Advertisement

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 455–463 | Cite as

The Relationship Between Self-efficacy and Self-regulated Learning in One-to-One Computing Environment: The Mediated Role of Task Values

  • Shan Li
  • Juan Zheng
Regular Article

Abstract

The one-to-one computing environment provides students adaptive and individualized learning experiences, which has the great potential to enhance their learning performances, but it also requires students to actively motivate themselves to self-regulate their learning processes. This study examined the relationships between self-efficacy, task values, and self-regulated learning (SRL) in a one-to-one computing environment. Specifically, how task values (intrinsic value, utility value, and cost) mediate the relationship between students’ self-efficacy and SRL was explored. A total of 299 seventh grade students (176 boys and 123 girls, with an average age of 15) from 8 classrooms of one public school volunteered to participate in this study. They were asked to complete a questionnaire pertaining to their perceptions of task values, self-efficacy, and SRL when using eSchoolbag, a type of one-to-one computing environment, to assist their learning. Results revealed that self-efficacy was a significant predictor of students’ SRL, and their intrinsic value, utility value, and cost. Intrinsic value and utility value both significantly predict students’ SRL. However, the cost of a task did not predict students’ SRL. Utility value significantly mediated the relationship between self-efficacy and SRL, whereas the indirect effect of self-efficacy on SRL mediated by intrinsic value was not significant. The findings from this study provided important practical implications for the teaching and learning in one-to-one computing environment.

Keywords

Self-regulated learning Self-efficacy Task value One-to-one computing environment 

Notes

Author Contributions

Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

The data can be obtained on request in electronic copy by email. The research was conducted in accordance with the journal’s ethical guidelines. All the participation was voluntary. The authors declare that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under considerations for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part.

References

  1. Artino, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Beyond grades in online learning: Adaptive profiles of academic self-regulation among naval academy undergraduates. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(4), 568–601.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X0902000402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balkis, M., & Duru, E. (2016). Procrastination, self-regulation failure, academic life satisfaction, and affective well-being: Underregulation or misregulation form. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(3), 439–459.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0266-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337).  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
  6. Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter, K. (2001). Laptop lessons: Exploring the promise of one-to-one computing. Technology & Learning, 21(10), 38–49.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, C.-H., Chou, Y.-Y., & Huang, C.-Y. (2016). An augmented-reality-based concept map to support mobile learning for science. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 567–578.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0284-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  12. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Green, R. A., Conlon, E. G., & Morrissey, S. A. (2017). Task values and self-efficacy beliefs of undergraduate psychology students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 69(2), 112–120.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to meditaion, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880–895.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Husman, J., Derryberry, W. P., Crowson, H. M., & Lomax, R. (2004). Instrumentality, task value, and intrinsic motivation: Making sense of their independent interdependence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(1), 63–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(03)00019-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lajoie, S. P., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 803–821). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee, C. Y. (2015). Changes in self-efficacy and task value in online learning. Distance Education, 36(1), 59–79.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1019967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee, J., Bong, M., & Kim, S. (2014). Interaction between task values and self-efficacy on maladaptive achievement strategy use. Educational Psychology, 34(5), 538–560.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.895296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li, S., & Zheng, J. (2017). The effect of academic motivation on students’ English learning achievement in the eSchoolbag-based learning environment. Smart Learning Environments.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-017-0042-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43.  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Metallidou, P., & Vlachou, A. (2010). Children’s self-regulated learning profile in language and mathematics: The role of task value beliefs. Psychology in the Schools, 47(8), 776–788.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pajares, F. (2008). Motivational role of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 111–139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Penue, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00015-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063002167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. B. (1995). Strategies and metacognitive regulation of strategies: Basic theory and research/knowlege/basic mechanisms affecting learning. In Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policymakers (pp. 27, 45, 83, 323). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  30. Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85–104). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 386–398.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Taub, M., Azevedo, R., Bradbury, A. E., Millar, G. C., & Lester, J. (2017). Using sequence mining to reveal the efficiency in scientific reasoning during STEM learning with a game-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2007). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 443–463.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407308475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02209024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social-studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 27–47.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003035929216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010.ch4.
  38. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance: An introduction and an overview. In Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance. New York: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010.ch1.

Copyright information

© De La Salle University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations