Motivation in Self-regulated Learning and Technology-use Efficacy among Filipino University Students on an Island: Indirect Effects of Perceived Value, Pressure, Interest, and Effort
Article Number: e2025112 | Available Online: March 2025 | DOI: 10.22521/edupij.2025.15.112
Vilma P. Gayrama
Full text PDF |
3204 |
2574
Abstract
|
Background. This study underscores the importance of motivation in self-regulated learning and technology-use efficacy, particularly in the context of online learning modality. The transition to blended and hybrid learning modalities has necessitated a reevaluation of the factors influencing student success. Methods. This quantitative survey study was conducted at Biliran Province State University (BiPSU) in the Philippines. Using a convenience sampling approach, data were collected through a Likert scale questionnaire to 800 respondents’ undergraduate students enrolled in the second semester of the 2022-2023 academic year. The study employed Partial Least Squares - Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) through SmartPLS to explore the relationships between perceived competence, value, pressure/tension, interest, effort, and technology-use efficacy. The measurement model was validated by assessing indicator reliability, internal consistency, construct reliability, and discriminant validity. The study's exploratory nature and statistical approach enabled a robust analysis of factors influencing students’ technology-use efficacy. Results. The results revealed that reducing pressure/tension and enhancing the perceived value of tasks are significant pathways to improving technology-use efficacy. Specifically, perceived choice and relatedness reduce pressure/tension, and both perceived choice and competence increase the value of the task, leading to higher technology-use efficacy. Effort/importance and interest/enjoyment did not significantly mediate the relationships between the predictors and technology-use efficacy. Conclusion. Fostering a sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness may be more critical to promoting effective technology use than focusing solely on effort or enjoyment. |
Keywords: Motivation, self-regulated learning; technology-use efficacy, online learning modality, higher education, perceived value
ReferencesAnderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2).
Areepattamannil, S., & Santos, I. M. (2019). Adolescent students’ perceived information and communication technology (ICT) competence and autonomy: Examining links to dispositions toward science in 42 countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 50–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.005
Artino, A. R. (2007). Self-regulated learning in online education: A review of the empirical literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(6). http://itdl.org/Journal/Jun_07/article01.htm
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Biliran Province State University. (2020). Framework of the Pilot Implementation of the Flexible Learning Delivery: The BiPSU Model.
Center for Self-Determination Theory. (n.d.). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/
CHED. (2015). Establishing the Policies and Guidelines on Gender and Development in the Commission on Higher Education and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs): CHED Memorandum Order No. 1, s.2015 (26 January 2015).
CHED. (2020). Guidelines on the Implementation of Flexible Learning: CHED Memorandum Order No. 4, s.2020 (2 September 2020).
Chiu, T. K. F. (2022). Applying the Self-determination Theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(sup1), S14–S30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891998
Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109-132
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavioral Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
Gagné, M., Parker, S. K., Griffin, M. A., Dunlop, P. D., Knight, C., Klonek, F. E., & Parent-Rocheleau, X. (2022). Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(7), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00056-w
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.
Hair, J. F., Frisher, J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.
Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., & Gudergan, S. (2017). Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Sage Publications, Inc.
Hsiao, C. H., & Yang, C. (2011). The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: A co-citation analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 31(2), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.07.003
Joo, Y.-J., Bong, M., & Choi, H.-J. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and internet self-efficacy in web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02313398
Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A., Bozkurt, A., & Buyuk, K. (2018). Measuring self-regulation in self-paced open and distance learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3255
Li, J., Ye, H., Tang, Y., Zhou, Z., & Hu, X. (2018). What Are the Effects of Self-Regulation Phases and Strategies for Chinese Students? A Meta-Analysis of Two Decades Research of the Association Between Self-Regulation and Academic Performance . In Frontiers in Psychology (Vol. 9). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02434
Miltiadou, M., & Yu, C. H. (2000). Validation of the Online Technologies Self-Efficacy Scale (OTSES). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED445672
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In Keegan, D. (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). Routledge.
Nota, L., Soresi, S., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation and academic achievement and resilience: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(3), 198–215. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.07.001
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Or, Caleb. (2024). Thirty-Five Years of the Technology Acceptance Model: Insights From Meta- Analytic Structural Equation Modelling. Technology in Education, Society, and Scholarship Association Journal: 2024, Vol. 4(3) 1 DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.18357/otessaj.2024.4.3.66
Pan, X. (2020). Technology acceptance, technological self-efficacy, and attitude toward technology-based self-directed learning: Learning motivation as a mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(564294). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564294
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315-341.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. http://www.smartpls.com
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Sun, J. C.-Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204.
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social Cognitive Theoretical Perspective of Self-Regulation. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (2nd ed., pp. 34–48). Routledge.
Stern, B. S. (2004). A comparison of online and face-to-face instruction in an undergraduate foundations of American education course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(2). https://citejournal.org/volume-4/issue-2-04/general/a-comparison-of-online-and-face-to-face-instruction-in-an-undergraduate-foundations-of-american-education-course
Stolk, J. D., Gross, M. D., & Zastavker, Y. V. (2021). Motivation, pedagogy, and gender: examining the multifaceted and dynamic situational responses of women and men in college STEM courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00283-2
Wang, C.-H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835779
Zimmerman, B. J. (2015). Self-Regulated Learning: Theories, Measures, and Outcomes (J. D. B. T.-I. E. of the S. & B. S. (Second E. Wright (Ed.); pp. 541–546). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26060-1
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. In Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. Springer-Verlag Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3618-4
EDUPIJ News!
ANNOUNCEMENT
Message from the Editor-in-Chief,
We would like to inform our authors, reviewers, and stakeholders that EDUPIJ has entered Scopus’s re-evaluation process, as officially communicated (dated 2025-12-09). This assessment is a standard quality assurance practice applied to indexed journals and aims to ensure sustained editorial quality, ethical integrity, and alignment with Scopus’s evolving evaluation framework.
EDUPIJ welcomes this process and views it as an opportunity to further consolidate its editorial governance, strengthen publication ethics, and enhance peer-review rigor.
Strengthening Editorial and Ethical Standards
To ensure full compliance with international best practices and to proactively address Scopus evaluation criteria, the following measures have been formally implemented:
1. Selective Acceptance Policy for 2026 and Beyond
In response to increased submission volume in 2025 (see Journal Metrics: https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/18/journal-metrics), EDUPIJ will adopt a more selective acceptance policy starting in 2026 and continuing in the years ahead. In doing so, the geographic distribution of authors will also be taken into account to ensure that editorial decisions are informed by transparent, year-to-year submission and authorship patterns. Acceptance rates will be carefully aligned with editorial capacity to ensure a rigorous double-blind peer review process supported by active reviewer engagement and uncompromised editorial oversight. This policy reflects our commitment to quality-driven growth rather than volume-based expansion, and it directly addresses observations that the geographic spread of authors has changed significantly during the same period by ensuring that any such shifts are systematically monitored and considered within our quality assurance framework.
In line with this approach, we have adopted a Publication Volume Policy, enacted on 2025-12-07, which establishes clear upper limits on annual publication volume and defines a framework for maintaining EDUPIJ’s output at sustainable, long-term levels, comparable to pre-2025 volumes under normal conditions. This policy is also publicly available at https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/41/publication-volume-journal-metrics-policy.
From 2026 onwards, our objective is to maintain a moderate and stable annual volume, prioritising quality and selectivity rather than growth.
2. Enhanced Author and Manuscript Integrity Screening
All submissions now undergo mandatory integrity checks, including automated screening for retraction history and potential ethical risks prior to peer review. These procedures are designed to safeguard originality, research integrity, and transparency at every stage of the editorial process.
3. Establishment of a Publication Ethics Review Committee
A dedicated Publication Ethics Review Committee has been constituted to evaluate high-risk submissions, oversee ethical investigations when necessary, and ensure consistent adherence to COPE guidelines and internationally recognized publishing standards. All ethical decisions are documented and managed through a structured, transparent process.
Ongoing Commitment:
EDUPIJ remains firmly committed to rigorous double-blind peer review, transparent editorial policies, responsible scholarly communication, and the advancement of high-quality educational research at an international level.
Our journal continues to demonstrate steady progress in terms of international visibility, indexing coverage, and citation performance. We are confident that the Scopus re-evaluation process will further support the journal’s long-term sustainability and academic impact.
We sincerely thank our authors, reviewers, and the broader scholarly community for their continued trust and contribution to EDUPIJ.
Sincerely,
Prof. Turgut Karaköse, Editor-in-Chief
Posted: 2025-12-09