Within the Pipeline: Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement among College Students in Science Courses.

The present study examined the associations between self-regulated learning and science achievement and whether the academic self-regulation variables described, such as selfefficacy, delay of gratification, and help seeking, predict science achievement in courses deemed necessary for a major in science. It was hypothesized that students who do not use academic self-regulation in the science courses, would perform poorly, and thus leak out of the pipeline rather than proceed further down the funnel. The results of this study provide support for the expected association between self-regulated learning and academic achievement among college students in science courses. These findings suggest that students’ self-regulation of learning, self-efficacy beliefs, academic delay gratification, and final course grade are related. Self-regulation in College Science Courses 2 Within the Pipeline: Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement among College Students in Science Courses Researchers have used the analogy of a pipeline to create an image of students moving through a funnel, which ends in a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) career (Hanson, 1996). As young children, boys and girls are required to take science in school, but as they progress through the educational system, they are often provided with the choice of whether or not to take science courses. This is especially evident in high school where many students begin to leak out of the pipeline. Research suggests that this is particularly true for females who seem less engaged or interested in taking high school science courses (Schmidt & Smith, 2010; Larson, 1996) An interesting question therefore, is what accounts for those women to persist in taking science courses in college and could this persistence be explained by self-regulatory variables? Self-regulation of learning refers to one’s self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions towards attaining one’s goals (Zimmerman, 1998). Self-regulation involves selfefficacy, which is defined as an individual’s belief in his/her capability to reach specific goals (Bandura, 1997). This study sought to examine whether or not students’ science self-efficacy and self-regulation were related to their science achievement and whether or not there were differences across gender. Students are constantly faced with choices related to their studies. One such choice may be whether to complete the work that needs to be done or to postpone the school related activity for something “fun. ” Thus, another research question is whether there is a relationship between academic delay of gratification in the science courses athand and the students’ grades in these courses. Self-regulated learners engage in adaptive help seeking, which is a strategic selfregulatory way in which learners obtain information from formal and informal sources to attain knowledge (Karabenick, 1998). Do students who seek help perform better than those who do not in their science courses? In sum, we investigated whether students who do not use self-regulation in their science courses, would be more likely to be candidates to leak out of the pipeline rather than proceed further down the funnel towards a STEM career. 2. Perspective(s) or Theoretical Framework The perspective of this study is within the social cognitive theory framework (Bandura, 1986). Zimmerman (2002) has developed the theoretical framework that explains the various processes students engage in to learn. However, there is little research on the relationship between self-regulation of college students and science achievement. The self-regulatory variables in the present study include learning strategies, self-efficacy, academic delay of gratification, and help seeking. Self-regulation in College Science Courses 3 According to Zimmerman (1998), the self-regulated learner will consider various dimensions of learning such as where the studying will take place, what the actual studying will consist of, and self-monitoring strategies. Self-efficacy is also an essential variable in Zimmerman’s (2002) model of the self-regulated learner and is considered a motivational variable. Bandura (1997) suggests that students who are self-efficacious will set higher goals for themselves, and will continue to persist even when confronted with challenges. Self-efficacy is related to a myriad of motivational, cognitive, and behavioral leaning constructs, which in turn are related to academic achievement (DiBenedetto & Bembenutty, 2011, DiBenedetto & Zimmerman, 2010; Zimmerman, 1998) Academic delay of gratification requires the learner to be cognitively aware of his or her performance and this awareness along with the student’s motivation, guide the decision. Bembenutty and Karabenick (1998) have defined the decision to put off immediately available opportunities to satisfy impulses over pursuing chosen important academic goals as academic delay of gratification. Research suggests academic delay of gratification is linked to academic achievement (Bembenutty, 2009a). According to Zimmerman (2002) as students advance through the years, outside support diminishes and students are left to succeed or fail based on various selfregulatory processes. Research has demonstrated that in younger children, girls are more likely than boys to seek help (Eccles & Blumenfeld, 1985), but more research is needed about the help seeking activities of college science students. Objectives of the Study Four objectives guided the current study: 1. Examine the association between students’ self-regulation, self-efficacy beliefs, and willingness to delay gratification, gender differences, and academic performance. 2. Examine whether the effects of self-regulation, self-efficacy beliefs, and willingness to delay gratification on students’ academic performance are moderated by gender. 3. Examine whether gender, self-regulation, self-efficacy beliefs, and delay of gratification separately account for unique variance in the students’ performance, even after controlling for the effect of each other. 4. Examine whether there is any gender differences in the frequencies of help seeking resources college students employ in science courses. Methods Participants Fifty-seven undergraduate college students (24 males; 33 females) enrolled in two biology courses in an urban college in New York participated in the study. Their areas of concentration include biology, chemistry, and others for whom the courses were required. Students were Caucasians, Asian Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, and others (see Table 1). The courses include various topics such as the chemistry of life, cellular organization, and animal anatomy. These courses are typically taken by students who are Self-regulation in College Science Courses 4 considering future study in biology. The administration of the instruments took part during regular classroom instruction. Instruments Self-efficacy. Using a 4-item scale, students rated their beliefs about their capability to perform in the science courses (M = 6.38, SD = .66; α = .75) (see Appendix). Self-regulation of learning. Self-regulation was measured with an 11-item scale assessing students’ degree of keeping records, estimation, goal-setting, self-rewarding, selfmonitoring, selecting strategies, and environmental control (M = 5.56, SD = .93; α = .87). Help Seeking Resources of. Resources help seeking resources were measured with an item asking the students to mark all of their possible help seeking resources listed in the question, such as getting a tutor, use library resources, forming a study group. Academic Delay of gratification. This an 8-item scale which examined students’ delay of gratification in relation to the science courses in which they were currently enrolled (M= 3.44, SD = .41; α = .59. The students rated their preference for an attractive and immediately available option versus a delayed alternative. Final Exam Grades. The final course grades had values ranging from 0 (F) to 12 (A+); M = 7.86; SD = 3.34). Results Objective One Table 2 displays the correlations between students’ self-regulation, self-efficacy, delay of gratification, gender, and final course grades. Final course grade was significantly related to delay of gratification (r = .30 and self-regulation (r = 28). Delay of gratification was related to self-regulation and gender. Self-efficacy was highly correlated with self-regulation (r = .63). Objective Two We examined whether the effects of self-regulation, self-efficacy, and delay of gratification on students’ academic performance were moderated by gender. We first conducted independent t-test analyses, which show that female students reported higher delay of gratification (t = 2.32, p < .05, ηp = .09) and self-regulation (t = 2.64, p < .05, ηp = .11) than male students (see Table 1). An ANCOVA was conducted to assess the main effects and interactions between gender and the other variables. This model revealed only a significant main effect for self-efficacy, F = 4.66, p = . 036, ηp = 087; with larger effect for females. There were no significant main effects or interaction for the other variables. This model accounted for 18% of the variance. To reduce error, the model was run again without the non-significant interaction terms, gender, and self-regulation (which was highly correlated with self-efficacy). Self-regulation in College Science Courses 5 The final model (see Table 3), revealed a marginal significant main effect on delay of gratification and self-efficacy. This model accounted for 15% of the variance. The standardized beta for delay of gratification (β = 2.06, p = .051, ηp = .069) and for self-efficacy (β = 1.18, p = .071, ηp = .059) indicate that students’ willingness to delay gratification and self-efficacy beliefs influence their final course grade. Objective Three To test whether gender, self-regulation, self-efficacy, and delay of gratification separately accoun