A Comparison of Student Behavior and Performance between an Instructor-Regulated versus Student-Regulated Online Undergraduate Finance Course

Victor Wakeling¹ and Patricia R Robertson^1,

¹Department of Economics, Finance, and Quantitative Analysis, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

Cite this paper:
Victor Wakeling and Patricia R Robertson. A Comparison of Student Behavior and Performance between an Instructor-Regulated versus Student-Regulated Online Undergraduate Finance Course. American Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 5(8):863-870. doi: 10.12691/education-5-8-5

Abstract

In a study conducted at a large, public university, the authors collected data to measure the relationship between student behavior and performance in an online undergraduate finance class based on two different course formats: instructor-regulated versus student-regulated. The quantitative study indicated significant differences in student behavior when given the self-regulated option, which correlated with deterioration in overall student performance. The study found that when students were given the flexibility to fully control course pacing, there was a statistically significant difference in their pattern of taking quizzes, especially missing quizzes entirely. Also, these students collectively exhibited statistically significant lower overall exam scores. This suggests that some students either do not choose to or experience difficulty with managing their time in a self-paced learning structure.

Keywords:
independent learning instructor-paced instructor-regulated online performance procrastination quiz self-paced learning self-regulated learning student-regulated learning

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	Goodlad, J., “Principles of Adult Learning”, Best Practice Resources, 2005. Teaching and Learning, University of Wisconsin. 2008.
[2]	Gureckis, T.M. and Markant, D.B., “Self-Directed Learning: A Cognitive and Computational Perspective,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5). September, 2012.
[3]	Lim, J., “The Relationship Between Successful Completion and Sequential Movement in Self-Paced Distance Courses,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 17(1). 159-179. January 2016.
[4]	http://www.iowalakes.edu/.
[5]	https://www.capella.edu/capella-experience/.
[6]	Tullis J., Benjamin, A., “On the Effectiveness of Self-Paced Learning,” Journal of Memory and Language. 64(2). 109-118. 2011.
[7]	de Jonge, M., Tabbers H., Pecher, D., Jang, Y., Zeelenberg, R., “The Efficacy of Self-Paced Study in Multitrial Learning,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 41(3). 851-858. May, 2015.
[8]	Carvalho, P., Braithwaite, D., de Leeuw J., Motz, B., Goldstone, R., “An In Vivo Study of Self-Regulated Study Sequencing in Introductory Psychology Courses,” PLoS ONE. 11(3). 2016.
[9]	Highland, C., “Self-Paced Individualized Learning,” Master’s Paper. 2015.
[10]	Magill, D., “What Part of Self-Paced Don’t You Understand?” 24th Annual Conference on Distance
[11]	Rakes, G.C. and Dunn, K.E., “The Impact of Online Graduate Students’ Motivation and Self-Regulation on Academic Procrastination,” Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9: 1. 2010.
[12]	Kyung, R.K. and Eun, H.S., “The Relationship Between Procrastination and Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Personality and Individual Differences, 82:26-33. 2015.
[13]	Bjork, R.A., Dunlosky, J., and Kornell, N., “Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and Illusions,” Annual Review of Psychology, 64:417-444. 2013.
[14]	Kornell, N. and Bjork, R.A., “The Promise and Perils of Self-Regulated Study,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 219-224. 2007.