THE CORRELATION OF SELF-REGULATION

AND MOTIVATION WITH RETENTION

AND ATTRITION IN DISTANCE EDUCATION

Larry Peck
Old Dominion University

FS
Jill E. Stefaniak
University of Georgia
Smruti J. Shah
Old Dominion University

O O
This study surveyed 113 undergraduate and graduate distance education students at 2 U.S. universities using

R 8
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The MSLQ is an 81-item, self-report instru-
ment designed to measure study participants’ motivational orientations and their use of different learning

P 1
strategies. The motivational orientations measured were: intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation,
task value, control beliefs, self-efficacy for learning and performance, and test anxiety. The learning strategies

0
measured were: rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation, time and

P 2
study environment, effort regulation, peer learning, and help seeking. The study revealed that self-efficacy,
effort regulation, and peer-learning correlated with student retention in the distance education programs.

INTRODUCTION
IA ©
To provide greater access to students and to
meet market demands, institutions of higher
education have adopted online delivery of
instruction and expanding course and program
offerings at a rapid pace (Patterson & McFad-
den, 2009). The growth rate of online enroll-
ments has been substantially greater than
overall higher education enrollments (Allen &
Seaman, 2007). The 12.9% growth rate for
online enrollment is much greater than the
1.2% growth overall of the higher education
student population (Patterson & McFadden,
2009). The focus of this study is to explore the
correlation of self-regulation and motivation
with retention and attrition in distance educa-
tion.
A quantitative study conducted at a univer-
sity in the southeastern United States found
that online students were much more likely to
drop out than the campus-based students. An
MBA program and a communication sciences
and disorders (CSD) program were evaluated
with the finding that 11% of the campus-based
students in the MBA program dropped out as
compared to 43% of the online students. In the
CSD program, 4% of the campus students

• Jill Stefaniak, Jill Stefaniak, University of Georgia, 221 Rivers Crossing, 850 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30602.
Telephone: (706) 542-1682. E-mail: jill.stefaniak@uga.edu

