Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The examination of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction of higher education students taking on-campus and online course formats
(USC Thesis Other)
The examination of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction of higher education students taking on-campus and online course formats
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE EXAMINATION OF ACADEMIC SELF-REGULATION, ACADEMIC HELP-
SEEKING, ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY, AND STUDENT SATISFACTION OF
HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS TAKING ON-CAMPUS AND ONLINE
COURSE FORMATS
by
Nancy Dayne
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACTULY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2015
Copyright 2015 Nancy Dayne
2
Acknowledgements
My sincerest thank you to my chairs and committee members, Dr. Kimberly
Hirabayashi and Dr. Helena Seli, for their guidance, direction, and support. I sincerely
appreciate their knowledge and passion for the field of education. Thank you to my
esteemed third committee member Dr. Wendy Reiboldt. I am truly appreciative of her
continued encouragement, advice, and support. Dr. Reiboldt is someone I admire, who
inspires me to do great things in my field.
I would also like to acknowledge the faculty at California State University Long
Beach, Department of Family and Consumer Science, who assisted with survey
distribution, for their enthusiasm and willingness to share my study with their students. In
particular, I am ever grateful for the support of Dr. James Koval in regard to this study
and his continued encouragement and support. I would also like to thank my mentor and
colleague, Dr. Richard Tuveson for his advice, support, and encouragement.
Lastly I would like to thank my parents, my sister, my amazing husband, and two
beautiful daughters for their love and support. I know that none of this would have been
possible without them.
3
Table of Contents
List of Tables 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7
Background of the Problem 7
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 10
Significance of the Study 11
Methodology 11
Definition of Terms 12
Organization of the Study 12
Chapter Two: Literature Review 14
Distance Education 15
The Historical Changes of Distance Education 15
Benefits of Distance Education 17
The Challenges of Distance Education for
Higher Education Students 18
Self-regulated Learning 21
The Importance of Academic Self-regulation 21
The Challenges of Academic Self-regulation 23
Assessing Self-regulation and Higher
Education Students 24
Academic Help-seeking 25
Help-seeking and the Undergraduate Student 25
Challenges to Academic Help-seeking in Higher
Education 27
Assessing Help-seeking Behaviors 28
Academic Self-efficac y 29
The Importance of Self-efficacy for the Undergraduate
Student 29
Course Design and Student Support 30
Measuring Academic Self-efficacy 31
Student Satisfaction 32
Instructor 32
Interaction 34
Measuring Student Satisfaction 34
Conclusion 35
Chapter Three: Methods 37
Population and Sample 38
Instrumentation 39
Self-regulation 39
4
Help-seeking 40
Self-efficacy 41
Student Satisfaction 41
Procedure and Data Collection 41
Data Analysis 43
Chapter Four: Results 45
Analysis of Results 48
Question 1 48
Question 2 48
Question 3 49
Question 4 49
Question 5 50
Question 6 50
Summary 51
Chapter Five: Discussion 53
Discussion of Results 53
Implications 60
Limitations 62
Recommendations for Future Research 63
Conclusion 64
References 66
Appendices 77
Appendix A: Pre-survey Questionnaire 77
Appendix B: Post Survey Questionnaire 80
5
List of Tables
Table 1: Variables Measured 42
Table 2: Data Analysis Summary 44
Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations of
Measured Variables in the Pre-survey 47
Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations of
Measured Variables in the Post-survey 47
Table 5: Results of T-test of On-line and On-campus Students in the Pre-
survey 49
Table 6: Results of T-test of On-line and On-campus Students in the Post-
survey 51
6
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine undergraduate college students’ beliefs
about academic self-regulation, academic self-efficacy, academic help-seeking skills in
the beginning of class and also identify their academic self-efficacy, academic help-
seeking behaviors, modes of academic help-seeking, and student satisfaction across
different instructional methods at the end of class. These variables were compared among
online and on-campus students at a public university in Southern California. There were
44 participants enrolled in either an online or on-campus undergraduate upper division
course during the Fall 2014 semester. The study employed a non-experimental design
and quantitative approach to assess student beliefs and behaviors. The results of this
study varied with non-significant and significant findings in regard to differences in
constructs across instructional delivery. Students who took the course in the on-campus
format had higher academic self-efficacy, more academic help-seeking behaviors, and
were more satisfied with the course format, compared to the students who took the course
online. The implications of this study are important for the field of education as it
provides additional research in the area of online education and academic motivation.
7
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
With the increase in distance education in higher education, students with barriers
such as family and professional responsibilities (Kim, Kwon, & Cho, 2011) now have
increased opportunities to take coursework online. The National Center for Educational
Statistics (n.d.) defines distance education as the use of technology to deliver instruction
to students who are separated from the instructor. According to the Babson Survey
Research Group (2011), who surveyed over 2500 colleges and universities, there were
more than 6.1 million students who took an online college course in the fall of 2010. This
study showed a 10.1% increase over the year before and confirmed that distance learning
is not slowing down (Allen & Seaman, 2010).
Since online learning is becoming more prevalent in higher education, it is
imperative to examine what motivates the academic success of undergraduate students
and what motivates academic success in a distance education course. Universities have
made it possible for undergraduate students to take much of the coursework needed for
graduation in an online format. However, with the increased offerings of distance
education courses, there are some concerns related to course design (Rovai & Downey,
2010), the use of technology (Cho, 2012), and the opportunities available for help-
seeking (Evans et al., 2007) in an online format. These concerns are relevant due to the
impact they have on a student’s self-regulation, their motivation, and in turn their
academic success.
Background of the Problem
When examining the history of distance education, there have been some changes
to technology that has enabled flexibility and interaction in the delivery of distance
8
education (Anderson & Simpson, 2012). Higher education institutions have been working
to meet the needs of a new era of college students who are able to use and access the
Internet (Nora & Snyder, 2008). This surge in technology has led to the growth and
emergence of online education and distance learning programs (Braun, 2008). Even
though the convenience and flexibility enable students to take courses from almost any
location, technology can also hinder a student’s effort in a distance education setting,
which includes issues with software and the lack of support from the instructor with
software usage (Evans et al., 2007; Cho, 2012).
With this increase in distance education programs, there are some additional
challenges for undergraduate students. One of the challenges of distance education
includes supporting academic self-regulation in an online format. Academic self-
regulation is important for undergraduate college students in both a distance education
setting and a traditional classroom. College students need to be able to regulate their
learning (Bol & Garner, 2011) by setting goals, monitoring progress, and reflecting on
outcomes (Bandura, 1986; Vygotsky, 1962).
In addition to academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking skills and
academic self-efficacy are also motivators of academic success. The research, however, is
mixed on how they are supported in a distance education setting. Help-seeking behaviors
are often related to academic help-seeking and student achievement (Karabenick, 2003;
Kitsantas & Chow, 2007). With the distance education setting, additional resources can
be utilized to promote help-seeking, such as message boards and chat rooms (Kitsantas &
Chow, 2007). However not all distance education faculty are trained to use these new
tools to support and encourage help-seeking (Howell, Saba, Lindsay, & Williams, 2004).
9
Academic success is often tied to motivational factors. Academic self-efficacy is a
motivational factor that is tied to academic success. Bandura (1986) defined self-efficacy
as the belief that someone holds about themselves which includes one capability for
performing an activity. Artino (2008) stated that in a distance education environment, a
student’s self-efficacy beliefs were a significant predictor of overall satisfaction with
online courses and also had an impact on student performance. However, not all courses
or instructors provide classroom strategies to foster self-efficacy (Majer, 2009).
When designing a course, successful integration of academic self-regulation,
academic help-seeking skills, and academic self-efficacy can positively encourage
academic success for the undergraduate student. Teaching in an online format can affect
direct exchanges valued in teaching (Stagg-Peterson & Slotta, 2009). Engaging students,
facilitation, and the moderating of online discussions requires specialized skills needed
by the online instructor (Rovai & Downey, 2010). Many of these factors can affect
student satisfaction with the course format.
Statement of the Problem
There is an absence in the research as to how academic self-regulation, academic
help-seeking skills, and academic self-efficacy differ by program delivery. There is also a
lack of understanding about the roles academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking
skills, and academic self-efficacy may have in a distance education classroom for the
undergraduate college student. Due to this lack of research and understanding, it is
difficult to suggest support for the student and training for the distance education
instructor to enhance and encourage academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking
skills and behaviors, and academic self-efficacy in a distance education environment for
10
the undergraduate student. These factors can also influence whether the higher education
student is satisfied with the course and how the content was relayed.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in the
change over time of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking skills, academic
self-efficacy, and the student satisfaction of the undergraduate student by program
delivery. Examined in the study was an undergraduate Family Studies course that is open
for all upper division college majors to take, at a four-year university in Southern
California. This course was offered in an online setting and a on-campus setting. This
study investigated the undergraduate student and their beliefs and behaviors related to
academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking skills and behaviors, and academic self-
efficacy. In addition this study examined student satisfaction with course format.
Within this study, the following research questions were answered:
1. Is there a difference in academic self-regulation by method of program delivery
in the beginning of class?
2. Is there a difference in academic help-seeking beliefs by method of program
delivery in the beginning of class?
3. Is there a difference in academic self-efficacy by method of program delivery
in the beginning of class?
4. Is there a difference in academic self-efficacy by method of program delivery
at the end of class?
5. Is there a difference in academic help-seeking behaviors by method of
delivery at the end of class?
11
6. Is there a difference in student satisfaction by method of delivery at the end of
class?
Significance of the Study
The answers to the research questions are crucial to examine because academic
self-regulation, academic help-seeking, and academic self-efficacy are essential for an
undergraduate student’s academic success, regardless of delivery. With the answers to the
research questions, faculty can design the course to ensure they are encouraging students
and their self-regulations skills, while also providing an environment that supports
academic help-seeking and academic self-efficacy, and in turn student satisfaction. In
addition, the answers to these research questions can provide college administration with
the data needed to provide faculty with the training and tools (Nemati & Thompson,
2009) needed to design and implement courses that ensure student academic self-
regulation, academic self-efficacy, academic help-seeking, student satisfaction, and in
turn their academic success.
Methodology
Since the research questions sought to compare academic success and motivation
in two different settings, online and on-campus, the researcher adopted a quantitative
approach. The quantitative approach was to determine whether statistical differences or
predictive relationships exist. Data was gathered via surveys that included valid and
reliable instruments such as the Motivated for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith,
Garcia, & McKeachie (1991), formal and informal help-seeking (Karabenick, 2003),
student satisfaction (Arbaugh, 2000), and demographic questions. Surveys were
12
administered online. All data was analyzed in SPSS using independent samples t-tests
and correlations.
Definition of Terms
Asynchronous. Online learning that does not provide any opportunity for live
interaction (Allen & Seaman, 2010).
Help-seeking. An achievement behavior involving the search for and
employment of a strategy to obtain success (Ames & Lau, 1982).
Online learning. Have at least 80% of the course material delivered online
without any face-to-face meetings (Allen & Seaman, 2010).
Self-efficacy. Individual’s perceived capability to perform and achieve specific
results (Bandura, 1993).
Self-regulation. Being able to regulate one’s own learning by setting goals,
monitoring progress, and reflecting on outcomes (Bandura, 1986;Vygotsky, 1962).
Student Satisfaction. Perceived value of the student’s educational experience
(Astin, 1993).
Synchronous. Online learning programs that mimics the face-to-face meetings
where students and instructors are brought together to interact live through the computer
(Allen & Seaman, 2010).
Organization of the Study
Chapter One in this study provides an introduction to the topic of distance
education and motivation, in addition to an overview of the proposed study. Chapter Two
provides an in-depth look at distance education, including a typology and demographic
information. This chapter also examines and compares components that have been found
13
to influence motivational indices between traditional and DE contexts. These factors
include academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, and academic self-efficacy.
Chapter Three describes the methodology used in this study. This chapter discusses the
sample used, instrumentation, research design, and the data collection process. Also
described are the plans for data analysis and the strengths and weaknesses of this study.
Chapter Four is a description of the results from the data analysis. Chapter Five is a
discussion of these results, in addition to the limitations of the study and suggestions for
future research.
14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The technology of today provides opportunities for undergraduate students to take
courses in an online format and use new technological tools. The increase in course
offerings of online courses is visible at many universities (Evans et al., 2007). The
purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature on
distance education in higher education and the role of academic self-regulation, academic
help-seeking skills, and academic self-efficacy in undergraduate academic success. These
are essential factors to examine, due to the impact they can have on the undergraduate
student in a distance education environment.
There are many benefits of distance education for the undergraduate student,
which include flexibility (Valle & Duffy, 2009), web-based resources to assist with
learning (Chen, Lambert, & Guidry, 2009) and enhanced opportunities for student
engagement (Stagg-Peterson & Slotta, 2009). Though online courses may meet the needs
of today’s students, there are some controversies related to student academic success in
an online format. Some of the issues in distance education are related to the lack of
professional development for professors on online instruction (Rovai & Downey, 2010)
and also student comfort with online courses and the use of technology (Evans et al.,
2007). In addition to the benefits and the challenges of online learning, it is imperative to
understand how students’ academic self-regulation, help-seeking skills, and academic
self-efficacy help them thrive in a distance education setting (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004;
Clerq, Galand, Dupont, 2013; Karabenick, 2003).
15
Distance Education
Online learning offers new opportunities for higher education students to learn
from a university from across the state or country (Tham & Werner, 2005). Increases in
the classes offered and the number of students taking distance education courses has been
observed at many universities (Evans et al., 2007). With the increase in distance
education, it is imperative to look at the reasons why it is a prevalent choice for higher
education students. Adult students over 22 years old, currently make up a large portion of
student learners in the higher education setting (Ke, 2010). Adult students may not be
able to take traditional coursework due to barriers, such as family and professional
responsibilities (Kim et al., 2011).
Accessibility, flexibility of the course schedule, and more available courses are
some factors affecting students and their distance education decisions (Kim et al., 2011).
Distance education delivers freedom and flexibility in organizing learning activities and
the opportunity to work from any place (Valle & Duffy, 2009). There is an opportunity
for increased access for college students who want to learn, but may not be able to attend
face-to-face courses and distance education provides the learning environment to meet
this demand (Tham & Werner, 2005).
The Historical Changes of Distance Education
Distance education is a broad term that encompasses several methods of delivery
(Evans et al., 2007). Distance education has moved from print technology to computer-
mediated education (Anderson & Simpson, 2012). Online delivery replaces the forum of
correspondence courses and provides rapid delivery and response time (Evans et al.,
2007). Anderson and Simpson (2012) stated that distance education was originally
16
characterized by a didactic teaching style, which was intended to be delivered through
structured material and was dictated by the teacher. However, this approach has changed
with the growing recognition of the possibilities presented by the interaction capable in
distance education. The methods of delivery have changed from non-electronic distance
education to the use of software tools to supplement distance learning, such as
Blackboard and NetMeeting (Evans et al., 2007). With the new methods of delivery,
asynchronous and synchronous learning assist with the interaction component in distance
education (Anderson & Simpson, 2012). Allen and Seaman (2010) define asynchronous
as online learning that does not provide any opportunity for live interaction (Allen &
Seaman, 2010). They define synchronous as online learning programs that mimic the
face-to-face meetings where students and instructors are brought together to interact live
through the computer.
Technology has enabled flexibility and interaction in the delivery of distance
education (Anderson & Simpson, 2012). With the increase of students who are able to
use and access the Internet, higher education institutions are working to meet the needs of
this new era of college students (Nora & Snyder, 2008). The surfacing of a
technologically driven society has led to the emergence and growth of online education
and distance learning programs (Braun, 2008). Allen and Seaman (2010) stated that
distance education is not slowing down or reaching to an end. With the growing
acceptance of distance education and technology integration, higher education
administrators need to face the technological, organizational, pedagogical, and cultural
challenges in helping their institutions adapt to current changes (Howell et al., 2004).
17
Educational institutions must keep pace and provide the ideal learning environment to
meet the demands of their students (Tham & Werner, 2005).
Benefits of Distance Education
There have been several noted benefits in distance education for undergraduate
students. Time and geographical constraints make distance education convenient for
many students (Braun, 2008). Distance education provides access to more web-based
resources to assist students with learning (Chen et al., 2009). With a new demographic of
adult learners, the accessibility of more resources can assist with academic success.
Distance education provides opportunities for students to interact in smaller groups and to
specialize in niche areas, while also focusing on the social construction of knowledge
(Anderson & Simpson, 2012).
Online education provides opportunities for enhanced student learning and
dialogue (Lindsey-North, 2000). With the variety of course design and implementation in
distance education, students are introduced to multiple instruments for enhanced learning,
such as online tutorials and interactive materials. Connolly, MacArthur, Stansfield and
McLellan (2007) stated that instructors found that online students showed deeper
reflection than face-to-face students, due to the online tutorials offered in their distance
education courses. The instructors felt that the online tutorials and the written
communication component encouraged higher-level learning and more precise thinking
(Connolly et al., 2007).
Instructional design and student engagement impact the higher education
students’ learning in the distance education environment. Online students reported higher
levels of engagement than on campus juniors and seniors (Robinson & Hullinger, 2008).
18
Course design can play a vast role in the engagement of students. Course instructors can
use peer review, brainstorming, reflection, and critiquing activities to encourage the
connectivity between students in an online course (Stagg-Peterson & Slotta, 2009). The
online format offers opportunities for student engagement and enhanced learning. Kim et
al. (2011) stated that online instruction should enhance student learning through
constructive discussion and collaborative inquiry, which can both be purposely designed
to be a part of an online course.
The Challenges of Distance Education for Higher Education Students
Despite the number of benefits of distance education, there are many concerns
that remain. The distance education classroom does not always provide opportunities for
collaborative learning. Students are generally more isolated from other students in the
virtual learning environment and do not have the chance to socialize physically with
other students, expect maybe in a synchronous environment (Tham & Werner, 2005).
Interactions with others may be limited in an online environment and a students’ need for
flexibility can outweigh the need for instructor and peer interaction (Braun, 2008).
Technology can also be an issue for students and instructors, in the distance
education classroom. Students often have to solve issues with computing hardware or
software on their own (Evans et al., 2007). Online students may not have an
understanding of the technical issues involved with using a Course Management System
(CMS). Course instructors may not know how to answer students’ technical questions
(Cho, 2012). Distance education instructors may lack expertise in the design and delivery
of course materials in the distance education environment (Howell et al., 2004). The lack
of formal training of the instructor can impede the learning environment for the students.
19
The quality of the distance education course design also plays a role in student
achievement and learning. Teaching in an online format can add new challenges for
instructors and possibly affect the personal direct exchanges valued in teaching (Stagg-
Peterson & Slotta, 2009). With instructional design, a high level of care and engagement
in course design is necessary to retain attention and form community (Lewis & Abdul-
Hamid, 2006). The professor may not be prepared to teach distance education courses
(Chen et al., 2009). Many instructors asked to teach online courses, chose to do so
tentatively, since it may add new challenges and possibly sacrifice direct personal
exchanges (Stagg-Peterson & Slotta, 2009). Online instructors need didactic expertise in
the implementation of online courses, yet many are not skilled to handle the task
(Paechter, Maier, & Macher, 2010) and the lack of training can affect the quality of
instruction.
An online course must be developed with a clear understanding that it is different
than a traditional face-to-face course (Rovai & Downey, 2010). A number of studies
found that effective teaching is an influential factor in both online and face-to face
instruction (Stagg-Peterson & Slotta, 2009). With distance education, characteristics of
effective instruction include multiple assignments, asynchronous reflection, synchronous
conversation, and a variety of media (Lebaron & Miller, 2005). With instructional design,
the instructor plays a large part in course development for academic success. Engaging
students and facilitating and moderating online discussions require specialized skills
needed by the online course instructor (Rovai & Downey, 2010). In a survey completed
by Nemati and Thompson (2009), online students stated that they expected online
instructors to be responsive and provide organized and structured online classes.
20
Organization and structure in an online format are specialized skills that may need to be
taught to distance education faculty. Howell et al. (2004) stated that while faculty may be
skilled researchers and field experts, they may have a difficult time developing online
instructional activities due to lack of formal training in curriculum and lesson planning in
an online environment. Facilitation is also a factor that can directly affect a learners’
engagement, achievement, and retention in an online learning environment (Oncu &
Cakir, 2011).
In summary, the increase in distance education provides multiple opportunities for
the traditional and non-traditional undergraduate student to take courses through distance
education. The historical change in distance education has provided higher education
students with opportunities to use new software tools, which can enhance and encourage
flexibility and interaction. The distance education format provides opportunities for
students to utilize technological advances to take courses from home and still be able to
participate in professional and family responsibilities (Ki et al., 2011;Valle & Duffy,
2009). There are a number of benefits and challenges of distance education in for the
undergraduate student. Higher education students have access to web-based resources,
opportunities for enhanced dialogue, and interactive materials and discussions (Anderson
& Simpson, 2012; Chen et al., 2009) to enhance student learning. However, instructional
design and the lack of preparation of instructors to teach in an online format can inhibit
student learning. The lack of quality instruction in an online classroom should not
impede student learning. Instructors and college administrators will need to keep abreast
of the technological advances in distance education (Allen & Seaman, 2010; Howell et
21
al., 2004; Tham & Werner, 2005), to ensure success for the undergraduate college
student.
Self-regulated Learning
Self-directed college students are able to regulate their learning in pursuit of
academically relevant goals (Bol & Garner, 2011). Self-regulated learning is defined as
being able to regulate one’s own learning by setting goals, monitoring progress, and
reflecting on outcomes (Bandura, 1986; Vygotsky, 1962). Academic Self-regulated
learning is an essential skill for college students, regardless of the course format they
take. In an online learning environment, college students must be able to set their own
learning goals, learning pace and sequence, and adjust learning strategies based on their
progress (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004). Self-regulation is not a mental ability or an
academic performance skill, but rather a self-directed process where learners transform
their mental abilities into academic skills (Zimmerman, 2002).
The Importance of Academic Self-regulation
Self-regulated learning may be even more critical in a distance education
environment than a traditional learning environment (Bol & Garner, 2011). Maclellan
and Soden (2006) stated that self-regulation has various components, which include
cognition, motivation, affect, behavior, and context, that all interact to provide
individuals with the feedback they need to evaluate the strategies they are using to
achieve their goals. Learning is not passive but an active self-directed process in which
learners build internal representations that are personal interpretations of their learning
experiences (Maclellan & Soden, 2006). Maclellen and Soden (2006) used a self-
reported tool with undergraduate students to assist with reflection of their own self-
22
regulation and found that self-regulation needs to be aligned with curriculum and
instruction to support student learning that is purposeful and directed toward particular
goals. This adds to the importance of academic self-regulation for undergraduate students
and their instruction.
Lee and Tsai (2011) found that students taking online courses had a higher level
of capability performing self-regulated learning, meaning they were able to set their
learning goals and plan their learning strategies, compared to face-to-face students were
learning is primarily teacher led and may have less demands for self-regulated learning.
Lee and Tsai (2011) surveyed higher education students in Taiwan where the majority of
the course content was delivered online. The students were required to set their learning
goals and plan on their learning strategies to perform well in the courses. The researchers
found that students who were more adapted to self-regulated learning in Internet-based
learning environments felt more interested in and capable of self –regulated learning.
Zimmerman (2002) states that self-regulation of learning involves more than
detailed knowledge of a skill, but involves self-awareness, self-motivation, and
behavioral skill to implement knowledge appropriately. Zimmerman (2010) discusses the
self-regulation profile of experts and novices, and experts show that they have high levels
of self-motivation and set hierarchical goals for themselves with process goals and then
outcome goals. Experts in self-regulation evaluate their performance against personal
goals, not the performance of others, which novices tend to use for evaluation purposes.
Self-regulated students focus on how to activate, alter, and sustain specific learning
practices in social and solitary contexts (Zimmerman, 2002).
23
The Challenges of Academic Self-regulation
Self-regulation does not exist in isolation and must be aligned with curriculum
and instruction to support student learning (Maclellan & Soden, 2006). Academic self-
regulation is not always natural and there are some challenges for students and for
instructors. Zimmerman (2002) stated that many studies discuss the importance of self-
regulatory processes, which lead to student success in school, however many teachers do
not prepare students to learn on their own.
For student academic self-regulation in an online format, Bol and Garner (2011)
found that students must be self-directed and regulate their learning. The researchers state
that students with weak self-regulated learning skills could be at-risk in distance
education courses that are self-directed or autonomous in nature. With the self-paced
environment of an asynchronous classroom, students may fall behind on assignments and
forget due dates. Students may lack goal-setting skills, which are needed for success in
self-regulation and progress in the learning environment. Goal setting and task analysis
depend on motivational beliefs (Bol & Garner, 2011). The quality of motivation, which
may be intrinsic or extrinsic, can affect student learning (Donche, De Maeyer, Coertjens,
Van Daal, & Van Petege, 2013).
Academic instructors may lack knowledge or minimize self-regulated learning
skills in their course design (Bol & Garner, 2011). The knowledge online instructors need
to support academic self-regulation include stimulating the application of more self-
regulation among students (Donche et al., 2013), the alignment of self-regulation in
curriculum and instruction (Maclellan & Soden, 2006), and how to scaffold self-
regulation in their courses (Bol & Garner, 2011). Zimmerman (2002) stated that students
24
do not self-evaluate their work or estimate their competence on new tasks, which could
assist with self-regulatory practices. Teaching practices need to be designed to assist
students in regulating their own academic learning (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999).
Assessing Self-regulation and Higher Education Students
Measuring academic self-regulated learning can be done through student learning
strategies and self-regulatory activities. Learning and study strategies are essential factors
in examining the academic achievement of college students (Prevatt, Petscher, Proctor,
Hurst, & Adams, 2006). The Learning and Study Strategies (LASSI) is also used to
assess self-regulated learning (Maclellan & Sodden, 2006). The LASSI assesses self-
regulation through student approaches on learning. In regard to self-regulation, the
LASSI can be used to assess concentration, self-testing, study-aids, and time management
(Prevatt et al., 2006). The LASSI was significant in predicting online learning
performance in a research study that surveyed sophomore college students in a web-based
course in Taiwan (ChanLin, 2012).
The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) has a small focus
on self-regulated learning and possible factors that can support or hinder academic
success, such as student motivation and management of effort (Pintrich, 2004; Pintrich &
Degroot, 1990). These assessments are important in measuring self-regulation because
the assessments can assist with student academic success in higher education courses by
assessing students and their self-monitoring (Bol & Garner, 2011) and goal achievement
(Maclellan & Sodden, 2006), especially in an online course format. The MSLQ assesses
student motivation in engaging with course material and their learning strategies (Crede
& Phillips, 2011).
25
In summary, academic self-regulation is an important element of undergraduate
academic success. College students must be self directed and able to regulate their
learning (Bol & Garner, 2011). Not all higher education students begin college with
effective self-regulation skills. Self-regulation can be more challenging in a distance
education environment (Bol & Garner, 2011), due to the self-directed pace and goal
setting. Instructors can assist with self-regulation by providing opportunities for
curriculum and instruction to support student academic success (Maclellan & Soden,
2006).
Academic Help-seeking
Help-seeking is defined as “an achievement behavior involving the search for and
employment of a strategy to obtain success” (Ames & Lau, 1982, p. 414). When college
students take a course, whether it is a face-to-face course or in an online format, there are
many factors than can discourage help-seeking. Karabenick and Knapp (1991) defined
two different forms of help-seeking, which are executive help-seeking and instrumental
help-seeking. Executive help-seeking includes more aid from others to find the answer,
while instrumental help-seeking includes minimum involvement from others to find a
solution. Help-seeking behaviors are often related to academic success and student
achievement (Karabenick, 2003; Kitsantas & Chow, 2007).
Help-seeking and the Undergraduate Student
With the increase in distance education in higher education, there are now
additional possibilities for academic help-seeking (Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2013).
Kitsantas and Chow (2007) indicate that college students have multiple formats to seek
assistance, which provides the flexibility for students to ask questions and for the
26
instructor to provide a quick response. Kitsantas and Chow (2007) found that students in
online courses felt less threatened to seek help than students in traditional learning
environments and preferred formal sources for assistance, rather than peers. The
researchers also found that students preferred email, because it gave them an opportunity
to construct their question and students were able to participate in private dialogue.
There are certain student characteristics related to academic help-seeking and
student academic success. Students with more strategic help-seeking skills tend to have
higher motivation and have higher order strategies, such as metacognition and elaboration
(Karabenick, 2003). Kitsantas and Chow (2007) stated that classroom focus, students’
perceptions and beliefs, and the instructor’s instructional approach and openness are all
factors that encourage or discourage help-seeking. The researchers looked at students
who took an online course and found that students felt less threatened to seek help in an
online learning environment from peers and engaged in more formal help-seeking from
instructors, such as message boards and chats. This finding has implications that the
course structure and instructor availability can assist with help-seeking behaviors.
With the change in student demographic in higher education, many students have
physical constraints and time restrictions, which make the use of online help-seeking an
attractive option (Ke, 2010). Online help-seeking behaviors such as information
searching, formal query, informal query (Cheng et al., 2013) can be emphasized as
resources for help-seeking, in addition to a learning environment that encourages help-
seeking (Karabenick, 2004).
27
Challenges to Academic Help-seeking in Higher Education
With a large number of undergraduate students in a class and the impersonal
feeling they may get from the class size and structure, both can affect college students
seeking help from their professor or peers (Karabenick, 2003). There are some
psychological factors that may impede college students in seeking academic assistance.
The college student’s self-esteem can discourage help-seeking. Students with low self-
esteem regard help seeking as a threat (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991). College students
may feel embarrassed to ask for help in their college courses. The process of help-seeking
is largely determined by the threat to one’s self esteem and the more self-esteem a student
has, the more likely they are to seek academic assistance (Kitsantas & Chow, 2007).
Cheng and Tsai (2011) discussed three types of online academic help seeking
(OAHS) behaviors, which include information searching (e.g., websites), formal query
(e.g., emailing instructors for help) and informal query (e.g., making online requests to
peers). Though there are different types of online academic help available, the researchers
found that students were less likely to utilize OAHS, due to their lack of experience in
using OAHS and their preferences for using the OAHS resources, such as social
networks. The researchers concluded that instructors could assist with OAHS by utilizing
online channels to support student academic help-seeking.
Karabenick (2003) found that students who did not seek help had low levels of
self-efficacy, intrinsic interest, task values, and mastery goal orientation. Various studies
on help-seeking behaviors show that many college students avoid seeking help (Kitsantas
& Chow, 2007). Some of the reasons students did not seek assistance in higher education
courses include their comfort level in asking for help (Karabenick, 2003), the lack of
28
teacher involvement (Karabenick & Newman, 2009), and the learning environment that
did not encourage help-seeking. (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991). Karabenick (2003) found
that college students would more likely seek help from teachers. Karabenick and
Newman (2009) stated that the teacher could enhance student’s personal beliefs about the
usefulness of help-seeking.
Assessing Help-seeking Behaviors
Measuring academic help-seeking can be done through assessing the learning
environment and the forum provided for assistance (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991). Even
though there are multiple avenues for seeking help, it is important to assess how students
ask for help. A widely used measure to assess help-seeking skills is the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The MSLQ allows students to rate
themselves. It measures motivation, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, self-efficacy,
and goal orientation (Karabenick, 2004). In regard to help-seeking skills, the MSLQ
section on help-seeking assesses if students seek help from peers and instructors (Pintrich
et al., 1991).
Karabenick and Knapp (1991) examined the two sources college students use to
seek assistance, which are formal from an instructor and informal from peers. The
researchers used Likert scales that looked at achievement related and help seeking
tendencies, relationships between help-seeking and learning activities, and help provided
from formal and informal sources. The researchers found a significant correlation
between self-esteem and formal help-seeking. The student’s intention of help-seeking
was a positive indicator of actual behavior and active learners were more likely to seek
help when needed (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991).
29
In summary, academic help-seeking behaviors can encourage academic success.
Help-seeking behaviors are often related to academic success and student achievement
(Karabenick, 2003; Kitsantas & Chow, 2007). There are multiple avenues available to
encourage help-seeking (Cheng et al., 2013). However, class size and structure can
discourage help-seeking behaviors (Karabenick, 2003). Learning environments can be set
up to encourage help-seeking behaviors. In addition to a supportive learning
environment, the instructor can also assist the student with their beliefs on the usefulness
of help-seeking (Karabenick & Newman, 2009).
Academic Self-efficacy
Academic success is often tied to motivational factors. One of the motivational
factors studied in relation to college students is academic self-efficacy. Students enter the
university with a set of beliefs about their abilities (Clercq et al., 2013). Academic self-
efficacy is the beliefs that people hold about themselves, which includes one’s capability
for performing an activity (Bandura, 1986; 1997). According to the Social Cognitive
Theory, self-efficacy beliefs provide the foundation for motivation, well-being, and
personal accomplishment. (Bandura, 1986; Bandura, 1997). Academic self-efficacy is a
key process in student achievement and the learning process in higher education (Clercq
et al., 2013). Academic self-efficacy is also associated with effective learning and study
skills (Robbins et al., 2004).
The Importance of Self-efficacy for the Undergraduate Student
Understanding the role that self-efficacy plays in academic success is important
because individuals form their self-efficacy beliefs through mastery experience, vicarious
experience, social persuasions, and physiological reactions (Pajares, 1996). Self-efficacy
30
is a significant predictor of grade point average and retention (Gore, 2006). Academic
self-efficacy can also predict learning related emotions (Putwain, Sander, & Larkin,
2013). Learning related emotions include anxiety, satisfaction, and boredom (Pekrin et.
al, 2004). Self-efficacy and goals toward learning can assist with student retention
(Hsieh, Sullivan, & Guerra, 2007). Self-efficacy beliefs also play a part in distance
education and student academic success. Artino (2008) found that in a distance education
environment, a student’s self-efficacy beliefs were a significantly positive predictor of
overall satisfaction with online courses and also impacted student performance.
Self-efficacy influences people in how they feel, think, behave and motivate
themselves (Bandura, 1993). When students feel capable, their motivation can lead to
positive learning habits and self-regulatory skills (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich,
2000). Bandura (1993) stated that personal accomplishments require skill, but also self-
belief of efficacy. Those with a high sense of efficacy success scenarios provide positive
guides and supports for themselves (Bandura, 1993).
Course Design and Student Support
When developing undergraduate courses, whether in an online or traditional
setting, opportunities for academic self-efficacy need to be part of the course design.
Majer (2009) stated that faculty working with first generation college students need to
devise interventions and classroom strategies that foster self-efficacy to increase
educational success. He also found that self-efficacy is an important cognitive resource.
Hseih et al. (2007) stated that students need to acquire the skills to perform successfully
on academic tasks and also believe they are capable to do so.
31
Hseih et al. (2007) suggests that educators should identify and assist students with
low self-efficacy and provide guidance in changing their self-sabotaging beliefs and
goals. Majer (2009) examined first generation college students and suggested that faculty
and academic counselors need to devise interventions and classroom strategies to foster
self-efficacy. Instructors may need to assess study related skills and behavior because
self-regulated behavior in learning is required for self-efficacy and academic success
(Putwain, Sander, & Larkin, 2013). Courses taught in an online format require a high
degree of self-regulation skills to accomplish the learning goal (Dabbagh & Kitsantas,
2004).
Measuring Academic Self-efficacy
The ability to measure academic self-efficacy beliefs is assessed at the level of
specificity that corresponds to the critical task being assessed, while understanding that
judgments are task and domain specific (Pajares, 1996). For students, having a clear task
in mind when generating judgments for academic capabilities and outcome tasks, such as
grades and assessment tests, which do not lend themselves to a particularized self-
efficacy assessment (Pajares, 1996).
The MSLQ developed by Pintrich et al. (1991) also measures student self-
efficacy, through a self-report on a 7-point Likert scale. In particular the scale looks at
two aspects of expectancy, which include expectancy for success and self-efficacy. The
MSLQ defines self-efficacy as one’s judgment on their ability to accomplish a task and
their confidence in performing the task. (Pintrich et al., 1991).
Another measure used to assess self-efficacy strategies is the Patterns of Adaptive
Learning Survey (PALS). The PALS measures the relationship between the learning
32
environment and a student’s motivation, affect, and behavior (Midgley et al., 2000). The
test uses a 5 point Likert scale. Academic efficacy refers to a student’s perceptions of
their competence to do their class work (Midgley et al., 2000).
In summary, student academic self-efficacy needs to be a concern when designing
distance education courses. Students enter college with a set of beliefs about their
abilities (Clercq et al., 2013), which can affect academic success. Self-efficacy and goals
toward learning can assist with student retention (Hsieh et al., 2007). Instructors may
need to assess self-regulatory behaviors and study related skills are required for self-
efficacy and academic success (Putwain et al., 2013). Classroom strategies and instructor
support can provide students with the opportunities needed for increased academic self-
efficacy and success in their college coursework.
Student Satisfaction
Student satisfaction is defined as the perceived value of the student’s educational
experience (Astin, 1993). Bolinger and Oksana (2012) found that learners who are
satisfied tend to enjoy their learning experiences, gain positive learning outcomes, and
are motivated to continue their studies. Student satisfaction results when actual
performance meets or exceeds the student’s expectations (Elliott & Healy, 2001). When
looking at higher education and student satisfaction, regardless of courses offered in an
online or face-to-face format, there were factors that supported student satisfaction.
Those factors include instructor support and course interaction.
Instructor
The instructor of the course is responsible for relaying information to students
about the course content and subject. Johnston, Killian, and Oomen (2005) found that
33
student satisfaction is more related to the instructor than the technology. Faculty
behaviors do affect student satisfaction (Bollinger & Wasilik, 2012). In an online
environment, students become more dependent on the instructor (Maceli, Fogliasso, &
Baack, 2011). Good communication skills in distance education environments are
important (Bollinger & Wasilik, 2012). Students are satisfied with clear course
requirements, policies, and procedures that are discussed in a clear manner (DeBourgh,
1999). Jackson, Jones, and Rodriguez (2010) found that timeliness in responding to
students, accessibility, clearly stated expectations, and instructor enthusiasm played a role
in student satisfaction.
Since in an online course technology plays an important role in connecting the
student with the instructor, it is imperative to discuss the issues technology and the
instructor can have on student satisfaction. Webster and Hackley (1997) found that the
instructor’s attitude toward technology, their teaching style, and control of technology
greatly influenced learning outcomes. Volery and Lord (2000) stated that it is crucial for
the instructor to have good control of technology and be able to perform basic trouble
shooting tasks related to technology.
Course design by the instructor can impact student satisfaction in online courses.
Johnston et al. (2005) stated that the degree of student satisfaction and the likelihood of
enrollment in another online course, may depend on how well courses are planned and
taught. The instructor must be able to translate the instruction to adapt it to the delivery
method (Johnston et al. 2005). Mann (2014) found that students believed that the
presences of the instructor can create a caring online learning environment and that the
instructor’s caring behaviors can influence student success. The researcher stated that a
34
well organized classroom with clear and detailed information assists with a caring
learning environment.
Interaction
In online learning some students may feel that there is a lack of interaction with
the instructor and with other students. Volery and Lord (2000) found that the level of
interaction between the instructor and the student was predominant in online delivery.
Cole, Shelley, and Swartz (2014) stated that students taking an online course found that
the lack of interaction was a reason for dissatisfaction with the course. Sher (2009)
discovered that the interactions between students and instructor were a significant factor
in student satisfaction and learning. Maceli, et al. (2011) stated that student satisfaction
with a class is also impacted by relationships with instructors.
Kranzow (2013) discussed the importance of building a sense of community in
an online environment. Kleinman (2005) found that an online environment that fosters
active and engaged learning and the interactive support that helped students, lead to a
satisfied learning environment. The ability of students to interact with each other reduces
the feelings of isolation and improves course satisfaction (Swan, 2001). Johnston et al.
(2005) suggests opportunities such as discussion boards, live chats, and group work to
promote student interaction. Mann (2014) discussed using assignments to personalize a
course taught online, such as an introduction forum, to help increase interactions and give
participants an opportunity to interact on a personal level.
Measuring Student Satisfaction
With the increase in online course offerings, it is imperative to examine the
measures that assess student satisfaction. Arbaugh (2000) used a 7-point Likert type
35
scale, that focused on the perceived usefulness and ease of learning, perceived flexibility,
perceived student satisfaction, perceived course interaction, and perceived student
satisfaction. Another measure used to assess student satisfaction is the Telecourse
Evaluation Questionnaire (Biner, 1993). The Telecourse Evaluation Questionnaire
(TEQ) has 42 questions that examine student attitude toward instruction and instructor,
technology, and course management. The TEQ uses a Likert type scale ranging from one
to five (Ayub & Iqbal, 2011).
In summary, when designing a course in an online or face-to-face format, there
are some factors that assist with student satisfaction. Students in university settings
expect that professors will provide engaging and helpful experiences that assist students
with achieving their goals (Maceli et al., 2011). Instructors need to be cognizant when
designing their courses to ensure there is student interaction and that the instructor
themselves are supporting students in their learning. Joo, Lim, and Kim (2011) stated that
universities who want an increase learner satisfaction, must maintain high levels of
learner persistence. The researchers state that this can be incorporated into the course
design by the instructor’s facilitation of quality interactions, providing resources in the
forms of images or audio, and having open asynchronous discussions.
Conclusion
With the significant growth of distance education in higher education, examining
the student’s motivational factors and the role they play in their academic success in
distance education is crucial (Evans et al., 2007). Examined in this chapter is the increase
in distance education, the history of distance education, and the impact distance education
can have on undergraduate students. In addition, academic self-regulation, academic
36
help-seeking skills, and academic self-efficacy, were also examined in this chapter,
because of their influences student academic success. In particular, with academic self-
regulation, this chapter examined the importance of self-regulation, the challenges of
academic self-regulation, and ways to assess self-regulation. In regard to academic help-
seeking, this chapter examined higher education and help-seeking, the importance of
help-seeking for students, the challenges of help-seeking, and how to assess help-seeking.
This chapter examined academic self-efficacy and the undergrad student, the importance
of self-efficacy, course design and support, and ways to measure self-efficacy. And last
this chapter also discussed factors that can either positively or negatively influence
student satisfaction with course format.
There is a gap in the literature on the undergraduate student and their motivational
factors and beliefs that encourage academic success in an online and on-campus format
course. The comparison between the two formats could provide valuable knowledge in
assessing the similarities and differences of their beliefs on academic self-regulation,
academic help-seeking, and academic self-efficacy of undergraduate students taking
coursework in the different two formats. This literature review provides a basis for
understanding the importance of academic self-regulation skills, academic help-seeking
skills, and academic self-efficacy needed for undergraduate students and the role these
skills play in the distance education format and the on-campus format for academic
success, and in turn student satisfaction.
37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter includes the research questions, the hypotheses, and a description of
the research methodology. The latter includes the sampling procedure and population,
instrumentation, and procedures for data collection and analysis. The purpose of this
study is to determine whether there is a difference in the effects of academic self-
regulation, academic help-seeking skills and behavior, academic self-efficacy, and
student satisfaction by program delivery for the undergraduate student. Examined in this
study is an undergraduate course that is open for upper division college majors to take, at
a four-year university in Southern California. This course was on stress and family
coping. Students had a choice to take this course in an online setting or on-campus
setting. This study will investigate student beliefs about academic self-regulation,
academic help-seeking beliefs and behaviors, academic self-efficacy, and student
satisfaction.
1. Is there a difference in academic self-regulation by method of program delivery
in the beginning of class?
2. Is there a difference in academic help-seeking beliefs by method of program
delivery in the beginning of class?
3. Is there a difference in academic self-efficacy by method of program delivery
in the beginning of class?
4. Is there a difference in academic help-seeking behaviors by method of
delivery at the end of class?
5. Is there a difference in academic self-efficacy by method of program delivery
at the end of class?
38
6. Is there a difference in student satisfaction by method of delivery at the end of
class?
To evaluate any statistically significant differences between online and face-to-
face students regarding their beliefs surrounding academic self-regulation, academic
help-seeking skills, and academic self-efficacy, student satisfaction, and the their
academic help-seeking behaviors, the proposed study design is quantitative and non-
experimental. Self-report surveys were used. The independent variables were academic
self-regulation, academic help-seeking beliefs and behaviors, academic self-efficacy, and
student satisfaction. The dependent variables were the format of the course, which was
the program delivery method.
Population and Sample
The populations for data collection were students in a general education course
that was offered to all upper division students at a public four-year university, in
Southern California. This course content discussed stress and family coping. The Fall
2014 undergraduate course was a duration of sixteen weeks. The course was offered in
both online and on-campus formats. Students in this course met the prerequisites of the
course, which included a lower division psychology and sociology course. The students
were sophomore to senior level status. There were 44 student participants who took the
course in either an online or on-campus format. In the online section there were 16
respondents who took the course online and there were 28 who took the course on-
campus. There were 8 male and 36 females respondents to the surveys. The average age
for the student who participated in the study was 23 years old.
39
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used in this study was composed of questions divided into
four sections that identified demographic characteristics of the study population and
measured academic help-seeking beliefs and behaviors, self-regulation, academic self-
efficacy, and student satisfaction. Students in both the online and on-campus were asked
to complete a beginning of class and end of class self-report questionnaire. The
questionnaire was sent to the course instructors to send to all students enrolled in the
course through email. The first survey consisted of beliefs and behaviors related to self-
regulation, help-seeking skills, and academic self-efficacy. The second survey consisted
of s academic elf-efficacy, behaviors related to academic help-seeking skills, the mode or
modes selected of academic help-seeking, and student satisfaction.
The eleven demographic questions that were asked included the student’s gender,
age, employment status, ethnicity, relationship or family status, the number of units
enrolled in, major, how many college units they have completed online, the highest level
of education of their parents, whether they are taking the course in an online or on
campus format. In addition, participants were asked why they chose the particular format.
Self-regulation. Regarding academic self-regulation, one subscale used measured
self-regulation in the pre-survey. The subscale is from the MSLQ. One of the subscales
utilized was from the section on Learning Strategies Scales, and in particular
Metacognitive Self-Regulation (Pintrinch et al., 1991), which consists of 12 items and
have a Cronbach’s alpha of .70. This is measured by a 7-point Likert scale. In the current
study the Cronbach’s alpha was .71.
40
Sample items include: Before I study new course material thoroughly, I often
skim it to see how it is organized. I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the
material I have been studying in this class.
Help-seeking. Academic help-seeking beliefs and academic help-seeking
behaviors were both measured. Two different subscales were combined to measure help-
seeking beliefs. Beliefs.To measure beliefs, one of the subscales utilized was from the
MSLQ (Pintrinch et al., 1991), which consisted of 4 items and has a Cronbach’s alpha of
.52. This is measured by a 7-point Likert scale. The other help-seeking subscale was
taken from Karabenick (2003), which has 3 items and a Cronbach’s alpha of .66. The
original help-seeking scale (Karabenick, 2003) contains 5 subscales, however this survey
will use only the formal versus informal help-seeking subscale. This is measured by a 5-
point Likert scale. In the current study the Cronbach’s alpha was .60.
Sample items include: If I don't understand the material in this course, it is
important that I ask another student in the class for help. It is important to identify
students in this class whom I can ask for help if necessary. Sample items include: If I
were to seek help in this class I would ask the teacher rather than another student. In this
class, the teacher would be better to get help from than would a student.
Behaviors .To determine behavior and frequency, questions were administered in
a post survey on how often help-seeking was done. To assess the mode of contact, the
post-survey questions were related to who did students seek help from and how, which
would include email, discussion board, etc.
Sample items include: During this class, how often did you seek help from and
who from?
41
Self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy was measured with the 8-item Self-Efficacy
for Learning and Performance subscale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed by Pintrich et al. (1991). This is measured by a 7-point
Likert scale. The original subscale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .93. In the current study the
Cronbach’s alpha was .96.
Sample items include: I’m certain I can master the skills being taught in this class.
I expect to do well in this class. I’m confident I can understand the basic concepts taught
in this course.
Student satisfaction. A six-item survey was utilized to measure student
satisfaction. The original survey utilized by Arbaugh (2000) had 12 items and a Likert
scale with seven choices. The original scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .96. Due to the
high Cronbach’s alpha, the 5 most relevant questions from the original 12 items were
chosen for the survey. Additionally, minor modifications were made by changing the
wording “via the internet” to “in this format” to improve the relevance of the questions to
the study. One questions was developed as a control item regarding the instructor. In the
current study the Cronbach’s alpha was .91.
Sample items included: I am satisfied with my decision to take the course in this
format; I feel the quality of the course I took was largely enhanced by the format; I would
take another course with this instructor.
Procedure and Data Collection
The application for IRB approval was obtained through the University of
Southern California and the institution where the data was collected. Data was collected
through online surveys with the consent form and procedures. The first survey was sent
42
out during the first three weeks of the course to 400 enrolled students. The second survey
consisted of the self-regulation subscales from the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (Pintrich et al. 1991), help-seeking subscales from Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et al. 1991) and the formal vs. informal help-seeking
subscale (Karabenick, 2003), and the self-efficacy subscales from the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et al. 1991). The second survey was sent
out the last three weeks before the end of the course, which was approximately 13 weeks
into the 16-week semester, to 400 enrolled students. The second survey consisted of self-
efficacy questions from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et
al. 1991), three questions developed to assess help-seeking behaviors, and seven
questions to assess student satisfaction (Arbaugh, 2000). The surveys were administered
through Qualtrics. Permission for data collection was obtained by department chair and
course lead. The surveys were voluntary.
Table 1
Variables Measured
Variables Pre-survey
Instruments
Post-survey
Instruments
1. Self-regulation MSLQ subscale on
Metacognitive Self-
regulation
2. Help-seeking
MSLQ subscale on
Help-seeking and
the Formal Vs.
Informal Help-
seeking Subscale
Methods of help-
seeking and who
assisted with help-
seeking and how
often
3. Self-efficacy
MSLQ subscale on
Self-efficacy for
Learning and
Performance
MSLQ subscale on
Self-efficacy for
Learning and
Performance
4. Student
satisfaction
Modified version of
Arbaugh on Student
Satisfaction
43
Data Analysis
The participants completed a beginning of class survey, which included the
demographic questions, 12 self-regulation questions, 8 self-efficacy questions, and 4
help-seeking belief questions. The end of class survey included 8 self-efficacy questions,
3 questions related to help-seeking behaviors, and 7 questions related to student
satisfaction. With the beginning of class survey and end of class survey, there were only
3 students who responded to both surveys. Due to the low beginning of class survey and
end of class survey response rate, all data was analyzed in SPSS using only a dependent
samples’ t-test.
44
The research questions:
Table 2
Data Analysis Summary
Research Question IV(s) Level of
Measurement
DV(s) Level of
Measurement
Statistical
Test
1. Is there a
difference academic
self-regulation skills
by method of
program delivery in
the beginning of
class?
Online vs.
on
campus
Nominal Self-
regulation
skills
Interval Independent
Samples’ t-
test
2. Is there a
difference in
academic help-
seeking skills by
method of program
delivery in the
beginning of class?
Online vs.
on
campus
Nominal Help-seeking Interval Independent
Samples’
t-Test
3. Is there a
difference in
academic help-
seeking beliefs by
method of delivery
in the beginning of
class?
Online vs.
on
campus
Nominal
Help-seeking
behaviors
Interval
Independent
Samples’
t-test
4. Is there a
difference in
academic self-
efficacy by method
of delivery in the
beginning and at the
end of class?
Online vs.
on
campus
Nominal Self-efficacy Interval Independent
Samples
t-test
5. Is there a
difference in student
satisfaction by
method of delivery
at the end of class?
Online vs.
on
campus
Nominal
Student
satisfaction
Interval
Dependent
Samples’
t-test
45
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The goal of this study was to investigate the roles that academic self-regulation,
academic help-seeking beliefs and behaviors, academic self-efficacy and student
satisfaction have by program delivery for the undergraduate college student. The research
questions developed were based on the constructs of academic self-regulation, academic
help-seeking beliefs and behavior, academic self-efficacy, and student-satisfaction. An
analysis of results organized by the research questions is provided. Statistical analyses
performed are described and outcomes are provided. Specifically, this study was
designed to answer the following research questions:
1. Is there a difference in academic self-regulation by method of program delivery
in the beginning of class?
2. Is there a difference in academic help-seeking beliefs by method of program
delivery in the beginning of class?
3. Is there a difference in academic help-seeking behaviors by method of delivery
in the beginning of class?
4. Is there a difference in academic self-efficacy by method of program delivery at
the end of class?
5. Is there a difference in academic self-efficacy by method of program delivery at
the end of class?
6. Is there a difference in student satisfaction by method of delivery at the end of
class?
These research questions were answered by the use of four survey instruments
and demographic questions totaling 39 questions in a pre and post survey. The survey
46
instruments were used to measure the constructs of self-regulation (Pintrinch et al.,
1991), help-seeking (Pintrinch et al., 1991 & Karabenick, 2003), self-efficacy (Pintrinch
et al., 1991), and student satisfaction (Arbaugh, 2000). Surveys were distributed to
students online by the course instructor of a stress and family coping class, at a public
university. There were eight male and 36 female respondents in the first survey. In the
second survey there were three male respondents and 32 female respondents. In regard to
the format and the respondents, there were 15 online respondents and 28 on campus
respondents in the first survey, and one student who chose not to answer the format. In
the second survey there were 20 online students, 14 on-campus students, and one student
who chose not to answer the format.
The mean, standard deviations, and correlations of all the measured variables are
presented in Table 1. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to
assess the relationship and there was a positive correlation between help-seeking beliefs
and self-regulation, r=.385, p=.015. Academic help-seeking beliefs were positively
correlated with self-regulation. There was also a correlation between the variables self-
efficacy and student satisfaction, r=.571, p=.000. Student satisfaction was positively
correlated with their self-efficacy.
47
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations of Measured Variables
in the Beginning of Class
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Age
(Pre)
22.70 4.06 - -.027 -.023 .147 .071
2. Parent
Education
4.90 1.46 - - -.276 -.165 .116
3. Self
regulation
2.64 .42 - - - .385* .264
4. Help-
seeking
Beliefs
2.38 .41 - - - - .278
5. Self-
efficacy
3.53
1.01
-
-
-
-
1
* <.05
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations of Measured Variables
at the End of Class
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Parent
Education
4.90 1.46 1 - - -
2. Self-
efficacy
4.18 .70 .016 - - -
3.Help-
Seeking
Behaviors
1.78 .57 .70 - - -
4. Student
Satisfaction
3.64 1.17 -.20 .571** .126 -
**p<.01
48
Analysis of Results
Data was collected using self-report instruments and analyzed in order to answer
the research questions proposed in Chapter One. Each research question was analyzed
and answered separately; the results presented in this chapter are organized as such.
Results for Research Question One
Research question one asked: Is there a difference in academic self-regulation by
method of program delivery in the beginning of class?
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare academic self-
regulation of students who took a course in either an online format or on-campus format
in the beginning of class. There was no significant difference in the scores for online
(M=2.58, SD=.41) and on campus (M=2.69, SD=.42) conditions; t(37)=-.749, p=.464.
Results for Research Question Two
Research question two asked: Is there a difference in academic help-seeking
beliefs for the undergraduate student by method of program delivery in the beginning of
class?
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare help-seeking skills of
students who took a course in either an online format or on campus format in the
beginning of class. There was no significant difference in the scores for online (M=2.40,
SD=.51) and on-campus (M=2.40, SD=.34) conditions; t(40)=.056, p=.956. In other
words, there were no significant differences in the self-regulation of students in the online
versus on- campus course.
49
Results for Research Question Three
Research question three asked: Is there a difference in academic self-efficacy by
method of program delivery in the beginning of class?
An idependent-samples t-test was conducted to compare academic self-efficacy
of students who took a course in either an online format or on-campus format in the
beginning of class. There was no significant difference in the scores for online (M=3.31,
SD=1.07) and on campus (M=3.78, SD=.80) conditions; t(34)=-1.52, p=.137. In other
words, there were no significant differences in the academic self-efficacy of students in
the online versus on-campus course in the beginning of class.
Table 5
Results of Independent T-test of Online and On-campus Students in the Beginning of
Class
Outcome Group
Online On-campus P-value
M SD N M SD n p t df
Self-
regulation
2.58 .41 13 2.69 .42 26 .464 -.739 37
Help-
seeking
beliefs
2.40 .51 15 2.40 .34 27 .056 .056 40
Self-
efficacy
3.31 1.07 14 3.78 .80 22 .137 -1.52 34
Results for Research Question Four
Research Question four asked: Is there a difference in academic self-efficacy by
method of program delivery at the end of class?
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare self-efficacy of students
who took a course in either an online format or on campus format at the end of class.
50
There was a significant difference in the scores for online (M=3.99, SD=.78) and on
campus (M=4.52, SD=.50) conditions; t(31)=-2.18, p=.037. In other words, there was a
significant difference in the academic self-efficacy of students in the online versus on-
campus course. On-campus students had higher self-efficacy compared to online
students.
Results for Research Question Five
Research question five asked: Is there a difference in academic help-seeking
behaviors by method of delivery at the end of class?
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare help-seeking behaviors
of students who took a course in either an online format or on-campus format at the end
of class. There was a significant difference in the scores for online (M=1.60, SD=.40) and
on campus (M=2.05, SD=.62) conditions; t(29)=-2.49, p=.019. In other words, there was
a significant difference in help-seeking behaviors of students in the online course versus
the on-campus course. On-campus students engaged in more help-seeking behaviors
compared to online students. On-campus students sought more help from the instructor
and peers and more frequently, compared to the online student. For example, when
looking at the frequencies, there were eight students who did not seek any help from the
instructor or peers, compared to two students from the on-campus group who did not seek
any help from the instructor or peers, throughout the semester.
Results for Research Question Six
Research question six asked: Is there a difference in student satisfaction for the
undergraduate student by method of delivery at the end of class?
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare student satisfaction of
51
students who took a course in either an online format or on-campus format at the end of
class. There was a significant difference in the scores for online (M=3.34, SD=1.20) and
on-campus (M=4.15, SD=1.01) conditions; t(31)=-2.01, p=.052. In other words, there
was a weak significant difference in the satisfaction of students in the online versus on
campus course. On-campus students were more satisfied with the course format,
compared to the online students.
