Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by VGTU Press. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. B u s i n e s s, Ma n ag e M e n t a n d e d u c at i o n ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169 2016, 14(2): 153–178 doi:10.3846/bme.2016.329 WHY DO I STUDY? THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF MOTIVATION AND SElF-rEGUlATION ON STUDENT PErFOrMANCE Dorothea Wahyu ArIANI Department of Management, Economics Faculty, Maranatha Christian University Jl. Prof. Drg. Suria Sumantri No. 65, 40164 Bandung, Indonesia E-mail: ariani1338@gmail.com Received 26 September 2016; accepted 16 November 2016 Abstract. The present study is designed to improve understanding of personal and situational effects on academic performance. This study examines relation- ship between flexible assessment system and academic performance mediated by self-regulation and academic motivation. This study also investigates moderated gender as a variable on the relationship models. A sample of 326 students of eco- nomics and business program were participated in the current study. The results indicate that academic motivational construct is a strong predictor of students’ self-regulation in learning and academic performance. Self-regulation mediates relationship between students’ academic motivation and students’ academic per- formance. Academic motivation and self-regulation also mediate the relationship between flexible assessment system and self regulation. The results also indicate that flexible assessment system does not have a direct relation with performance. These results are discussed with regard to the relevance of flexible assessment system, academic motivation, and self-regulation in increasing academic perfor- mance. Keywords: flexible assessment system, academic motivation, self-regulation, stu- dent performance, self-efficacy, cognitive motivation theories. JEL Classification: M12, I23, M14, M53. 1. Introduction Motivation is seen as a key factor affecting learning outcomes. High learning achieve- ment is often associated with high motivation and learning environment and affects high motivation (Chen 2001). Recently, research on students’ academic motivation seems to be the core of research in the context of learning. Noe (1986) stated that students’ academic motivation indicates the need for students to study the substance of learning programs. Academic motivation is indicators of cognitive, emotional, and behavior of students, as well as a devotion of education (Tucker et al. 2002). However, it is actually hard to understand what motivates the students to learn. doi:10.3846/bme.2016.329 mailto:Ariani1338@gmail.com 154 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance Academic motivation is a key determinant of selection of students to be bound in the learning process. Academic motivation is presented in the learning process, and bonded actively in learning activities. Previous researchers suggest that academic motivation is a robust predictor of learning outcomes such as academic performance and is affected by individual and situational characteristics (Noe 1986; Tannenbaum, Yukl 1992). Previous study also indicates that there is strong positive correlation between academic motiva- tion and academic performance or learning outcomes (Noe, Schmitt 1986; Colquitt et al. 2000). The research results of Klein et al. (2006) stated that academic motivation is also associated with satisfaction in the learning and assessment methods used. Previous research conducted in the context of learning stated that motivation plays an important role in learning (Shiu, Lin 2012). According to Tucker et al. (2002), some researchers claim that only motivation that directly affects academic performance, meanwhile, other factors will affect the academic performance only through its influence on motivation. In other words, academic motivation is an important factor for student achievement and become mediating of various independent variables that affect academic performance. Students with a positive attitude and have high academic motivation will demon- strate learning independent, will have high achievement, and they will have high aca- demic performance (Green et al. 2006). Academic motivation and self-regulation are interconnected and can predict whether students will perform well (Paulsen, Gentry 1995; Zimmerman 2002). Academic motivation is an important factor in self-regulation (Hong, O’Neil 2001). Therefore, academic motivation and self-regulated learning as two interrelated constructs and affects academic performance. Besides academic motivation, self-regulation or self-regulated learning can indeed direct the academic learning process (Zimmerman 1986, 1990). Self-regulation is a condition in which individuals can use social processes to regulate their behavior and ability to form a learning environment through feedback (Hong, O’Neil 2001). A strong relationship between academic motivation and self-regulation have been investigated in various studies (Bandura 1993; Zimmerman 1990; Zimmerman et al. 1992; Pintrich, De Groot 1990; Fadlelmula et al. 2015; Lichtinger, Kaplan 2015). Students with high self-regulation are also likely to use his skills and become self-efficacious, and be able to increase their effort in a learning situation and be better than individuals with low self-regulation (Hong, O’Neil 2001). In this study, the self-regulation construct is a compounding of self-efficacy and effort. In addition, self-regulation is affected by the assessment system and may mediate the relationship between academic motivation and academic performance. Self-efficacy can affect an individual’s belief in the ability that is shown in his academic performance (Bandura 1993; Mulkey, O’Neil 1999). A previous study pre- sents a significant correlation between self-efficacy and students’ academic performance (Barrows et al. 2013). Individuals who do not perceive that he is competent will lose motivation to complete their tasks that are heavy and just focus on the negative results 155 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 (Barrows et al. 2013). Previous research suggests a strong correlation between academic motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulation (Hong, O’Neil 2001). Both self-efficacy and academic motivation are important factors for self-regulated learning and have an influence on self-regulated learning. According to Pacharn et al. (2013), flexible assessment system allows students to learn self-regulated learning skills so that students can choose the tasks and participate in it. As well as curricula and teaching methods, assessment system is a part of the learn- ing context. Assessment system is more affecting student learning than learning styles (Gibbs, Simpson 2004). Assessment system can increase students’ learning motivation (Pacharn et al. 2013). Cook (2001) states that the flexible assessment system could relieve stress of students in the examination. This study is built to find a relationship model between flexible assessment system, self-regulation, academic motivation and student performance. In general, this study also examines the influence of personal factors and situational or environmental toward academic motivation that energizes and directs students’ behavior or to achieve better performance. This study tests academic motivation and self-regulation as mediating variables on positive relationship between flexible assessment system and academic performance. This is due to two things are interrelated and equally affect student perfor- mance. This study uses a self-report questionnaire to assess students’ academic motiva- tion, flexible assessment system, self-regulation, and academic performance. 2. literature review and hypothesis development 2.1. