本研究目的在探討英文低成就大學生在遠距教學中的自我效能以及自我調節能力。遠距教學在近年來變得流行因為它沒有時間和地點的限制的優勢。本研究參與者為兩百八十二名英文低成就大學生，因為他們沒有通過畢業門檻的英文測驗。他們修這堂課的主要目的是為了畢業。然而，在許多先前的研究中指出自我效能以及自我調節能力會影響學生的學習。因此，透過質和量的研究資料，本研究將探討學生自我效能以及自我調節能力的特色。
    本研究的課程中，老師和學生透過Moodle平台，進行為期十八週的線上課程。在量性的研究資料來自於學生的問卷，質性的研究來自於開放性問題的蒐集。
    研究結果發現，在遠距課程中，大學生的自我效能以及自我調節能力偏高。他們在遠距課程中的高自我效能特色包含：心理狀態的改善與獲得來自於老師和助教們鼓勵得來的自信。而且，他們有很多信心來自於他們知道同儕和他們的英文能力都是偏低的。而且，他們的高自我效能也因為先前有遠距教學課程的成功修課經驗。至於大學生高自我調節的特色包含三個因素：學生的企圖心，討論區，以及作業。他們有超越自己和同儕英文能力的企圖心。他們也指出，討論區的存在讓他們的孤立感減少。他們也非常珍惜在討論區上和老師、助教，以及同儕的互動。除此之外，因為嚴格的作業繳交期限以及要求，大學生在遠距課程中的自我調節增加。此研究目的在於提供老師在未來遠距教學課程中，可以更了解學生的自我效能以及自我調節的特色。

This study aims to investigate college students’ self-efficacy and self-regulation in distance courses.  Distance courses have become more and more popular recently with the advantage of no time constraint.  The 282 participants of the present study were low-achievers in English proficiency since they did not reach the threshold of English proficiency required to graduate.  Their main goal of taking the distance course is to graduate.  Previous studies showed that self-efficacy and self-regulation may influence students’ learning.  The present study investigated college students’ characteristics of self-efficacy and self-regulation, using both quantitative and qualitative research methods.
    In the study, the instructor and the students were in the 18-week distance course through the Moodle platform.  The quantitative data came from students’ questionnaires and the qualitative data came from the open-ended questions.
    The result showed that college students tended to have high self-efficacy and high self-regulation in distance courses.  The characteristics of students’ high self-efficacy in the distance course include psychological states improvement, and gaining confidence from their instructor’s and assistants’ encouragement.  Moreover, students felt more confident since they knew that peers’ English proficiency was as low as theirs.  Also, students show high self-efficacy in the distance course because of their previous successful learning experiences through distance course.  On the other hand, college students’ characteristics of high self-regulation came from three different sources: students’ ambition, discussion board, and assignments.  Students had ambition to outperform themselves and peers’ English proficiency.  They also indicated that their feeling of being isolated decreased with the participation on the discussion board.  They valued the interaction with their peers and instructor on the discussion board.  Moreover, college students’ self-regulation in the distance environment was high because of the strict deadline and requirement of assignments.  This study may provide teachers characteristics of college students’ self-efficacy and self-regulation for future distance courses.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHINESE ABSTRACT	I
ABSTRACT	        II
TABLE OF CONTENTS	IV
LIST OF TABLES	        VIII
LIST OF FIGURES	        IX
LIST OF APPENDICES	X
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION	1
Background and Motivation	1
Statement of the Problem	3
Purpose of the Study	        5
Research Questions	        6
Significance of the Study	6
 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW	8
Distance Course	                8
The Definition of Distance Course	8
The Benefits and Drawbacks of Distance Course	9
Synchronous and Asynchronous Interaction	14
Self-Efficacy	19
The Definition of Self-Efficacy	19
Bandura’s Four Domains of Self-Efficacy	20
Previous Research on Self-Efficacy	22
Self-Regulation	25
 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY	36
Participants	36
Instruments	37
Questionnaires	37
Settings	38
Moodle	38
Course	39
Procedure	40
Questionnaire for Students	42
Data Analysis	43
 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS	44
Research Question One	44
The Result of Quantitative Data Analysis of Self-Efficacy	44
The Result of Qualitative Data Analysis of Self-Efficacy	46
Less Peer Pressure in Distance Courses	46
More Personal Learning Pace	48
No Need to Rush to the Next Class	52
Confidence from Instructor’s and Assistants’ Encouragement	52
Confidence from Peers’ Encouragement	54
Confidence Because Peers Have Similar English Proficiency	55
Previous Successful Learning Experiences through Distance Learning	56
Research Question Two	57
The Result of Quantitative Data Analysis of Self-Regulation	57
The Result of Qualitative Data Analysis of Self-Regulation	59
The Ambition to Outperform Oneself	60
The Ambition to Outperform Peers’ English Proficiency	61
Feeling of Not Being Isolated On the Discussion Board	63
Peers’ Active Participation on the Discussion Board	65
Ability to Answer Peers’ Questions on the Discussion Board	66
Instructor’s Positive Feedback on the Discussion Board	66
Assistants’ Conscientious Correction on Assignments	67
Strict Deadline for Turning in Assignments	68
 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS	71
Discussions and Conclusion	71
Students Expect to Achieve Different Goals	71
Assistants’ Correction to Students’ Assignments is Important	73
Students Learned How to Manage Their Time	74
Students Were Dependent on the Discussion Board	75
Students Showed Ambition to Increase English Proficiency	76
Students Tended to Conform to Their Peers	78
Instructor’s Feedback Is Valued by Students	79
Pedagogical Implications	80
Limitations of the Study and Recommendation for Future Research	83
 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION	85
Conclusion	85
REFERENCES	87
APPENDICES	98

REFERENCES
Al-Shalchi, O. N. (2009). The effectiveness and development of online discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 104-108.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of educational psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of the student, the instructor and the tenured faculty. International Journal on E-learning, 7(1), 5-22.
Artino, A. R. (2008). Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality: predicting satisfaction with online training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 260-270.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York: W. H. Freeman.
Benson, A. D. (2003). Assessing participant learning in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 69-78.
Branon, R., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education. TechTrends, 45(1), 36-42.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self‐efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499.
Chizmar, J. F., & Walbert, M. S. (1999). Web-based learning environments guided by principles of good teaching practice. The Journal of Economic Education, 30(3), 248-259.
Cowan, P., & Lin, M.L. (2014). Taiwanese Learners’ Motivation and Attitude Towards Completing an Online Distance Education Course During a One Year Industrial Placement. Sino-US English Teaching, 11(7), 477-494.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-regulation in student-centered web-based learning environments. International Journal on E-learning, 3(1), 40-47.
Dede, C., & Kremer, A. (1999). Increasing students’ participation via multiple interactive media. Invention: Creative Thinking about Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 7.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473-490.
Dornyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivation language learners: Results of an empirical study, Language teaching research, 2(3), 203-229.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256-273.
Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp.75-146). San Francisco: Freemen.
Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Advances in motivation and achievement, 10(7), 143-179.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(1), 218-232.
Galusha, J. M. (1997). Barriers to Learning in Distance Education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal, 5(3), 6-14.
Groves, M., & O’Donoghue, J. (2009). Reflections of students in their use of asynchronous online seminars. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 143-149.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.
Hellman, J. A. (2003). The Riddle of Distance Education. Promise, Problems and Applications for Development. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
Hines, R. A., & Pearl, C. E. (2004). Increasing interaction in web-based instruction: Using synchronous chats and asynchronous discussions. Rural special education Quarterly, 23(2), 33-36.
Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1970). Studies in leader legitimacy, influence, and innovation. Advances in experimental social psychology, 5, 33-69.
Hung, M. L., Chou, C., Chen, C. H., & Own, Z. Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computer & Education, 55(3), 1080-1090.
Jagacinski, C. M., & Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and related affects in task involvement and ego involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(5), 909-919.
Jagacinski, C. M., & Nicholls, J. G. (1987). Competence and affect in task involvement and ego involvement: The impact of social comparison information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 107-114.
Johnson, G. M. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends, 50(4), 46-53.
Karabenick, S. A., & Sharma, R. (1994). Seeking academic assistance as a strategic learning resource. Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie, 189-211.
Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26-34.
Keller, J., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-learning design: A multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 229-239.
Kim, K. J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students' perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335-344.
Koory, M. A. (2003). Differences in learning outcomes for the online and F2F versions of “An introduction to Shakespeare.”. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2), 18-35.
Light, R. J. (1990). Explorations with Students and Faculty about Teaching, Learning, and Student Life. The Harvard Assessment Seminars, First Report. Cambridge, Mass.: Graduate School of Education and Kennedy School of Government.
Mahdizadeh, H., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2008). Determining factors of the use of e-learning environments by university teachers. Computers & Education, 51(1), 142-154.
Martens, R., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). New learning design in distance education: The impact on student perception and motivation. Distance Education, 28(1), 81-93.
Matuga, J. M. (2009). Self-regulation, goal orientation, and academic achievement of secondary students in online university courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 4-11.
Media Wiki. (2015). About Moodle. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moodle
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning. Strategies for the College Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.
Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1981). Help-seeking: An understudied problem-solving skill in children. Developmental Review, 1(3), 224-246.
Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1985). Help-Seeking Behavior in Learning. Review of Research in Education, 12(1), 55-90.
Newman, R. S. (1998). Students' help seeking during problem solving: Influences of personal and contextual achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 644-658.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Petrides, L. A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 69-77.
Pintrich P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Handbook of Self-Regulation (eds M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner), pp. 451-502. Academic, San Diego, CA.
Pintrich, P., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. The Amer. Jrnl. of Distance Education, 22(2), 72-89.
Ramaha, N. T., & Ismail, W. M. F. W. (2012). Assessment of Learner’s Motivation In Web Based E-Learning. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 3(8), 1-5.
Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of educational psychology, 89(2), 329-341.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. S. (2006). New perspectives for the evaluation of training sessions in self-regulated learning: Time-series analyses of diary data. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 64-96.
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631-650). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Conclusions and future directions for academic interventions. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-Regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. International journal of educational telecommunications, 1(4), 337-365.
Spurlock-Johnson, J. I., Zhang, W., & Allen-Haynes, L. (2004). Can e-learning replace the traditional classroom? A case study at a private high school. In Proceeding of ISECON, 24(2), 1-7.
Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self‐efficacy and self‐regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191-204.
Tsai, M. J. (2009). The model of strategic e-learning: Understanding and evaluating student e-learning from metacognitive perspectives. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 34-48.
Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77-90.
Wallace, R. M. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions among teachers and students. Education, Communication, & Information, 3(2), 241-280.
Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2002). Predictors of web-student performance: The role of self-efficacy and reasons for taking an on-line class. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(2), 151-163.
Weiner, B. (2012). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Springer Science & Business Media.
Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5-21.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265-310.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307-313.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 284-290.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1-19). New York: Guilford.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). New York: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Self-regulatory dimensions of academic learning and motivation. Handbook of academic learning: Construction of Knowledge, 105-125.