Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 ✤ pp.

568–601

Beyond Grades in
Online Learning:
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-
Regulation Among Naval Academy
Undergraduates
Anthony R. Artino, Jr.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

f
Jason M. Stephens
University of Connecticut

For years, educational psychologists have known that students

who are motivated to learn tend to experience greater academic
success than their unmotivated counterparts (Schunk, Pintrich,
& Meece, 2008). One reason motivated students succeed is that
they are prone to use various cognitive and metacognitive strate-
gies that help make learning more efficient and effective (Flavell,
1979). Simply stated, most academically successful students are
highly motivated, self-regulated learners (Pintrich, 2003).
Unfortunately, not all students are highly motivated, self-
regulated learners. Many students do not feel competent enough
to master what is being taught or fail to see the value of what
they are learning (Pintrich, 1999); some are too bored, angry, or
anxious to ever become academically engaged (Pekrun, Goetz,
Titz, & Perry, 2002); and others do not know how or simply fail
to use effective learning strategies (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).
Students like these may struggle in traditional classrooms, but
when faced with learning online, they may be even more disad-
vantaged. This conjecture is based, in part, on the highly autono-
mous nature of learning online, where “students must exercise a

568
Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Copyright © 2009 Prufrock Press, P.O. Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714

Educational psychologists have long known that students who are

motivated to learn tend to experience greater academic success than

their unmotivated counterparts. Using a social cognitive view of self-

regulated learning as a theoretical framework, this study explored

how motivational beliefs and negative achievement emotions are dif-

ferentially configured among students in a self-paced online course.

Additionally, this study examined how these different motivation-emo-

tion configurations relate to various measures of academic success.

summary
Naval Academy undergraduates completed a survey that assessed

their motivational beliefs (self-efficacy and task value); negative

achievement emotions (boredom and frustration); and a collection

of outcomes that included their use of self-regulated learning strate-

gies (elaboration and metacognition), course satisfaction, continuing

motivation, and final course grade. Students differed vastly in their

configurations of course-related motivations and emotions. Moreover,

students with more adaptive profiles (i.e., high motivational beliefs/

low negative achievement emotions) exhibited higher mean scores on

all five outcomes than their less-adaptive counterparts. Taken together,

these findings suggest that online educators and instructional design-

ers should take steps to account for motivational and emotional dif-

ferences among students and attempt to create curricula and adopt

instructional practices that promote self-efficacy and task value beliefs

and mitigate feelings of boredom and frustration.

Artino, A. R., Jr., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Beyond grades in online learning: Adaptive
profiles of academic self-regulation among Naval Academy undergraduates. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 20, 568–601.
Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

high degree of self-regulatory competence to accomplish their

learning goals” (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2004, p. 40).

Purpose of the Study

Using a social cognitive view of self-regulated learning as a
theoretical framework (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000), the
purpose of this study was two-fold: (a) to explore and describe
how students’ motivational beliefs (self-efficacy and task value)
and negative achievement emotions (boredom and frustration)
are differentially configured among students in a self-paced
online course, and (b) to conduct extreme groups analyses with
students in the most and least adaptive motivation-emotion
configurations in an effort to explore the associations between
these two configurations and five measures of academic suc-
cess (i.e., students’ use of elaboration and metacognitive learn-
ing strategies, course satisfaction, continuing motivation to take
future online courses, and final course grade). In doing so, the
present study goes beyond course grade as the sole measure of
academic success and provides insight into other important out-
comes, such as the use of self-regulatory behaviors and the desire
for further instruction in online learning contexts.

Background and Theoretical Framework

A central challenge for educational research today is to better
understand the nature of online learning (Bernard et al., 2004).
With the rapid expansion of Internet-based technologies, online
learning has emerged as an accepted and increasingly popular
alternative to traditional classroom instruction (Tallent-Runnels
et al., 2006). For example, a recent survey of 2,500 U.S. colleges
and universities by the Sloan Consortium found that the num-
ber of students taking at least one online course more than dou-
bled from 1.6 million in 2002 to 3.5 million in 2006 (Allen &
Seaman, 2007). Despite this extraordinary growth, very little is

570 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

known about the attributes, skills, and behaviors that contribute

to student success in online learning (Bernard et al., 2004).
Instead, research in the field has been dominated by atheo-
retical, group-comparison studies that have assessed the attitudes
and achievements of online learners versus traditional classroom
students. Taken together, results from these investigations have
generally found no statistically significant differences in vari-
ous outcomes, including, for example, end-of-course grades and
course satisfaction (e.g., Bernard et al., 2004; Phipps & Merisotis,
1999; Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006). Although
valuable in their own right, such group-comparison studies
have provided very little generalizable knowledge for the theory,
research, and practice of online learning (Bernard et al., 2004;
Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004). Important to the objectives
of the current study, previous research has focused only limited
attention on personal factors, such as motivation and emotion,
that are known to affect learning and performance in traditional
academic settings (Schunk et al., 2008).

Self-Regulated Learning

As online learning has matured, so too has research and the-

ory in the area of academic self-regulation (Boekaerts, Pintrich,
& Zeidner, 2000). Academic self-regulation, also referred to as
self-regulated learning, has been defined as “an active, construc-
tive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then
attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, moti-
vation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and
the contextual features of the environment” (Pintrich, 2000, p.
453). Self-regulated learners are generally characterized as active
participants who efficiently control their thoughts, feelings,
and actions to positively impact their own learning (Schunk &
Zimmerman, 1998, 2008).
In the last 10 years, several scholars have suggested that
online learners—even more than traditional classroom stu-
dents—require motivation and self-regulation to stay engaged,
guide their cognition, and regulate their effort (Dabbagh

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 571

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

& Kitsantas, 2004; Hartley & Bendixen, 2001; Schunk &

Zimmerman, 1998). This proposition stems from the belief that
learning on the Web requires considerable autonomy and self-
direction (Allen & Seaman, 2007; Hartley & Bendixen, 2001).
By definition, learning “online” means learning without some of
the critical temporal, spatial, and intellectual supports provided
in a traditional classroom learning environment. Specifically, the
latter provides a structured and planned time and space ded-
icated to learning and comes equipped, in most cases, with a
responsive teacher who can organize and scaffold that learning.
However, the “freedom” of online learning offers fewer of these
tangible supports, thereby requiring students to manage, moni-
tor, and regulate the time, place, and progress of their learning
(Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2004; Moore & Kearsley, 2005). Thus,
as a mode of instruction, online learning appears to shift pri-
mary management and control of learning from the teacher to
the student (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004). With this shift,
educational researchers have turned to social cognitive models
of academic self-regulation as frameworks for studying autono-
mous online learners (e.g., Miltiadou & Savenye, 2003; Whipp
& Chiarelli, 2004).
Theories of self-regulated learning have long been used by
educational psychologists as a means of better understanding
how successful students adapt their beliefs and behaviors to
improve learning in traditional classrooms. In general, inves-
tigations have consistently found that students with adaptive
motivational beliefs use more effective self-regulated learning
strategies and, as a result, outperform their counterparts with
less-adaptive beliefs and behaviors (Pintrich, 1999; Pintrich &
De Groot, 1990; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993;
Zusho, Pintrich, & Coppola, 2003). For example, in a study of
458 college undergraduates enrolled in an introductory chemistry
course, Zusho et al. (2003) assessed students’ motivational beliefs
(e.g., self-efficacy for learning, task value, and goal orientation)
and cognitive strategy use at three time points over the course
of one semester. Results indicated that students’ self-efficacy and
task-value beliefs were positively related to strategy use and were

572 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

statistically significant predictors of course performance (final

course grade), even after controlling for prior achievement.
Although limited, much of the research on self-regulation
in online contexts has focused on identifying the motivational,
cognitive, and behavioral characteristics of effective self-regu-
lated learners, as well as assessing how these components link to
one another and to other favorable outcomes. Using primarily
correlational methods, the majority of these studies have emu-
lated the early research on self-regulated learning in traditional
classrooms (e.g., Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia,
1991). In general, these investigations have attempted to discern
if the relationships found in conventional classrooms general-
ize to online situations. In particular, this research has focused
on understanding the relations between students’ motivational
beliefs and their academic performance in online situations.

Motivational Influences on Self-Regulation. Social cognitive theo-

ries of academic self-regulation emphasize the importance of
students’ motivational beliefs throughout the cyclical phases of
self-regulation (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008). As Pintrich and
De Groot (1990) argued, “knowledge of cognitive and meta-
cognitive strategies is usually not enough to promote student
achievement; students also must be motivated to use the strat-
egies as well as regulate their cognition and effort” (p. 33). In
particular, a social cognitive approach assumes that effective self-
regulation depends, in large part, on students’ self-efficacy for
performing specific learning tasks (Bandura, 1997; Schunk &
Ertmer, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). According to Schunk (2005),
“self-regulated learners are more self-efficacious for learning
than are students with poorer self-regulatory skills; the former
believe that they can use their self-regulatory skills to help them
learn” (p. 87). Consistent with these theoretical assumptions,
results from empirical studies have revealed that when compared
to their counterparts with lower perceived self-efficacy, effica-
cious students report greater use of learning strategies (Artino &
Stephens, 2006; Joo, Bong, & Choi, 2000); greater satisfaction
with online learning (Artino, 2007, 2008; Lim, 2001); increased

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 573

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

likelihood of enrolling in future online courses (i.e., greater

continuing motivation; Artino, 2007; Lim, 2001); and superior
academic performance (Bell & Akroyd, 2006; Joo et al., 2000;
Lynch & Dembo, 2004; Wang & Newlin, 2002).
Task value is another motivational construct that has
received some attention in the online learning literature. Eccles
and Wigfield (1995) have defined task value as the extent to
which learners find a task interesting, important, and useful. On
the whole, a limited number of studies in online contexts have
revealed that task-value beliefs positively predict students’ use
of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies (Artino &
Stephens, 2006), academic performance and satisfaction (Artino,
2008; Miltiadou & Savenye, 2003), and continuing motivation
(Artino, 2007). Beyond these few studies, however, little is known
about how students’ task-value beliefs relate to other adaptive
outcomes in online environments.

Emotional Influences on Self-Regulation. Recently, motivation

researchers have acknowledged the importance of achievement-
related emotions and their impact on cognitive engagement and
learning. In fact, several scholars have begun integrating discrete
achievement emotions into theories of academic motivation and
self-regulation (Linnenbrink, 2006; Linnenbrink & Pintrich,
2004; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2002). For
instance, Pekrun (2006) has conceptualized a control-value
theory of achievement emotions that delineates hypothesized
linkages between students’ motivational beliefs, achievement
emotions, and learning and performance. According to con-
trol-value theory, positive and negative achievement emotions
are determined, in part, by students’ motivational beliefs (also
referred to as their cognitive appraisals). Furthermore, the effects
of emotions on learning and performance are thought to be
mediated by several cognitive and motivational mechanisms,
such as students’ use of learning strategies, effort allocation, and
persistence (Pekrun et al., 2002).
Using control-value theory as a framework, Pekrun et al.
(2002) summarized several studies conducted with university

574 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

students in traditional classrooms. In general, these researchers

have found that achievement emotions are related to students’ use
of learning strategies and various measures of academic success
(Pekrun et al., 2002). Specifically, in a cross-sectional study of
230 university students, negative achievement emotions (anger,
anxiety, and boredom) correlated negatively with motivational
variables (interest and effort) and measures of learning strategies
use (elaboration and metacognitive regulation); whereas positive
emotions (enjoyment and hope) related positively to these same
outcomes (all effects were moderate to strong; Cohen, 1988).

The Current Investigation

Findings from nonexperimental, correlational studies of

online learning seem to support results from research in tradi-
tional classrooms, indicating that students’ motivational beliefs
about a learning task are related to beneficial academic out-
comes. The extant literature, however, suffers from several limi-
tations. First, many of the studies have used course grades as
their sole performance outcome. And second, previous studies
are rather limited with respect to the range of personal factors
investigated. Although self-efficacy and task value have received
some emphasis, few studies have considered the effects of other
personal factors, such as achievement emotions—factors that
many social cognitive theorists now acknowledge as critical to
an understanding of individual learning and performance in
academic settings (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Pekrun et al.,
2002; Picard et al., 2004).
Considering the limitations described above, the current
study was designed to go beyond grades as the sole metric of
academic success and to explore the role of both motivation and
emotion as explanatory factors in various types of academic suc-
cess. Specifically, this study examined the importance of students’
self-efficacy and task-value beliefs, as well as their levels of bore-
dom and frustration, on not only course grades but also their use
of self-regulated learning strategies, course satisfaction, and con-
tinuing motivation. In doing so, this study was intended to fur-

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 575

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

ther inform our conceptualizations of academic self-regulation

in online contexts, thereby providing much-needed guidance for
the theory, research, and practice of online learning (Bernard et
al., 2004; Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004).

Method
Participants

A convenience sample of 481 undergraduates (sophomores

and juniors) from the U.S. Naval Academy were invited to par-
ticipate in this study. The sample included 398 men (83%) and
83 women (17%). The uneven percentage of males in this sample
is representative of the undergraduate population at this military
academy. The mean age of the participants was 20.5 years (SD =
1.0; range 19–24).

Instructional Materials

The instructional materials consisted of a self-paced online

course developed by the U.S. Navy. Self-paced online courses
are a specific type of online training in which students use a
Web browser to access a course management system and com-
plete Web-based courses at their own pace. While completing
these courses, students do not interact with an instructor or
other students.
The online course was the first part of a two-stage train-
ing program in flight physiology and aviation survival training
required for all Naval Academy undergraduates. Upon success-
ful completion of this online course, students advanced to the
second stage of their training, which consisted of traditional
instruction at a local training unit.
The online course was composed of four 40-minute lessons.
Each lesson included text, graphics, video, interactive activities,
and end-of-lesson quizzes that consisted of 12 to 15 multiple-
choice questions. Students who did not score at least 80% on

576 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

any given quiz were required to return to the beginning of the

lesson, review the material, and then retake the quiz. A student’s
final grade in the course was computed as the average of the four
end-of-lesson quizzes. Because the online course was designed
as a mastery learning experience, considerable range restric-
tion in the grade measure was expected. Ultimately, this type of
range restriction has the effect of downwardly biasing effect sizes
(Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), thereby making it more
difficult to find statistically significant relationships.

Procedures

Approximately three weeks after completing the self-paced

online course, students arrived at a local training unit for the
face-to-face portion of their instruction. Prior to any classroom
training, all students were invited to complete an anonymous,
self-report survey. Participation in the survey was completely
voluntary and 100% of the students completed the survey.

Instrumentation

The instrument used in this study was composed of 50 items

divided into two sections. The first section included 41 Likert-
type items with a response scale ranging from 1 (completely dis-
agree) to 7 (completely agree). In the present study, 36 of these 41
items were further subdivided into seven subscales designed to
assess students’ motivational beliefs (self-efficacy and task value),
negative achievement emotions (boredom and frustration), use of
cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies (elaboration and
metacognition), and overall course satisfaction. The Appendix
provides a list of the items in each subscale.

Motivational Beliefs. Two subscales from Artino and McCoach

(2008) were used to assess students’ personal motivational
beliefs: (a) a five-item self-efficacy subscale designed to assess stu-
dents’ confidence in their ability to learn the material presented
in a self-paced, online format, and (b) a six-item task value sub-

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 577

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

scale designed to assess students’ judgments of how interesting,

important, and useful the online course was to them.

Negative Achievement Emotions. Two subscales adapted from the

Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ; Pekrun, Goetz, &
Perry, 2005) were used to assess students’ negative achievement
emotions: (a) a five-item boredom subscale intended to assess
students’ course-related boredom, and (b) a four-item frustration
subscale designed to assess students’ course-related frustration,
annoyance, and irritation.

Self-Regulated Learning Strategies. Students’ self-reported use

of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies was assessed
with items derived from the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1993): (a) a four-item
elaboration subscale designed to assess students’ use of elabora-
tion strategies (e.g., paraphrasing and summarizing), and (b) a
nine-item metacognition subscale intended to assess students’ use
of metacognitive control strategies (e.g., planning, setting goals,
monitoring one’s comprehension, and regulating performance).
The items included in this section were similar to the original
MSLQ, except that some items were reworded to reflect the
online nature of the course. Although the two learning strate-
gies subscales assessed self-reported strategies, for brevity, the
variables are referred to as elaboration and metacognition in the
remainder of this article.

Satisfaction. Students’ overall satisfaction with the online course

was assessed with a three-item satisfaction subscale adapted from
Artino (2008).

Section two of the survey was composed of nine items, includ-

ing demographic and background items (e.g., gender, age, and
experience with online learning) and one individual item designed
to assess students’ continuing motivation (Maehr, 1976) to take
future online courses: “Considering your experience with this
online course, would you choose to enroll in another self-paced

578 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

online Navy course in the future? Please answer this question as if

the choice were completely up to you.” The response scale ranged
from 1 (definitely will not enroll) to 6 (definitely will enroll).

Results
Results are divided into three main sections: (a) confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) aimed at validating the hypothesized sur-
vey structure, (b) descriptive statistics, and (c) person-centered
analyses focused on the individuals in the study rather than the
variables (Peck & Roeser, 2003).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Prior to analysis, the data were screened for accuracy and

missing values. Following data screening, several CFAs were
completed on the items included in the first part of the instru-
ment. Factors identified in the CFA were then subjected to reli-
ability analysis, and the final subscales were identified based on
these analyses. The variables used in the subsequent analyses
were created by computing a mean score for the items associated
with a particular subscale (i.e., the variables were unweighted
composite scores).
Several CFAs were conducted to examine the convergent
and discriminant validity of the seven-factor, 36-item instru-
ment (Kline, 2005). Specifically, an iterative procedure (Kenny
& Milan, 2007) was used to collect validity evidence for the
measurement model being employed in this study. First, a pre-
liminary CFA was conducted to examine the factorial structure
of the entire, unmodified instrument. Next, four separate CFAs
were conducted. Three were completed on the items associated
with the three construct sets: motivational beliefs (self-efficacy
and task value), negative achievement emotions (boredom and
frustration), and learning strategies use (elaboration and meta-
cognition). The fourth CFA was completed on the remaining
factor (satisfaction). Based on these results, items were elimi-

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 579

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

nated in an effort to improve model fit (Brown, 2006). A final

CFA was then conducted on the modified, seven-factor instru-
ment (i.e., the entire instrument minus the deleted items), and
the convergent and discriminant validity of the resulting instru-
ment were assessed.
Listwise deletion of cases with missing data was used.
There were 471 cases with no missing values on the 36 Likert-
type items. Based on previous studies (Artino, 2008; Artino &
McCoach, 2008; Pekrun et al., 2002; Pintrich et al., 1993), the
36 observed variables were hypothesized to load onto seven dis-
tinct latent variables: self-efficacy, task value, boredom, frustra-
tion, elaboration, metacognition, and satisfaction. Regression
weights for 29 of the 36 items were freely estimated (one item
per factor served as a marker variable). In addition, covariances
between the seven factors were freely estimated.
Table 1 provides a summary of the resulting goodness-of-
fit indices for the original, seven-factor model with 36 items.
Overall, results indicated that the model fit was adequate (Hu
& Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005): the chi-square was statistically
significant, χ2 (573, N = 471) = 1588.275, p < .001; however,
the normed chi-square (NC = 2.78) was less than 3.00, the
comparative fit index (CFI = .913) was less than .95, and the
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA = .061) was
slightly greater than .06. Although the overall fit statistics for the
original seven-factor model were considered adequate, Brown
(2006) warned that “the acceptability of the model should not
be based solely on indices of overall model fit” (p. 173). That
is, global indices may mask the fact that some of the relation-
ships among the observed variables in the sample data have not
been reproduced adequately by the hypothesized model (Brown,
2006). Therefore, Brown recommended that researchers examine
standardized residuals and modification indices to identify local
areas of model misfit.
In an attempt to improve the fit of the hypothesized seven-
factor model, four separate CFAs were conducted on portions
of the instrument, and standardized residuals and modification
indices were examined. Standardized residuals represent differ-

580 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

Table 1
Fit Indices for the Measurement Models Tested (N = 471)
Model χ2 df NC CFI RMSEA
Original 7-Factor Model
1588.275*** 573 2.78 .913 .061
(36 Items)
Modified 7-Factor Model
658.791*** 329 2.00 .961 .046
(28 Items)a
Note. NC = normed chi square = χ2/df; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-
square error of approximation.
a
Eight items were deleted based on results of the four previous CFAs: SE-5, TV-2, BOR-4,
BOR-5, FRU-3, ELA-3, MET-7, and MET-9 (see Appendix for a list of all survey items).
***p < .001.

ences between the model-implied covariance matrix (i.e., the

predicted matrix) and the observed covariance matrix; as such,
they reflect possible sources of model misfit. Standardized resid-
uals with absolute values greater than 1.96 are considered statis-
tically significant (Brown, 2006). Modification indices “reflect an
approximation of how much the overall model chi-square would
decrease if the fixed or constrained parameter was freely esti-
mated” (Brown, 2006, p. 119). Modification indices of 3.84 or
greater suggest that the overall fit of the model could be statisti-
cally significantly improved by, for example, adding a correlated
error (Brown, 2006). Correlated errors are specified when some of
the shared variance between two observed items is not explained
by the latent factor (i.e., some of the shared variance is due to an
outside cause; Brown, 2006). In survey development, this often
occurs when items are redundant, have similar wording, and/or
are differentially prone to social desirability. Although correlated
errors can be specified according to modification indices, there
should be a compelling empirical, conceptual, or practical reason
for doing so (Brown, 2006). In this study, however, because the
objective of the CFAs was to validate the hypothesized survey
structure—and not simply to produce the best-fitting model—
correlated errors were not specified. Instead, large modification
indices, particularly those with outlying values, were identified.
Next, the items associated with the large modification indices

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 581

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

were inspected, and problematic items were deleted (see recom-

mendations in Brown, 2006).
Based on the results of the four CFAs, eight survey items
were trimmed and a final CFA was conducted on the modi-
fied survey (i.e., the entire instrument minus the eight deleted
items; see Table 1 for a list of the deleted items). The 28 remain-
ing observed variables were hypothesized to load onto the same
seven latent variables: self-efficacy, task value, boredom, frustra-
tion, elaboration, metacognition, and satisfaction. Regression
weights for 21 of the 28 items were freely estimated (one item
per factor served as a marker variable). In addition, covariances
between the seven factors were freely estimated.
Table 1 provides a summary of the resulting goodness-of-
fit indices for the revised, seven-factor model with 28 observed
variables. When compared to the original model, all fit indices
were much improved in the modified model. What is more, all
fit statistics were within recommended guidelines for a good fit
between the hypothesized model and the observed data (Hu &
Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005). Chi-square was still statistically sig-
nificant, χ2 (329, N = 471) = 658.791, p < .001; however, the NC
was 2.00, the CFI (.961) was greater than .95, and the RMSEA
(.046) was less than .06. Finally, standardized residuals and
modification indices were examined to identify any localized
areas of model misfit. Overall, no localized areas of strain could
be identified (Brown, 2006).
Ultimately, results from the six CFAs conducted in this
study suggested several survey modifications that resulted in
a refined, more parsimonious version of the instrument. The
resulting 28-item, seven-factor survey appeared to be psycho-
metrically sound, with reasonable factor structure. Additionally,
based on the results of the factor analyses described above, reli-
ability analyses were run on the items retained in the seven sub-
scales. As indicated in Table 2, Cronbach’s alphas for the seven
subscale scores were good (i.e., > .80; see guidelines in Gable &
Wolfe, 1993).

