Home⇛Isabela State University Linker: Journal of Education, Social Sciences and Allied Health⇛vol. 1 no. 2 (2024)

Unveiling Self-regulation in the Online Environment as a Predictor of Academic Performance and Satisfaction

John Dave M. Alejandro

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The concept of self-regulated learning (SRL) has not been comprehensively explored in Isabela State University-Echague (ISU-E), and there is still relatively little information available regarding this topic in online settings. Hence, this study represents a significant milestone in understanding this concept in this particular context. This paper presents a quantitative analysis of multidimensional relations of SRL in an online learning environment to predict academic performance and academic satisfaction using five dimensions, specifically environmental structuring, goal setting, computer self-efficacy, social dimension, and metacognitive strategies. Using purposive sampling method, 357 students from various colleges of ISU-E were selected as the study respondents. Multiple regression analysis proved that goal setting and computer self-efficacy have a positive impact on the academic performance of students, while revealing that only environmental structuring and social dimensions have a significant relationship with academic satisfaction. This implies that students are self-conscious of their abilities and what things they need to improve on, however, this leads to setting unrealistic goals promoting dissatisfaction. This mirrors the need for a more adaptive teaching approach or strategies that are geared and tailored towards the improvement of students’ ability to prepare and restructure their places before synchronous or asynchronous classes or hybrid setup. These findings contribute to enhancing academic support strategies in higher education institutions (HEIs).



References:

  1. Abun, D., Magallanes, T., Agoot, F., & Benedict, S. (2018). Measuring workplace relationship and job satisfaction of Divine Word Colleges’ employees in Ilocos Region. International Journal of Current Research, 10(11), 75279.
  2. Barnard-Brak, L. L. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1).
  3. Boekaerts, M. (2006). How far have we moved toward the integration of theory and practice in self-regulation? Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 199–210.
  4. Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13.
  5. Bruhn, A. L., Fernando, J., McDaniel, S., & Troughton, L. (2017). Putting behavioral goal-setting research into practice. Beyond Behavior, 26(2), 66–73.
  6. Chien, T.-C. (2012). Computer self-efficacy and factors influencing e-learning effectiveness. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(7), 670–686.
  7. Chinn, R. N., & Hertz, N. (2000). Licensure examination. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation (CLEAR).
  8. Cohen, A., & Baruth, O. (2017). Personality, learning, and satisfaction in fully online academic courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 1–12.
  9. Duterte, J., & Importante, G. (2022). Self-regulation and learning outputs of Filipino MOOC learners. In 19th International Symposium on Management (INSYMA 2022) (pp. 399–408).
  10. Ejubović, A., & Puška, A. (2019). Impact of self-regulated learning on academic performance and satisfaction of students in the online environment. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 11(3), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2019.11.018
  11. Karlen, Y. (2016). Perceived learning environments and metacognitive strategy knowledge at the upper secondary school level. Journal for Educational Research Online, 8(2), 212–232.
  12. Ling, R., & Helmersen, P. (2000). “It must be necessary, it has to cover a need”: The adoption of mobile telephony among pre-adolescents and adolescents. Presented at the conference on the social consequences of mobile telephony, 16 June 2000, Oslo, Norway. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2827.8244
  13. Leontitsis, A., & Pagge, J. (2007). A simulation approach on Cronbach’s alpha statistical significance. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 73(5), 336–340.
  14. Manuel, J. M. P. de. (2023). An assessment of students’ self-regulated learning of a higher education institution in a highly urbanized city in the Philippines. JPAIR Institutional Research, 20(1), 50–64.
  15. Martin, J. (2004). Self-regulated learning, social cognitive theory, and agency. Educational Psychologist, 39(3), 135–145.
  16. Morosanova, V. I., & Fomina, T. G. (2017). Self-regulation as a mediator in the relationship between anxiety and academic examination performance. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 1066–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.156
  17. Pappas, C. (2015, May). Google Classroom review: Pros and cons of using Google Classroom in eLearning. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/top-10-google-classroom-best-practices
  18. Pea, R., & Maldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing devices anytime anywhere. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 108–122). Cambridge University Press.
  19. Price, P. C., Chiang, I. C. A., & Jhangiani, R. (2015). Research methods in psychology: 2nd Canadian edition. BCampus, BC Open TextBook Project.
  20. Rakes, G. C., & Dunn, K. E. (2010). The impact of online graduate students' motivation and self-regulation on academic procrastination. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 78–93.
  21. Russell, J. L. (2013). Supporting students' motivation in college online courses (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
  22. Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260–272.
  23. Serdyukov, P., & Hill, R. (2013). Flying with clipped wings: Are students independent in online college classes? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 6(1), 53–65.
  24. Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.
  25. Waschull, S. B. (2001). The online delivery of psychology courses: Attrition, performance, and evaluation. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 143–147.
  26. Weichhart, G., Stary, C., & Appel, M. (2018). The digital Dalton Plan: Progressive education as an integral part of web-based learning environments. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 10(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2018.10.002
  27. Woolfolk, A. E. (2000). Educational psychology (2nd ed.). Pearson.
  28. You, J. W., & Kang, M. (2014). The role of academic emotions in the relationship between perceived academic control and self-regulated learning in online learning. Computers & Education, 77, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.018
  29. Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for student success in an online course. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 71–83.
  30. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic