Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
15
16
17
18
19
20
1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 7 6 6 1 7 6 7
2 7 5 5 7 6 6 6 6 4 5 2 2 2 7 7 6 7 3 3 6
3 6 6 7 5 5 6 6 6 1 6 7 2 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6
4 3 6 6 6 6 5 6 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 5 6 5 4 4 3
5 6 5 5 6 5 7 6 5 5 6 1 4 6 7 7 7 6 4 6 7
6 6 4 3 6 5 6 7 7 5 5 7 5 4 7 6 7 6 6 7 7
7 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 4 1 5 7 7 7 7 7 7
8 5 2 2 2 2 5 3 2 5 1 5 3 3 6 3 3 5 5 3 3
9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 4 4 7 6 6 3 5 5 7 5 4 4
10
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
7
6 7 7 7 4 4 3 5 7 4 4
11 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 3 7 1 1 3 6 2 6 4 6 6
12 7 3 5 3 6 6 7 7 1 4 5 4 4 7 6 6 4 4 6 5
13 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 4 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
14 5 3 4 5 3 6 5 5 6 6 6 4 4 4 2 3 3 6 5 6
15
4 6 5 6 6 6 6 6
2
4 2 5 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 5
16 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 2 2 3 3 2 6 6 6 6 5 5 5
17 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 7 5 6 6 7 1 4 4 4 3 4 7
18 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 4 3 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 7
19 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 3 3 6 6 5 4 4 5 4
20 6 4 5 4 5 7 6 5 4 3 4 5 5 7 5 5 4 6 4 5
7
2
Table 5
Ratings of the MSLQ
Item
Parti
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 5 5 5 4 6 5
22 6 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 5 7 6 7 7 4 7 7 3 6 7
23 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 4 7 1 1 7 7 7 1 7 4 7
24 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 1
25 4 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 4 4 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 4
26 5 3 5 4 5 7 5 7 3 4 3 1 1 5 6 6 5 2 5 4
27 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 4 5 6 4 4 6 4 5 5 5 6
28 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 4 7 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4
29 5 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 1 3 4 1 1 6 5 6 2 7 7 6
30 6 5 7 5 5 6 6 5 6 5 6 5 5 3 5 4 5 3 4 4
31 4 5 5 4 5 7 4 6 1 2 5 2 1 7 6 6 4 6 6 6
32 5 3 6 4 5 6 6 6 2 3 2 2 2 6 6 5 4 7 4 5
33 7 7 6 6 6 7 5 3 3 4 2 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 3
34 6 5 7 4 7 7 7 7 1 1 6 6 7 5 6 3 3 7 6 7
35 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 7 1 5 7 1 2 5 7 7 7 7 7 7
36 5 4 5 4 6 6 5 6 6 6 7 5 5 6 6 4 6 4 5 6
37 6 4 7 5 3 6 7 6 2 5 7 2 1 5 6 6 6 7 5 5
38 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 5 7 1 1 1 7 6 6 6 7 7
39 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 3 2 2 2 6 6 6 2 5 5
N=39. Number of Items = 20. Parti: Participants : Reversed Rated Item
The ratings range from 1 to 7 where 1 means not true at all and 7 means always true.
73
7
2
Items 1-8 were related to the self-efficacy, items 9-13 were related to the test anxiety,
and items 14-20 measured measure students metacognitive self-regulation. The MSLQ
items for metacognitive self-regulation were reduced from 12 to 8 items due to time
constraints.
Factor analysis was used to assess the construct validity of the selected MSLQ
scales of self-efficacy, test anxiety, and metacognitive self-regulation. The participant
ratings on the selected 20 items of the MSLQ were tested for sampling adequacy using
the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistics. The KMO assesses if there is some latent
structure in the data. It is referred to as the factorability of R. Small values indicate that
the correlations between pairs of variables cannot be explained by other variables
therefore, a factor analysis would be inappropriate. The KMO statistic was calculated as
0.602 which is greater than 0.6 indicating a factor analysis is reasonably appropriate
(Field, 2005).
A factor analysis utilizing principal components extraction was performed on the
selected 20 items of the MSLQ using the responses from the 39 participants. The factors
were chosen based on the eigenvalue greater than 1 and scree plots. These criteria
yielded five factors accounting for 70.3 percent of the variance. Sorted factor loadings of
the selected 20 items are shown in Table 6. The rotated component matrix used Varimax
with Kaiser Normalization is shown. The Varimax rotation enhanced interpretability of
the factors. The highest structure coefficient for each factor was 0.887 for Factor I, 0.920
for Factor II, 0.801 for Factor III, 0.714 for Factor IV, and 0.817 for Factor V.
74
7
2
Table 6
Sorted Factor Loadings of the MSLQ (Item 1-20)
Item
Factors
I II III IV V
Item5 0.887 0.080 0.111 -0.076 -0.027
Item 2 0.879 -0.068 -0.047 -0.109 -0.013
Item 3 0.868 -0.220 -0.130 0.064 -0.037
Item 7 0.849 -0.087 0.163 0.243 -0.073
Item 4 0.832 -0.129 0.103 0.006 0.158
Item 8 0.724 -0.180 0.252 0.336 -0.099
Item 1. 0.716 -0.026 0.190 0.227 0.036
Item 6 0.709 -0.085 0.262 0.143 -0.181
Item 13 -0.025 0.920 -0.104 0.028 0.021
Item 12 -0.089 0.844 -0.291 0.139 0.044
Item 9 -0.367 0.603 -0.137 0.256 0.409
Item 19 0.300 -0.439 0.219 0.410 -0.053
Item 14 -0.042 0.147 0.801 -0.091 0.191
Item 16 0.185 -0.294 0.758 0.084 0.201
Item 15 0.407 -0.170 0.519 -0.147 0.129
Item 11 0.012 0.058 -0.525 0.714 0.029
Item 10 0.044 0.312 -0.036 0.677 0.459
Item 20 0.198 0.066 0.257 0.663 -0.196
Item 17 0.156 -0.022 0.104 0.078 0.817
Item 18 0.315 -0.206 0.108 0.218 0.587
Item 10 0.044 0.312 -0.036 0.677 0.459
Items considered salient to a factor were those with structure coefficients greater than
absolute .43.
75
7
2
The five factors which were identified using items with structure coefficients over 0.43
are in Table 7. Factor I included 8 items, Factor II included four items, Factor III
included 4 items, Factor IV included 3 items, and Factor V included 4 items.
Factor I was interpreted as computer literacy course confidence. The related
items asked about the students confidence in their capabilities with computers,
confidence in making excellent grades, understanding complex material, and excellence
in completing assignments or tests.
Factor II was interpreted as personal emotional reaction to tests in computer
study. The factor was saturated with the items concerning emotions such as thinking
about failing a test, feeling uneasy and upset, having a fast heart beat, and trying to
determine which concept they dont understand.
Factor III was interpreted as the students perceptions of monitoring their own
work for success. The factor included items about the students thinking of the
consequences of failing, missing important points due distractions, and about asking
themselves questions to assure understanding and then going back and to try to figure out
something confusing.
Factor IV was interpreted as integrating prior knowledge to the present work.
The factor was correlated with items concerning students thinking about consequences
of failing, thinking about items on other parts of the test they couldnt answer when they
took a test, and setting goals for themselves to direct their activities in each study period.
Factor V was interpreted as self-checking skills for the class and the instructor.
The factor was correlated with the students determinations of changing the study method
to fit the course requirements and instructors teaching style, checking their recognition
76
7
2
Table 7
Factor Analysis of Participants rating Items from the MSLQ (1-20) -Rotation
Factor Items (Varimax Rotation) Rotation
Eigenvalue
Cumulative %
of Variance
Factor I 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 5.866 29.332
Factor II 9, 12, 13, 19 2.522 41.942
Factor III 11, 14, 15, 16 2.250 53.194
Factor IV 10, 11, 20 2.017 63.280
Factor V 9, 10, 17, 18 1.603 70.295
Note. Extract Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
of their reading for class but not knowing what it was all about, and thinking about the
items on the other parts of the test they couldnt answer.
Bivariate correlations of the student factor scores for Factors I, II, III with student
scale totals are shown in Table 8. The correlation coefficients suggest construct validity.
Factor I (student confidence) was correlated with the scale score of self-efficacy (r= .974,
p<.01). Factor II (emotional reactions to testing) was moderately correlated to the scale
for test anxiety (r= .760, p<.01). Factor III (student monitoring for success) was
moderately correlated to the scale items of metacognitive self-regulation (r= .727, p<.01).
These correlations support the construct validity of the selected scales in the MSLQ.
Descriptive statistics for the participants ratings on the selected scales of the
MSLQ are shown in Table 9. MSLQ internal consistency reliability Cronbach alpha was
77
7
2
Table 8
Bivariate Correlations among Factors and The Selected Scales of the MSLQ
Scale
Factor
Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV Factor V
Self-efficacy .974** -.111 .125 .117 -.029
Test Anxiety -.123 .760** -.309 .480** .247
Metacognitive Self-regulation .399* -.297 .727** .353* .021
N= 39.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 9
Statistics for the Participants Ratings on the MSLQ Selected Scales
Description Self-
efficacy
Test Anxiety Metacognitive
Self-regulation
Total Score
of MSLQ
Mean 45.97 18.26 36.79 101.03
Median 45 17 37 101
SD 8.62 7.17 5.75 12.71
Range 33 29 20 58
Minimum 23 5 27 68
Maximum 56 34 47 126
Quartile (Participants)
for the Scale
1
st
(10) 41 13 33 93
2
nd
(10) 45 17 37 101
3
rd
(10) 54 23 41 110
4
th
(9) 56 34 47 126
Number of Items 8 5 7 20
Item Mean 5.75 3.65 5.26 5.05
N= 39
78
7
2
0.735 for the total of the three selected scales; for self-efficacy, 0.93; for test anxiety,
0.78; and for metacognitive self-regulation, 0.61.
The results of the three selected scales of the MSLQ are shown in Table 10.
Participants mean on the self-efficacy scale is 5.75. The highest rated item on the self-
efficacy scale was 6.26 which asked if the participant was expecting to do well in this
class. The lowest rated item of the scale asked if the participant understood the most
difficult material with a mean of 5.23. Participants mean on the test anxiety scale is
3.65. The highest rated item on the test anxiety scale was 4.74 which asked if the
participant thought of the consequences of failing. The lowest rated item of the scale
asked if the participant thought about the items on other parts of the test I cant answer
with a mean of 3.05. Participants mean on the metacognitive self-regulation scale is
5.26. The highest rated item on the metacognitive self-regulation scale was 5.49 which
asked the participant if When confused about something Im reading for this class, I go
back and try to figure it out. The lowest rated item of the scale asked if the participant
tries to change the way I study in order to fit the course requirements and instructors
teaching style had a mean of 5.05.
Statistical Analysis of Internet Use
Data for each participants internet usage for three class days are shown in Table
11. Participants history of internet use was analyzed for three of the eight days
collected. The participants login ID was the same for each individual. Since individual
participants had no personal login ID or password, it was assumed that the participants
started and finished the class period within the designated time on the same computer. In
addition the instructor noted if anyone moved to a different computer.
79
7
2
Table 10
Results of the Three Selected Scales of the MSLQ
Scale Item Mean SD
Self-Efficacy Item 1. 5.77 1.202
Item 2. 5.23 1.530
Item 3. 5.74 1.371
Item 4. 5.46 1.393
Item 5. 5.64 1.267
Item 6. 6.26 1.019
Item 7 6.00 1.124
Item 8. 5.87 1.436
Test Anxiety Item 9. 3.79 2.064
Item 10. 3.05 1.609
Item 11. 4.74 2.099
Item 12. 3.33 1.896
Item 13 3.33 2.156
Metacognitive
Self-regulation
Item 14. 5.26 1.788
Item 15 5.49 1.374
Item 16 5.33 1.383
Item 17 5.05 1.572
Item 18 5.18 1.571
Item 19 5.13 1.239
Item 20 5.36 1.478
N= 39.
The ratings range from 1 to 7 where 1 means not true at all and 7 means always
true.
80
7
2
Table 11
Data for Each Participant Internet Usage for Three Class Days
Participants Number of Internet
Access Clicks
Number of Internet
Browsing Clicks
Number of Course
Related Clicks
Number of College
Web Clicks
1 27 12 0 15
2 7 7 0 0
3 31 27 4 0
4 9 7 1 1
5 11 2 9 0
6 30 25 5 0
7 24 20 4 0
8 115 115 0 0
9 55 32 16 7
10 61 46 15 0
11 54 54 0 0
12 51 43 8 0
13 87 74 12 1
14 67 41 6 20
15 21 9 9 3
16 23 17 4 2
17 59 52 7 0
18 32 32 0 0
19 26 20 2 4
20 10 4 5 1
21 13 5 6 2
22 14 0 14 0
23 38 31 3 4
24 45 44 1 0
25 19 6 12 1
26 33 19 14 0
27 11 6 4 1
28 34 10 24 0
29 93 66 17 10
30 10 7 3 0
31 90 75 15 0
32 28 18 9 1
33 78 65 13 0
34 16 11 5 0
35 2 0 2 0
36 48 39 3 6
37 69 49 17 3
38 41 28 13 0
39
9 0 9 0
81
7
2
For the measure of internet use, the middle 50 minutes out of the 80 class minutes
were examined. This was done to insure that the computer was utilized during class
instruction. Because of the difficulty of measuring the minutes of internet use by the
participants, the number of mouse clicks was chosen instead. Internet use history was
categorized as the total number of internet access clicks and details of internet access.
The total number of internet access clicks included the number of non-course related
internet browsing clicks, course related clicks, and college web clicks. The details of
internet access included the number of visited web sites and clicks of mail checking.
Data for participants measured history of internet use during class is shown in Table 12.
Students clicked the internet an average of 13 times with the mode of 9 per 50 minutes
class time. The median of the internet access clicks was 32 times in 50 minutes of class
time. There was a statistically significant correlation between the total number of internet
access clicking and non-course related internet browsing clicking (r= .964, p < .01) as
would be expected. Students visited on an average of over 2 websites per 50 minutes
class time. These web sites may involve multiple clicks.
Statistics of Academic Achievement
The data for academic achievement are based on content learning and computer
skills and are shown in Table 13. Assessment for learning content material was from the
sum of the scores on four exams and assessment of computer skills was from four lab
scores. The academic achievement score included both the content material and
computer skills plus bonus points. The mean of the participants academic grades was
2.9 as the grade range was from 1 to 4 with 0 as a grade of an F, 1 as a grade of a D, 2 as
a grade of a C, 3 as a grade of a B, and 4 as a grade of an A.
82
7
2
Table 12
Data from Three Class Days of Internet Use Averaged for One Class Period (50
minutes), N = 39 Participants
Internet Clicks during Class
Time
Total Percent Mean per
Participant
SD Range
Number of Internet Browsing
Clicks
344 69 9 8.65 38
Number of Mail Checking
Clicks
28 6 1 1.24 5
Number of Course Related
Clicks
97 19 2 2.01 8
Number of College Web
Clicks
28 6 1 1.43 7
Total Number of Internet
Access Clicks
497 100 13 9.30 38
Total Number of Web Sites
Visited
92 - 2.35 1.55 7
The mean score was 80.74 percent of total points possible. The scores of
participants who withdrew the course were not included in the study. No student failed
the course. The percentage score for computer skills was 29.11 percentage points higher
than content learning scores on an average. The correlation coefficient between scores
for computer skills and content learning was 0.402 (p<.05).
83
7
2
Table 13
Data of Course Grade, Average Score, Content and Skill Achievements
Description Percent Mean SD Range Minimum Maximum
Course Grade
(4.0 Scale)
2.90 .852 3 1 4
A (n= 10) 25.6
B (n= 17) 43.6
C (n= 10) 25.6
D (n= 2) 5.2
F (n= 0) 0
Content Achievement
Percent
53.54 8.092 39.50 40 79.50
Skill Achievement
Percent
82.65 13.354 54.50 43.50 98
Mean Difference
between Content and
Skill Achievements
-116.46 50.120
t= -14.5, Sig.= .000
Average Score
Percent
80.74 9.233 46 57 102
Correlations between Self-regulation, Internet Use, and Academic Achievement
The bivariate correlation matrix between each of the three subscales of the
MSLQ, self-efficacy, test anxiety, metacognitive self-regulation, self-reported computer
time and internet use, computer history recorded internet use, and academic achievement
84
7
2
are shown in Table 14. The correlation between the constructs self-efficacy and
metacognitive self-regulated learning was statistically significant (r= .53, p < .01) as
might be expected. Note that self-efficacy was also correlated with course grade (r= .48,
p < .01) and skill achievement (r= .46, p < .01). Self-regulation was not highly correlated
with any of the other variables as was stated by the null hypotheses.
The second research question regarding the correlation between self-regulation
and internet use showed a low negative correlation (r= -.14, p > .05) which was not
statistically significant. Self-efficacy also showed a low negative correlation with
internet use (r= -.26, p > .05). Neither correlation was statistically significant, but, it is
interesting to note that both correlations are negative, as might be predicted, i.e., students
who are self-regulated and efficacious would not be expected to spend a lot of time and
effort in nonproductive activity during class. Correlations between test anxiety and the
number of visited websites and the number of course related clicks were not statistically
significant. But test anxiety was negatively correlated with visited websites (r= -.24, p >
.05) and positively correlated with course related clicks (r= .22, p > .05). Test anxiety
showed statistically significant correlations with self-reported computer use for fun and
play (r= .35, p < .05), and self-reported computer use for research and study (r= .33, p <
.05).
The third research question regarding the correlation between internet use and
academic achievement showed a low negative correlation which was not statistically
significant (r= -.23, p> .05). This finding may be explained by the more highly correlated
(r= .60, p< .01) self-reported hours on the computer and the computer hours for fun and
8
5
Table 14
Bivariate Correlations between the MSLQ, Internet Use and Grades
Description
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Self-efficacy _ -.20 .53* -.06 .20 -.09 .11 -.26 -.26 .11 .06 .13 .48* .46* .27
2. Test Anxiety _ -.31 -.00 .07 .35* .33* -.07 -.11 -.24 .22 .04 .02 -.08 -.18
3. Self-regulation _ -.07 .09 -.22 .02 -.17 -.14 .10 -.07 .02 .18 .17 .15
4. Hrs. on Computer _ -.15 .60** .07 .17 .11 .19 .21 .15 .04 .07 .16
5. Hrs. of Study _ .01 .27 -.24 -.20 -.15 -.01 -.15 -.08 -.11 -.11
6. Computer for Fun _ .25 .23 .20 -.06 .19 .30 -.05 .01 -.07
7. Study on Computer _ -.25 -.25 -.34* .08 .27 -.12 -.13 -.20
8. Number of Clicks _ .96** .60** .29 .07 -.23 -.19 -.22
9. Internet Browsing _ .56** .11 .08 -.27 -.23 -.23
10. Visited Web Sites _ .29 -.01 -.00 -.00 .03
11 Course Related _ -.16 .10 .17 -.17
12. Mail Checking _ .12 -.08 -.33*
13. Course Grade _ .85** .67**
14. Skill _ .40*
15. Content _
N= 39.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
86
8
5
play. Computer use for study and research was negatively correlated to the number of
visited web sites (r= -.34, p<.05). Mail checking was also negatively correlated to
content achievement (r= -.33, p < .05), but showed no correlation with skills achievement
(r= -.08, p> .05). Study hours for this course was significantly correlated to the credits
taken for semester (r= .33, p < .05).
Correlations between Factors, Internet Use, and Academic achievement
The correlations between the five factors and self-reported total hours per week of
computer and internet use, class time internet use measured by numbers of clicks, and
academic achievement are shown in Table 15. The factor analysis was used to assess the
reliability of the MSLQ scales. The three selected scales of the MSLQ and the first three
factors showed high correlations of 0.974, 0.760 and, 0.727 (p < .01). Factor I, which
include the same items as self-efficacy, was correlated to grades (r= .47, p<.01) and skill
achievement (r= .46, p<.01). This correlation compares favorably with the scale score
self-efficacy with grades and skills achievement. None of the five factors were
significantly correlated to other variables related to the internet use.
Summary of Results
This study is an effort to find the effects of self-regulation and internet use on
academic achievement for college students in a computer literacy course. Demographic
data, internet use questionnaires and internet history, and the selected items from the
MSLQ scales measuring self-efficacy, test anxiety, and self-regulation were collected and
analyzed by using SPSS. Bivariate correlations between measures of self-regulation,
internet use, and academic achievement were used to reveal any relationships. Factor
analysis was utilized to assess the construct validity in the MSLQ selected scales and the
87
8
5
Table 15
Bivariate Correlations between Factors, Internet Use, and Academic Achievement
Description
Factor
I
Factor
II
Factor
III
Factor
IV
Factor
V
Hours of Work with Computer -.07 -.15 -.18 .10 -.04
Hours of Study with Computer .26 .15 .01 -.13 .17
Credits taking for Semester -.28 .14 -.19 .33* -.29
Computer Use for Fun and Play -.11 .22 -.22 .26 -.09
Computer Use Study and Research .13 .38* .06 .11 .18
Number of Internet Access Clicks -.25 -.21 -.25 .02 -.25
Number of Internet Browsing Clicks -.26 -.24 -.22 -.03 -.12
Number of Visited Web Sites .11 -.30 -.13 -.07 -.22
Number of Course Related Clicks .06 .12 -.11 .13 .02
Number of Mail checking Clicks .10 -.03 -.11 .17 -.16
Course Grade .47** .06 .10 .04 .07
Skill Achievement .46** .08 .15 -.12 -.03
Content Achievement .23 -.03 .18 -.07 -.17
N= 39.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
factor scores supported the validity of those measures. Neither factor scores nor the
scores on the MSLQ scales showed statistically significant correlations with
self- regulation and academic achievement, self-regulation and internet use. There was
88
8
5
no statistically significant correlation between internet use and academic achievement.
For each of the three research questions, the null hypothesis was not rejected.
89
8
5
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
This study of correlation between internet usage and academic achievement
focuses on the effects of self-regulation based on Banduras (1986) social cognitive
theory. Triadic forms of self-regulation are shown in Figure 2. Metacognitive self-
regulation is labeled covert self-regulation in that the students regulate their own
learning processes such as reviewing material or connecting ideas (Zimmerman, 1989).
Research has shown that self-regulation has a positive influence on academic
achievement in many fields (Niemczyk & Savenye, 2001; Saparniene, Merkys, &
Saparnis 2005; Schunk & Ertmer, 1998; Weinstein, Husman, & Dierking, 2000;
Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). McKeachie (2000) and Pintrich (1995) reported
that students can learn and be taught self-regulated leaning strategies. The current study
investigated if self-regulation was related to effective internet use and academic
achievement in a computer literacy course. LaRose, Lin, and Eastin suggested that
unregulated internet use was from a deficiency of self-regulation (2003). The students
who participated in this study responded to the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ) composed of the selected scales to measure self-efficacy, test
anxiety, and metacognitive self-regulation. These variables were correlated with internet
usage to see if the correlations conform to the predictions based on the theory. The
results suggest that self-regulation does influence students internet use and the internet
use influences students academic achievement. In the sample of 39 college students in
the computer literacy courses, no statistically significant correlations were observed and
90
8
5
the three null hypotheses were not rejected, but all the correlations of academic
achievement were positive.
Findings
There was no statistically significant correlation between metacognitive self-
regulation and academic achievement and the null hypothesis was not rejected. However,
the correlations of self-regulation with all the measures of academic achievement were all
positive (course grade, r= .19 p > .05; skills, r = .17 p > .05; content, r = .15 p > .05).
Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (1991) reported a correlation of .30 for the self-
regulation scale with course grades in a university (N= 380). The finding is consistent
with the other research in which Niemczyk and Savenye (2001) reported the low
correlation (r = .11, p > 05) between metacognitive self-regulation and computer literacy
course grade. Self regulation is only possible for those students with self-efficacy in that
they feel they can be successful students through controlling their own behavior. As
might be expected, there was a statistically significant correlation between self-regulation
and self-efficacy (r= .53, p< .05). Pintrich, Smith et al. reported a correlation of .46 for
the self-regulation scale with self-efficacy. Self-efficacy had a correlation with academic
achievement (r = .48, p < 05) and with skills (r = .46, p < .05). Pintrich, Smith et al.
reported a correlation of 0.41 for the self-efficacy scale with course grades. The finding
was consistent with other research in which the high achieving students used self-
regulated learning strategies more than low achieving students (Zimmerman & Martinez-
Pons, 1986).
The selected 20 items of the MSLQ questionnaire in the present study were eight
items for the scale measuring self-efficacy, five items for the scale measuring test
91
8
5
anxiety, and seven items for the scale measuring metacognitive self-regulation. A factor
analysis using a Varimax rotation produced five factors explained seventy percent of the
total variance. All of items from the self-efficacy scale loaded on Factor I with structure
coefficients ranging from 0.887 to 0.709. Of the Items identified in the MSLQ as
measuring the construct test anxiety, the items loaded on the Factor II with structure
coefficients ranging from 0.920 to .439. Of the MSLQ items for the metacognitive self-
regulation scale, the items loaded with structure coefficients ranging from .801 to .519.
The last two factors were not interpretable and were not used. The first three factors
accounted for fifty-three percent of total variance and shared high structure coefficients
with other constructs. A correlation of participants factor scores and their totals for each
scale showed strong correlations with the first three factors supporting construct validity
of the scales of the MSLQ. The most highly related construct is self-efficacy with Factor
I, test anxiety with Factor II, and metacognitive self-regulation with Factor III. Some
MSLQ items did not show high correlations with the three identified factors. Those were
item 10, item 11, and item 9. This may indicate that the items may have multiple
interpretations by the participants in this sample. Item 9 interpreted as test anxiety and
regulating. Item 11 interpreted as metacognitive self-regulation and planning. Item 10
interpreted as planning and regulating.
The factor analysis using the sample scores shows that the construct for self-
regulation was not as distinct as a single factor as self-efficacy. Five factors were
identified and interpreted using the participant responses on the three selected scales.
Factor I was self-efficacy, Factor II was test anxiety, and Factor III, IV, V were aspects of
self-regulation. Factor III was interpreted as monitoring, Factor IV was planning, and
92
8
5
Factor V was regulating. Factor III showed a correlation of 0.727 with the MSLQ self-
regulation scale which would support construct validity of that scale, but it was lower
than the other two scales. It is interesting to note that these three Factors III, IV, and V
are the components of self-regulation as discussed by Pintrich (2000), but not separated
in the scales of the MSLQ instrument. This diffusion of the self-regulation construct may
explain the lower correlations in the current study.
Test anxiety was negatively correlated with self-efficacy (r= -.20, p > .05), self-
regulation(r = -.31, p > .05), and content achievement (r= -.18, p > .05). These findings
were consistent with the other research in which the decreased test anxiety helped
students to increase their self-efficacy and achievement (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990).
The second hypothesis tested was that there was no correlation between students
self-regulation and internet use in a computer literacy course. As measured, 69 percent of
internet access was for nonacademic internet browsing. Even though this null hypothesis
was not rejected, a self-regulated learner was less likely to access the internet during a
computer literacy class (r= -.17, p > .05).
A surprising result was that students who had high test anxiety clicked more
course related internet sites (r= .22, p > .05) and visited fewer nonacademic sites (r= -.24,
p > .05). Test anxiety unusually acts as a motivational tool to use the internet for course
related goals as Garcia suggested (1995). Students who had test anxiety prepared their
work in advance to make failure less likely (Garcia). Test anxiety was correlated with the
hours of computer use for fun and research (r= .35, p < .05) and for study and research
(r= .33, p < .05). Test anxiety leads students to use the computer in both ways. Test
93
8
5
anxiety plays not only as a motivational strategy as Garcia noted (1995) but also works as
a distraction (LaRose, Mastro, & Eastin, 2001).
The third hypothesis was that there was no correlation between students internet
use and academic achievement. Students internet use did not show a statistically
significant influence on their academic achievement. However, the correlations of
internet access with all the measures of academic achievement were negative (course
grade, r= -.23 p > .05; skills, r= -.19 p > .05; content, r= -.22 p > .05). The correlations of
non-course related internet browsing with all the measures of academic achievement
were also all negative (course grade, r= -.27 p > .05; skills, r= -.23 p > .05; content, r= -
.23 p > .05). A statistically significant correlation (r= .60, p < .01) was found between
internet access and nonacademic internet browsing. Students who did not accomplish
skills achievement were more likely to check mail during class hours (r= -.33, p < .05)
and mail checking was six percent of the total internet access. Those findings support the
contention that internet access and internet browsing does influence students grades.
Also, these findings are supported by the work of LaRose, Lin, and Eastin (2003) who
also reported negative influence of internet use.
In interpreting the data there are some interesting findings that may further the
goals of the research. Students who reported that the use of the computer was mainly for
study were less likely to access internet (r= -.25, p > .05) and browse internet
nonacademic related sites (r= -.25, p > .05), and visit many web sites (r= -.34, p < .05).
Whereas, students who reported they used the computer for fun and play were more
likely to access internet (r= .23, p > .05), browse nonacademic related internet sites (r=
.20, p > .05), access internet course related sites (r= .19, p > .05), and mail checking (r=
94
8
5
.30, p < .05). Over seventeen percent of the students self-reported that they use internet
when they were bored.
Sixty-five percent of students in the present study, used internet mostly after
finishing a lab during computer literacy class. Also, 82 percent of students reported
entertainment as their primary usage of internet. As Niemczyk and Savenye (2001) noted
that students took the computer literacy course because the content would be helpful and
attractive, 69 percent of the internet access was internet browsing and 82 percent of the
students reported that the primary use of the internet was for entertainment. The easy
access of internet acts as an attractive distraction from work and may lead the students
to think about things that do not relate to the class.
Implications
This study explored the relationships between the variables self-regulation,
internet use, and academic achievement in a computer literacy course. Self-efficacy
appeared to play the major role in the computer literacy course. This study supports
Zimmermans (1989) contention that only learners with self-efficacy will utilize self-
regulated learning strategies. Self-regulated learning strategies are used to modify the
environment, set goals, monitor behavior in order to succeed. As students spend time
studying on the computer, they visit web sites more and may be attracted to browsing
nonacademic internet sites. The attractive distraction of the internet can affect student
contraction and achievement. While self-efficacy is correlated to high academic
achievement, self-regulated learning strategies should be embedded in a computer
literacy course to help students deal with the distractions of the internet and to take
control of their own learning.
95
8
5
Students perceived test anxiety did not correlate with their internet use during
class, but did correlate with self-reported time spent on the computer for fun and play and
for study and research in this study. The three determinants formed by Bandura (1977b)
support the relation between students control of their cognition and their behavior.
Behavior influences a persons cognition and vice versa. Niemczyk and Savenye (2001)
insisted that students self-regulation of their own learning in a computer literacy course
was of great importance. The students who are unregulated are students who have a
deficiency in self-regulation (Mastro & Eastin, 2001). According to Pintrich (1995),
students can be taught and can learn self-regulation. The self-regulated students can
control their own learning which influences their academic achievement. The instruction
of self-regulation can be embedded during class instruction so that the students can learn
how to plan and control their internet use during a computer literacy course. Self-
regulation instruction must be a useful tool during computer-based courses to enhance
academic achievement. Also students strengths or weaknesses in using learning
strategies should be evaluated and improved.
Future Studies
The present study was limited by a sample derived from sophomores and juniors
who participated in a computer literacy course under a single instructor in an HBCU
University. In order to confirm the importance of the correlation between self-regulation,
internet use, and academic achievement, a large sample at several institutions should be
taken. The best approach would be a longitudinal study during class periods for a full
term. It may be difficult to generalize these results to other age groups. For example, a
freshmen or senior might have different correlations between self-regulation, internet use,
96
8
5
and academic achievement. Also, in the current study students majors were limited to
non-science majors, non-engineering, and non-mathematics so that internet experience
and usage may be limited in comparison.
When asked about the students internet use, the question was limited to that
when do you use internet during class, and students answered before class or after a
lab. A more detailed study may ask about the period of time the internet is used, such
as how many minutes of the internet was used during class, and then compare the amount
time of perceived internet use and recorded internet use. There was an assumption that
the students skills of the internet and the computer were the same to all, experts or
novices.
Future studies on self-regulation on internet use and academic achievement need
to explore several factors such as: (a) how students manage their environmental
resources, time on computer and internet use? (b) what kind of strategies students
elaborate for their work? and (c) when do they utilize their strategies? For the effective
learning as McKeachie (2000) stated, students should know how to use and when it is an
appropriate situation to apply their strategies. The students cognition of their resources,
e.g., time, is necessary for the students to plan, control, and regulate to achieve their goals
(Pintrich, 2000). One of the responses for the reason to use the internet during class was
when they were bored; therefore students proper time management will enhance the
management of their class hour.
Further study on interaction between self-regulated internet use and academic
achievement is recommended. The present study was limited to two sections of a
computer literacy course to assess students internet use perception and students
97
8
5
academic achievement. Investigating students self-efficacy and self-regulation could
assist students in achieving academic goals.
In the factor analysis, there were three items with high structure coefficients
across several factors. Further refinement of the MSLQ instrument could more precisely
define the factors and enhance interpretability of results.
Summary of Conclusion
The purpose of this study has been to determine if there were correlations among
students self-regulation, internet use, and academic achievement. The three null
hypotheses were not rejected although some correlations warranted further investigation.
The students self-regulation negatively correlated with their internet browsing and
positively correlated with their academic achievement, and their nonacademic internet
browsing negatively correlated with their academic achievement.
98
8
5
REFERENCES
Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2007, October). Online nation: Five years of growth in online
learning. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from
http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf.
Artino, A. R. (2008). Promoting academic motivation and self-regulation: Practical
guidelines for online instructors. TechTrends, 52(3), 37-45.
Askar, P., & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self-efficacy for
Java programming among engineering students. The Turkish Online Journal of
Education Technology.
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989a). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychological
Association, 44(9), 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1989b). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child
development. Theories of child development. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from
http://www.emory.edu/education/mfp/banency.html.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
99
8
5
Bembenutty, H. (2004, April). Perception of self-efficacy, academic delay of
gratification, and use of learning strategies among Korean college students. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Bembenutty, H. (2006, August). Teachers self-efficacy beliefs, self-regulation of
learning, and academic performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bembenutty, H., McKeachie, W. J., Karabenick, S. A., & Lin, Y. (1998, May). The
relationship between test anxiety and self-regulation on students motivation and
learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Society, Washington, DC.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where we are today. International Journal
of Educational Research, 31, 445-457.
Bugeja, M. (2005). Interpersonal divide. Oxford University Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). On the structure of behavioral self-regulation. In
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
(pp. 41-84). San Diego: Academic Press.
Caskey, M. M. (2009). Developing the Internet-Savviness (IS) Scale: Investigating the
relationships between internet use and academically talented middle school youth.
Online Research in Middle Level Education.
Choi, J. H., Watt, J. H., Dekkers, A. C. and Park, S. (2004, May) Motives in internet use:
Crosscultural perspectives the US, the Netherlands, and South Korea. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association,
100
8
5
New Orleans Sheraton, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved October 5, 2006, from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p112833_index.html.
Day, J. C., Janus, A., & Davis, J. (2005). Computer and internet Use in the Unites States:
2003. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April, 11, 2009, from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p23-208.pdf.
Dennison, R. S., Krawchuk, C. M., Howard, B. C., & Hill, L. (1996). The development of
a childrens self-report measure of metacognition. Paper presented at the Annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Dunsworth, Q., Martin, & F., Igoe, A. (2004). Teaching computer skills to beginners:
What and how? Association for Educational Communications and Technology,
27th, Chicago, IL.
Ebersole, S. (2000). Uses and gratifications of the web among students. Journal of
Computer-Mediated communication, 6(1). Retrieved April 15, 2005, from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/ebersole.html.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-
232.
Elshout-Mohr, M., Meijer, J., van Daalen-Kapteijns, M. M., & Meeus, W. (2004). Joint
research into the AILI (Awareness of Independent Learning). Paper presented at
the first EARLI-SIG on Metacognition. Program and abstract book, p. 18.
Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications.
101
8
5
Fortunato, I., Hecht, D., Tittle, C. K., & and Alvarez, L. (1991). Metacognition and
problem solving. Arithmetic Teacher, 38(4), 38-40.
Garcia, T. (1995). The role of motivational strategies in self-regulated learning. In P. H.
Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self-regulated learning (pp. 29-42). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Graphic, Visualization, & Usability Centers (GUV) WWW User Survey Questionnaire.
(1998). Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www-
static.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/survey-1998-10/.
Graziano, A. M. & Raulin M. L. (2004). Research methods: A process of inquiry (5
th
ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hargis, J. (2000). The self-regulated learner advantage: Learning sciences in the internet.
Electronic Journal of Science Education, 4(4). Retrieved October 23, 2005, from
http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ejsev4n4.html.