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 19(3), 2018, pp. 1–15 ISSN 1528-3518
Copyright © 2018 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
2 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
dropped out compared to 23.5% of the online
students (Patterson & McFadden, 2009). At a
community college in Texas, there was an 11%
to 15% point difference between course com-
pletion rates in the online and on-campus
course programs (Carr, 2000). Some of the
reasons for this are explored in this study as we
look at the defining elements of distance edu-
cation and the effect those elements have on
the motivation and regulation of the learning
and teaching process. Motivation and self-reg-
ulation issues can be significant factors in aca-
S
demic success when students are separated
F
from each other and from the instructors.
Distance education offers significant bene-
O
fits to institutions desiring to expand student
accessibility as well as significant educational
O
challenges. Both the benefits and the chal-
lenges have to do with the nature of distance
R 8
education. Keegan’s definition of distance
1
P
education states that distance education is
0
characterized by:
P 2
• The separation of the teacher and learner
IA ©
throughout the educational process.
• The influence of an educational organiza-
tion in the planning and preparation of the
learning materials along with student sup-
port.
• The use of technical media to connect
teacher and learner and deliver the content
of the course.
• The provision of two-way communication,
and the quasi-permanent absence of a
learning group so that instruction is usually
to an individual (Keegan, 1996).
The work of Moore (1989) has given spe-
cific meaning and submeanings to the term
“interaction.” He suggested that distance edu-
cators agree on the distinctions between three
types of interaction, which he labeled learner-
content interaction, learner-instructor interac-
tion, and learner-learner interaction. Students
transform when they interact intellectually
with the content, when they are stimulated,
directed, and motivated to learn, when they
Vol. 19, No. 3, 2018
can apply what they have learned, and when
they are supported in the learning process.
The importance of student-content interac-
tion in the learning process has also been high-
lighted in several research studies (Bernard et
al., 2009; Morrison & Anglin, 2006; Wittrock,
2010). While the face-to-face resident students
may have the advantage of instructional strate-
gies given by the instructor in the classroom,
this advantage does not always translate to the
online environment. The simple posting of
information (e.g., PowerPoint slides) is not
teaching. Learners must be actively involved
in the learning process and generate their own
associations between new information and
what they already know. It is through this deep
processing of information initiated by the
instructional strategy that significant learning
occurs and students are integrated, challenged,
and motived in the learning process. Distance
education students do not always have an
external stimulus to engage in this type of deep
processing with the content and may fail to do
so if the interaction is not part of the instruc-
tional design.
Moore (1989) states that the lack of interac-
tion between the learner and teacher leaves
“ultimate responsibility for maintaining moti-
vation, for interacting with the presentation,
for analyzing the success of application, and
for diagnosing difficulties on the learners
themselves requiring a high degree of learner
autonomy” (p. 3). In distance education, as
compared to traditional classroom face-to-face
education, additional metacognitive, motiva-
tional, and behavioral responsibility is placed
on the student to plan, organize, self-instruct,
self-monitor, motivate, and self-evaluate their
learning process.
Many of life’s endeavors require directed
and sustained effort over long periods of time
with minimal external regulation and direc-
tion. In these situations, students must self-reg-
ulate and direct their own motivation and
action (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). This con-
cept of self-regulation is seen by a number of
researchers as a mediator between computer-
based learning environments and academic
The Correlation of Self-Regulation and Motivation With Retention and Attrition in Distance Education
performance (Winters, Greene, & Costich,
2008). Since no environment ensures learning
and even settings with advanced levels of
interaction do not guarantee learning, students
must activate, alter, or create schema for learn-
ing to occur. Self-regulated learning theorists
view students as metacognitively, motivation-
ally, and behaviorally active participants in
their own learning process (Zimmerman,
1986). There is a growing body of laboratory
and field research that highlight the impor-
tance of students’ use of self-regulated learn-
S
ing strategies in their academic achievement
(Zimmerman, 1990).
F
Circumstantial factors play an increasing
role as older, nontraditional students enter
O
online programs to further their education
while maintaining work and family responsi-
O
bilities. In a study at the Indira Gandhi
R 8
National Open University in India (Fozdar,
Kumar, & Kannan, 2006), 250 students who
P 1
had not completed the program completed a
0
21-item questionnaire listing reasons in rela-
P 2
tive importance for dropping out. The main
reasons students gave for withdrawal were
IA ©
absence of interaction with fellow students
(47.06%), high cost of attending to laboratory
work (38.24%), lack of time due to changing
family circumstances (35.29%), followed by
changes in employment status (35.29%). Other
factors found to affect withdrawal included
marriage obligations (8.82%) and poor health
conditions (8.82%). For these older students,
circumstances have a major effect on reten-
tion. These factors would apply to U.S. stu-
dents as well, since the same factors appear in
our student culture.
The Importance
of Interaction in Achievement
Moore highlighted the importance of inter-
action in education and defined three types of
interaction: student-content (S-C), student-
teacher (S-T), and student-student (S-S)
(Moore, 1989). A meta-analysis by Bernard et
al. (2009) of the experimental literature of dis-
tance education compares different types of
3
interaction treatments with other distance edu-
cation instructional treatments. Interaction
treatments are the instructional conditions in
the courses that are intended to facilitate the
three types of interactions. The study sup-
ported the importance of the three types of
interaction treatments and the strength of the
interaction treatments is found to be associated
with increased achievement outcomes. A
strong association was found between interac-
tive treatment strength and achievement in
asynchronous courses and distance education
literature gives overwhelming support to the
importance of interaction for achievement.
Anderson (2003) has polled distance educa-
tion students over the years and has concluded
that there is a wide range of need and prefer-
ence for different combinations of course
delivery and activity, which has led to the for-
mation of an equivalency theorem:
Deep and meaningful formal learning is sup-
ported as long as one of the three forms of
interaction (student-teacher; student-student;
student-content) is at a high level. The other
two may be offered at minimal levels, or even
eliminated, without degrading the educa-
tional experience. (p. 4)
Theories of retention and attrition in dis-
tance education have highlighted the complex
and multifaceted personal, circumstantial, and
institutional variables and their varying cor-
relation with success in the online academic
environment (Bell, 2006). The common factor
in all these variables is students and their reac-
tions and interactions to the personal, circum-
stantial, and institutional environments they
are confronted with as they pursue academic
success. Since there is no perfect learner or
perfect learning environment, self-regulation
of reactions and interactions may be an import-
ant key to understanding academic success in
distance education.
Self-Regulated Learning
The research of Bandura and Schunk
(1981) on self-motivation, efficacy, and intrin-
4 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
sic interest is a recurring theme in academic
success studies especially in distance educa-
tion where students do not have external fac-
tors to motivate them, help them to believe in
their adequacy, or organize and implement
actions for academic success. As described,
the lack of adequate interaction in the educa-
tional process requires a high degree of learner
autonomy to maintain motivation, interact
with the content, diagnose difficulties, and get
the necessary support. The research of Zim-
merman (1989) on active participation in the
S
learning process is especially important for
distance education, which requires students to
F
be able to initiate and self-regulate their own
learning. Active participation would be
O
defined as any interaction the student has with
O
the content, the instructor, the environment,
and the other students as part of the learning
R 8
process.
1
By definition, self-regulated students are
P
metacognitively, motivationally, and behav-
0
iorally active in their own learning process
P 2
(Zimmerman, 1989). In self-regulated learn-
ing, the acquisition of knowledge is initiated
IA ©
and directed by the students themselves, and
they are less dependent on others for direction
and motivation. Metacognitively, the self-reg-
ulated student plans, organizes, self-instructs,
self-monitors, and self-evaluates at various
stages during the learning process. Motivation-
ally, self-regulated students view themselves
as competent, self-efficacious, autonomous,
and perceive their efforts and outcomes as
valuable and worthwhile. Behaviorally, the
self-regulated students select strategies, struc-
ture their learning, and create a learning envi-
ronment that optimizes their learning.
According to Zimmerman (1986), the self-reg-
ulated students are constantly aware of the out-
comes of their thinking patterns and their
actions.
Three important elements in self-regulated
learning are learning strategies, self-efficacy,
and commitment to academic goals (Zimmer-
man, 1989). Learning strategies are actions
and processes that are used to acquire informa-
tion or skill and to improve students’ self-
Vol. 19, No. 3, 2018
regulation of their personal functioning,
behavior, or learning environment. Self-effi-
cacy is the student’s perception of perfor-
mance skill and capabilities. Academic goals
can be grades, social standing, self-esteem,
employment, obtaining good grades, improv-
ing self-esteem, being equipped for a good job,
avoiding failure and embarrassment, and
pleasing teachers or parents.
Selection and Use of Strategies
Students’ use of strategies to self-regulate
their behavior, environment, and personal
(covert) functions in a distance learning envi-
ronment is dependent on a feedback loop con-
sisting of monitoring performance, self-
efficacy, and motivation (Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons, 1990). Current theory and
research points to the importance of self-regu-
lation in the distance education environment
and the strategies that enhance it (Zimmerman
& Pons, 1986).
A study of college-age students involved in
an asynchronous web-based course was con-
ducted by Bell (2006) to explore whether fac-
tors related to self-regulated learning and
epistemological beliefs could predict learning
achievement. The study included 201 under-
graduate students enrolled in a variety of asyn-
chronous web-based courses at a university in
the southeastern United States. Data were col-
lected via a web-based questionnaire and sub-
jected to a factor analysis of self-regulated
learning using 24 questions from the Moti-
vated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ). This study’s findings suggest that
individuals with the greatest expectancy for
learning were the most successful asynchro-
nous learners.
Two key components of the learning and
teaching process are motivation and attitude
(Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2013).
Morrison et al. (2013) state:
For many instructors, learner motivation is
actually considered to be the most important
determinant of success. Learners who “just
The Correlation of Self-Regulation and Motivation With Retention and Attrition in Distance Education
don’t care” or, worse, are actively resistant to
the instruction are not likely to respond in the
same way to the learning activities as would
highly motivated students. (p. 55)
Learner attitude, while it can affect the
learning process, is different than motivation.
A student may be motivated to learn a subject
but may feel inadequate to do so. This lack of
confidence will result in less than optimum
learning even though the motivation may be
present. As we look at self-regulation in the
S
learning process, both motivation and attitude
play a large role in the successful regulation of
F
the process. While both students and teachers
bring their levels of motivation and attitude
O
into the learning context, the design and con-
duct of the instructional process can have a
O
direct affect on both motivation and attitude.
8
(Anderman & Dawson, 2011; Driscoll, 2005;
R
Mayer, 2011; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006).
P 1
0
Purpose of Study
P 2
Based on the literature, there seems to be a
IA ©
paucity of research on how motivation and
self-regulation influence student retention in a
higher education setting. This study extends
the current research of student retention by
examining the role of motivation and self-reg-
ulation in online course attrition and retention
and is unique in that it measures levels of moti-
vation and self-regulation using the MSLQ
with students who are or have been enrolled in
a distance education program at two different
schools of higher education. While motivation
and self-regulation are known to be important
factors in education success, this study mea-
sures those two factors with students who are
currently enrolled in a distance education pro-
gram or have recently dropped out of one. The
primary purpose of the study was to attempt to
correlate levels of motivation and regulation
with attrition or retention in two higher educa-
tion distance education programs and two dif-
ferent student groups.
This study was guided by the following
research questions:
5
1. To what extent is there a correlation
between the student’s score on the moti-
vation scales and retention?
2. To what extent is there a correlation
between the student’s score on the learn-
ing strategies scales and retention?
3. What are the expressed reasons given by
students for either dropping a course
beyond the allowable drop date, dropping
out of the program completely, or for con-
tinuing with a course until completion?
METHODS
Research Design
In this study, two groups of students were
administered the MSLQ survey. The first
group consisted of students who had dropped
out of a distance education class or a particular
distance education program. The second group
consisted of students who were still enrolled in
the distance program and have not dropped
any of their classes. An 81-item MSLQ was
used to determine the level of student motiva-
tion and use of learning strategies. The results
were analyzed for determining differences in
average responses between the two groups. In
addition to the 81 MSLQ questions, partici-
pants were asked to provide information
regarding their enrollment status in the pro-
gram (i.e., dropped or not dropped) by select-
ing from the list a statement that best describes
their status in the program. An open-ended
question asked participants about their felt rea-
sons for attrition or retention in the program.
Setting
This study targeted distance education stu-
dents at two universities in the Midwest region
of the United States. Both universities have a
residential face-to-face program and an equiv-
alent distance education program. Both
schools are accredited private liberal arts uni-
versities offering 4-year degrees and a gradu-
ate program. One university has an enrollment
6 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
of 1,300 undergraduate and 230 graduate stu-
dents. The other university has 2,200 under-
graduate and 600 graduate students. Approval
to administer the survey was granted by the
individual school’s institutional review boards.
Participants
The study focused on students in the under-
graduate and graduate distance education pro-
grams at the selected schools and two groups
S
of students were evaluated. A total of 347 stu-
dents in the enrolled category were contacted
F
and a total of 162 in the dropped category were
contacted. Of the 509 students contacted, 22
O
from the dropped category and 91 from the not
dropped category participated in the study by
O
completing the survey. Using a database of
R 8
students provided by the schools, students
were contacted via e-mail and regular mail
1
P
inviting them to participate in the study. The
0
first group of students consisted of those who
P 2
dropped a class beyond the allowable drop
date while enrolled in the program or had
IA ©
dropped out of the program entirely. The sec-
ond group consisted of those who had not
dropped courses beyond the allowable drop
date and continue to be enrolled in the pro-
gram.
Instrument
The MSLQ is an 81 item, self-report instru-
ment (Appendix A) designed to measure col-
lege students’ motivational orientations and
their use of different learning strategies (Pin-
trich, Smith, Garcia, & Mckeachie, 1993). The
MSLQ uses a social-cognitive view of motiva-
tion and self-regulation and directly links stu-
dents’ motivation to their ability to self-
regulate their learning activities. The MSLQ
items are divided into two broad categories of
motivation scales and learning strategies
scales. The motivation scales consist of 31
items that assess value components (i.e.,
intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientations, and
Vol. 19, No. 3, 2018
task value), expectancy components (i.e., con-
trol beliefs and self-efficacy for learning and
performance), and affective components (i.e.
test anxiety).
Learning strategies are used by students to
self-regulate their personal processes, their
environment, and their behavior. The learning
strategies scales consists of 31 items regarding
students’ use of different cognitive and meta-
cognitive strategies (i.e., rehearsal, elabora-
tion, organization, critical thinking, and
metacognitive self-regulation) and 19 items
concerning student management of different
resources such as time and study environment,
effort regulation, peer learning, and help seek-
ing. The questions use a Likert type scale rang-
ing from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true
of me). The MSLQ was used in this study to
determine levels of motivation and learning
strategy use. The MSLQ questionnaire’s sub-
scales have high internal consistency. The
Cronbach’s alpha range from .52 to .93. Help
seeking scale had the lowest Cronbach’s alpha
( = .52) and self-efficacy had the highest
Cronbach’s alpha ( = .93) (Pintrich et al.,
1991).
RESULTS
A total of 347 students in the enrolled category
were contacted and a total of 162 in the
dropped category were contacted. Of the 509
students contacted, 22 from the dropped cate-
gory and 91 from the not dropped category
participated in the study by completing the sur-
vey. Overall, there was a low rate of participa-
tion from both dropped and enrolled groups.
However, the enrolled group had higher partic-
ipation rate than the dropped group. The data
were examined to check if there were any
missing scores. The results indicate that there
were no missing scores in the data. Means and
standard deviations for each the MSLQ sub-
scales across retention groups are listed in
Table 1.
The Correlation of Self-Regulation and Motivation With Retention and Attrition in Distance Education 7

TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Each MSLQ Subscale Across Retention Groups

Dropped Not Dropped

MSLQ Subscale M SD M SD

Motivation
Intrinsic goal 5.534 0.907 5.635 0.882
Extrinsic goal 4.886 1.115 4.942 1.261
Task value 5.709 0.809 5.972 0.970
Control belief 5.000 0.883 5.412 0.993
Self-efficacy for learning and performance 5.426 0.859 5.906 0.749

S
Test anxiety 3.827 1.084 3.620 1.573

F
Learning Strategy
Rehearsal 4.341 1.538 4.264 1.393

O
Elaboration 4.977 1.099 5.249 0.924

O
Organization 4.114 1.447 4.646 1.221
Critical thinking 4.855 1.532 4.969 1.043

R 8
Metacognitive self-regulation 4.508 0.938 4.805 0.752

P 1
Time and study environment 5.173 1.336 5.460 1.074

0
Effort regulation 5.489 1.248 5.981 0.901

P 2
Peer learning 2.788 1.121 3.403 1.340
Help seeking 3.409 1.278 3.668 1.270

Motivation and Retention

IA ©
The Pearson r correlation was conducted to
assess the motivation variables that correlate
with retention in the distance education pro-
gram. The analysis indicated that there was a
significant positive correlation between self-
efficacy for learning and performance and
retention (r = .241, p = .010), such that as the
self-efficacy scores increases, the retention in
the distance education program also increases.
There were no other significant correlations
found between the motivation subscales and
student retention (see Table 2).
Learning Strategies and Retention
The correlation analysis indicated that there
was a significant positive correlation between
effort regulation and retention (r = .198, p =
.036) and between peer learning and retention
(r = .185, p = .049). The results suggest that as
effort regulation and peer learning increases,
students’ retention in the distance program
also increases. There were no other significant
correlations found between the learning
strategy subscales and student retention (see
Table 3).
A Mann-Whitney U test, a nonparametric
test was conducted to assess if there is a differ-
ence between the dropped and enrolled groups.
This test was chosen as an alternative to the t
test because of the two groups had unequal
sample size and were not normally distributed.
The Mann-Whitney U test is similar to the t
test but it is more appropriate to be conducted
when the data do not meet the parametric
assumptions of the t test (McKnight & Najab,
2010). The results indicated that the self-effi-
cacy score of the enrolled group (M = 5.906,
8 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 19, No. 3, 2018

TABLE 2
Correlation Between Motivation Subscales and Retention

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Retention 1
2. Intrinsic goal 0.045 1
3. Extrinsic goal 0.018 0.135 1
4. Task value 0.111 0.632*** 0.242** 1
5. Control belief 0.167 0.337*** 0.014 0.283** 1
6. Self-efficacy for learning 0.241** 0.436*** 0.239* 0.410*** 0.435*** 1
and performance

S
7. Test anxiety –0.055*** -0.073 0.313** -0.05 -0.244 -0.337*** 1
Note: *p < .05, two-tailed; **p ≤ .010, two-tailed; ***p < .001, two-tailed.

O F TABLE 3
Correlation Between Learning Strategies and Retention

O
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

R 8
1. Retention 1

P 1
2. Rehearsal –0.022* 1

0
3. Elaboration 0.112 .440*** 1

P 2
4. Organization 0.165 .566*** .596*** 1
5. Critical think- 0.04 0.168*** .567*** .391*** 1

IA ©
ing
6. Metacognitive 0.149 .512*** .724*** .661*** .443*** 1
self-regulation
7. Time and study 0.101 .420*** .461*** .473*** 0.178 .604*** 1
environment
8. Effort regula- .198* .273** .479*** .380*** 0.091 .599*** .704*** 1
tion
9. Peer learning .185* .334*** .410*** .395*** .223* .372*** 0.152 0.111 1
10. Help seeking 0.081 .418*** .311*** .317** 0.062 .359*** .343*** .225* .566*** 1
Note: *p < .05, two-tailed; **p ≤ .010, two-tailed; ***p ≤ .001, two-tailed.