582 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for the Measured Variables (N = 481)

Skewness Kurtosis
No. of Critical Critical
Variable α Items M SD Statistic SE Ratio Statistic SE Ratio
Self-Efficacy .91 4 5.32 1.12 -.63 .11 -5.73a .57 .22 2.59

Task Value .88 5 4.87 1.09 -.56 .11 -5.09a .40 .22 1.82

Boredom .84 3 4.02 1.32 -.15 .11 -1.36 -.23 .22 -1.05

Frustration .89 3 3.36 1.45 .30 .11 2.73 -.36 .22 -1.64

Elaboration .82 3 4.81 1.08 -.46 .11 -4.18a .66 .22 3.00 a

Metacognition .89 7 4.12 1.11 -.31 .11 -2.82 .56 .22 2.55

Satisfaction .92 3 4.77 1.20 -.71 .11 -6.45a .67 .22 3.05 a

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015

Continuing Motivation — 1 3.93 1.17 -.54 .11 -4.91a -.11 .22 -0.50

Course Grade — — 89.10 3.66 .41 .11 3.73a -.04 .22 -0.18
Note. Critical ratio = statistic / standard error. Continuing motivation was measured on a 6-point Likert-type response scale from 1 (definitely will not enroll) to
6 (definitely will enroll). All other Likert-type variables were measured on a 7-point response scale. Course grade ranged from 80 to 100.
a
Values were outside the recommended acceptable range of ± 3.0 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009

Artino & Stephens

583
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for the measured variables are pro-

vided in Table 2. As indicated, six of the seven variables mea-
sured on a 7-point Likert-type scale had means at or above the
midpoint of the response scale, while one variable (frustration)
had a mean slightly below the midpoint. The mean score for
continuing motivation (3.93; measured on a 6-point Likert-
type scale) also was above the midpoint of the response scale.
Standard deviations for these eight variables ranged from 1.08 to
1.45, and visual inspection of the associated histograms showed
that seven variables (self-efficacy, task value, boredom, elabora-
tion, metacognition, satisfaction, and continuing motivation)
were negatively skewed. On the other hand, the distribution for
frustration showed a slight positive skew. Furthermore, kurtosis
critical ratios indicated that five of the eight variable scores (self-
efficacy, task value, elaboration, metacognition, and satisfaction)
were positively kurtotic (i.e., too peaked). In contrast, three of
the eight distributions were slightly negatively kurtotic (i.e., too
flat). Finally, course grade had a mean of 89.10 and a standard
deviation of 3.66; its distribution was also positively skewed.
Although the distributions for most of the measured vari-
ables deviated from normality, these deviations were not unex-
pected. For example, it was not surprising to find that scores
for students’ motivational beliefs and use of learning strategies
were negatively skewed. Naval Academy students tend to be
highly motivated, high-ability students (United States Naval
Academy [USNA], 2007), and one would anticipate that these
students would rate themselves high on motivational and cogni-
tive aspects of academic beliefs and behaviors.

Person-Centered Analyses

Person-centered analyses focus on the individuals in a study

rather than the variables (Peck & Roeser, 2003). By examining
students who have different configurations of motivational beliefs
and negative achievement emotions, we hoped to learn more

584 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

about how actual groups of students differed on the five outcomes.

Specifically, we wanted to compare students who we hypothesized
would have adaptive motivation-emotion profiles (i.e., high moti-
vational beliefs/low negative emotions) to those with less adaptive
profiles (i.e., low motivational beliefs/high negative emotions).
To create these groups, we first took the extreme thirds for
each variable. Next, we cross-tabulated the four variables (self-
efficacy, task value, boredom, and frustration) to see which stu-
dents remained in each cell. Specifically, we retained students
who were in the highest third for the motivational beliefs
variables and in the lowest third for the negative achievement
emotions variables, as well as those in the lowest third for self-
efficacy and task value and in the highest third for boredom and
frustration. By contrast, students who were high on self-efficacy
and task value, but only in the middle of the distribution on the
other variables, for example, were dropped from these analyses.
Next, we compared the two extreme groups on the five mea-
sures of academic success. A one-way multivariate analysis of
variance was conducted to determine if there were differences
in these five outcomes when comparing students with adaptive
motivation-emotion profiles versus those with less-adaptive pro-
files. Statistically significant differences were found, F(5, 47) =
28.01, p < .001. Results for the univariate F-tests are presented
in Table 3. As indicated, students with the adaptive motivation-
emotion profile exhibited significantly higher mean scores on all
five outcomes when compared to students with the less adaptive
profile. The effect for the mean difference on course grade was
moderate; all other effects were large (Cohen, 1988).

Discussion
Educational psychologists, as well as classroom teachers, have
long known that highly motivated, self-regulated learners tend to
experience greater academic success than their unmotivated, less-
regulated counterparts (Schunk et al., 2008). The current study
examined the importance of motivation, as well as the added

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 585

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 586
Table 3
Mean Group Comparisons of Elaboration, Metacognition, Satisfaction, Continuing
Motivation, and Final Course Grade by Two Motivation-Emotion Profiles

Motivation-Emotion Profiles
High Motivational Beliefs/ Low Motivational Beliefs/
Low Negative Emotions High Negative Emotions

Journal of Advanced Academics

(n = 25) (n = 28)
Univariate
M SD M SD F(1, 51) Cohen’s d
Variable

Elaboration 5.39 1.23 3.89 1.10 21.91*** 1.29

Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

Metacognition 5.06 .98 3.26 .97 44.95*** 1.85

Satisfaction 6.33 .65 3.42 1.19 119.03*** 3.11

Continuing motivation 5.36 .64 2.82 1.36 72.51*** 2.49

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015

Final course grade 89.64 3.80 87.57 2.87 5.07* 0.63

Note. Continuing motivation was measured on a 6-point Likert scale; course grade ranges from 80 to 100. The remaining variables were measured on a 7-point
Likert-type agreement scale.
*p < .05.
***p < .001.
 Artino & Stephens

influence of negative emotions, in explaining students’ self-regu-

lation and other measures of academic success in an online course.
Taken together, results from this study suggest that students learn-
ing online, like their classroom counterparts, possess different
configurations of academic motivation and negative achievement
emotions—configurations that are associated with a range of self-
regulated learning and overall academic success.
In particular, findings from this study indicate that students
with adaptive motivation-emotion profiles also experienced
much greater success than their less-adaptive counterparts, as
measured by their reported use of self-regulated learning strate-
gies, course satisfaction, continuing motivation, and final course
grades. These results not only support the extant literature on
motivation and self-regulation in traditional classrooms (e.g.,
Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2004; Pintrich, 1999), they also offer
an important expansion of this empirical work by demonstrating
that several processes and relations are equally robust in online
learning situations.
In addition, this investigation adds to the educational psy-
chology literature by considering students’ achievement emo-
tions as important contributors to their academic success in
online contexts. Consistent with control-value theory (Pekrun,
2006; Pekrun et al., 2002), findings indicate that students who
reported less boredom and frustration (along with more positive
motivational beliefs) also experienced superior academic out-
comes. Although this result was not unexpected, it is noteworthy
because it sheds some light on the links between achievement
emotions and several adaptive outcomes—relationships that
have been largely neglected in educational research, in gen-
eral (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Picard et al., 2004), and
online learning research, in particular (Wosnitza & Volet, 2005;
Zembylas, Theodorou, & Pavlakis, 2008).

Educational Implications

Due to the post-only, self-report nature of this study, defini-

tive implications for online learning are rather difficult to extract.

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 587

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

Nevertheless, results from this study provide course developers,

instructors, and policy makers with a heightened awareness of
the thoughts, feelings, and actions that characterize successful
online learners. From a practical standpoint, institutions consid-
ering, or presently using, online learning may be able to apply
these insights to improve their students’ overall experience and
academic performance in online learning. Given that the cur-
rent investigation focused on a self-paced learning environment,
the implications discussed below are written with this format in
mind. However, course developers, instructors, and policy mak-
ers of other online formats also may find the following sugges-
tions useful. In fact, these proposals may be especially helpful
in online formats where an instructor is “present” and able to
promote adaptive motivational beliefs and positive achievement
emotions.
First, online learning has finally reached a more mature stage
and is now considered by many to be a legitimate alternative
(or supplement) to traditional classroom instruction (Tallent-
Runnels et al., 2006). Consequently, comparative research is
being replaced by investigations, such as this study, that attempt
to explain learning processes and expand learning theory into
online contexts. In particular, findings from this study reveal
the importance of students’ motivational beliefs and negative
achievement emotions in explaining their use of self-regulated
learning strategies and overall academic success in a self-paced
online course. Thus, it seems that social cognitive models of self-
regulation may be useful to both researchers and practitioners as
they endeavor to better appreciate how students go about learn-
ing in online environments.
Second, although the extreme groups examined in this study
constituted only about 11% of the total sample, these learners
are extremely important in that one might consider them to be
the most promising and most struggling students. And although
the grade difference found in this study was marginal (due, in
part, to restricted range in final course grade; Cohen et al., 2003),
the differences between these students on other important met-
rics of academic success were very large. So, while students with

588 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

the least adaptive motivation-emotion configurations did not

receive vastly lower grades than their counterparts with highly
adaptive configurations, they did report less cognitive and meta-
cognitive engagement, much less satisfaction with their learning
experience, and much less desire to participate in future online
learning. These latter two outcomes are immensely important
with respect to long-term educational attainments, particularly
for corporate and military organizations, where ongoing edu-
cation and training of workers is necessary to keep pace with
the ever-changing global economy (Fletcher, Tobias, & Wisher,
2007; Resnick, 2002). Organizations hoping to maintain their
competitive advantage need their “learners” to be motivated by
and positive about training experiences they are offered. As the
present study shows, such learners not only engage more deeply
in the learning material and gain more from the educational
opportunities before them, they also are more satisfied with
those experiences and more likely to choose future opportuni-
ties to update their knowledge and skills (Chiu, Sun, Sun, & Ju,
2007; Roca, Chiu, & Martinez, 2006).
Finally, results from this study suggest that positive motiva-
tional beliefs and lower levels of negative emotions are gener-
ally associated with greater cognitive and metacognitive activity,
increased satisfaction and continuing motivation, and higher
course grades. In practical terms, implications can be based on
the basic assumption that learning and performance will likely
be improved when adaptive motivational beliefs are bolstered
and negative achievement emotions are minimized. Thus, it
seems that instructional designers and policy makers would do
well to address those areas of course design and delivery that
are apt to have a positive impact on students’ beliefs and emo-
tions. This could include, for example, (a) promoting self-efficacy
for learning online by encouraging students to set challenging,
proximal learning goals (Zimmerman, 2008); (b) addressing task
value beliefs and relevance by utilizing authentic, problem-based
learning activities (Artino & Stephens, 2006); (c) minimizing
boredom by providing students with opportunities to select,
organize, and integrate new information into their existing

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 589

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

knowledge structures (Mayer, 2002); and (d) curtailing frustra-

tion by ensuring that the technology is reliable, accessible, and
usable (O’Regan, 2003). In the end, however, the most impor-
tant step toward improving self-paced online learning may be
for instructional designers and students alike to simply become
aware of the close interrelations between motivation, emotion,
and academic self-regulation, as highlighted by the findings of
the current study.

Study Limitations

Three important limitations should be considered when

interpreting these results. First, the sample used in this study
was extremely homogenous. In particular, student demographics
are somewhat different than those of the average undergradu-
ate. For instance, the majority of Naval Academy students are
men, most are unmarried with no children, and none are physi-
cally disabled. Moreover, Naval Academy undergraduates are
generally considered high-ability students. For example, stan-
dardized test scores for the class of 2011 were well above the
national average, with 69% and 84% of students scoring above
600 on the verbal and math components of the SAT, respectively
(USNA, 2007). National SAT statistics for 2007 college-bound
seniors were considerably lower, with only 21% and 25% of stu-
dents scoring above 600 on the verbal and math components,
respectively (College Board, 2007). Therefore, results from this
study have limited generalizability beyond the present sample
(Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).
Second, this study utilized a fairly simplistic, cross-sectional,
post-only design (Shadish et al., 2002). This type of nonexperi-
mental design is extremely limited with respect to the inferences
that can be drawn; that said, such designs often benefit from
high construct validity and provide opportunities to collect rich
and detailed cross-sectional data ( Judd & Kenny, 1981).
Finally, the use of an extreme groups approach has been
criticized by several methodologists (e.g., Preacher, Rucker,
MacCallum, & Nicewander, 2005). For example, Preacher et al.