Howard, B. C., McGee, S. Hong, M. S., & Shia, R. (2000a, April). The influence of
metacognitive self-regulation on problem solving in computer-based science
inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Shia, R., & Hong, M. S. (2000b, April). Metacognitive self-
regulation and problem solving: Expanding the theory base through factor
analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Jakubowski, T. G. & Dembo, M. H. (2002, April). Social cognitive factors associated
with the academic self-regulation of undergraduate college students in a learning
102
8
5
and study strategies course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Johnson, G. M., & Johnson, J. A. (2006) Personality, internet experience, and E-
communication preference. Online Submission, Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the International Association for Development of the Information
Society. Murcia, Spain.
LaRose, R., & Eastin, M. S. (2002). A Social cognitive explanation of internet uses and
gratifications: Toward a new theory of media attendance. Paper submitted to the
Communication and Technology Division, International Communication
Association.
LaRose, R., Lin, C. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2003). Unregulated internet usage: Addiction,
habit, or deficient self-regulation? Media Psychology, 5(3), 225-253.
LaRose, R., Mastro, D. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2001). Understanding internet usage: A
social cognitive approach to uses and gratification. Social Science Computer
Review, 19, 395-413.
Lindros, T., & Zolkos, C. (2006). Technology, community, and education in neoliberal
society. Student Affairs Online, 7(2).
Malaney, G. D. (2004). Student internet use at UMass Amherst. Students Affairs Online,
5(1).
McKeachie, W. J. (2000, November). Helping students learn how to learn. Opinion
Papers (120), (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 450864).
Net Applications. (2009). Market Share. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=1.
103
8
5
Niemczyk, M. C., & Savenye, W. C. (2001). The Relationship of student motivation and
self-regulated learning strategies to performance in an undergraduate computer
literacy course. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, 24th, Atlanta, GA.
Niemi, H., Nevgi, A., & Virtanen, P. (2003). Towards self-regulation in web-based
learning. Journal of Educational Media. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from
https://www.edu.helsinki.fi/svy/kvanti/mittavaline/mat/NiemiNevgiVirtanen.pdf.
Ocak, M. A., & Akdemir, O. (2008). An investigation of primary school science teachers
use of computer applications. The Turkish Online Journal of Education
Technology.
Pajares. F. (1996). Assessing self-efficacy beliefs and academic outcomes: The case for
specificity and correspondence. Paper presented at a symposium chaired by B. J.
Zimmerman, Measuring and mismeasuring self-efficacy: Dimensions, problems,
and misconceptions. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY. Retrieved October 29, 2007, from
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/aera2.html.
Pajares. F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy.
Retrieved June 5, 2009, from
http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html.
Prez, J. & Murray, M., (2008). Computing for the masses: Extending the computer
science curriculum with information technology literacy. Consortium for
Computing Science in Colleges, 24(2), 220-226.
104
8
5
Pintrich, P. R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. In P. H. Pintrich (Ed.),
Understanding self-regulated learning (pp. 3-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated
learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459-470.
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: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the
use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, School of Education.
Reisberg, L. (2000). 10 % of students may spend too much time online. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from
http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i41/41a04301.htm.
Saparniene, D., Merkys, G., & Saparnis, G. (2005, September). Students attitudes
towards computer: Statistical types and their relationship with computer literacy.
Online submission International conference on Educational Research, University
College, Dublin, Ireland.
105
8
5
Saparniene, D., Merkys, G., & Saparnis, G. (2006). The impact of cognitive and
non-cognitive personality traits on computer literacy level. Paper presented at the
European Conference on Educational Research, Geneva.
Scealy, M. A., Philips, J. G., & Stevenson, R. (2002, November). Shyness and anxiety as
predictors of patterns of internet usage. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 5(6), 507-
515.
Schunk, D.H. (1994). Student motivation for literacy Learning: The role of self-
regulatory processes. Paper to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Schunk, D.H. (1996). Self-efficacy for learning and performance. Presented at the Annual
Meeting and Exhibit of the American Educational Research Association, New
York, NY.
Schunk, D.H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective (3
rd
ed). New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulation through goal setting. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, 4.
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1998, August). Self-evaluation and self-regulated
computer learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-
efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631-649). San Diego: Academic Press.
106
8
5
Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to
self-reference practice. New York: Guilford.
Shelly, G. B., Cashman, T. J., & Vermaat, M. E. (2004). Microsoft Office 2003: Basic
Concepts and Techniques. Thomson Course Technology.
Tatkovic, N., & Maja, R. (2005). Interactive communication by applying contemporary
media in higher education. Croatian Pedagogical-and Literary Association,
Zagreb.
Terry, K. (2002). The effect of online time management practices on self-regulated
learning and academic self-efficacy. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and
academic achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition and Learning,
3(2), 123-146.
Wecker, C., Kohnlet, C., & Fischer, F. (2007). Computer literacy and inquiry learning:
When geeks learn less. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 133-144.
Weinstein, C. E. (1994). Strategic learning/strategic teaching: Flip sides of a coin. In P.
R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation,
cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie (pp. 257-273).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions
with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner,
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 727-77). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
107
8
5
Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms:
1994-2005 (NCES 2007-020). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.
R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531-566). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulated learning with
computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational
Psychology Review, 20(4), 429 444.
Wolters, C. A., Pintrich. P. R., & Karabenick, S. A. (2003). Assessing academic self-
regulated learning. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from
www.childrens.org/Files/WoltersPintrichabenickpaper.pdf.
Young, K. S. (1996). Internet addiction: The Emergence of a new clinical disorder.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 1(3), 237-244.
Young, K. S. (2001). Surfing not studying dealing with internet addiction on campus.
Student Affairs Online, 2 (Winter).
Zenon, E. M. (2006). A study of the correlation between internet access and academic
achievement, and internet use and academic achievement, in middle school
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern University at Baton Rouge,
LA.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 0022-0663, September 1, 81(3).
108
8
5
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulatory learning and academic achievement: An
overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than meta-cognition: A social
cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 29, 217-221.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A
self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73-86.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
13-39). San Diego: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-
regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (137).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview
for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American
Educational Research Journal. 23(4), 614-628.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model
of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3),
284-290.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated
learning; relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy. Journal
of Educational Psychology. 82(1), 51-59.
109
8
5
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Reflections on theories of self-regulated
learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.),
Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives
(289307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
110
8
5
APPENDICES
111
8
5
Appendix A
Demographic Information
1. Gender (Circle one) Male Female
2. What year did you graduate from high school?
3. Class level (Circle one) Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
4. What is your major? ___________________________________
5. How many hours per week do you work with a computer?
6. How many hours a week do you study for this course?
7. How many classes are you taking this term? __________
8. How many times did you take this course? 1
st
2
nd
3
rd
4
th
112
8
5
Appendix B
Internet Use Questionnaire
1. Primary use of the web?
How do you primary use the Web for? (Please check all that apply)
a. Education
b. Shopping/gathering product information
c. Entertainment
d. Work/business
e. Communication with others(not including emails)
f. Gathering information for personal needs
g. Wasting time
h. Other: state________________________
2. Have Fun and Explore
How many hours per week do you use your computer for fun/play?
a. Less than 1
b. 1 to 5 hours
c. 5 to 10 hours
d. 10 to 20 hours
e. 21 to 40 hours/week
f. over 40 hours/week
3. Have research or job
How many hours per week do you use your computer for your study or research?
a. Less than 1
b. 1 to 5 hours
c. 5 to 10 hours
113
8
5
d. 10 to 20 hours
e. 21 to 40 hours/week
f. over 40 hours/week
4. Frequency
How long do you use internet during this course for fun or email checking?
a. None
b. Less than 5 min
c. 5 to 10 min
d. 10 to 20 min
e. over 20 min
5. When do you access internet during this course?
a. Lecture
b. Lab
c. When finished your Lab work
d. Bored
e. Else, describe it___
6. In your opinion, what is the single most critical issue facing the internet?
a. Finding things/navigating around
b. Speed/Bandwidth
c. Else, describe it ________________________
114
8
5
Appendix C
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
Self-efficacy for learning and performance.
1. I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this class.
2. Im certain I can understand the most difficult material presented in the readings
for this course.
3. Im confident I can understand the basic concepts taught in this course.
4. Im confident I can understand the most complex material presented by the
instructor in this course.
5. Im confident I can do an excellent job on the assignments and tests in this course.
6. I expect to do well in this class.
7. Im 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.
Test Anxiety.
9. When I take a test I think about how poorly I am doing compared with other
students.
10. When I take a test I think about items on other parts of the test I cant answer.
11. When I take tests I think of the consequences of failing.
12. I have an uneasy, upset feeling when I take an exam.
13. I feel my heart beating fast when I take an exam.
115
8
5
Metacognitive Self-regulation.
14. During class time I often miss important points because Im thinking of other
things (REVERSED).
15. When I become confused about something Im reading for this class, I go back
and try to figure it out.
16. I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material I have been
studying in this class.
17. I try to change the way I study in order to fit the course requirements and
instructors teaching style.
18. I often find that I have been reading for class but dont know what it was all
about. (REVERSED)
19. When studying for this class I try to determine which concepts I dont understand
well.
20. When I study for this class, I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities in
each study period.
The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire . Copyright 1991 by The Regent
of The University of Michigan. All rights reserved.
116
8
5
Appendix D
Consent Form
1. Title of Research Study: The Relationships among Self-Regulation, Internet Use
and Academic Achievement in a Computer Literacy Course.
2. Investigator: SungHee YangKim, Science/Mathematics Department Southern
University Baton Rouge, 225-771-2085, shyk64@yahoo.com.
3. Purpose of the Research: The present investigation is an effort to assess the
relationships among self-regulation, internet use and academic achievement in a
computer literacy course. This information obtained from this study will be used in
my dissertation and will partially fulfill the requirements for the Ph. D. degree in
Science/Mathematics Education from Southern University and A&M College.
4. Procedures for this Research: You will be asked to respond to three questionnaires,
a demographic survey, self-regulation, and internet use to examine the relationship
among self-regulation, internet use and academic achievement. You were selected
because you are in computer literacy course. Additional data required for the study are
internet use during class and your class test scores and mid-term and final grades. This
survey should take approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
5. Potential Risks or Discomforts: There are no potential risks associated with this
study.
6. Potential Benefits to you or Others: The potential benefits of this study are
improved understanding of how self-regulation, internet use and academic
achievement are related.
The demographic survey, MSLQ and internet use will be conducted by SungHee
YangKim as the principle investigator under the supervision of Dr. Juanita Bates,
professor of Science and Mathematics Education at Southern University and A&M
College. In addition, I would like to collect your grades of this course and test scores
from your college.
Participation is voluntary and not related in any way to your grade in the class. You
may withdraw consent at any time without consequences. There is no right or wrong
answers to this questionnaire. A code will be assigned to all participants so that your
name and identities remain anonymous. Also your name will not be used in any
publications, reports, or presentations that might result from this study. Questions
regarding this study should be forwarded to me at 550 Lee Dr. Apt #21 Baton Rouge, LA
70808, or by email at: shyk64@yahoo.com. You can also contact my supervisor, Dr.
Joseph Meyinsse, at Department of Science/Mathematics Education, P. O. Box 9256,
Baton Rouge, LA 70813-9256, phone # (225) 771-2085.
117
8
5
If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research volunteer in this study,
or you want report a research-related injury, contact Sandra C. Brown, DNS, School of
Nursing, Southern University - Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge LA 70813; Voice - 225-771-
5145; Facsimile - 225-771-2349; E-mail - SandraBrown@SUSON.SUBR.Edu.
Sincerely,
SungHee YangKim
I, ____________________________, may complete the surveys, Demographic Survey,
Self-regulated Learning Strategies, and Internet use.
Information gained from this survey will be used for the sole purpose as stated above.
Students Signature _______________________________ Date _______________
118
8
5
VITA
SungHee YangKim earned the Bachelor of Engineering degree in electrical
engineering from Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea. After
graduation, she worked at Korea Mobile Telecommunication, Inc., South Korea for four
years and then came to United States with her husband.
She received a Master of Science degree in Computer Science at Southern
University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She entered Science/Mathematics Education
program at Southern University Baton Rouge for her Ph. D.
Permanent Address: 550 Lee Dr. Apt # 21 Baton Rouge, LA 70808
This manuscript was typed by the author.
8
5
APPROVAL FOR SCHOLARLY DISSEMINATION
The author grants to the Southern University Library the right to reproduce, by
appropriate methods, upon request, any or all portions of this dissertation.
It is understood that request consists of the agreement on the part of the
requesting party, that said reproduction is for his personal use and the subsequent
reproduction will not occur without written approval of the author of this dissertation.
The author of this thesis reserves the right to publish freely, in the literature, at
any time, any or all portions of this dissertation.
Author__________________
Date____________________