SD = .748) is significantly different from that
of the dropped group (M = 5.426, SD = .859),
U = 634.00, p = .008).
The goal of this study was to be able to pre-
dict which students will drop out. The Mann-
Whitney U test revealed that the two groups
differed on the self-efficacy scores. However,
a regression analysis is necessary to create a
model that predicts student retention. The
dependent variable (i.e., retention) has only
two outcomes (i.e., enrolled or dropped). In
such situation, conducting a binary logistic
regression analysis is more appropriate option
than conducting simple regression analysis. A
binary logistic regression using the forward
likelihood ratio (LR) method was conducted.
The chi-square test was significant (2(1) =
6.061, p = .014) which indicates that the new
model is significantly better at predicting stu-
dent retention compared to the baseline model.
The Hosmer and Lemeshow test had a signifi-
cance value greater than p =.05, which sug-
The Correlation of Self-Regulation and Motivation With Retention and Attrition in Distance Education
gests that the model is a good-fit with the data
(2(8) = 12.589, p = .127). The results indi-
cated that self-efficacy was the only significant
predictor of student retention in the program (
= .703, p = .015). The Exp(B) value associated
with self-efficacy is 2.021. This means that
with ever one unit increase in self-efficacy
score, the students are 2.021 times more likely
to stay enrolled in the program.
Reasons for Dropping and Continuing
S
The stated reasons for dropping or not drop-
F
ping give interesting insight into the motiva-
tions of the students. Of the 97 surveyed
O
participants who provided information about
their motivations for not dropping the pro-
O
gram, 67% (n = 65) stated that extrinsic goal
orientation was the reason they did not drop
R 8
the program. This shows that the main concern
1
is not the learning process itself (i.e., taking the
P
class and doing the work), but the means to an
0
end, be it career, improvement, and grades,
P 2
among others. Of the 15 surveyed participants
who provided information about their motiva-
IA ©
tions for dropping the program, 33% (n = 5)
gave low task value as their reason to drop out.
Low task value refers to the student’s percep-
tions of the program in terms of interest,
importance, and utility. According to the
Binary logistic regression, self-efficacy was
found to be a good predictor of student reten-
tion, whereas, according to student report, task
value and extrinsic goal orientation were found
to be the reason for student retention and attri-
tion in the program. Self-efficacy, task value,
and extrinsic goal orientation fall under the
motivation scale category of the MSLQ.
DISCUSSION
This study revealed a statistically significant
correlation between self-efficacy, a motivation
subscale, and student retention. The felt rea-
sons given for attrition or retention (i.e., extrin-
sic goal orientation and task value) were also
from the motivation category. Additionally,
9
effort regulation and peer learning, subscales
of learning strategy, were also found to be sig-
nificantly correlated with student retention.
This study poses significance from an instruc-
tional design perspective since the motiva-
tional and self-regulation aspects can be built
into the courses. For instance, good instruc-
tional design can build courses that are per-
ceived as having a high task value, encourage
and motivate the students in their progress, and
build learning strategies into the course and
study work so that students can improve their
performance as they work through the mate-
rial. In short, good instructional design can
boost motivation and self-regulation (Ander-
man & Dawson, 2011).
The two retention groups significantly dif-
fered from each other on the self-efficacy for
learning and performance score. The self-
efficacy scale comprises two aspects—namely
expectancy for success and self-efficacy.
Expectancy for success alludes to performance
expectations. Self-efficacy refers to self-
appraisal of one’s ability to master a given
task. It also refers to one’s ability to accom-
plish a given task and to one’s confidence in
one’s skills to perform the task (Pintrich et al.,
1991). Moore (1989) suggested that in a set-
ting where students and teachers are separated,
additional responsibility is placed on students
to evaluate and motivate their learning pro-
cess. As the students progress through the
learning process, they engage in what Bandura
(1976) and Zimmerman (1989) referred to as a
reciprocal causation among three influence
processes: personal, environmental, and
behavioral. This process can lead to interpreta-
tions and conclusions by the students that have
a direct influence on their self-efficacy for
learning and performance. As Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons (1990) indicated, self-efficacy
beliefs influence achievement behaviors. Also,
achievement has a reciprocal influence on self-
efficacy. This study depicts significance of
self-efficacy beliefs on retention in the online
environment. Motivation and attitude are two
key components of the learning and teaching
process. A negative reciprocal causation can
10 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
directly impact self-efficacy, a key component
in distance education success (Morrison et al.,
2013).
Effort regulation, a resource management
strategy, refers to the students’ ability to con-
trol their effort and attention when faced with
distractions and uninteresting tasks (Pintrich et
al., 1991). Bandura and Schunk (1981) indi-
cated the importance of self-motivation in the
distance education environment where the stu-
dents do not have external factors to motivate
them. The results of the present study indicate
S
that students who are not able to self-regulate
F
their efforts are at a higher risk of dropping
out.
O
Peer learning, a resource management strat-
egy, involves collaborating and communicat-
O
ing with peers to clarify and to gain insights on
course materials (Pintrich et al., 1991). Moore
R 8
(1989) listed learner-learner interaction as one
1
P
of the three significant interactions in the
0
learning process. In this study, the correlation
analysis indicated that peer learning (i.e., stu-
P 2
dent-student interaction) is significantly cor-
IA ©
related with retention in online program. The
result therefore supports the findings reported
by Moore (1989).
This study, unlike the studies in the litera-
ture review, uses a very specific definition of
academic success. It defines academic success
as the improper dropping of courses or attri-
tion, and retention. This study directly
addresses the issue of high attrition rate in dis-
tance education. This is one of the biggest
problems of distance education. The signifi-
cant correlation between retention and self-
efficacy for learning and performance, effort
regulation, and peer learning informs the
instructional design process to minimize the
impact of the separation of the students from
the teacher and their fellow students.
Limitations of the Study
The overall sample size of this study is
small (n = 113) and the number of dropped stu-
dents who participated in the study was even
Vol. 19, No. 3, 2018
smaller (n = 22). It is possible that a larger
sample size for both the dropped and not
dropped could have yielded different results.
Some limitations of surveying students who
have already dropped from a particular pro-
gram are the difficulty of contacting them,
their unwillingness to participate in a survey
regarding a program they are no longer part of,
and receiving survey results that may not accu-
rately reflect the reality of when they were
enrolled in the program and deciding to with-
draw.
Implications for Future Research
Studies seeking to correlate motivated strat-
egies with retention and attrition may have a
better return of student feedback if they are
surveyed at the beginning of their program and
near the end of the first semester while they are
still enrolled. The results could then be cor-
related with future retention or attrition. One of
the difficulties of distance education attrition
studies is getting quality feedback from those
who are no longer enrolled in the academic
program. Future research is needed to explore
the impact of the instructional design of a
course that intentionally seeks to show the
value of what was being learned, that encour-
ages and strengthens the students’ perception
of their ability to do the course, and that rec-
ommends several learning strategies such as
peer learning and time management as part of
the course.
REFERENCES
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation five
ears of growth in online learning. Needham,
MA: Sloan-C.
Anderman, E. M., & Dawson, H. (2011). Learning
with motivation. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexan-
der (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning
and instruction (pp. 219–241). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again:
An updated and theoretical rationale for interac-
tion. International Review of Research in Open
The Correlation of Self-Regulation and Motivation With Retention and Attrition in Distance Education
and Distance Learning, 4(2). doi:10.19173/
irrodl.v4i2.149
Bandura, A. (1976). Social learning theory. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating
competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic Interest
through proximal self-motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586–
598. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586
Bell, P. D. (2006). Can factors related to self-regu-
lated learning and epistemological beliefs pre-
dict learning achievement in undergraduate
synchronous web-based courses? Online
S
Research Journal Perspectives in Health Infor-
mation Management, 3(7).
F
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E.,
Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., &
O
Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three
types of interaction treatments in distance educa-
O
tion. Review of Educational Research, 79(3),
1243–1289. doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844
R 8
Carr, S. (2000, February 11). As distance education
1
comes of age, the challenge is keeping the stu-
P
dents. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 7.
0
Retrieved from http://Chronicle.com
P 2
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning from
instruction (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA:
IA ©
Allyn & Bacon.
Fozdar, B. I., Kumar, L. S., & Kannan, S. (2006). A
survey of a study on the reasons responsible for
student dropout from the bachelor of science
programme at Indira Gandhi National Open Uni-
versity. International Review of Research in
Open & Distance Learning, 7(3), 1–15.
Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance educa-
tion (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Towards a science of moti-
vated learning in technology-supported environ-
ments. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 59(2), 301–308.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction.
The American Journal of Distance Education,
3(2), 1–6.
Morrison, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2006). An instruc-
tional design approach for effective shovelware
modifying materials for distance education.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1),
63–74.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., &
Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective instruc-
tion (7th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
11
Patterson, B., & McFadden, C. (2009). Attrition in
online and campus degree programs. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
12(2).
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Gracia, T., &
McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use
of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Ques-
tionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI. National
Center for Research to Improve Post-secondary
Teaching and Learning.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., &
McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predic-
tive validity of the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–
813. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Com-
petence and control beliefs: Distinguishing the
means and the ends. In P. A. Alexander & P. H.
Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psy-
chology (2nd ed., pp. 349–368). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M.
(2008). Self-regulation of learning within com-
puter based learning environments. Education
Psychology Review, 20, 429–444.
Wittrock, M. C. (2010). Learning as a generative
process. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 40–
45. doi: 10.1080/00461520903433554
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regu-
lated learner: Which are the key subprocesses.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4),
307–313.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view
of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81(3).
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning
and academic achievement: An overview. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 25(1), 3.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990).
Student differences in self-regulated learning—
Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-effi-
cacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 51–59. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.82.1.51
Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Develop-
ment of a structured interview for assessing stu-
dent use of self-regulated learning strategies.
American Educational Research Journal, 23(4),
614–628.
12 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 19, No. 3, 2018

APPENDIX A

Part 1: Motivation

Very
Not True
at All of Me

1. In a class like this, I prefer course material that really challenges me so I can learn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
new things.
2. If I study in appropriate ways, then I will be able to learn the material in this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
course.
3. When I take a test I think about how poorly I am doing compared with other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

S
students.

F
4. I think I will be able to use what I learn in this course in other courses. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O
6. I’m certain I can understand the most difficult material presented in the readings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
for this course.

O
7. Getting a good grade in this class is the most satisfying thing for me right now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8
8. When I take a test I think about items on other parts of the test I can’t answer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

R
9. It is my own fault if I don’t learn the material in this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

P 1
10. It is important for me to learn the course material in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0
11. The most important thing for me right now is improving my overall grade point 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

P 2
average, so my main concern in this class is getting a good grade.
12. I’m confident I can learn the basic concepts taught in this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

IA ©
13. If I can, I want to get better grades in this class than most of the other students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. When I take tests I think of the consequences of failing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. I’m confident I can understand the most complex material presented by the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
instructor in this course.
16. In a class like this, I prefer course material that arouses my curiosity, even if it is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
difficult to learn.
17. I am very interested in the content area of this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. If I try hard enough, then I will understand the course material. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. I have an uneasy, upset feeling when I take an exam. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. I’m confident I can do an excellent job on the assignments and tests in this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. I expect to do well in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. The most satisfying thing for me in this course is trying to understand the content 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
as thoroughly as possible.
23. I think the course material in this class is useful for me to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. When I have the opportunity in this class, I choose course assignments that I can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
learn from even if they don’t guarantee a good grade.
25. If I don’t understand the course material, it is because I didn’t try hard enough. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. I like the subject matter of this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. Understanding the subject matter of this course is very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. I feel my heart beating fast when I take an exam. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29. I’m certain I can master the skills being taught in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The Correlation of Self-Regulation and Motivation With Retention and Attrition in Distance Education 13

30. I want to do well in this class because it is important to show my ability to my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

family, friends, employer, or others.
31. Considering the difficulty of this course, the teacher, and my skills, I think I will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
do well in this class.

