motivation, self-regulated learning efficacy, and academic ... · students’ high school gpa and...

9Motivation, Self-Regulated Learning Efficacy, and Academic Achievement

Much of the literature on academic achievement among community college students has focused pri-marily on domestic students. This is only proper be-cause domestic students comprised 94% of all com-munity college students in the United States while students who were not U.S. citizens consisted of 6% of the student body (American Association of Com-munity Colleges, 2011). As community colleges are seeking international partnerships and experienc-ing a record growth of international students, it becomes more important than before to examine the learning experiences of international students at community colleges, in comparison to domestic students. As a result, our intention is to compare international and domestic community college stu-dents’ academic achievement from the perspective of self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation, as these are the three areas least report-ed on in the community college literature.

Motivation, Self-Regulated Learning Efficacy, and Academic Achievement Among International and Domestic Students at an Urban Community College: A Comparison

Hsiang-Ann LiaoAnita Cuttita

FerdenziMargot Edlin

Dr. Liao is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Buffalo State College in Buffalo, New York.

Dr. Ferdenzi is an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at Queensborough Community College in Bayside, New York.

Dr. Edlin is an Assosiate Professor in the Department of Basic Educational Skills at Queensborough Community College in Bayside, New York.

This study is designed to examine how intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and self-regulated learning efficacy influ-ence academic achievement of international and domestic community college students. Results show that for both in-ternational and domestic students, motivation did not directly affect academic achievement. Self-regulated learning efficacy affected academic achievement directly only for international students. Several path models were constructed to assess the direct and indirect relationships among variables. It was found that for international students, both forms of motivation indi-rectly affected academic achievement through the mediating influence of efficacy for self-regulated learning. However, this path model did not sustain for domestic students. Implications of the findings for community college administration were discussed.

10 Community College Enterprise • Fall 2012

One area of scarcity in community college literature is an examina-tion of student achievements and behaviors from a social cognitive per-spective. Over the past few decades, scholars who took a social cogni-tive approach to student accomplishments have generated a substantial amount of literature in settings other than community colleges, such as at four-year colleges, in professional programs, or in primary and secondary education. However, research on the link between self-efficacy and aca-demic achievement among community college students is limited. A so-cial cognitive perspective on human behaviors examines a person’s inner strength or confidence in carrying out a particular task. This approach was best explained by Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy. According to Bandura (2008, 1986), humans are self-organizing, self-reflecting, and self-regulating beings and that one’s behaviors are determined by that in-dividual’s environment and inner drives. Among the limited literature on the social cognitive aspects of community college students, Silver, Smith, and Greene (2001) found that community college students who reported higher grades had substantially higher levels of study skills self-efficacy.

Another theoretical aspect that has escaped community college litera-ture is motivation or self-determination theory, which also has generated significant findings in four-year college education, professional education, primary and secondary education, as well as in the field of health and wellness. Research based on self-determination theory was designed to examine the different behavioral outcomes generated by intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. According to Deci and Ryan (1985), intrinsic mo-tivation is related to personal and internal factors, such as interests and gratification, and extrinsic motivation is related to external factors, such as rewards, punishments, and social pressure. In a study on underpre-pared community college students, Grimes and David (1999) found that underprepared students exhibited a greater external locus of control than college-prepared students. Santos (2004) further found that among His-panic community college students, intrinsic motivator was ranked higher than extrinsic motivator.

Moreover, Yusuf (2011) noted that there is a lack of educational re-search that incorporates self-efficacy, motivation, and learning strategies as an integrated model. As a result, this study also aims to examine the direct and indirect effects between self-regulated learning efficacy, intrin-sic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and student academic achievement among international and domestic community college students.

Most of the current research generalizes the results of studies at four-year institutions to students at two-year institutions despite the fact that

11

certain factors relating to student persistence differ based on the type of institution students attend. For instance, student departure rates are sig-nificantly higher at community colleges (Barnett, 2010) than at four-year institutions, particularly for nontraditional students who make up a sig-nificant proportion of the community college population. Additionally, Barnett (2010) states that community college students are three to four times more likely to exhibit factors that will affect their ability to attain a degree as compared with their four-year college counterparts. These fac-tors include, but are not limited to age, part-time status, disproportionate representation of members of racial and ethnic minorities, and families with lower incomes (Barnett, 2010). Furthermore, most research on per-sistence centers around the college experience outside of the classroom, such as interactions with faculty, involvement with extracurricular activi-ties, and overall engagement with the college environment. As the ma-jority of community colleges are commuter schools, student persistence hinges on the interactions they have in their classrooms, as that is where they spend the majority of their time while on campus (Barnett, 2010).

Given that student populations in community colleges and four-year institutions differ, and that the literature on the effects of motivation and self-efficacy on academic achievement of community college students is limited, this study was designed to examine how motivation and self-regulated learning efficacy affect community college students via a com-parison of international and domestic students.

Theoretical Framework

Intrinsic Motivation and Academic Achievements

How to motivate students to learn has been a question that intrigues educators of all levels. According to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), people’s motivation to engage in an action can be examined at three levels: intrinsically, extrinsically, and amotivation. Intrinsically motivated learners or doers see learning or engaging in a particular activ-ity as a source of fulfillment and enjoyment. An intrinsically motivated student would go to a class or read a book because she or he is interested, wants the information, or is longing for the pleasure and satisfaction accompanying the action. Vallerand et al. (1992) further proposed that there are three types of intrinsic motivation: intrinsic motivation to know, to accomplish something, and to experience stimulation.

Intrinsic motivation to know is the construct that is most often stud-ied in the field of education. When students act out of a motivation

Motivation, Self-Regulated Learning Efficacy, and Academic Achievement


to know, what make students want to explore, to understand, to learn something new, and to search for meanings would include pleasure, sat-isfaction, and a sense of fulfillment. Intrinsic motivation for accomplish-ments pertains to individuals interacting with the environment in order to create accomplishments, feel competent, and enjoy the pleasure and satisfaction from creating something. When students extend their work beyond the requirements, they are displaying a motivation to accomplish. Lastly, when individuals engaging in an activity in order to experience the sensation of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), they are intrinsically mo-tivated to experience stimulation.

