi, University of Limpopo, South Africa

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2013 (Jun 24, 2013) pp. 2514–2523

  7. Increased technology provision and learning: Giving more for nothing?

    Emmanuelle Quillerou, UMR M_101 AMURE, Ifremer Brest Département d'Economie Maritime, Technopole de Brest-Iroise, BP 70, 29280 Plouzané, France. Email: emmanuelle_quillerou@yahoo.fr, France

    The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning Vol. 12, No. 6 (Sep 22, 2011) pp. 178–197

  8. The Correlation between Student’s Demographic Information and Self-regulated Learning Strategy toward Online Learning Environments among Thai Students in USA (A Pilot Study)

    Buncha Samruayruen, University of North Texas, United States; Direk Teeraputon & Kingkaew Samruayruen, Naresuan University, Thailand

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (Mar 05, 2012) pp. 868–878

  9. When Online Learning is Truly Online: An Argument Against Including Models that Advocate Blended Learning in the Design for E-Classes in Higher Education

    Ron McBride & Fuller Frank, Northwestern State University, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (Mar 03, 2008) pp. 557–561

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.