Part 2: Learning Strategies

32. When I study the readings for this course, I outline the material to help me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
organize my thoughts.
33. During class time I often miss important points because I’m thinking of other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
things.
34. When studying for this course, I often try to explain the material to a classmate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

S
or friend.

F
35. I usually study in a place where I can concentrate on my course work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36. When reading for this course, I make up questions to help focus my reading. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O
37. I often feel so lazy or bored when I study for this class that I quit before I finish 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
what I planned to do.

O
38. I often find myself questioning things I hear or read in this course to decide if I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
find them convincing.

R 8
39. When I study for this class, I practice saying the material to myself over and over. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

P 1
40. Even if I have trouble learning the material in this class, I try to do the work on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0
my own, without help from anyone.
41. When I become confused about something I’m reading for this class, I go back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

P 2
and try to figure it out.

IA ©
42. When I study for this course, I go through the readings and my class notes and try 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to find the most important ideas.
43. I make good use of my study time for this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
44. If course readings are difficult to understand, I change the way I read the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
material.
45. I try to work with other students from this class to complete the course 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
assignments.
46. When studying for this course, I read my class notes and the course readings over 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and over again.
47. When a theory, interpretation, or conclusion is presented in class or in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
readings, I try to decide if there is good supporting evidence.
48. I work hard to do well in this class even if I don’t like what we are doing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
49. I make simple charts, diagrams, or tables to help me organize course material. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
50. When studying for this course, I often set aside time to discuss course material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
with a group of students from the class.
51. I treat the course material as a starting point and try to develop my own ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
about it.
52. I find it hard to stick to a study schedule. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
53. When I study for this class, I pull together information from different sources, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
such as lectures, readings, and discussions.
54. Before I study new course material thoroughly, I often skim it to see how it is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
organized.
14 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 19, No. 3, 2018

55. I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material I have been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
studying in this class.
56. I try to change the way I study in order to fit the course requirements and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
instructor’s teaching style.
57. I often find that I have been reading for this class but don’t know what it was all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
about.
58. I ask the instructor to clarify concepts I don’t understand well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
59. I memorize key words to remind me of important concepts in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
60. When course work is difficult, I either give up or only study the easy parts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
61. I try to think through a topic and decide what I am supposed to learn from it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
rather than just reading it over when studying for this course.

S
62. I try to relate ideas in this subject to those in other courses whenever possible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
63. When I study for this course, I go over my class notes and make an outline of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F
important concepts.
64. When reading for this class, I try to relate the material to what I already know. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O
65. I have a regular place set aside for studying. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O
66. I try to play around with ideas of my own related to what I am learning in this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
course.

R 8
67. When I study for this course, I write brief summaries of the main ideas from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1
readings and my class notes.

P
68. When I can’t understand the material in this course, I ask another student in this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0
class for help.

P 2
69. I try to understand the material in this class by making connections between the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
readings and the concepts from the lectures.

IA ©
70. I make sure that I keep up with the weekly readings and assignments for this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
course.
71. Whenever I read or hear an assertion or conclusion in this class, I think about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
possible alternatives.
72. I make lists of important items for this course and memorize the lists. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
73. I attend this class regularly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
74. Even when course materials are dull and uninteresting, I manage to keep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
working until I finish.
75. I try to identify students in this class whom I can ask for help if necessary. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
76. When studying for this course I try to determine which concepts I don’t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
understand well.
77. I often find that I don’t spend very much time on this course because of other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
activities.
78. When I study for this class, I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
in each study period.
79. If I get confused taking notes in class, I make sure I sort it out afterwards. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
80. I rarely find time to review my notes or readings before an exam. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
81. I try to apply ideas from course readings in other class activities such as lecture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and discussion.
The Correlation of Self-Regulation and Motivation With Retention and Attrition in Distance Education 15

Please check which statement best describes your student status.

82. Which statement describes your current status as a student:

I have dropped courses beyond the allowable drop date or I have withdrawn (even for a brief period of time) from
the distance program.
I have not dropped courses beyond the allowable drop date and I continue to be enrolled in the distance program.
83. Please give a short answer describing your primary reasons either for continuing in the program (what keeps you
going), for dropping courses beyond the allowable drop date, or for withdrawing from the program.

FS
O O
P R 18
P 2 0
IA ©
Copyright of Quarterly Review of Distance Education is the property of Information Age
Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.