Findings on the effects of intrinsic motivation on educational out-comes in settings other than community colleges are abundant. Cheng and Ickes (2009) studied four-year college students and found that stu-dents who were high in self-motivation had a higher GPA, even after students’ high school GPA and SAT scores were controlled. Turner, Chandler and Heffer (2009) studied parenting styles and academic mo-tivation among college students and found that authoritative parent-ing, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation predicted GPA. Lynch (2006) found that intrinsic motivation, but not extrinsic motivation, was associ-ated with course grades. In a cross-cultural study on high school students, intrinsic motivation, as defined by Ryan and Deci (2000), was relevant to students’ satisfying learning experiences (Jang et al., 2009). Ryan and Connell (1989) demonstrated that, in comparison with extrinsic motiva-tion, intrinsic motivation was associated with high levels of interest and confidence and low levels of anxiety among third to sixth graders. In the field of health science, intrinsic motivation factors were found to signifi-cantly predict an active lifestyle among adult nonsmokers, to negatively correlate with alcohol assumption, and to predict enjoyment, effort, and behaviors in physical activity (Biller et al., 2009; Shamloo & Cox, 2010; Standage, Vansteenkiste, & Sebire, 2009; Zhang, 2009).

Extrinsic Motivation and Academic Accomplishments

According to Deci and Ryan (1985), individuals are extrinsically moti-vated when they engage in behaviors as a means to an end, which could be to avoid punishments from authorities or disappointments from fam-ily and friends, or to obtain rewards. Extrinsic motivation functions on a continuum from a more internalized and integrated form to one that is based more on external factors. Vallerand et al. (1992) further ordered extrinsic motivation from lower to higher levels of self-determination as: external regulation, introjection, and identification. External regulation

13

pertains to behaviors that are “regulated through external means such as rewards and constraints” (Vallerand et al., 1992, p. 1006). For example, a student could say: “I study because the test will be a group test and I do not want to look bad.” With introjection, an individual engages in an activity from internalizing “past external contingencies” (Vallerand et al., 1992, p. 1006). A student may say: “I study because my parents would expect me to.” The highest level of extrinsic motivation is identification, which occurs when an individual chooses to engage in a behavior that is valued and is considered important. A student would say: “I study be-cause my education is important to me.”

Amotivation pertains to the lack of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. Amotivated individuals experience feelings of incompetence and uncon-trollability. Further, they feel that whatever happens to them is totally out of their control and may attribute obstacles to bad luck or misfortune. Most of all, in education, amotivated students do not see the purpose of going to school.

The effects of extrinsic motivation on educational goal attainment were well documented. Grolnick and Ryan (1987) found that late-ele-mentary-aged children with internalized and better integrated extrinsic motivation were more likely to display better learning outcomes. In an undergraduate online science class where intrinsic and extrinsic moti-vation were measured by a self-report questionnaire, students’ intrinsic motivation was found to have a significant negative relationship while ex-trinsic motivation had a significant positive relationship with the content of students’ notes (Moos, 2009). Landry (2003) examined self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, outcome expectations (extrinsic motivators), and certainty of reenrollment of 441 undergraduate students. She found that positive outcome expectations (extrinsic motivators) and to a lesser degree students’ self-efficacy beliefs to be more powerful predictors of college stu-dents’ intention to persist and remain enrolled. In a Greek study, female high school students were found to be less likely than males to pursue a computer science degree, and when they did, it was because of extrinsic reasons rather than personal interest in computer science (Papastergiou, 2008). Although extrinsic motivators exerted influences on students’ be-havior, scholars also purported that the use of extrinsic rewards would undermine intrinsic motivation, learning experiences, and learning out-comes in the long run (Benabou & Tirole, 2003; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001; Gottfried et al., 2009; Schwartz, 2009).

Although the impact of either intrinsic or extrinsic motivation was documented in the aforementioned studies, in other research, both in-



trinsic and extrinsic factors affected outcomes. For example, it was found that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation predicted high school stu-dents’ decision to continue studying Spanish (Pratt, Agnello, & Santos, 2009), and in another study, attitudes toward drug treatment (Longshore, Anglin, & Conner, 2009). Among children, both intrinsic aspirations and extrinsic rewards were found to aid in maintaining their environmen-tally responsible behaviors (Price, Vining, & Saunders, 2009).

Yet some researchers advocate looking beyond this intrinsic and ex-trinsic dichotomy when examining the role of motivation in education. For example, Griffin (2006) explored high-achieving African American students’ academic motivation and found that both internal and external forces contributed to their success. Griffin noted that a multidimensional framework that incorporates self-determination theory, sociocognitive theory, and attribution theory best accounted for their achievement. Grif-fin’s findings were supported by a study on premed students, where the intrinsic/extrinsic framework failed to account for these premed students’ learning experiences (Horowitz, 2009), and by a study on information technology adoption (Malhotra, Galletta, & Kirsch, 2008).

Self-Regulated Learning Efficacy and Academic Achievements

Study results on the effects of self-efficacy on academic achievements are mixed. On one hand, Graham and Weiner (1996) found that self-efficacy has been a more consistent predictor of behavioral outcomes than any other motivational constructs. Academic self-efficacy was found to pre-dict grades or GPA (Bembenutty, 2009a; Elias & MacDonald, 2007; Ferla, Valcke, & Cai, 2009; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2009; Nakajima, 2009; Robbins et al., 2004), as well as various goal orientations, such as mas-tery goals (developing and improving ability) and performance-approach goals (demonstrating ability) (Liem, Lau, & Nie, 2008; Walker & Greene, 2009). Moreover, students with high academic self-efficacy were more likely to apply elaborative learning strategies and critical thinking (Wang & Wu, 2008). In one study on community college students, researchers found that students who reported higher grades had substantially higher levels of study skills self-efficacy (Silver, Smith, & Greene, 2001). It was also found that in comparison with high school GPA, academic self-effi-cacy was a stronger predictor of college academic performance (Klomegah, 2007). For students who were admitted under special criteria, or students with disabilities or with a higher possibility of dropping out, academic self-efficacy combined with parental involvement predicted academic perfor-mance (Hudson, 2008). In addition to academic achievement, academic

15

self-efficacy also negatively predicted test anxiety and positively associated with time management (Bembenutty, 2009a; Bembenutty, 2009b). More-over, subject specific self-efficacy, such as math self-efficacy or chemistry self-efficacy, was found to predict student achievement on that particular subject (Pajares & Graham, 1999; Uzuntiryaki & Aydin, 2009).