Table 6
Results of Independent T-test of Online and On-campus Students at the End of Class
Outcome Group
Online On-campus P-value
M SD n M SD n p t df
Self-
efficacy
3.99 .78 20 4.52 .50 13 .037* -2.18 31
Help-
seeking
Behaviors
1.60 .40 18 2.05 .62 13 .019* -2.49 29
Student
Satisfaction
3.34 1.20 20 4.15 1.01 13 .052** -2.01 31
* <.05 **p<.01
Summary
In summary, this chapter reported the results of the statistical analyses performed
to answer the research questions of this study. An overview of the research questions and
methodology was provided. The first analysis presented in this chapter was a description
of participants with the number of students who took the course and what format they
chose. The research questions were then introduced individually and analysis results were
presented. The research question asked about potential differences in the constructs of
academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking beliefs and behaviors, academic self-
52
efficacy, and student satisfaction across instructional delivery method. No significant
differences were found in the constructs of academic self-regulation, academic help-
seeking skills, or academic self-efficacy in the beginning of class. At the end of the class,
there were significant differences in the constructs of academic self-efficacy, academic
help-seeking behaviors, and student satisfaction. On-campus students reported higher
academic self-efficacy, more academic help-seeking behaviors, and were more satisfied
with their course format. The implications of these results will be discussed in the next
chapter.
53
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine differences in the academic self-
regulation, academic help-seeking beliefs, academic help-seeking behaviors, self-
efficacy, and student satisfaction of the undergraduate student by program delivery. With
the increased offerings of distance education, there are concerns related to course design
(Rovai & Downey, 2010), and these concerns are relevant due to the impact that these
constructs may have on a student’s academic success and course satisfaction. Examined
in the study was an undergraduate Family Studies course that was open for all upper-
division college majors to take, at a four-year university in Southern California. The class
is only taught by Marriage and Family Therapists, due to the sensitive course content.
Some of the course topics included substance abuse, illness, and trauma and family stress.
This course was offered in both an online setting and on-campus setting. This chapter
begins with a brief overview and discussion of the results of this study. This chapter
concludes with a discussion of implications for affected parties and directions for future
research.
The research questions developed for this study were based on evidence-based
constructs, related to persistence in on campus and online educational contexts. The
questions were examined across both online and on-campus academic environments. The
following section provides a discussion based on the results from the study.
Discussion of Results
The study results indicate that there were no statistically significant differences in
academic help-seeking beliefs, academic self-regulation, or academic self-efficacy in the
beginning of the class between online and on-campus students. There was a slight
54
significant difference in academic self-efficacy, help-seeking behaviors, and student
satisfaction at the end of the class, where on-campus students had higher academic self-
efficacy, had more academic help-seeking behaviors, and were more satisfied with their
course format compared to the online students.
Differences in Academic Self-Efficacy by Delivery Method
Both surveys assessed if there was a difference in self-efficacy by method of
program delivery. Academic self-efficacy is associated with effective learning and study
skills (Robbins et al., 2004). When looking at differences in academic self-efficacy by
method of program delivery in the first survey, there was no statistical significance in the
first survey. However in the second survey, there was a difference in academic self-
efficacy. On-campus students reported higher levels of academic self-efficacy than online
students. A student’s academic self-efficacy plays a role in distance education and
academic success. Students enter college with a set of beliefs about their abilities (Clercq
et al., 2013). Yang and Taylor (2013) found that a student’s self-efficacy predicted their
help-seeking. Students who have low self-efficacy are less likely to seek help (Roussel,
Elliot, &Feltman, 2011). A student’s self-efficacy may have direct and indirect effects on
their performance (Yang & Taylor, 2013). DiBenedetto and Bembenutty (2013) found
that self-efficacy and outcome expectancies play a role in learning and performing.
Artino (2008) found that in a distance education environment, a student’s self-
efficacy beliefs were a significant positive predictor of overall satisfaction with the
online course and also impacted student performance. Cho and Jonassen (2009) stated
that students who had more self-efficacy to interact with instructors and the online
community, were more likely to use active interaction strategies, which included writing,
55
responding, and reflection. The online course did offer opportunities for interactions
among instructor and peers, which included the use of discussion boards that required
active participation that was graded.
In summary, there were no differences in self-efficacy between the online and the
on-campus students in the first survey. The reason for this finding may have been that the
students who took the course, in either the online or on-campus format, were high unit
sophomores, juniors, or seniors, who may have already have developed positive self-
efficacy in regard to their academic performance in the pre-survey. The course
assignments and course content were almost identical, which could have contributed to
the students feeling efficacious in both formats during the first survey. However in the
second survey, the reason the on-campus students reported higher self-efficacy could
have been due to the fact that they were not graded on their participation, as were the on-
campus students. In addition, it might be possible that the on-campus students also sought
more help, which may have affected their self-efficacy.
Discussions of Differences in Academic Help Seeking Behaviors by Delivery Method
Within this study, there was a statistical significance when looking at differences
in academic help-seeking behaviors by method of program delivery in the second survey.
On-campus students had more help-seeking behaviors. This could be related to the
connection that the on-campus students had with their instructor and the opportunities
provided for academic help-seeking. Karabenick and Knapp (1991) stated that measuring
academic help-seeking can be done through assessing the learning environment and the
forum provided for assistance. Help-seeking behaviors are often related to academic
success and student achievement (Kitsantas & Chow, 2007). The study results confirm
56
the research findings that state that online students are less likely to seek help (Mahasneh
et al., 2012), due to less of an attachment with the class.
In summary, since there was a statistical significance with academic help-seeking
behaviors between the course formats, it is essential to state that some frequencies
showed that there were differences with formal and informal help-seeking. Students in
both the online and on-campus formats stated that they sought help from the instructor,
peers, and other sources. However, when looking at the frequencies, there were more
online students who stated that they did not seek out any help from instructors or peers,
compared to on-campus students who did. The lack of attachment to the course could be
the reason that students did not utilize help-seeking behaviors involving peers or
instructors, as much as the on-campus students did.
Differences in Student Satisfaction by Delivery Method
The second survey assessed if there was a difference in student satisfaction by
method of program delivery. When looking at differences in student satisfaction by
method of program delivery in the second survey, there was a weak statistical
significance. As discussed in the literature review, there are factors that can inhibit
student satisfaction. Limited interaction with instructors and peers may decrease course
satisfaction (Noel-Levitz, 2011). Lin, Lin, and Laffey (2008) assessed 11 online courses
and found that self-efficacy, task value, and social ability significantly impacted online
learning satisfaction. However, Shen, Cho, Tsai, and Marra (2013) examined online
learning experiences, self-efficacy, and learning satisfaction and found that students’ self
assessment about their capabilities to complete an online course mattered more in
explaining satisfaction that any other self-efficacies. Shen et al. (2013) suggest promoting
57
social interactions, scaffolding by the instructor, and an orientation to enhance student’s
self-efficacy in using online technology, to assist with student satisfaction. Platt, Raile,
and Yu (2014) found that the more interaction designed in courses, there was more
perceived greater knowledge by students. The online course did provide opportunities
for social interaction, through group projects and discussion board, however students may
not have felt connected enough with the peers in their class. This may have been one of
the reasons that the students were less satisfied with the online format.
Kuo, Walker, Schroder, and Belland (2014) investigated interaction, Internet self-
efficacy, self-regulated learning, and student satisfaction. They surveyed 221 students
through an online survey. Their study found that the interaction between the instructor
and learner had a strong impact on learner outcomes and satisfaction. The researchers
suggest that instructors post regular messages in discussion board and reply to student
questions, to help increase interactions with students. In regard to the online course
format, Kuo, Walker, Schroder, and Belland (2014) also state that a user-friendly learning
management system could assist students in accessing online materials easily. The online
students may have been challenged by the technical requirements and the use of
discussion board to contact the instructor.
Student satisfaction and the factors that inhibit their satisfaction need to be taken
into account when designing the courses. For example, Mann (2014) examined nursing
students and found that many students felt that online courses could be designed in a way
that the instructor was caring and provided an environment of caring behaviors, which
included attention to detail, availability, and promptness. Bolinger and Oksana (2013)
found that learners who are satisfied tend to enjoy their learning experiences, gain
58
positive learning outcomes, and are motivated to continue their studies. The online
courses examined in the study did have multiple avenues for communication, however
the students may have felt there was not enough promptness or detail in replies, which
could have assisted with their response and level of satisfaction with the online course.
In summary, since this study indicates that students in the on-campus students
were more satisfied with their format that the online students, it would be beneficial to
evaluate what students were satisfied with in the on-campus format compared to the
online format. Since the survey questions did not go into detail on the aspects of what
students were satisfied and dissatisfied with in regard to the course format, it is
imperative to think about the roles that course design and instructor availability play in
student satisfaction. It is possible that lower self-efficacy and less help-seeking behaviors
might have resulted in lower student satisfaction. However this result was barely
significant.
Differences in Academic Self-Regulation by Delivery Method
The first survey assessed if there was a difference in academic self-regulation by
method of program delivery. When looking at differences in academic self-regulation,
there was no statistical significance. DiBenedetto and Bembenutty (2013) state that
educators need to structure course content and instruction to facilitate self-regulated
learning. Since online learning is becoming more prevalent in higher education, it is
important to see what assists distance education students with their self-regulation and in
turn academic success. Bol and Garner (2011) stated that self-regulated learning could be
even more critical in a distance education environment. The researchers found that
students with weak self-regulated learning skills could be at-risk in distance education
59
courses that are self-directed or autonomous in nature. In another study that looked at
self-regulation and online learning, Lee and Tsai (2011) stated that students taking online
courses had a higher capability of performing self-regulated learning. This was not
consistent with this study’s findings.
In summary, there were no differences in academic self-regulation by course
format. It is possible that both the online and on-campus were already self-regulated
learners, or both course formats facilitated self-regulated learning.
Discussion of Differences in Academic Help-Seeking Beliefs by Delivery Method
The first survey assessed if there was a difference in academic help-seeking skills
by method of program delivery. Ke (2010) discussed the physical constraints and time
restrictions, which make the use of online help-seeking an attractive option. In this study,
when looking at differences in academic help-seeking beliefs by method of program
delivery in the first survey, there was no statistical significance. Kitsantas and Chow
(2007) found that students in an online format felt less threatened in seeking assistance
than students in traditional learning environments. However, with less of an attachment to
the class, Mahasneh, Sowan, and Nassar (2012) found that students in online classes are
less likely to seek help. In regard to the current study, since there was no statistical
significance in academic help-seeking beliefs between the online and on-campus
students.
Help-seeking in an online class, may be even more essential, due to unfamiliar
aspects to online learning and confusion to students new to the online format (Mahasneh
et al., 2012). Yang and Taylor (2013) examined students taking online courses and their
help-seeking and online test anxiety. The researchers found that online students tend to
60
be less concerned about looking incompetent through help-seeking than the on-campus
students.
In summary, the results from this study confirm that there were no differences in
academic help-seeking beliefs between the online and on-campus formats. This refutes
the research findings that state that online students are less-likely to seek help (Mahasneh
et al., 2012), due to less of an attachment with the class.
Implications
With the increase of distance education courses and the inconsistent research in
how students are supported in the areas of academic self-regulation, academic self-
efficacy, academic help-seeking beliefs and behaviors, and in turn student satisfaction
with the course format, it is imperative to discuss the implications of this study. This
section details the implication of these findings for instructors and administration.
Although there were no significant findings with some of the research questions, based
on the findings of the study and the research discussed, the researcher makes the
following three recommendations for student academic self-efficacy, academic help-
seeking behaviors, and students satisfaction, which involves administration and the
course instructor.
• The instructor maintains multiple avenues for students to seek assistance
throughout the course, such as email, chat rooms, on-campus office hours,
and discussion boards. Multiple avenues offer opportunities for students
to utilize help-seeking behaviors. In addition, with student satisfaction and
course success, students need multiple opportunities to ask course related
questions and interact with other students. This study asked who students
61
sought for help, but it would be imperative to see what avenues were
utilized when seeking help.
• Continue to support students and their academic self-efficacy through
course design and assignments. Since there were no differences in
academic self-efficacy in the pre-survey, it is important to assess the
course and the instructors to ensure they continue to support students and
their self-efficacy throughout the course. For example, instructors can set
close, concrete and challenging goals that allow the learner to experience
success in the task, which will support their academic self-efficacy.
• The instructors and administration may want to consider differences in
course assignments and how grading may have contributed to the
differences in student satisfaction. Although there was no causal analysis,
there were differences in how the discussion and active participation was
graded between the courses.
These recommendations could help increase student academic self-efficacy,
academic help-seeking behaviors and student satisfaction in the online format.
Specifically, a distance education course needs to be designed with opportunities for
interaction with the instructor and peers. Technological support must also be considered
for students to participate in the course. Online instructor training and the opportunities
provided to evaluate student satisfaction in the online course format need to be evaluated
often. The evaluation can assist instructors and administration with what should be
addressed to assist with student satisfaction in the online course format.
62
Limitations
There were some limitations that were found as a result of this study. This study
was only a correlational study. In regard to the sample size, the response rate was fairly
low. With the possibility of 400 participants, there were 44 students who responded in the
beginning of class and 35 students who responded at the end of class The setting for the
research was at a four-year institution, and the students were all taking the same family
stress course, which had only an asynchronous online course. This was a limitation to the
study since only one class was surveyed in a particular department. There may have been
an opportunity for a higher response rate if an incentive was offered to each respondent
for participating.
Another limitation of the study was the student demographic of the sample. The
students ranged from sophomores with high units to seniors, all with various experiences
with taking courses in an online setting. Perhaps opening the survey to all courses with
the option of taking a course online or on-campus would have increased the amount of
respondents and the diversity of respondents.
An additional limitation was that qualitative data was not collected for analysis.
Qualitative research could provide additional insight to the results of the study. There
were many areas where qualitative data would have assisted with the students’ beliefs.
For example, the reasons why on-campus students felt more satisfied with their format,
compared to the online students.
The variety of instructors who taught the course was also a limitation. Even
though the course content and syllabus are the same, the opportunities provided for the
scaffolding of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking skills, academic help-
63
seeking behaviors, and academic self-efficacy might have been different, due to the
instructor or method of teaching.
The last limitation was honesty of self-reported data. With surveys and responses,
there was no way to ensure if the students were answering the questions truthfully. Even
though it was stated in the informed consent that participating in the survey did not affect
their grade and their response was anonymous, there may have been students who felt
like they did not want to have their responses known to the instructor, with the fear that it
could affect their grade.
Recommendations for Future Research
With technological developments and distance education, learning can occur
anywhere and anytime (Kim, Kwon, & Cho, 2011). Future research in the areas of
academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking beliefs, academic help-seeking
behaviors, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction is essential in the designing of
online courses. Future studies can expand on these constructs through more quantitative
data collection using more than one course. In addition to the quantitative data, the
incorporation of qualitative data could provide richer insights about student’s beliefs and
behaviors in regard to student satisfaction. Administration and faculty can take the
quantitative data and the qualitative data and design distance education courses that
incorporate the student’s beliefs and behaviors and make changes to online instructional
design to support student motivation and academic success.
For future research it would be beneficial to examine specific demographics of the
student population to see the reasons there was a connection with the particular constructs
and demographic variables. It would also be interesting to look at the demographics of
64
the students in particular that were not assessed, since many students who take online
courses can be nontraditional and see if there are any differences between non-traditional
and traditional students among the constructs of this study. This could also assist
administration and faculty with course design that supports student motivation, academic
success, and in turn student satisfaction.
Data collection on specific course design in regard to the instructor’s
incorporation of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking beliefs, and
opportunities for academic help-seeking behaviors and how the constructs assist with
student satisfaction would be beneficial. In addition, with the sensitive course content, the
online instructor may want to assess the opportunities available to develop trust and
intimacy with their students. With the results from that set of data, the administration can
gage faculty beliefs and behaviors and how they design their courses to encourage
academic success and student satisfaction.
Conclusion
Distance education may be the answer for many but as with any instruction, it
must be well planned (Johnston, Killion, & Oomen, 2005). With the increase of distance
education courses being offered, student motivation and student satisfaction must be
considered in course design. This study aimed to look at higher education students and
their academic self-regulation skills, academic help-seeking skills, academic help-seeking
behaviors, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction.
The fact that there were no significant differences in academic self-regulation
skills, academic help-seeking beliefs, and academic self-efficacy in the first survey is a
positive finding, since these motivators all play a huge role in student academic success
65
and student satisfaction. With the significant differences in academic self-efficacy,
academic help-seeking behaviors, and student satisfaction in the second survey, the
opportunity to assess the online course design would be beneficial to see exactly how
academic self-efficacy and academic help-seeking are supported, and in turn how they
could impact student satisfaction. The researcher hopes that this study will shed light on
the importance of designing online courses that encourage academic success. Traditional
students and non-traditional students who choose to take courses in an online format must
be assured that they will have an opportunity to succeed in a course format where they
are encouraged and supported by their instructors, in their learning.
66
References
Allen, I. & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States,
2102. Sloan Consortium.
Ames, R. & Lau, S. (1982). An attributional analysis of help-seeking in academic
settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 414-423.
Anderson, B. & Simpson, M. (2012). History and heritage in distance education. The
Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 16(2), 1-10.
Arbaugh, J.B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with
internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 32-54.
Artino, A. (2008). Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality:
predicting satisfaction with online training. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 24, 260-270.
Astin, W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass
Ayub, N. & Iqbal, S. (2011). Student satisfaction with e-Learning achieved in Pakistan,
Asian Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 26-31/
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitates
students learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (3),
523-535.
Babson Learning Group (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United
States, 2011. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/going_distance_2011
67
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H/. Freeman
Biner, P.M. (1993). The development of an instrument to measure student attitude toward
televised courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 71(1), 62-73.
Bol, L. & Garber, J. (2011). Challenges in supporting self-regulation in distance
education environments. Journal of Computers in Higher Education, 23, 104-123.
Bolinger, D. & Wasilik, O. (2012). Student satisfaction in large undergraduate online
courses. The Quaterly Review of Distance Education, 13(3), 153-165.
Braun, T. (2008). Making a choice: The perceptions and attitudes of online graduate
students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16 (1), 63-92.
ChanLin, L. (2012). Learning strategies in web-supported collaborative project.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49 (3) 319-331.
Chen, D., Lambert, A. & Guidry, K. (2009). Engaging online learners: The impact of
web-base learning technology on college student engagement. Computers and
Education, 54, 1222-1232.
Cheng, K. H. & Tsai, C. C. (2011). An investigation of Taiwan university students’
perceptions of online academic help seeking, and their web-based learning self-
efficacy. Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 150-157.
68
Cheng, K., Liang, J., & Tsai, C. (2013). University students’ online academic help
seeking: The role of self-regulation and information commitments. Internet and
Higher Education, 12, 70-77.
Cho, M. (2012). Online student orientation in higher education: A developmental study.
Education Technology Research Development, 60, 1051-1069.
Cho, M.-H. and Jonassen, D. (2009). Development of the human interaction dimension of
the self-regulated learning questionnaire in asynchronous online learning
environments. Education Psychology, 29, 117-1138.
Clercq, M., Gland, B., Dupont, S., & Frenay, M. (2013). Achievement among first year
students: and integrated and contextualized approach. European Journal of
Psychological Education, 28, 641-662.
Cole, M., Shelley, D., & Swartz, L. (2014). Online instruction, E-learning, and student
satisfaction: A three year study. The International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 15(6), 111-131.
Connolly, T., MacArthur, E., Stansfield, M., & McLellan, E. (2007). A quasi-
experimental study of three online learning courses in computing. Computers and
Education, 49, 345-359.
Crede, M. & Philips, L. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for
learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 337-346.
Dabbagh, N. & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-regulation in student centered Web-
based learning environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 3, 40-47.
Debourgh, G. (1999). Technology is the tool, teaching is the task: Student satisfaction
in distance learning . Paper presented at the Society for Information and
69
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX.
DiBenedetto, M. & Bembenutty, H. (2013). Within the pipeline: Self-regulated learning,
and socialization among college students in science courses. Learning and
Individual Differences, 23, 218-224.
Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Coertjens, L., Van Daal, & Van Petegem (2013). Differential
use of learning strategies in first-year higher education: The impact of personality,
academic motivation, and teaching strategies. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 23-251.
Elliott, K.M., and Healy, M. (2001) Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to
recruitment retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1-11.
Evans, S., Wang, R., Tzu-Min, Y., Haija, R., McBratney-Owen, P., Peeples, L.,… Zhang,
J. (2007). Evaluation of distance learning in an “introduction to biostatistics”
class: A case study. Statistics Education Research Journal, 6(2), 59-77.
Gore, P.A. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two
incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 92-115.
Howell, S., Saba, F., Lindsay, N., & Williams, P. (2004). Seven strategies for enabling
faculty success in distance education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 33-
49.
Hseih, P., Sullivan, J., & Guerra, N. (2007). A closer look at college students: Self-
efficacy and goal orientation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 454-476.
Jackson, L.C., Jones, S.J., & Rodriguez, R.C. (2010). Faculty actions that result in
student satisfaction in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 14(4), 78-96.
70
Jonhston, J., KIllion, J., & Oomen, J. (2005). Student satisfaction in the virtual
classroom. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 3(2), 1-7.
Joo, Lim, & Kim (2011). Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence:
Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness, and ease of use as predictors
in a structural model. Computers and Education, 57, 1654-1664.
Karabenick, S. & Knapp, J. (1991). Relationship of academic help-seeking to the use of
learning strategies and other instrumental achievement behavior in college
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 221-230.
Karabenick, S. (2003). Seeking help in large college classes: A person-centered
approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 37-58.
Karabenick, S. (2004). Perceived achievement goal structure and college help seeking.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (3), 569-581.
Karabenick, S. & Newman, R. (2009). Help Seeking. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/help-seeking/
Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult
learners. Computers and Education, 55, 808-820.
Kim, J., Kwon, Y. & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence
and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers and Education,
57, 1512-1520.
Kitsantas, A. & Chow, A. (2007). College students perceived threat and preference for
seeking help in traditional, distributed, and distance learning environments.
Computers & Education, 48, 383-395.
71
Kleinman, S. (2005). Strategies for encouraging active learning, interaction, and
academic integrity in online courses. Communication Teacher, 19(1), 13-18. doi:
10.1080/1740462042000339212.
Kranzow, J. (2013). Faculty leadership in online education: Structuring courses to impact
student satisfaction and persistence. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 9(1), 131-139.
Lebaron, J. & Miller, D. (2005). The potential of jigsaw role playing to promote the
social construction of knowledge in an online graduate course. Teachers College
Record, 107 (8), 1652-1674.
Lee, S. & Tsai, C.C. (2011). Students’ perceptions of collaboration, self-regulated
learning, and information seeking in the context of internet-based learning and
traditional learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 905-914.
Lewis, C.C. & Abdul-Hamid (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices:
Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83-98.
Lindsey-North, J. (2000). Incorporating a course website into teaching: A promising
practice, especially for teacher education.
Maceli, K., Fogliasso, C., & Baack, D. (2011). Differences of student satisfaction with
college professors: The impact of student gender on satisfaction. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 15(4), 35-45.
Mahasneh, R.A., Sowan, A.K., & Nassar, Y.H. (2012). Academic help-seeking in online
and face-to-face learning environments. E-Learning and Digital Media, 9, 196-
210.
