J Comput High Educ (2016) 28:326–343

DOI 10.1007/s12528-016-9118-9

How does self-regulated learning relate to active

procrastination and other learning behaviors?

Masanori Yamada1 • Yoshiko Goda2 •

Takeshi Matsuda3 • Yutaka Saito4 • Hiroshi Kato5 •

Hiroyuki Miyagawa6

Published online: 25 July 2016

 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract This research investigates the relationship between self-regulated learn-

ing awareness, procrastination, and learning behaviors in a blended learning envi-
ronment. Participants included 179 first-grade university students attending a
blended learning-style class that used a learning management system. Data were
collected using questionnaires on participants’ self-regulated learning awareness,
academic behavior awareness for procrastination, and a datalog on the timeliness of
their report submissions to quantify learning behaviors. Participants answered both
pre- and post-class questionnaires. As regards learning behaviors, report and 1-min
paper submission time values were collected using the learning management sys-
tem. The results revealed that internal value, self-regulation, and procrastination are
fundamental elements that enhance the awareness of time management for planned
learning. Positive time management awareness promotes the submission of the
1-min paper report within the deadline and of the regular report early.

Keywords Self-regulated learning
Procrastination
Learning behaviors
Blended

learning

& Masanori Yamada

[email protected]
1
Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka, Nishiku, Fukuoka 819-0395,
Japan
2
Graduate School of Instructional Systems, Kumamoto University, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, Japan
3
University Education Center, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Hachioji, Tokyo, , Japan
4
Fuji Electric IT Solutions Co., Ltd., Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
5
Faculty of Liberal Arts, The Open University of Japan, Mihama-ku, Chiba, Japan
6
School of Social Informatics, Aoyama Gakuin University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan

123
How does self-regulated learning relate to active… 327

Introduction

Over 70 % of students in higher education postpone learning behaviors until they

feel the necessity to do so (Schouwenburg 2004). This learning behavior is known
as procrastination, which has been traditionally regarded as unsuitable to the
performance of high learning outcomes. However, planned procrastination can be a
positive learning behavior for high learning performance. A learner who postpones
learning acts for high learning performance is regarded as a high-level self-regulated
learner. This research aims to investigate the relationship between self-regulated
learning (SRL) awareness, procrastination, and learning behavior in a blended
learning environment.

Literature review

SRL

SRL is among the important concepts in designing a learning environment that

fosters autonomous learners. SRL research has been conducted in experimental and
practical educational settings. Prior results relate SRL to motivation, cognition, and
self-control, as it is directed toward the accomplishment of learning purposes
(Pintrich 1999; Zimmerman 1995). SRL learners are able to apply self-control and
self-evaluation (Deci et al. 1996). Further, SRL is strongly concerned with
metacognition, which leads to enhancement of the responsibility for learning in the
learner’s learning goal (Schunk and Zimmerman 1998; Zimmerman 1986). Thus,
enhancing SRL awareness can improve learning outcomes.
Schunk and Zimmerman (1998) developed a three-phase model for SRL:
forethought, performance/volitional, and self-reflection (see Fig. 1). They compared
the learning behaviors of novice and expert SRL learners in each phase (see

Fig. 1 Schunk and Zimmerman’s (1998) three-phase model of SRL

123
328 M. Yamada et al.

Table 1 Differences between Naı̈ve and skillful self-regulated learners (Schunk and Zimmerman 1998)
Classes of self-regulated learners
Self-regulatory phases Naı̈ve self-regulators Skillful self-regulators
Forethought Nonspecific, distal goals Specific, hierarchical goals
Performance goal orientation Learning goal orientation
Low self-efficacy High self-efficacy
Disinterested Intrinsically interested
Performance/volitional control Unfocused plan Focused on performance
Self-handicapping strategies Self-instruction/imagery
Outcome self-monitoring Process self-monitoring
Self-reflection Avoid self-evaluation Seeking self-evaluation
Ability attributions Strategy/practice attributions
Negative self-reactions Positive self-reactions
Nonadaptive Adaptive

Table 1). In the forethought phase, skillful learners are described as capable of
articulating their final goal and the necessary steps for its accomplishment. Both the
goal and steps in achieving it are constructive and clear. Skillful learners also tend to
have internal motivation and high self-efficacy. In the performance/volitional phase,
skillful learners attempt to maximize the effects of learning by monitoring the
learning process. In the self-reflection phase, they endeavor to evaluate their
learning performance independently, demonstrating the tendency to attribute its
quality to learning strategies and practice. Wolters et al. (2003) suggested the SRL
framework, which contains similar concepts as regards controlling one’s self
cognitively in a learning context.
Previous SRL research has focused mainly on the classroom setting, but several
scholars have also conducted studies on the computer-assisted learning environment
(e.g., Azevedo 2005). In an e-learning context, a high performer has time
management skills. Usta (2011) indicated that a negative attitude toward informa-
tion and communication technology (ICT) use has a positive relationship with goal
setting, time management, help-seeking, and self-regulation. Goda et al. (2009)
investigated the relationship between learning performance and habit. They found
that a high performer tends to attain a regular life through time management. Goda
et al. (2009) pointed out the importance of time management skills in e-learning
environments; indeed, time management is an important feature in all three SRL
phases. Their findings matched those of Schunk and Zimmerman (1998) for face-to-
face learning environments. Employing a comparative research design, Cho and
Heron (2015) employed motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) to
look into online self-paced learning in university students’ remedial math learning.
They found significant differences between passed and non-passed performers in
terms of motivation but not in the effects of cognitive learning strategies on
achievements and satisfaction.

123
How does self-regulated learning relate to active… 329

Several researchers investigated the effects of blended learning environments

with face-to-face classes on SRL. Tsai et al. (2011) suggested that blended learning
types effectively enhanced the classes’ SRL awareness. Stricker et al. (2011) found
that virtual learning environments that complemented face-to-face lectures could be
used to predict final grades, that is to say, learners’ actions in a blended learning
environment contribute to the enhancement of their learning performance. Stricker
et al. (2011) suggested that a possible reason for this outcome was SRL skills.
Vaughan (2007) indicated that students in blended learning environments tended to
be aware of time management, which is one of the important factors in SRL that
promotes learning performance. SRL plays an important role in fruitful learning
outcomes in both e-learning and face-to-face learning environments. The accom-
plishment of daily learning tasks according to a learning plan that learners created
by themselves indicates high SRL skill. In this sense, procrastination is not always a
harmful learning behavior for high learning performance.

Procrastination

Skillful learners seem to use SRL skills appropriately. They set appropriate learning
goals using small steps; they also use effective learning strategies, such as monitoring
during the performance phase, thus leading to effective reflection on their learning.
Procrastination in this situation can be among the effective learning strategies as learners
can set the appropriate learning time schedule to accomplish their learning goals. A
number of studies have found that procrastination has a negative effect on learning
performance and can lead to physical and psychological problems (e.g., Corkin et al.
2011; Hussain and Sultan 2010; Klassen et al. 2008). Klassen et al. (2008) indicated a
negative correlation among self-esteem, self-efficacy, and procrastination. Corkin et al.
(2011) also reported a negative correlation among cognitive learning strategies, meta-
cognitive strategies, and procrastination. However, Chu and Choi (2005) suggested that
certain procrastinators, which they called ‘‘active procrastinators,’’ performed high-
quality learning outcomes by monitoring their learning behaviors; hence, procrastina-
tion is not always harmful to learning. Chu and Choi (2005) extracted four active
procrastination types using 185 data sets. Their results showed that active procrasti-
nation has significant effects on the perception of life satisfaction and self-reported
performance but not on the grade point average (GPA) of learners. Active procrasti-
nators have several features that contribute to their accomplishment of learning goals
effectively and efficiently. Choi and Moran (2009) indicated four features, namely,
preference for time pressure, intentional decision to procrastinate, ability to meet
deadlines, and satisfaction with outcomes. Strunk et al. (2013) proposed a 2 9 2 model
of procrastination with two dimensions of time-related academic behaviors and
motivational orientation. This model is a two-by-two matrix; approach-avoidance is
represented by the vertical line, and timely-engagement-procrastination by the
horizontal line. Each zone is one of the following types: a procrastination-approach,
procrastination-avoidance, a timely-engagement-approach, or, timely-engagement-
avoidance. On the vertical line, ‘‘approach’’ represents the ideal learning behavior, and
‘‘avoidance’’ represents a mental state that can lead to not-ideal learning outcomes. The
horizontal line represents a continuum for learning behavior, from timely-engagement

123
330 M. Yamada et al.

to procrastination. Strunk et al. (2013) identified four types of mental states and learning
behaviors. Procrastination-approach refers to the intentional postponement of a
scheduled task to obtain desirable learning outcomes; in this case, learners postpone
task engagement as a learning strategy. In procrastination-avoidance, the learner
postpones the task achievement unintentionally as a result of a delay in task scheduling
without awareness; in this case, the learner can produce an undesired outcome that can
be considered an ‘‘SRL failure.’’ Timely-engagement-approach refers to learning
behaviors ‘‘in a timely manner’’ with motivation control. Timely-engagement-
avoidance refers to learning behaviors ‘‘in a timely manner’’ with avoidance motivation.
This scale helps shed light on a learner’s active procrastination state. Figure 2 shows the
2 9 2 model.
Several studies have found a relationship between perceived sense of procras-
tination and procrastination behaviors. Most of them have indicated a negative
correlation between the two in a traditional class setting (e.g., Tuckman 1991;
Howell et al. 2006). In an e-learning setting, Klingsieck et al. (2012) found that
procrastination has a negative relationship with awareness of the use of learning
strategies. Howell et al. (2006) suggested that high procrastination learners submit
their assignment significantly late. Goda et al. (2015) reported that about 70 % of
learners are procrastinators, and that the learning outcome (English test score) of
procrastinators tends to be significantly lower than that of habitual learners.
However, if active procrastination is among the successful SRL processes, SRL
seemingly affects the enhancement of active procrastination that has positive effects
on learning behaviors.