On the other hand, although research has consistently shown a rela-tionship between self-efficacy beliefs and performance on standardized exams and school tasks, high self-efficacy will not necessarily result in successful academic performance (Schunk, 1989). Research also indicates that there is often a lack of achievement calibration between students’ beliefs about their competency and their actual performance (Robins & Beer, 2001). House (1992) corroborated this finding in his study of the relationship between academic self-concept, achievement, stated expec-tancies, and college attrition.

One aspect of academic self-efficacy is self-regulated learning efficacy, which measures the extent to which students are confident in implement-ing several self-regulated learning strategies. The self-regulated learning construct facilitates the analysis of the various skills involved in successful learning—skills which Boekaerts (1999) says should be viewed as propae-deutic to learning (p. 453). Zimmerman (1989) specified 15 self-regulated learning strategies that are conducive to learning, which could be grouped into three categories—content, context, and other. Content-oriented self-regulated learning strategies include self-evaluating, organizing and trans-forming, seeking information, keeping records and monitoring, rehears-ing, and memorizing, as well as reviewing records. Self-evaluating occurs when students evaluate their own work to ensure it is done right. Orga-nizing and transforming pertains to when students rearrange learning materials to enhance learning outcomes, such as reorganizing class notes or writing an outline before writing a paper. Information seeking is about students’ self-initiated efforts to gather information and conduct research before an assignment is due, such as going to the library to collect infor-mation. Taking notes in class or keeping a record of mistakes made is also one of the self-regulated learning strategies. Rehearsing and memorizing pertains to student-initiated efforts to rehearse and memorize until the information is remembered. Reviewing records relates to students’ efforts to review all materials, including notes, textbooks, or assignment guide-lines, in preparing for a test or completing an assignment.

Context-oriented, self-regulated learning strategies relate to creating an environment that is conducive to learning, which include goal-setting and planning, environment structuring, self-consequating, and seeking



social assistance. Goal-setting and planning pertain to setting educational goals and establishing plans to meet the goals. Environment structuring is when students structure their environment to ensure effective learning, such as going to the library to study instead of studying at home to avoid distractions. Self-consequating relates to gratification delay, such as when students initiate efforts to complete an assignment first before engaging in other gratifying activities. Seeking social assistance pertains to when students seek help from peers or teachers when they encounter problems in their learning. These interactions play a critical role in the process of developing self-regulating skills and improving student achievement (Boekaerts & Cascallar, 2006). The third category, other, contains self-regulated learning behaviors that are initiated by other persons instead of the students, such as teachers or parents.

Various studies have showed the effects of self-regulated learning ef-ficacy on academic achievements. It was found that high-achieving stu-dents displayed significantly greater use of self-regulated learning and that self-regulated learning proved to be the best predictor of standardized test scores (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). Studies on high school students show that cognitive self-regulation strategy was a significant pre-dictor of students’ course grades (Nota, Soresi, & Zimmerman, 2004; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Self-regulated learning strategies were found to relate to verbal and mathematic efficacy in mid-dle school students (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990) and in another study, were positively related to cognitive engagement and performance (Pintrinch & De Groot, 1990). Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2007) found that self-regulatory beliefs mediated the relationship between homework completion and academic achievement.

International Community College StudentsLiterature on the learning experiences of international community col-lege students is limited. Some studies on foreign community college students center on factors that contribute to a particular educational outcome, such as academic performance (Dozier, 2001), graduation rates (Ignash, 1995), and educational aspirations (Conway, 2010; Wang, Chang, & Lew, 2009). One study showed that strong academic training in the homeland is one of the explanatory factors contributing to the academic success of international students (Hom, 2007). Other studies focused on aspects such as integration and support (Smith, 2010; Sutherland, 2011), decision making (Bohman 2010; Wang, Chang, & Lew, 2009), academic

17

advising (Orozco, Alvarez, & Gutkin, 2010), decision making process (Bohman, 2010), and assimilation (Porras & Mathews, 2009).

In terms of educational outcomes, Bailey and Weininger (2002) found in their study of the community colleges of the City University of New York (CUNY) that “immigrants who attended high school abroad accu-mulated more credits and are more likely to complete an associate degree than natives,” (p. 3). Furthermore, their research on international stu-dents at urban community colleges shows that “immigrants who gradu-ated from a foreign high school tend to be more concentrated in two-year programs” (p. 4). Similarly, Conway (2010) noted that immigrant students who were educated in U.S. high schools were more likely to aspire to a senior college rather than a community college. Dozier (2001) compared documented and undocumented international students and found that documented students outperformed undocumented students academi-cally. Wang, Chang, and Lew (2009) studied Asian Pacific students in community colleges in Los Angeles and found that Asian Pacific students who chose to attend community colleges for academic reasons, such as for the purpose of transferring to a four-year college or for the provision of a particular educational program, were more likely to aspire for a bachelor’s degree. Additionally, based on Tinto’s perspective of integration and de-parture (1987), Smith (2010) found that for both native- and non-native-English-speaking students, feeling supported by the institution was the greatest predictor of increased self-reported learning outcomes.

Language barrier could hinder international community college stu-dents’ academic experience. Ignash (1995) reported that students who had to take ESL courses tended to have much lower graduation rates. The fact book published by the college where this study took place also shows that students who had to take ESL remedial courses had lower success rates, although this report does not distinguish between documented and undocumented students. Porras and Matthews (2009) found that fluency in the English language is the dominant assimilation factor for immigrant students.

HypothesesThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of intrinsic motiva-tion, extrinsic motivation, and self-regulated learning efficacy on aca-demic achievements among international community college students, in comparison to domestic students. In many studies, the distinction between immigrant students and international students varies. In one study, immigrant students were loosely defined as students who were



legal residents but whose native language is not English (Porras & Mat-thews, 2009), while in another, international students were defined as documented students who held a valid student visa (Dozier, 2001). In still other studies, both immigrant students and international students were grouped under the category of English as a Second Language (ESL) stu-dents (Ignash, 1995; Smith, 2010). In this study an international student could be defined as an immigrant student, a foreign student with a valid student visa, an ESL student, or any combination of the above.

Given that prior research results indicate both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation contributed to student learning, it is thus hy-pothesized that for domestic and international community college stu-dents, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation predict academic achieve-ment. Domestic community college students are students who received their high school education in the United States, while international stu-dents are students who hold a foreign high school diploma.

Hypothesis 1a: For international students, intrinsic motivation predicts academic achievement.

Hypothesis 1b: For domestic students, intrinsic motivation predicts aca-demic achievement.

Hypothesis 2a: For international students, extrinsic motivation predicts academic achievement.

Hypothesis 2b: For domestic students, extrinsic motivation predicts aca-demic achievement.

Past research results show a strong relationship between self-regulated learning efficacy and academic accomplishments. It is thus further hy-pothesized that self-regulated learning efficacy predicts academic achieve-ment among community college students.

Hypothesis 3a: Self-regulated learning efficacy predicts academic achievement among international students.

Hypothesis 3b: Self-regulated learning efficacy predicts academic achievement among domestic students.

Researchers have documented that international students perform better academically than domestic students (Dozier, 2001; Leong & Sedlacek, 1989). It is thus hypothesized that international students have higher GPA than domestic students. Prior studies did not examine the effects of demographic variables in the difference in GPA. It is further hy-

19

pothesized that demographic factors, such as age, will affect international students’ GPA more than domestic students’.

Hypothesis 4: International students have higher GPA than domestic students.

Hypothesis 5: Demographic factors, such as age, influence internation-al students’ GPA more than domestic students’.

Yusuf (2011) examined the direct and indirect effects between self-ef-ficacy, motivation, and college GPA and found that motivation played a moderating role in the effect between self-efficacy and GPA. Given that both self-regulated learning efficacy and motivation were investigated in this study, it is hypothesized that in addition to direct effect, motivation has an indirect effect on academic achievement via the moderating influ-ence of self-regulated learning efficacy.

Hypothesis 6: Self-regulated learning efficacy moderates the effect of motivation on academic achievement for both international and domes-tic students, as specified in Figure 1.

Intrinsicmotivation

Extrinsic motivation

Self-regulatedlearning ef�cacy GPA

e1 e2

Figure 1: A Path Model of Community College Students’ Academic Achievement

Methods

Participants

Students who participated in this study were part of a larger study on college persistence. International students in this study were defined as students who did not have a U.S. high school diploma. Based on this definition, an international student could be an immigrant student who has legal residency, an international student who held a student visa, an ESL student, or any combination of the above. Domestic students were defined as students who graduated from a U.S. high school. A survey



was conducted in spring, summer, and fall of 2008 at an urban commu-nity college in Queens, New York. Authors of this study solicited their own students and students from other courses if the instructors agreed to participate. Students registered in the following courses were surveyed: basic skills (remedial), speech communication, education, psychology, and sociology. Among the 310 students surveyed, 85% were domestic students who graduated from a U.S. high school (n = 262), and 15% were international students who had a foreign high school diploma (n = 47). The majority of the students in this sample were traditionally aged college students. Females comprised two thirds of the sample. Students were evenly distributed between major racial groups. A description of the students who participated in this study is in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic and Academic Characteristics of Students Par-ticipated in the Study

Demographic/Academic

Variable N %

U.S. high school diploma

Yes 262 84.8

No 47 15.2

Age

16–18 71 23.0

19–21 158 51.1

22–25 51 16.5

26–30 10 3.2

Over 30 19 6.1

Gender

Female 207 68.1

Male 97 31.9

Ethnicity

African American 52 16.9

Asian American 48 15.6

Caucasian American 64 20.8

Hispanic American 63 20.5

Other 81 26.3

Marital Status

Single 264 85.4

Married 21 6.8

Other 24 7.8

Children

21

Yes 38 12.4

No 269 87.6

Work

Don’t work 103 33.4

One part-time job 144 46.8

More than one part-time job 23 7.5

One full-time job 29 9.4

More than one full-time job 9 2.9

College GPA

2.0–2.25 66 22.9

2.26–2.50 43 14.9

2.51–3.0 85 29.5

3.1–3.5 62 21.5

3.6–4.0 32 11.1

High school GPA

2.0–2.25 29 10.0

2.26–2.50 55 19.0

2.51–3.0 107 37.0

3.1–3.5 76 26.3

3.6–4.0 22 7.6

Year in school

First year 155 50.3

Second year 103 33.4

Third year 39 12.7

Fourth year 7 2.3

Fifth year 4 1.3

College credits

0–15 155 50.5

16–30 63 20.5

31–45 45 14.7

46–50 15 4.9

51–60 29 9.4

Mother’s education

Graduated from high school 147 49.7

Attended college, no degree 58 19.6

Associate degree 30 10.1

Bachelor’s degree 43 14.5

Graduate degree 18 6.1



Father’s education

Graduated from high school 155 53.8

Attended college, no degree 47 16.3

Associate degree 30 10.4

Bachelor’s degree 38 13.2

Graduate degree 18 6.2

Financial aid

Yes 141 45.9

No 166 54.1

Remedial vs. credit

Remedial 78 25.2

Credit 232 74.8

Intention for 4-year college

Yes 252 81.3

No 13 4.2

Measures

Three independent variables and one dependent variable were measured in this study. The three independent variables are: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and self-regulated learning efficacy. Items used to measure the independent variables are in Table 2 with mean, standard de-viation, and Cronbach’s α specified, based on data from all 310 students surveyed. Intrinsic motivation was measured by a scale adopted from Deci and Ryan (1985) and Landry (2003), as well as Pintrich and De-Groot (1990). Intrinsic motivation was assessed by asking the participants how likely they were to overcome difficulties in order to accomplish their set goals. Difficulties identified in the questionnaire include receiving a disappointing grade, failing a few courses, having to complete challenging class work, financial difficulties, and having to study dull and uninterest-ing materials. Intrinsic motivation measures were assessed by 5-point Lik-ert scales with α = .66. Extrinsic motivation was measured by statements on how much students agree that a college degree will eventually benefit them in various aspects of life, such as obtaining a well-paying job, mak-ing their family and themselves proud, being better off for the rest of their life, achieving future goals, and meeting financial goals. The extrinsic mo-tivation scale was adopted from Betz and Voyten (1997), Deci and Ryan (1985), and Landry (2003). Questions were answered on 5-point Likert scales with α = .83. Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning was measured by modifying scales from Pintrich and De Groot (1990) as well as Zim-merman, Bandura and Martinez-Pons (1992). Questions on self-regulated

23

learning measured students’ confidence in performing general academic skills, such as their confidence in their ability to meet assignment dead-lines, concentrate on school subjects, take notes in class, use the library for research, plan schoolwork, and participate in class discussion. Items were measured with 5-point Likert scales and had an internal consistency of α = .80. The dependent variable, academic achievement, was measured by participants’ self-reported college GPA.

Table 2. Questionnaire Items Used to Measure Variables

α M SD

Intrinsic Motivation: .66

Even when I make a disappointing grade I am able to study hard for the next exam.

4.19 .89

Even if I fail a few courses, I will persist until I get my college degree.

4.63 .71

I prefer class work that is challenging so I can learn new things.

3.85 .97

I am able to overcome financial difficulties while in college.

3.45 1.13

Even when study materials are dull and uninteresting, I keep working until I finish.

3.79 1.09

I am able to persistently work at my career goal even when I get frustrated.

4.08 .93

Extrinsic Motivation: .83

Allow me to obtain a well-paying job 4.61 .72

Get a “fair share” in the job market 4.10 .97

If I work hard enough, I will get this degree 4.82 .51

Disappoint my family and friends if I do not succeed in getting this degree

4.24 1.09

Do better with the rest of my life 4.13 .98

I will have failed if I don’t get my degree 3.94 1.22

Achieve my future goals 4.56 .71

If I know my interest and abilities, I will be able to get this degree.

4.54 .67

Fulfill my more immediate personal and professional needs

4.44 .76

I am proud when I make a good grade or do well in a course

4.88 .40

Meet my financial goals 4.37 .79

Expand my interests and abilities 4.46 .74



Feel very proud of myself 4.82 .54

Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: .80

Finish homework assignments by deadlines 4.15 .91

Study when there are other interesting things to do

3.35 1.25

Concentrate on school subjects 4.06 .92

Take notes in class 4.56 .79

Use the library to get information for class assignments

4.04 1.10

Plan my schoolwork 4.02 .92

Organize my schoolwork 4.26 .87

Remember information presented in class and textbooks

3.79 .94

Arrange a place to study without distractions 3.89 1.08

Participate in class discussions 4.06 1.05

Master the courses I am taking this semester 3.77 .93

Do an excellent job on the problems and tasks assigned for the courses I am taking this semester

3.86 .85

Get myself to do schoolwork 4.29 .84

ResultsTwo correlation analyses were conducted to assess the relationships be-tween the independent and dependent measures for international and domestic students. Results are in Table 3. According to Table 3, for both international and domestic students, neither intrinsic motivation nor ex-trinsic motivation predicted GPA. Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b were rejected. Self-regulated learning efficacy successfully predicted GPA for international students, but not for domestic students. Hypothesis 3a was sustained, and Hypothesis 3b was rejected.

Table 3. Intercorrelations Among Variables

International Students

GPAIntrinsic

motivation Extrinsic

motivation

Self-regulated learning efficacy

GPA __

Intrinsic motivation .150 __

Extrinsic motivation .086 .519*** __

25


.335* .579*** .540*** __

Domestic Students

GPA __

Intrinsic motivation -.005 __

Extrinsic motivation -.038 .275*** __


.089 .594*** .229*** __

*≤.05, **≤.01, ***≤.001

ANOVA and chi-square tests were conducted to see how international and domestic students differed demographically and academically. ANO-VA were performed on noncategorical variables, and results are in Table 4.1. Chi-square tests were performed on categorical variables, and results are in Table 4.2. Table 4.1 shows that international students performed better academically than domestic students (F = 13.42, df = 1, p = .00). Hypothesis 4 was sustained. Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 also show that inter-national students were more likely to be older, married with children, in school for a longer period of time, and earning more college credits. Inter-estingly, international and domestic students did not differ in their levels of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and self-regulated learning efficacy. To test Hypothesis 5, two regression analyses, one for interna-tional students and another for domestic students, were conducted to ex-amine the effects of age, marital status, year in school, and college credits on GPA. Results are in Table 5. The regression analyses show that none of the independent variables entered affected domestic students’ GPA. However, for international students, age emerged as the most important demographic variable and accounted for 34% of the variance in interna-tional students’ GPA. Hypothesis 5 was sustained.

Table 4.1. ANOVA—Demographic and Academic Differences Between International and Domestic Students

Demographic/Academic Variable International Domestic Significance

Mean SD Mean SD

Intrinsic motivation 24.19 3.77 24.00 3.48 N/S

Extrinsic motivation 57.04 7.34 58.03 5.67 N/S

Self-regulated learning efficacy 52.56 7.40 52.03 6.65 N/S

College GPA 3.49 1.37 2.71 1.26 F = 13.42*** df = 1



Age (1 = 16–18; 5 = over 30) 3.11 1.31 2.02 .87 F = 52.87*** df = 1

Work 3.91 1.08 4.00 1.01 N/S

High school GPA 3.18 1.16 3.00 1.09 N/S

Year in school 2.11 1.11 1.63 .80 F = 12.43*** df = 1

College credits 2.49 1.60 1.93 1.23 F = 7.34** df = .01

Mother’s education 2.09 1.43 2.07 1.30 N/S

Father’s education 2.07 1.39 2.00 1.31 N/S

N/S = Not significant; *≤.05, **≤.01, ***≤.001

Table 4.2. Chi-Square Test—Demographic and Academic Differences Between International and Domestic Students

Demographic/Academic Variable International Domestic Significance

Mean SD Mean SD

Gender (1 = F; 2 = M) 1.35 .48 1.31 .47 N/S

Marital status (1 = S; 2 = M) 1.48 .72 1.17 .52 c2 = 22.56*** df = 2

Children (1 = Y; 2 = N) 1.68 .47 1.91 .29 c2 = 19.53*** df = 1

Financial aid (1 = Y; 2 = N) 1.60 .50 1.53 .50 N/S

Remedial vs. credit (1 = R; 2 = C) 1.79 .41 1.74 .44 N/S

Intention for 4-year college (1 = Y; 0 = N) .92

.27 .96 .21 N/S

N/S = Not significant; *≤.05, **≤.01, ***≤.001

Table 5. Linear Multivariate Regression Models for GPA

International Students GPA

Domestic Students GPA

Age .527*** .097

Marital status .122 .064

Children -.094 .038

Year in school -.168 -.166

College credits .155 .146

Model fit

F 3.783** 1.732

R2 .344 .036

Note: Cell entries are standardized coefficients (b). *≤.05, **≤.01, ***≤.001

27

To test Hypothesis 6, one path model was constructed to investigate the direct and indirect effects between variables. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation were entered as exogenous variables, and self-regulat-ed learning efficacy was entered as a moderator. Academic achievement or GPA is the final variable that the model intends to explain. Both direct and indirect effects were specified in the model as in Figure 1, which has a c2 = 0, df = 0, and RMSEA = .162. A c2 = 0 and a df = 0 indicate that Figure 1 does not fit the data.

A reduced model was tested to see whether motivation and self-regu-lated learning efficacy accounted for GPA. Direct paths from motivation to GPA were removed. As a result, self-regulated learning efficacy became a mediator instead of a moderator. Results for international students are in Figure 2, and results for domestic students are in Figure 3. How well the path model fits the data was assessed by considering chi-square value and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Hair, Ander-son, Tatham, and Black (1995) as well as Kline (2011) stated that a c2/df ratio of 2:1 indicates a good fit. Hu and Bentler (1999) as well as Browne and Cudeck (1993) proposed a RMSEA less than .05 indicating close model fit and a RMSEA between .05 and .08 indicating reasonable error. Moreover, the higher the P-value for test of close fit, the better the model represents the data, with 1 indicating a perfect fit and 0 indicating a poor fit (Schumacker and Lomax, 2010).

The reduced academic achievement path model for international stu-dents in Figure 2 has a c2 = 2.007, df = 4. The c2/df ratio for this model is 0.5:1, indicating a very good fit to the sample data. The RMSEA = 0 also suggests a very good fit. The P-value for test of close fit is .734, which also indicates a good fit to the data. Individual path coefficients suggest that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation predicted self-regulated learn-ing efficacy and explained 40% of self-regulated learning efficacy, which has a significant relationship to GPA. Collectively, the two exogenous variables and the one mediator accounted for 15% of the variance in academic achievement. Figure 2 further shows that self-regulated learning efficacy was as a significant mediator between motivation and academic achievement. This relationship, however, was not sustained for domestic students (see Figure 3). Although Figure 3 represents the data well, as in Figure 2, the path between extrinsic motivation and self-regulated learn-ing efficacy as well as the path between self-regulated learning efficacy and GPA were not significant.



Intrinsicmotivation


Self-regulatedlearning ef�cacy GPA

e1 e2

.40**

.33*

.38**

R2 Self-regulated Learning Ef�cacy = .40 χ2 = 2.007R2 GPA = .15 df = 4 RMSEA = .000 P for test of close �t = .734*≤.05; **≤.01; ***≤.001

Figure 2: A Path Model of Academic Achievement of International Students.

Intrinsicmotivation


Self-regulatedlearning efcacy GPA

e1 e2

.57***

.08

.09

R2 Self-regulated Learning Efcacy = .36 χ2 = 2.007R2 GPA = .009 df = 4 RMSEA = .000 P for test of close t = .734

*≤.05; **≤.01; ***≤.001

Figure 3: A Path Model of Academic Achievement of Domestic Students

Conclusions and DiscussionsThis study was designed to compare the effects of self-efficacy and motiva-tion in international and domestic community college students’ academic performance. Findings from this study are relevant in understanding the motivational and social cognitive dimension of international and domes-tic students’ academic performance at a community college. First, this study showed that international community college students performed

29

better academically than domestic students and that both intrinsic mo-tivation and extrinsic motivation contributed to international students’ academic performance through the mediating influence of self-regulat-ed learning efficacy. Second, neither intrinsic motivation nor extrinsic motivation exerted direct influence on GPA, and that is true for both international and domestic students. Third, self-regulated learning effi-cacy contributed to international students’ academic achievement, but not to domestic students’. Fourth, in this survey sample, international and domestic students differed in age, marital status, whether they have children, year in school, and college credits accumulated. Among these factors, only age predicted international students’ GPA (Table 5).

Although this study was designed to compare the motivational and social cognitive dimension of international and domestic students’ aca-demic achievement, findings from this study generate meaningful impli-cations to community college administration. First, it is imperative for community colleges to foster students’ self-regulated learning skills as those skills contributed to international students’ academic achievement (see Table 3 and Figure 2). Because of the open-door policy, community colleges could admit students with various levels of academic prepared-ness. Although the mean of international students’ high school GPA was not significantly different from the mean of domestic students’ high school GPA (Table 4.1), students could still differ in their initial academic skill levels. Nevertheless, self-regulation predicted international students’ achievement, and so did age. It could be that self-regulated learning was an outgrowth of adult responsibilities such as juggling work, family, and school obligations. Older students know better than younger, less-expe-rienced students the value of a college education and the benefits it can provide for them and their families, particularly if they have spent a num-ber of years struggling in low-paying jobs. In addition, age and experience provide students with a different perspective regarding time management and other organizational skills that tie directly to academic success. This might especially be the case for international students, who were acutely aware that a college education might be an unattainable luxury in their native country; therefore, they were more appreciative of the opportu-nities afforded them in this country and thus were more motivated to develop the skills necessary for success.

Second, motivation exerted no direct influence on students’ GPA (Table 3). Moreover, for international students, motivation affected GPA through the mediating influence of self-regulated learning efficacy (Fig-ure 2). These results show that motivation alone did not contribute to



higher GPA without the essential self-regulated learning skills. It is inter-esting to note that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation associated with international students’ self-regulated learning efficacy, but only intrinsic motivation associated with domestic students’ self-regulated learning skills (Figure 2 and 3). It could be because, as stated above, international students were more likely to be older and to have family obligations. As a result, their concern for the future earning potential of a college degree, an extrinsic motivator, contributed to their self-regulated learning skills together with intrinsic motivation. An additional explanation could be the presence of self-regulated learning skills may be attributable to the types of learning that take place in international high schools. It is possi-ble that more attention is paid to fostering self-regulated learning skills in international students, which may account for the differences noted be-tween them and their domestic counterparts. This finding would support the findings of Hom (2007) who stated that strong academic training is a factor that contributes to the success of international students. The results of our research also underscored the pivotal role of self-regulated learning in mediating the relationship between motivation and GPA, and highlighted how academic self-regulation served as “the self-directive process through which learners transformed their mental abilities into academic skills” (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998, p.1).

Third, international students were not more motivated than domes-tic students nor showed higher level of self-regulated learning efficacy (Table 4.1). These findings created a paradox: The almost same level of self-regulated learning efficacy among international students and domes-tic students made a difference in international students’ GPA, but not in domestic students’ GPA. This can be explained by cautions raised by researchers in aforementioned studies that higher levels of self-efficacy will not necessarily result in successful academic performance (House, 1992; Robins & Beer, 2001; Schunk, 1989). It could be that internation-al students were older, were in school longer, and earned more college credits. As a result, they were able to assess their self-regulated learning skills more accurately and realistically than domestic students, who were younger and had less college experience. Community college administra-tors should pay special attention to less experienced college students to ensure that they understand the efforts they need to put into their learn-ing to achieve academic excellence, and it is imperative for community college administrators to provide a variety of strategies to support student learning at all levels of preparedness.

31

The implications of our findings and work of Bandura (1991) suggest that college administrators, faculty, and support staff provide students with the opportunity to develop their capacity for cognitively based moti-vators of forethought, self-appraisal, and self-reaction, because “Cognitive regulation of motivation relies extensively on an anticipatory proactive system rather than simply on a reactive negative feedback system” (p. 150). Although there is a great deal of evidence that powerful learning environ-ments and viable instructional models promote the learning and use of self-regulatory skills, they are not the norm (Boekaerts, 1999; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). Community college administrators and support staff should pay special attention to less experienced college students to en-sure that they understand the efforts they need to put into their learning to achieve academic excellence. Additionally, student affairs personnel should consider including training sessions on academic self-efficacy and self-regulated learning skills seminars during college orientations so that students can begin to utilize these strategies. Furthermore, it is imperative for community college administrators to provide a variety of strategies to support student learning at all levels of preparedness.

LimitationsOne limitation of the study is that the sample was a convenience sam-ple. The three researchers collected data from their own classes in 2008. Some surveys were completed by students in the classes of faculty who volunteered to set aside class time for the researchers to administer the surveys. As a result, students who participated in this study were concen-trated in the disciplines of humanities and social sciences (see Table 1). This skewed, convenience sample may affect the generalizability of the study. Nevertheless, the sample comprised students enrolled in a variety of contexts—basic skills, liberal arts courses, learning communities, and career-oriented academies. Results of this study still contributed to our knowledge on the differing learning outcomes of domestic and interna-tional students attending an urban community college. Another limita-tion of the study is that the variance in international students’ GPA that can be explained by the specified path model in Figure 2 is 15% and that the specified path model in Figure 3 failed to explain domestic stu-dents’ academic achievement. These results show that other factors are also important, such as initial academic skills, quality interaction with faculty, and pedagogy. The other limitation associated with this study is that data on students’ initial academic skills were not collected because community college admission does not require SAT scores. As a result,



it is not clear how initial academic level would factor in with motivation and self-efficacy.

Implications for future researchThe lack of a significant path between self-regulated learning efficacy and GPA exhibited by the domestic students in this study reiterate the need for further research to address the cognitive, motivational, and affective aspects of self-regulated learning suggested by Boekarts (1999) and to investigate the multidimensional framework that incorporates self-deter-mination theory, socio-cognitive theory, and attribution theory (Griffin, 2006).

The results of this study also point to the differential effects of the cul-tural orientation of the schools attended by the domestic and internation-al student subjects. Olaussen and Braten (1999) conducted a cross-cultur-al study which revealed that cultures differ in factors such as value placed on education and belief in ability versus effort. These differences may contribute to the differing use of self-regulated learning strategies. Fur-ther research is needed to identify the relationship between the students’ cultural orientation towards these factors and approaches to promoting self-regulated learning. This issue further indicates that more research is needed to identify how domestic educational systems and international educational systems differ in promoting self-regulated learning in their schools. Moreover, when comparing international and domestic students, it is also essential to assess their initial academic level so as to make the comparison more meaningful.

ReferencesAmerican Association of Community Colleges (2011). 2011 Fact Sheet. Retrieved

on June 21, 2011, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/Fact-Sheet2011.pdf

Bailey, T., & Weininger, E. B. (2002). Educating Immigrants and native minorities in CUNY Community Colleges. December 2002, No 13. ISSN 1526-2049. Commu-nity College Research Center Columbia University CCRC Brief.

Bandura, A. (2008). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effect: Advances in theory and research (pp. 121–153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-regu-latory mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation: Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69–164). Lincoln, NE: University of Ne-braska Press.

33

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Up-per Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barnett, E. A. (2010). Validation experiences and persistence among community col-lege students. The Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 193–230.

Bembenutty, H. (2009a). Academic delay of gratification, self-efficacy, and time management among academically underprepared college students. Psychological Reports, 104(2), 613– 623.

Bembenutty, H. (2009b). Text anxiety and academic delay of gratification. College Student Journal, 43(1), 10–21.

Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Review of Economic Studies, 70(3), 489–520.

Betz, N., & Voyten, K. (1997). Efficacy and outcome expectations influence career exploration and decidedness. The Career Development Quarterly, 46, 179–189.

Biller, H. et al. (2009). Personal motivation, exercise, and smoking behaviors among young adults. Behavioral Medicine, 35(2), 57–64.

Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where are we today? International Jour-nal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457.

Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved toward the integra-tion of theory and practice in self-regulation? Education Psychology Review, 18(3), 199–210.

Bohman, E. (2010). Headed for the heartland: Decision making process of commu-nity college bound international students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34, 64–77.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cheng, W., & Ickes, W. (2009). Conscientiousness and self-motivation as mutually compensatory predictors of university-level GPA. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 47(8), 817–822.

Conway, K. M. (2010). Educational aspirations in an urban community college: Dif-ferences between immigrant and native student groups. Community College Review, 37(3), 209–242.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.



Dozier, S. B. (2001). Undocumented and documented international students: A comparative study of their academic performance. Community College Review, 29, 43–53.

Elias, S. M., & MacDonald, S. (2007). Using past performance, proxy efficacy, and academic self-efficacy to predict college performance. Journal of Applied Social Psy-chology, 37(11), 2518–2531.

Ferla, J., Valcke, M., & Cai, Y. (2009). Academic self-efficacy and academic self-con-cept: Reconsidering structural relationships. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 499–505.

Gottfried, A. E. et al. (2009). A latent curve model of parental motivational practices and developmental decline in math and science academic intrinsic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 729–739.

Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In Berliner &

Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Griffin, K. (2006). Striving for success: A qualitative exploration of competing theo-ries of high-achieving black college students’ academic motivation. Journal of Col-lege Student Development, 47(4), 384–400.

Grimes, S. K., & David, K. C. (1999). Underprepared community college students: Implications of attitudinal and experiential differences. Community College Review, 27, 73–92.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An ex-perimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890–898.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hom, E. K. (2007). The academic goals, course repetition, and completion ratios of Asian and Latin American international students in urban community colleges (Doctoral dis-sertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Horowitz, G. (2009). It’s not always just about the grade: Exploring the achievement goal orientation of pre-med students. Journal of Experimental Education, 78(2), 215–245.

House, J. D. (1992). The relationship between academic self-concept, achievement, stated expectancies and college attrition. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 5–10.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model-ing: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

35

Hudson, W. E., Jr. (2008). The relationship between academic self-efficacy and resilience to grades of students admitted under special criteria (Doctoral dissertation). The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Ignash, J. M. (1995). Encouraging ESL student persistence: The influence of policy on curricular design. Community College Review, 23, 17–34.

Jang, H. et al. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies the pro-ductive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean stu-dents? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 644–661.

Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. (2009). College students’ homework and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-regulatory beliefs. Metacognition & Learn-ing, 4(2), 97–110.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Klomegah, R. Y. (2007). Predictors of academic performance of university students: An application of the goal efficacy model. College Student Journal, 41(2), 407–415.

Landry, C. C. (2003). Self-efficacy, motivation, and outcome expectation: Correlates of col-lege students’ intention certainty (Doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

Leong, F. T. L., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Academic and career needs of interna-tional and United States college students. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 106–111.

Liem, A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512.

Longshore, D., Anglin, M. D., & Conner, B. T. (2009). Modeling attitude towards drug treatment: The role of internal motivation, external pressure, and dramatic relief. Journal of Behavioral Health Sciences & Research, 36(2), 150–158.

Lynch, D. J. (2006). Motivational factors, learning strategies and resource manage-ment as predictors of course grades. College Student Journal, 40(2), 423–428.

Malhotra, Y., Galletta, D. F., & Kirsch, L. J. (2008). How endogenous motivation influence user intentions: Beyond the dichotomy of extrinsic and intrinsic user motivation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(1), 267–299.

Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher-order factor models and their invari-ance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562–582.

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38.

Moos, D. C. (2009). Note-taking while learning hypermedia: Cognitive and motiva-tional considerations. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1120–1128.



Nakajima, M. A. (2009). What factors influence student persistence in the community col-lege setting? (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Ange-les, CA.

Nota, L., Soresi, S., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation and academic achievement and resilience: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Educa-tional Research, 41, 198– 215.

Olaussen, B. S., & Braten, I. (1999). Students’ use of strategies for self-regulated learning: Cross-cultural perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Education and Re-search, 43(1) 409–432.

Orozco, G. L., Alvarez, A. N., & Gutkin, T. (2010). Effective advising of diverse students in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34, 717–737.

Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathemat-ics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 124–139.

Papastergiou, M. (2008). Are computer science and information technology still mas-culine fields? High school students’ perceptions and career choices. Computers & Education, 51(2), 594–608.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.

Porras, D., & Matthews, R. (2009). Language development among immigrant stu-dents from the perspectives of two different assimilated instructors. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 25–35.

Pratt, C., Agnello, M. F., & Santos, S. (2009). Factors that motivate high-school stu-dents’ decisions to study Spanish. Hispania, 92(4), 800–813.

Price, E. A., Vining, J., & Saunders, C. D. (2009). Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in a nonformal environmental education program. Zoo Biology, 28(5), 361–376.

Robbins, S. B. et al. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288.

Robins, R.W., & Beer, J.S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self: Short-term ben-efits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 348–352.

Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectations for internal versus external control of re-inforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 57, 749–761.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic defini-tions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

37

Santos, M. (2004). The motivations of first-semester Hispanic two-year college stu-dents. Community College Review, 32, 18–34.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Routledge.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173–208.

Schunk D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Schwartz, B. (2009). Incentives, choice, education and well-being. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 391–403.

Shamloo, Z. S., & Cox, W. M. (2010). The relationship between motivational struc-ture, sense of control, intrinsic motivation and university students’ alcohol con-sumption. Addictive Behaviors, 35(2), 140–146.

Silver, B. B., Smith, E. V., & Greene, B. A. (2001). A study strategies self-efficacy instrument for use with community college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(5), 849–865.

Smith, R. A. (2010). Feeling supported: Curricular learning communities for basic skills courses and students who speak English as a second language. Community College Review, 37(3), 261–284.

Standage, M., Vansteenkiste, M., & Sebire, S. J. (2009). Examining intrinsic versus extrinsic exercise goals: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31(2), 189–210.

Sutherland, J. A. (2011). Building an academic nation through social networks: Black immigrant men in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35, 267–279.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chi-cago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Trawick, L., & Corno, L. (1995). Expanding the volitional resources of urban com-munity college students. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding Self-Regulated Learning (pp. 57–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., & Heffer, R. W. (2009). The influence of parenting styles, achievement motivation, and self-efficacy on academic performance in col-lege students. Journal of College Student Development, 50(3), 337–346.

Uzuntiryaki, E., & Aydin, Y. C. (2009). Development and validation of chemistry self-efficacy scale for college students. Research in Science Education, 39(40), 539–551.

Vallerand, R. J. et al. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003–1017.



Walker, C. O., & Greene, B. A. (2009). The relations between student motivational beliefs and cognitive engagement in high school. Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 463–471.

Wang, S. L., & Wu, P. Y. (2008). The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: The social cognitive perspective. Computers & Education, 51, 1589–1598.

Wang, W. W., Chang, J. C., Lew, J. W. (2009). Reasons for attending, expected ob-stacles, and degree aspirations of Asian Pacific American community college stu-dents. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 571–593.

Yusuf, M. (2011). The impact of self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and self-regu-lated learning strategies on students’ academic achievement. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2623–2626.

Zhang, T. (2009). Relations among school students’ self-determined motivation, perceived enjoyment, effort, and physical activity behaviors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109(3), 783–790.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–676.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structural inter-view for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.

Copyright of The Community College Enterprise is the property of Schoolcraft College, and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted on a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,

download, or email articles for individual use.