72
Maclellan, E. & Soden, R. (2006). Facilitating self-regulation in higher education through
self-report. Learning Environments Research, 9, 95-110.
Majer, J. (2009). Self-efficacy and academic success among ethnically diverse first-
generation community college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
2(4), 243-250.
Mann, J. (2014). A pilot study of RN-BSN completion students’ preferred instructor
online classroom caring behaviors. ABNF Journal, 25, 33-39.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hruda, L., Anderman, L., Freeman, K., Gheen, M.,…Urdan, T.
(2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning strategy. Retrieved from
http://www.umich.edu/~pals/PALS%202000_V13Word97.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Glossary. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/?charindex=D
Nemati, H. & Thompson, M. (2009). Factors influencing students intention to take web-
based courses in a college environment. International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Education, 5 (3), 83-93.
Nora, A. & Snyder, B. (2008). Technology and higher education: The impact of E-
learning approaches on student academic achievement, perceptions and
persistence. Journal of College Student Retention, 10(1), 3-19.
Oncu, S. & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and
methodologies. Computers and Education, 57, 1098-1108.
Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectation of, and experiences
in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction.
Computers and Education, 54, 222-229.
73
Pajares, F. (n.d.) Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from:
https://blackboard.usc.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-3073193-dt-content-rid-
5894175_2/courses/20141_educ_792_26548/Self-
Efficacy%20Theory%20%28education.com%29.pdf
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66(4), 543-578.
Pekrin, R., Goetz, T., Perry, R.P., Kramer, K., Hochstadt, M., &Molfenter, S. (2004).
Beyond test anxiety: development and validation of the Test Emotions
Questionnaire (TEQ). Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17, 287-316.
Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of the classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the
motivated strategies for learning questionnaire MSLQ. Retrieved from:
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED338122
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in
learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-
regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385-
407.
Prevatt, F., Petscher, Y., Proctor, B., Hurst, A., & Adams, K. (2006). The revised
learning and study strategies: An evaluation of competing models. Educational
and Psychological Management, 66 (3),448-458.
74
Putwain, D., Sander, P., & Larkin, D. (2013). Academic self-efficacy in study related
skills and behaviors: Relations with learning related emotions and academic
success. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 633-650.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstron, A. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skills factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 30, 261-288.
Robinson, C. & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student
engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 37-41.
Roussel, P., Elliott, A.J., & Feltman, R. (2011). The influence of achievement goals and
social goals on help-seeking from peers in an academic context. Learning and
Instruction, 21, 394-402.
Rovai, A. & Downey, J. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others
succeed in a global environment. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 141-147.
Shen, D., Moon-Heum, C., Tsai, C., & Marra, R. (2013). Unpacking online learning
experiences: online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. Internet and
Higher Education, 19, 10-17.
Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student
interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning
environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102-120.
Stagg-Peterson, S. & Slotta, J. (2009). Saying yes to online learning: A first-time
experience teaching an online graduate course in literacy education. Literacy
Research and Instruction, 48, 120-136.
75
Statistics Solutions (n.d.). Patterns of adaptive learning scales. Retrieved from
http://www.statisticssolutions.com/academic-solutions/resources/directory-of-
survey-instruments/patterns-of-adaptive-learning-scales-pals/
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: design factors affecting student satisfaction and
perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 1(2), 23-
28.
Tham, C. & Werner, J. (2005). Designing and evaluating E-learning in higher education:
A review and recommendations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 11, 15-26.
Tsai, C. & Shen, P. (2009). Applying web-enabled self-regulated learning and problem-
based learning with initiation to involve low-achieving students in learning.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1189-1194.
Valle, R. & Duffy, T. (2009). Online learning: Learner characteristics and their
approaches to managing online learning. Instructional Science, 37.2, 129-149.
Vermunt, J. & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280.
Volery, T. & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216-223.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Webster, J. and Hackley, P. (1997), Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated
distance learning, Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1282-1309.
76
Worley, W. & Tesdell, L. (2009). Instructor time and effort in online and face-to-face
teaching: Lessons learned. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications,
52, 2, 138-151.
Yang, Y. & Taylor, J. (2013). The role of achievement goals in online test anxiety and
help-seeking. Educational research and evaluation: An International Journal on
Theory and Practice, 8, 651-664.
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An Overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
77
APPENDIX A
Pre-survey Questionnaire
Demographic Instrument
1. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
c. Transgender
2. What is your age in years?_______
3. What is your current employment status?
a. Not currently working
b. Working part-time
c. Working full-time
4. Please choose indicate your ethnicity.
a. Hispanic/Latino
b. American Indian or Alaska Native
c. Asian
d. Black or African American
e. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
f. White
g. Two or more races
h. Other: Write in
5. Please indicate your relationship status
a. Single
b. Married/Domestic Partner
c. Separated/Divorced
d. Widowed
6. I am currently an undergraduate student enrolled ______.
Part-time (# of units)____( )
Full-time (# of units) _____( )
7. What is your major? _____________.
Undeclared
8. How many online courses have you taken previously?__________.
9. What is the highest level of education either of your parents has completed?
a. Primary or less
b. Middle school
78
c. Some high school
d. High school
e. Associate Degree/Certificate
f. Some college
g. Bachelor’s Degree
h. Master’s Degree
i. Doctoral Degree
10. Are you taking this course/program online or on-campus?
11. Why did you choose to take this format? (Check all that apply)
1. Scheduling
2. Instructional considerations (e.g., preferred method of instruction, quality of
instruction, access to instructor)
3. Geographic reasons
4. Family responsibilities
5. Professional responsibilities
6. Other: Write in
Self-Regulation Beliefs Instrument
12. During class time I often miss important points because I am thinking of other things.
(Reverse coded)
13. When reading for this course, I often try to explain material to a classmate or friend.
14. When I become confused about something I’m reading for this class, I go back and
try to figure it out.
15. If course readings are difficult to understand, I change the way I read material.
16. Before I study new course material thoroughly, I often skim it to see how it is
organized.
17. I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material I have been studying in
the class.
18. I try to change the way I study in order to fit the course requirements and the
instructor’s teaching style.
19. I often find that I have been reading for this class but don't know what it was all
about. (Reverse-coded)
20. I try to think through and decide what I am supposed to learn from it rather that just
reading over it when studying for this course.
21.When studying for this course I try to determine which concepts I don't understand
well.
22. When I study for this class, I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities in
each study period.
23. If I get confused taking notes in this class, I make sure I sort it out afterwards.
79
Help-seeking Beliefs Instrument
24. Even if I have trouble learning the material in this class, it is important that I try to do
the work on my own, without help from anyone. (REV)
25. It is important to ask the instructor to clarify concepts I don’t understand well.
26. If I don’t understand the material in this course, it is important that I ask another
student in this class for help
27. It is important to identify students in this class whom I can ask for help if necessary
Formal versus Informal Help-seeking Beliefs
28. If I were to seek help in this class I would ask the teacher rather than another student.
29. I would prefer asking another student for help in this class rather than the instructor.
(REV)
30. In this class, the teacher would be better to get help from than would a student.
Self-efficacy Beliefs Instrument
31. I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this class.
32. I’m certain I can understand the most difficult material presented in the readings for
this course.
33. I’m confident I can understand the basic concepts taught in this course.
34. I’m confident I can understand the most complex material presented by the instructor
in this course.
35. I’m confident I can do an excellent job on the assignments and the tests in this course.
36. I expect to do well in this class.
37. I’m certain I can master the skills being taught in this class.
38. Considering the difficulty of this course, the teacher, and my skills, I think I will do
well in this class.
80
APPENDIX B
Post-survey Questionnaire
Self-efficacy Behavior Instrument
1. I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this class.
2. I’m certain I can understand the most difficult material presented in the readings for
this course.
3. I’m confident I can understand the basic concepts taught in this course.
4. I’m confident I can understand the most complex material presented by the instructor
in this course.
5. I’m confident I can do an excellent job on the assignments and the tests in this course.
6. I expect to do well in this class.
7. I’m certain I can master the skills being taught in this class.
8. Considering the difficulty of this course, the teacher, and my skills, I think I will do
well in this class.
Method of Help-seeking
9. During this class, how often did you seek help from and who from?
For the next set of questions, please indicate how often you have sought help from:
Not at all 1-2 times
per session
Every
other week
Once a
week
More than
once a
week
Instructor/Teaching
Assistant
Peer
Other
Student Satisfaction Instrument
10. I am satisfied with my decision to take the course/program in this format.
11. If I had an opportunity to take another course/program in this format, I would do
so.
12. I feel that this course/program format served my needs.
13. I will take as many courses/programs in this format as I can.
14. I feel the quality of the course/program I took was largely enhanced by the
format.
15. I would take another course with this instructor.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine undergraduate college students’ beliefs about academic self‐regulation, academic self‐efficacy, academic help‐seeking skills in the beginning of class and also identify their academic self‐efficacy, academic help‐seeking behaviors, modes of academic help‐seeking, and student satisfaction across different instructional methods at the end of class. These variables were compared among online and on‐campus students at a public university in Southern California. There were 44 participants enrolled in either an online or on‐campus undergraduate upper division course during the Fall 2014 semester. The study employed a non‐experimental design and quantitative approach to assess student beliefs and behaviors. The results of this study varied with non‐significant and significant findings in regard to differences in constructs across instructional delivery. Students who took the course in the on‐campus format had higher academic self‐efficacy, more academic help‐seeking behaviors, and were more satisfied with the course format, compared to the students who took the course online. The implications of this study are important for the field of education as it provides additional research in the area of online education and academic motivation.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses
PDF
A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses
PDF
Academic beliefs and behaviors in on-campus and online general education biology classes
PDF
Examining student beliefs and behaviors in online and on-campus courses: measuring openness to diversity, voluntary peer collaboration, and help seeking
PDF
Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students
PDF
The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment
PDF
The impact of the mindful method Youth Empowerment Seminar (YES!) on students' self-efficacy, self-regulation, and academic performance for becoming college- and career-ready
PDF
A comparison of student motivation by program delivery method: self-efficacy, goal orientation, and belongingness in a synchronous online and traditional face-to-face environment
PDF
The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students
PDF
Do the perceptions of the usefulness of academic support services influence ethnically diverse students' help-seeking attitudes and behaviors?
PDF
Instructional delivery as more than just a vehicle: A comparison of social, cognitive, and affective constructs across traditional oncampus and synchronous online social work graduate programs.
PDF
What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?
PDF
Beliefs and behaviors of online and face-to-face students: evaluating differences in collaboration, help‐seeking, and ethics
PDF
What motivational factors influence community college students' tendency to seek help through math tutoring?
PDF
Self-regulation and online course satisfaction in high school
PDF
Motives and methods: motivation, learning approaches, and academic achievement of students during first year transition to medical school
PDF
Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college
PDF
Online, flipped, and traditional instruction: a comparison of student performance in higher education
PDF
The graduate school experience: exploring help-seeking behaviors of female South Asian international graduate alumni after experiencing sexual harassment or sexual assault
PDF
Employing cognitive task analysis supported instruction to increase medical student and surgical resident performance and self-efficacy
Asset Metadata
Creator
Dayne, Nancy
(author)
Core Title
The examination of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction of higher education students taking on-campus and online course formats
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
07/17/2015
Defense Date
07/16/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic help‐seeking,academic self‐efficacy,academic self‐regulation,OAI-PMH Harvest,student satisfaction
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hirabayashi, Kimberly (
committee chair
), Seli, Helena (
committee chair
), Reiboldt, Wendy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
dayne@usc.edu,nancy.dayne@csulb.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-597386
Unique identifier
UC11301347
Identifier
etd-DayneNancy-3627.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-597386 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-DayneNancy-3627.pdf
Dmrecord
597386
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Dayne, Nancy
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
academic help‐seeking
academic self‐efficacy
academic self‐regulation
student satisfaction