Fig. 2 2 9 2 model of timely-management and procrastination (Strunk et al. 2013)

123
How does self-regulated learning relate to active… 331

Research purpose

Literature review indicates the positive impact of time management skills on the
learner’s high-quality learning outcomes, as well as that of procrastination under the
learner’s control on SRL. However, the relationship between SRL, active procras-
tination, and learning behaviors is not clearly defined. In particular, it has not been
shown that the awareness of time-management and SRL lead to enhanced learning
behaviors. As Strunk et al. (2013) suggested, taking a procrastination approach can
promote effective learning behaviors, and therefore, procrastination should not be
regarded as a negative learning behavior. Thus, this study aims to investigate their
relationships in a blended learning environment. Concretely, this study aims to
investigate the causal overall relationships between SRL factors, procrastination, and
learning behaviors such as learning outcomes related to timely submissions.

Methods

Subjects and course

Participants of this research comprised 183 first-grade university students who took
an introductory education course. The course’s main objective was to explain ways
in designing an ICT-integrated class. It consisted of 15 classes in which the students
would learn educational theories, principles, and history in the first eight classes.
Three grading criteria were set, namely, submission of a 1-min paper after every
class, two regular reports, and a final report. Students had to submit their 1-min
paper within the day to obtain a normal grade, but the instructor accepted a 1-day
delayed submission with a penalty of half the normal grade. A 1-min paper must
contain the class abstract and discussion. As for the regular and final reports, the
instructor explained the report themes 3 weeks before the submission deadline.
Students were required to submit a 1-min paper and three reports on Learning
Management System (LMS).

Data collection

Students were asked to answer two questionnaires. The MSLQ instrument

developed by Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) was employed for SRL and 2 9 2
time-related academic behavior scale by Strunk et al. (2013) for active procras-
tination. The MSLQ consisted of five factors (self-efficacy: SE, internal value: IV,
cognitive strategies: CS, self-regulation: SR, test anxiety: TA), comprising 44 items
in total, and was rated on a seven-point Likert scale (see Appendix 1). The MSLQ
measured the learners’ SRL skill, but the factor ‘‘test anxiety’’ (four items) was
eliminated as this class did not use a test for assessment. The 2 x 2 model of time-
related academic behavior scale comprised 22 items. Seven of the 22 items were
allocated for procrastination-approach, four for procrastination-avoidance, six for
timely-engagement-approach, and five for timely-engagement-avoidance. Students
were asked to rate each item on a seven-point Likert scale (see Appendix 2). The

123
332 M. Yamada et al.

students completed both questionnaires during the course’s first class. The
researchers also used a log that recorded the submission time of the three reports
to collect the data for learning behaviors. Submission time was converted for
analysis. The conversion reflected a proportional increase in submission time with
the actual time that the students had submitted their assignments. For example,
submission time is one for an hour early submission of the regular report and 100 for
100 h early submission of the regular report. As regards the 1-min paper, late
submission time through 15 classes was counted.

Results

Of the 183 students who took the course, 179 answered the two questionnaires. Path
analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship among SRL, active
procrastination, and learning behaviors. ‘‘Descriptive data’’ and the ‘‘Path analysis’’
results.

Descriptive data

Table 2 shows the average sum score of each factor of MSLQ, which was calculated
by summing each item in each factor. Tables 3 and 4 display each factor’s average
sum score and average time of submission, respectively. The large differences
between students in SE items in the MSLQ, the procrastination-approach, and all
learning behaviors, are due to a large standard deviation. The results revealed that
the average score for self-efficacy was less than half the maximum score, but its
standard deviation was large, and therefore it seems that individual differences
become larger. With regard to internal values, the students seemed to recognize the
relevance of their carrier, due to the high average score. The average score for self-
regulation was 36.97, which seems to be less than the individual differences,
because the standard deviation (SD) was small (4.61).
For the 2 9 2 model, there were average scores for three out of the four factors.
The students seemed to be aware of time-management’s positive (approach) and
negative (avoidance) aspects. However, the average score for the ‘‘procrastination-
approach’’ was less than half the maximum score for the procrastination-approach,
and therefore, the students were not metacognitively aware that they were
postponing their learning tasks. With regard to the report and the 1-min paper
submission time, all standard deviations were larger than the average time. There
seem to be big differences between the submission times of learners.

Table 2 Average sum score of

Item Average SD
each factor in MSLQ
Self-efficacy (min: 9, max: 63) 28.32 8.23
Internal value (min: 9, max: 63) 45.28 8.08
Cognitive strategy use (min: 13, max 91) 59.69 8.73
Self-regulation (min: 9, max: 63) 36.97 4.61

123
How does self-regulated learning relate to active… 333

Table 3 Average sum score of

Items Average SD
each factor in the 2 9 2 model
of time-related academic
Procrastination-approach (min: 7, max: 49) 20.13 6.93
behavior scale
Procrastination-avoidance (min: 4, max: 28) 14.07 5.61
Timely-engagement-approach (min: 6, max: 42) 24.72 6.31
Timely-engagement-avoidance (min: 5, max: 35) 21.32 5.56

Table 4 Average submission

Items Average SD
time (hour) of regular report and
late submission time of the
Late submission time of the 1-min paper 0.53 0.81
1-min paper
Submission time (hour) of regular report 1 21.31 32.18
Submission time (hour) of regular report 2 32.39 43.70
Submission time (hour) of the final report 39.55 67.80

Fig. 3 Path analysis results (Dotted line means negative relationship)

Path analysis

Path analysis was employed using the averages of sum score, submission time of
three reports, and late submission time of the 1-min paper to investigate the
relationship among the three variables. Figure 3 shows their relationship using path
analysis. Considering the statistical criteria of model fitness, the current model is

123
334 M. Yamada et al.

acceptable (v2 = 51.862, df = 47, p = 0.290, RMSEA = 0.024, CFI = 0.992,

TLI = 0.989). Browne and Cudek (1993) suggested that the acceptable fit criterion
of the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is less than 0.05, and the
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) should be close to 0.95. The comparative fit index (CFI)
is referable criteria and should be close to 0.95 to satisfy the judgment of goodness
of fit (Iacobucci 2010). Therefore, this result seems to be acceptable.
The results indicated that the internal value in MSLQ and procrastination-
approach in the 2 9 2 model were fundamental factors in raising awareness of the
other MSLQ and time-related learning behaviors. Both negative and positive flows
were confirmed in this overall model. As regards positive relationship, procrasti-
nation-avoidance negatively affected the late submission of the 1-min paper in the
same way that the late submission of the 1-min paper did the first report’s
submission time. The first report’s submission time positively affected both the
second and final reports’ submission times. In this relationship, learners with high
SRL awareness and active procrastination observed the deadline for learning
outcome submission. Meanwhile, other learners demonstrated negative time-related
learning behaviors. Although learners had high SRL awareness, several of them had
negative awareness of time-related learning behavior. For example, students who
were aware of cognitive learning strategies and felt self-efficacy tended to be aware
of the timely-engagement approach, less aware of procrastination-avoidance, and
submitted the 1-min paper early, but tended to be aware of timely-engagement
avoidance, which is negative learning awareness. Learners with high SRL
awareness and time-related learning behavior were seemingly engaged with the
weekly tasks in every class.
High awareness of the procrastination-approach had negative influences on
timely-engagement. That is, the students who consciously postponed completing the
learning tasks tended to be less aware of meeting the submission deadline.
Procrastination-avoidance was significantly affected by self-regulation positively in
MSLQ, and negatively by the timely-engagement approach. That is, students who
were highly aware of aspects of self-regulation such as planning and the processes
that led to task accomplishment, and who were less aware of time management for
producing quality learning outcomes, tended to be aware of procrastination in a
negative sense.
The awareness of procrastination-avoidance had negative influences on the
timeliness of 1-min paper submissions. This means that the students who had a low
awareness of procrastination-avoidance tended to submit 1-min papers on time.

Discussion

The results indicated that SRL has significant effect on the awareness of active
procrastination elements, confirming those of previous research (e.g., Corkin et al.
2011) that suggested the relationship between SRL and procrastination. In
particular, Choi and Moran (2009) found that active procrastination is an SRL
process, although Klassen et al. (2008) reported that self-efficacy, which is among
the SRL elements, is key in predicting a procrastination behavior. Howell and

123
How does self-regulated learning relate to active… 335

Watson (2007) indicated a negative relationship among cognitive strategies, meta-