590 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

(2005) argued that by removing and ignoring a large propor-

tion of a sample, researchers have no idea what the missing data
could have told them. That said, Preacher et al. have also sug-
gested several productive, justifiable uses for the extreme groups
approach, one of which is to “maximize the power for detect-
ing the presence of an effect” (p. 188). In the current study, the
extreme groups approach was used, in part, to detect a hypoth-
esized effect (i.e., differences in course grade)—an effect that
otherwise would have been masked by the range restriction in
the grade outcome. Nonetheless, findings from this study should
be interpreted with care.

Conclusions
Overall, results from this study provide some insight into the
complex relations between personal factors, self-regulated learn-
ing, and academic success in an online course. Notwithstanding
the study limitations described above, these findings principally
support the existing literature on self-regulation in classroom-
based contexts (e.g., Pekrun et al., 2002; Pintrich, 1999; Pintrich
et al., 1993; Zusho et al., 2003). Specifically, the findings reported
here substantiate the social cognitive notion that students’ moti-
vational beliefs and negative achievement emotions are related,
in essential ways, to their self-regulatory behaviors, satisfaction,
continuing motivation, and academic achievement. These results
are important because they further inform our understanding of
both online learning and academic self-regulation.
Consistent with the limited research in online contexts (e.g.,
Bell & Akroyd, 2006; Joo et al., 2000; Lynch & Dembo, 2004;
Wang & Newlin, 2002; Whipp & Chiarelli, 2004), results from
this study suggest that social cognitive theories of self-regulation
provide a useful framework for understanding student success
in online situations. Accordingly, future studies should continue
to apply such multidimensional models of learning to further
enlighten our understanding of the complex relations between
students’ thoughts, feelings, and actions during online learning.

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 591

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

Additionally, future work should examine whether interventions

designed from a self-regulated learning perspective—that is,
those intended to bolster students’ beliefs and emotions—can
actually improve learning and performance in highly indepen-
dent online learning contexts. Ultimately, engaging in such work
has the potential to advance the field by providing added guid-
ance for the theory, research, and practice of online learning.

References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth
in online learning. Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/
publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf
Artino, A. R. (2007). Online military training: Using a social cogni-
tive view of motivation and self-regulation to understand students’
satisfaction, perceived learning, and choice. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 8, 191–202.
Artino, A. R. (2008). Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instruc-
tional quality: Predicting satisfaction with online training. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 260–270.
Artino, A. R., & McCoach, D. B. (2008). Development and initial
validation of the Online Learning Value and Self-Efficacy Scale.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38, 379–403.
Artino, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. (2006). Learning online: Motivated to
self-regulation? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10, 176–182.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
W. H. Freeman.
Bell, P. D., & Akroyd, D. (2006). Can factors related to self-regulated
learning predict learning achievement in undergraduate asynchro-
nous Web-based courses? International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning, 3(10), 5–16.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A.,
Wozney, L., . . . Huang, B. (2004). How does distance educa-
tion compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the
empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379–439.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook
of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

592 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

Chiu, C., Sun, S., Sun, P., & Ju, T. L. (2007). An empirical analysis
of the antecedents of Web-based learning continuance. Computers
and Education, 49, 1224–1245.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multi-
ple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
College Board. (2007). 2007 college-bound seniors: Total group pro-
file report. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_
downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2007/national-report.
pdf
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-regulation in
student-centered Web-based learning environments. International
Journal on E-Learning, 3, 40–47.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The struc-
ture of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related
beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215–225.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new
area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34,
906–911.
Fletcher, J. D., Tobias, S., & Wisher, R. A. (2007). Learning anytime,
anywhere: Advanced distributed learning and the changing face of
education. Educational Researcher, 36, 96–102.
Gable, R. K., & Wolfe, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the
affective domain: Measuring attitudes and values in corporate and
school settings. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gunawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance education.
In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational com-
munications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 355–396). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hartley, K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2001). Educational research in the
Internet age: Examining the role of individual characteristics.
Educational Researcher, 30(9), 22–26.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in cova-
riance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Joo, Y., Bong, M., & Choi, H. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regu-
lated learning, academic self-efficacy, and Internet self-efficacy
in Web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(2), 5–17.

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 593

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Estimating the effects of social inter-
ventions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kenny, D. A., & Milan, S. (2007). Data Analysis Training Institute
of Connecticut: Structural equation modeling. Storrs: University of
Connecticut, Department of Psychology.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation model-
ing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Lim, C. K. (2001). Computer self-efficacy, academic self-concept, and
other predictors of satisfaction and future participation of adult
distance learners. The American Journal of Distance Education,
15(2), 41–51.
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2006). Emotion research in education: Theoretical
and methodological perspectives on the integration of affect, moti-
vation, and cognition. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 307–314.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal the-
ory and affect: An asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational
Psychologist, 37, 69–78.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2004). Role of affect in cognitive
processing in academic contexts. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg
(Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives
on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 57–87). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-
regulation and online learning in a blended learning context.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
5(2), 1–16.
Maehr, M. (1976). Continuing motivation: An analysis of a seldom
considered educational outcome. Review of Educational Research,
46, 443–462.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into
Practice, 41, 226–232.
Miltiadou, M., & Savenye, W. C. (2003). Applying social cognitive
constructs of motivation to enhance student success in online dis-
tance education. Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education Journal, 11, 78–95.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems
view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
O’Regan, K. (2003). Emotion and e-learning. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7, 78–92.