cognition, and procrastination. Rebetez et al. (2015) reported that procrastination
has a positive relationship with the lack of premeditation and perseverance in
university settings. Their findings also revealed a negative relationship between
procrastination and self-efficacy. The present research suggested the positive
relationships among SRL and procrastination elements. Timely-engagement-
approach, which is among the active procrastination elements, is affected positively
by self-efficacy, cognitive learning strategies, and self-regulation. Passive procras-
tination has been reported as a result of SRL failure. Meanwhile, the current
research found that timely-engagement-approach has a strong influence on both
active procrastination and successful SRL. Therefore, time-engagement-approach
seems to be a phase in a successful SRL pattern.
The participants who perceived high timely-engagement-approach tended to
submit the 1-min paper early, as well as their first and last reports. These results,
however, contradict the findings of Howell et al. (2006). Howell et al. (2006) found
a negative significant correlation between self-report of procrastination and average
assignment submission times. The possible reason for this relation is that learners
with awareness of timely-engagement-approach manage their time for class
assignments. In the current study, learners had to submit the 1-min paper within
the day to gain a normal score, but they had other classes in the morning and
afternoon. They needed to manage their time. Several learners engaged in this
assignment in strategic ways, such as uploading the memos for the 1-min paper on
LMS using reminder software on their smartphone. Meanwhile, learners using high
time-engagement-approach tended to have less awareness of procrastination-
avoidance, thereby submitting the 1-min paper early. This relation simply indicated
that the learners who wanted to avoid postponing their assignment achievement
submitted the 1-min paper earlier than the deadline. However, high procrastination-
avoidance students tended to keep submitting 1-min papers within the deadline.
This study did not collect data related to this path, but one possible reason for this
behavior is to promote external motivation (e.g., credit), due to the weekly
requirement to submit the task. Tuckman and Schouwenburg (2004) suggested that
the reconstruction of learning environments, such as by introducing frequent task
requirements, makes negative procrastinators aware of external motivations, and
their learning outcomes exceed those of non-procrastinators. This link should be
considered using time-series data for the timely change of learning awareness and
behaviors, but Tuckman and Schouwenburg’s findings should be considered as the
possible explanation for this link.
However, the timely-engagement-approach affected timely-engagement-avoid-
ance positively. In this relationship, learners understand the same sense of the time-
management-approach and avoidance for their learning, as they focus on meeting
the assignment submission deadline. Additionally, two time-sensitive engagements
were negatively affected by the procrastination-approach. That is, procrastination
for quality learning outcomes with metacognition did not promote the awareness of
time management in both positive and negative ways. Time management is one of
the important elements in SRL (e.g., Wolters et al. 2003; Barnard et al. 2009), but
expert self-regulated learners (SRLers) tend to focus more on cognitive learning

123
336 M. Yamada et al.

processes such as learning strategies (Nandagopal and Ericson 2012) and make a
learning plan that focuses on the learning process (Schunk and Zimmerman 1998),
compared with novice SRLers. Thus, procrastination-approach students seemed to
pay more attention to the learning process than to time-management, as the results
show that expert SRLers can submit 1-min papers within the deadline.
The learners who have high self-regulation awareness evaluated by MSLQ tend
to have high awareness of procrastination-avoidance. Checking concrete items using
both scales, self-regulation awareness based on task analysis leads to learners’
negative procrastination awareness, which leads to the awareness that learners tend
to postpone their tasks due to the difficulties associated with completing them, and
so on. Self-regulation of MSLQ and procrastination-avoidance are similar with
regard to the influence of task difficulty, and, therefore, both factors seem to show a
similar tendency. From the viewpoint of information processing, the Conditions
Operations Products Evaluations and Standards (COPES) model (Winne 2010;
Winne and Hadwin 1998, 2010) explains that learners learn by using the SRL
process, after conducting task analysis using metacognition, when learners are
engaged in a learning task. These research findings support the COPES model,
which indicates that learners are engaged in learning tasks that involve time
management and task complexity. Moreover, in the comments section on time
management techniques and their reasons for using them, 29 of 38 learners who
wrote comments tended to focus only on their use of time management to meet the
deadlines. They prepared a learning plan to earn good marks, but they ordered the
assignment’s priority based on their departmental major; therefore, they seemed to
focus on meeting deadlines. This point possibly explains the path between their
delays in submitting 1-min papers and their submission times for the first report.
Learners could check the delayed submissions of the 1-min papers on the LMS. This
behavior might raise learners’ awareness of the need to submit the first report before
the deadline, in order to get a passing grade, however, this point should be
considered further by collecting data in future research.
Learners’ class awareness needs to be investigated when further discussion of this
point is considered. The classroom climate should be taken into consideration to
better understand the relationship between procrastination and learning behavior. For
instance, an instructor’s behavior in class affects procrastination (Corkin et al. 2014).

Conclusions and future study

This study aimed to investigate the relationship among SRL awareness, procras-
tination, and learning behavior, particularly adherence to the submission time of
learning outcomes, which is among the time-related learning behaviors. The results
revealed that SRL and procrastination positively affected learning behaviors. Both
positive and negative viewpoints of procrastination play an important role in
learning behaviors. The awareness of time-related learning behavior encouraged the
students to meet the submission deadline. Time management is among the important
skills in SRL (e.g., Barnard et al. 2009; Wolters et al. 2003). This research also
found a positive relationship between awareness of high SRL and that of time-

123
How does self-regulated learning relate to active… 337

engagement-approach, which is an active procrastination element. This is because

high-SRL learners seem to focus on learning processes and strategies for the
engagement of learning tasks with high metacognition, and, as a result, they can
meet the deadline for the submission. This result supports previous research
findings. Further, both active and passive procrastinators met the submission
deadlines. In other words, even if learners regard time-related learning behaviors as
negative actions, they can perform suitable learning behaviors. Wäschle et al.
(2014) proposed a feedback loop between low self-efficacy and perception of goal
achievement in procrastination in their investigation of the relationship between
SRL and procrastination. For learners with high SRL awareness, they can adopt
appropriate learning behaviors even if they have negative awareness of time-related
learning behaviors. Self-efficacy seems to play an important role in bridging
learning behaviors and performance (Yamada et al. 2015).
Future research is needed to clarify the relationship between SRL and learning
performance. Schunk and Zimmerman (1998) indicated the differences between
skillful and naı̈ve self-regulated learners. Differences between high and low learning
performers also seem to exist in the relationship among SRL, active procrastination,
and learning behaviors. Meanwhile, ICT use in education should be considered in
future research. Usta (2011) indicated that negative attitude toward ICT use has a
positive relationship with goal setting, time management, help-seeking, and self-
regulation. In particular, help-seeking behavior in an e-learning setting can affect
the learning performance (Goda et al. 2013). In the present study, ICT was used in
blended learning settings. Therefore, the effects of ICT use might affect the results
of this study. In particular, mobile device use can affect the awareness of active
procrastination as such devices can contribute to the learning environment of
learners. Access logs and device types recorded in log files should be considered as
valuable data for analysis in future works.

Limitations

There are several points we have to consider with regard to the findings of this
research. One is that this research focused on one class. We used statistics to try to
extract general findings, however, we need to investigate their applicability to other
classes. Second, the learners who took this class had received internal value to some
extent, according to the descriptive data displayed in Table 2. We should consider
the results of this research in relation to other learners who have a low motivation to
learn. Lastly, timeline effects were not considered in this research. This research
suggested an overall model of the relationship between SRL, procrastination, and
learning behaviors, however, timeline effects on learning behavior should be
considered, because learning behaviors can change with the situation. For example,
during the second week one learner submitted the learning outcome early, and for
another week, it was submitted too late. The situation should be considered each
week, in order to identify more useful findings.

123
338 M. Yamada et al.

Acknowledgments This study is funded by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (Grant
Number: 15H02935).

Appendix 1: Motivational strategies for learning questionnaire (Pintrich

and DeGroot 1990)

Factor Item

Self-efficacy Compared with other students in this class, I expect to do well

I’m certain I can understand the ideas taught in this course
I expect to do very well in this class
Compared with others in this class, I think I’m a good student
I am sure I can do an excellent job on the problems and tasks assigned for this class
I think I will receive a good grade in this class
My study skills are excellent compared with other students in this class
Compared with other students in this class, I think I know a great deal about the
subject
I know that I will be able to learn the material for this class
Intrinsic value I prefer coursework that is challenging so I can learn new things
It is important for me to learn what is being taught in this class
I like what I am learning in this class
I think I will be able to use what I learn in this class in other classes
I often choose paper topics I will learn something from even if they require more
work
Even when I do poorly on a test, I try to learn from my mistakes
I think that what I am learning in this class is useful for me to know
I think that what we are learning in this class is interesting
Understanding this subject is important to me
Test anxiety I am so nervous during a test that I cannot remember facts I have learned
I have an uneasy, upset feeling when I take a test
I worry a great deal about tests
When I take a test, I think about how poorly I am doing
Cognitive When I study for a test, I try to put together the information from class and from the
strategy use textbooks
When I do my homework, I try to remember what the teacher said in class so I can
answer the questions correctly
It is hard for me to decide what the main ideas are in what I read (R)
When I study, I put important ideas into my own words
I always try to understand what the teacher is saying even if it doesn’t make sense
When I study for a test, I try to remember as many facts as I can
When studying, I copy my notes to help me remember the material
When I study for a test, I practice saying the important facts over and over to myself
I use what I have learned from old homework assignments and the textbook to
complete new assignments

123
How does self-regulated learning relate to active… 339

Factor Item
When I am studying a topic, I try to make everything fit together
When I read materials for this class, I say the words over and over to myself to help
me remember
I outline the chapters in my book to help me study
When reading, I try to connect the things I am reading about with what I already
know
Self-regulation I ask myself questions to make sure I know the material I have been studying
When work is hard, I either give up or study only the easy parts (R)
I work on practice exercises and answer end-of-chapter questions even when I don’t
have to
Even when the study materials are dull and uninteresting, I keep working until I
finish
Before I begin studying, I think about the things I will need to do to learn
I often find that I have been reading for class but don’t know what it is all about (R)
I find that when the teacher is talking, I think of other things and don’t really listen to
what is being said (R)
When I’m reading, I stop once in a while and go over what I have read
I work hard to get a good grade even when I don’t like a class

Appendix 2: 2 3 2 measure of the time-related academic behavior scale

(Strunk et al. 2013)

Factor Item

Procrastination- I more effectively utilize my time by postponing tasks

approach I delay completing tasks to increase the quality of my work
I put off starting tasks to increase my motivation
I feel a stronger state of flow in my tasks when working closer to a deadline
I intentionally wait until closer to the deadline to begin work to enhance my
performance
I delay tasks because I perform better when under more time pressure
I rarely have difficulty completing quality work when I start a task close to the
deadline
Procrastination- I put off tasks for later because they are too difficult to complete
avoidance I avoid starting and completing tasks
I often delay starting tasks because I am afraid of failure
I delay starting tasks because they are overwhelming
Timely engagement- I work further ahead of the deadline at a shower pace, because it helps me
approach perform better
I believe I can successfully complete most tasks because I start work
immediately after being assigned a task
I do my best work well ahead of the deadline
I start working right away on a new task so that I can perform better on the task
I complete my tasks prior to their deadline to help me be successful
I begin working on difficult tasks early to achieve positive results

123
340 M. Yamada et al.

Factor Item

Time engagement- I start my work early because my performance suffers when I have to rush
avoidance through a task
I do not start things at the last minute because I find it difficult to complete them
on time
I begin working on a newly assigned task right away to avoid failing behind
When I receive a new assignment, I try to complete it ahead of the deadline to
avoid feeling overwhelmed
On extremely difficult tasks, I begin work even earlier so I can avoid the
consequences of putting it off for later

References
Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role
of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209. doi:10.1207/s15326985
ep4004_2.
Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online
and blended learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2008.10.005.
Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J.
S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Cho, M. H., & Heron, M. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning: The role of motivation, emotion, and use of
learning strategies in students’ learning experiences in a self-paced online mathematics course.
Distance Education, 36(1), 80–99. doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.1019963.
Choi, J. N., & Moran, S. V. (2009). Why not procrastinate? Development and validation of a new active
procrastination scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(2), 195–211. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.2.
195-212.
Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of ‘‘active’’
procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(3),
245–264. doi:10.3200/SOCP.145.3.245-264.
Corkin, D. M., Yu, S. L., & Lindt, S. F. (2011). Comparing active delay and procrastination from a self-
regulated learning perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 602–606. doi:10.1016/j.
lindif.2011.07.005.
Corkin, D. M., Yu, S. L., Wolters, C. A., & Wiesner, M. (2014). The role of the college classroom climate
on academic procrastination. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 294–303. doi:10.1016/j.
lindif.2014.04.001.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning.
Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 165–183. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90013-8.
Goda, Y., Matsuda, T., Yamada, M., Saito, Y., Kato, H., & Miyagawa, H. (2009). Ingenious attempts to
develop self-regulated learning strategies with e-learning: Focusing on time-management skill and
learning habit. In T. Bastiaens, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on e-learning in
corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education 2009 (pp. 1265–1274). Chesapeake, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Goda, Y., Yamada. M., Matsuda, T., Kato, H., & Miyagawa, H. (2013). Effects of help seeking target
types on completion rate and satisfaction in e-learning. In Proceedings of INTED 2013,
pp. 1399–1403.
Goda, Y., Yamada, M., Kato, H., Matsuda, T., Saito, Y., & Miyamaga, H. (2015). Procrastination and
other learning behavioral types in e-learning and their relationship with learning outcomes. Learning
and Individual Differences, 37, 72–80. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.001.
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orientation
and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 167–178. doi:10.1016/j.paid.
2006.11.017.

123
How does self-regulated learning relate to active… 341

Howell, A. J., Watson, D. C., Powell, R. A., & Buro, K. (2006). Academic procrastination: The pattern
and correlates of behavioral postponement. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1519–1530.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.023.
Hussain, I., & Sultan, S. (2010). Analysis of procrastination among university students. Procedia—Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1897–1904. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.385.
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003.
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of undergraduates: Low
self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 33, 915–931. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001.
Klingsieck, K. B., Fries, S., Horz, C., & Hofer, M. (2012). Procrastination in a distance university setting.
Distance Education, 33(3), 295–310. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723165.
Nandagopal, K., & Ericson, K. A. (2012). An expert performance approach to the study of individual
differences in self-regulated learning activities in upper-level college students. Learning and
Individual Differences, 22, 597–609. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.018.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning.
International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470. doi:10.1016/S0883-
0355(99)00015-4.
Pintrich, R. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.82.1.33.
Rebetez, M. M. L., Rochat, L., & Van der Linden, M. (2015). Cognitive, emotional, and motivational
factors related to procrastination: A cluster analytic approach. Personality and Individual
Differences, 76, 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.044.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). Procrastination in academic settings: General introduction. In H.
C. Schouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, & J. R. Ferrari (Eds.), Counseling the procrastinator in
academic setting (pp. 3–17). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective
practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Stricker, D., Weibel, D., & Wissmath, B. (2011). Efficient learning using a virtual learning environment
in a university class. Computers & Education, 56, 495–504. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.012.
Strunk, K. K., Cho, Y., Steele, M. R., & Bridges, S. L. (2013). Development and validation of a 2 9 2
model of time-related academic behavior: Procrastination and timely engagement. Learning and
Individual Differences, 25, 35–44. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.02.007.
Tsai, C.-W., Shen, P.-D., & Tsai, M.-C. (2011). Developing an appropriate design of blended learning
with web-enabled self-regulated learning to enhance students’ learning and thoughts regarding
online learning. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(2), 261–271. doi:10.1080/0144929X.
2010.514359.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastination scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(2), 473–480. doi:10.1177/0013164491512022.
Tuckman, B. W., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). Behavioral interventions for reducing procrastination
among university students. In H. C. Schouwenburg, C. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, & J. R. Ferrari (Eds.),
Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings (pp. 91–103). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Usta, E. (2011). The examination of online self-regulated learning skills in web-based learning
environments in terms of different variables. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(3), 276–286.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on
E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.
Wäschle, K., Allgaier, A., Lachner, A., Fink, S., & Nückles, M. (2014). Procrastination and self-efficacy:
Tracing vicious and virtuous circles in self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 29,
103–114. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.09.005.
Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist,
45(4), 267–276. doi:10.1080/00461520.2010.517150.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Duntosky,
& A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