594 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

Peck, S. C., & Roeser, R. W. (Eds.). (2003). Person-centered approaches

to studying development in context: New directions for child and ado-
lescent development (Vol. 101). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emo-
tions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational
research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals
and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and pro-
spective test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 583–597.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2005). Achievement Emotions
Questionnaire (AEQ): User’s manual. Munich, Germany: University
of Munich, Department of Psychology.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic
emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement:
A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational
Psychologist, 37, 99–105.
Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of
contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher
education. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education
Policy.
Picard, R. W., Papert, S., Bender, W., Blumberg, B., Breazeal, C.,
Cavallo, D., . . . Strohecker, C. (2004). Affective learning—A man-
ifesto. BT Technology Journal, 22, 253–269.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sus-
taining 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, CA:
Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role
of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-reg-
ulated learning components of classroom academic performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and
self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and
self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 371–402). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 595

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993).

Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., MacCallum, R. C., & Nicewander, W.
A. (2005). Use of the extreme groups approach: A critical reex-
amination and new recommendations. Psychological Methods, 10,
178–192.
Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G.
Kirkman (Ed.), The global information technology report: Readiness
for the networked world (pp. 32–37). London, England: Oxford
University Press.
Roca, J. C., Chiu, C., & Martinez, F. J. (2006). Understanding e-learn-
ing continuance intention: An extension of the Technology
Acceptance Model. Human-Computer Studies, 64, 683–696.
Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy
of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 85–94.
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. 631–650). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in
education: Theory, research, and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated
learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation and
self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. New York,
NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental
and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.
Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. A. (2006). The
comparative effectiveness of Web-based and classroom instruc-
tion: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623–664.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern,
T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A
review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76, 93–135.

596 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

United States Naval Academy. (2007). Class of 2011 profile.

Retrieved from http://www.usna.edu/Admissions/documents/
Classof2011Profile.pdf
Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2002). Predictors of web-student per-
formance: The role of self-efficacy and reasons for taking an on-
line class. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 151–163.
Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a Web-
based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 52(4), 5–22.
Wosnitza, M., & Volet, S. (2005). Origin, direction and impact of
emotions in social online learning. Learning and Instruction, 15,
449–464.
Zembylas, M., Theodorou, M., & Pavlakis, A. (2008). The role of emo-
tions in the experience of online learning: Challenges and oppor-
tunities. Educational Media International, 45, 107–117.
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, CA: Academic
Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Goal setting: A key proactive source of
academic self-regulation. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 267–296). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: The
role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemis-
try. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1081–1094.

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 597

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

Author Notes
An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the
2008 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Boston, MA.
The first author is a military service member. The views
expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not nec-
essarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department
of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Appendix
Survey Items Contained in the Unmodified,
Seven-Factor, 36-Item Instrument
Using the scale below, select the extent to which you agree with
each statement.
completely mostly tend to neutral tend to mostly completely
disagree disagree disagree agree agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Self-Efficacy

The following statements relate to your beliefs in your ability to

learn with self-paced, online courseware (such as the online por-
tion of this Navy course).
SE-1 Even in the face of technical difficulties, I am certain I
can learn the material presented in an online course.
SE-2 I am confident I can learn without the presence of an
instructor to assist me.
SE-3 I am confident I can do an outstanding job on the
activities in a self-paced online course.
SE-4 I am certain I can understand the most difficult mate-
rial presented in a self-paced online course.
SE-5 Even with distractions, I am confident I can learn
material presented online.

598 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

Task Value

The following statements relate to your opinions regarding the

value of the online portion of this Navy course.
TV-1 It was personally important for me to perform well in
this course.
TV-2 This course provided a great deal of practical
information.
TV-3 I was very interested in the content of this course.
TV-4 Completing this course moved me closer to attaining
my career goals.
TV-5 It was important for me to learn the material in this
course.
TV-6 The knowledge I gained by taking this course can be
applied in many different situations.

Boredom

Participating in an online course can induce different emotions.

Please indicate how you felt while completing the online portion
of this Navy course.
BOR-1 I was bored.
BOR-2 I felt the course was fairly dull.
BOR-3 My mind wandered.
BOR-4 I was uninterested in the course material.
BOR-5 I thought about what else I would rather be doing.

Frustration

Participating in an online course can induce different emotions.

Please indicate how you felt while completing the online portion
of this Navy course.
FRU-1 I felt frustrated.
FRU-2 I was angry.
FRU-3 I felt as though I was wasting my time.
FRU-4 I was irritated.

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 599

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
Adaptive Profiles of Academic Self-Regulation

Elaboration

The following statements relate to various learning strategies you

may have used while completing the online portion of this Navy
course.
ELA-1 I tried to relate what I was learning to what I already
know.
ELA-2 I tried to make all the different ideas fit together and
make sense to me.
ELA-3 I made up my own examples to help me understand the
important concepts.
ELA-4 I tried to connect what I was learning with my own
experiences.

Metacognition

The following statements relate to various learning strategies you

may have used while completing the online portion of this Navy
course.
MET-1 If I became confused about something I read, I went
back and tried to figure it out.
MET-2 If course material was difficult to understand, I changed
the way I studied it.
MET-3 I asked myself questions to make sure I understood the
material I was studying.
MET-4 I tried to think through each topic and decide what I
was supposed to learn from it, rather than just reading
it over.
MET-5 I tried to determine which concepts I didn’t understand
well.
MET-6 I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities.
MET-7 If I got confused during online activities, I made sure I
sorted it out before proceeding on to the next section
of the course.
MET-8 I kept track of how much I understood, not just if I was
getting through the material.

600 Journal of Advanced Academics

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015
 Artino & Stephens

MET-9 I stopped once in a while and went over what I had

learned.

Satisfaction

The following statements relate to your overall satisfaction with

the online portion of this Navy course.
SAT-1 Overall, I was satisfied with my online learning
experience.
SAT-2 This online course met my needs as a learner.
SAT-3 I would recommend this online course to a friend who
needed to learn the material.

Volume 20 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2009 601

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 6, 2015