123
342 M. Yamada et al.

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2010). Self-regulated learning and socio-cognitive theory. In P.
P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). New
York: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00470-X.
Wolters, C. A., Pintrick, P. R., & Karabenick, S. A. (2003). Assessing academic self-regulated learning.
Paper presented at the conference on indicators of positive development: definitions, measures, and
prospective validity, sponsored by ChildTrends, National Institutes of Health.
Yamada, M., Yin, C., Shimada, A., Kojima, K., Okubo, F., & Ogata, H. (2015). Preliminary research on
self-regulated learning and learning logs in a ubiquitous learning environment. In Proceedings of the
15th IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies, pp. 93–95. doi:10.1109/
ICALT.2015.74.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses?
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307–313. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social-cognitive
perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3004_8.

Masanori Yamada is an associate professor in the Faculty of Arts and Science, School of Education, and
Graduate School of Human-Environment Studies at Kyushu University. He is engaged in research and
development of computer-mediated communication systems for project-based learning, self-regulated
learning support systems and so on. He received M.A. and Ph.D. in Human System Science from Tokyo
Institute of Technology in 2005 and 2008 respectively. He was Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science (JSPS) research fellow for young scientists in 2007. He is also a recipient of the best paper
awards from international academic organizations such as the The Computer-Assisted Language
Instruction Consortium, International Conference on Web-based Learning, and the Cognition and
Exploratory Learning in Digital Age.

Yoshiko Goda is an associate professor at Graduate School of Instructional Systems, Kumamoto

University, Japan. She has been a director of international board of standards for training, performance,
and instructions (ibstpi) since 2015. She received her Ph.D. (Science Education) at Florida Institute of
Technology (FIT) in 2004 with partially partial support of a Fulbright scholarship. She has held teaching
experiences in various countries including Shu-Te University, Taiwan (1999–2000), the graduate school
of FIT (2004), US, Aoyama Gakuin University (2005–2008), and Otemae University, Japan (2008–2010).
She has authored ‘‘Application of CoI to design CSCL for EFL online asynchronous discussion (pp.
295–316, 2012), in Akyol, Z. & Garrison, R. (Eds.), Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical
framework, research and practice.’’ Her current research interests include self-regulated learning for
e-learning, instructional and learning design, online education program evaluation, and innovative
community for global education.

Takeshi Matsuda graduated from Kyusyu University at Fukuoka, Japan, in 1989. After working for both
Japanese and American broadcasting stations, he studied and received his Ph.D. (International
Communication) at Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan in 2005. He has been teaching several privileged
Universities in Japan, including Keio University, Waseda University, Aoyama Gakuin University,
Yamagata University and Shimane University for over ten years. Since 2015, he has been a professor and
director of the Institutional Research Office for Educational Planning at Tokyo Metropolitan University.
His recent focuses are brought by challenges recognized in a variety of adaptive information systems
serving the management of higher education institutions, and dealing with authentic learning/teaching
data.

Yutaka Saito is a Manager at Fuji Electric IT Solutions Co., Ltd.

Hiroshi Kato is a professor of the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Open University of Japan. He received
his Ph.D. (Engineering) at Tokyo Institute of Technology in 1999. He started his career as a researcher
from NEC Corporation (1983–2000), and moved to National Institute of Multimedia Education
(2000–2009) in 2000 followed by current position since 2009. He has authored ‘‘Designing a video-
mediated collaboration system based on a body metaphor (pp. 409–423 2002) in Koschmann, T., Hall, R.

123
How does self-regulated learning relate to active… 343

& Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying Forward the Conversation.’’ His current research interests include
tools and assessment for collaborative learning.

Hiroyuki Miyagawa is a professor of the School of Social Informatics at Aoyama Gakuin University,
Japan. He received his Master’s degree (Engineering) at College of Science and Engineering at Aoyama
Gakuin University. His major is system analysis and design in information systems.

123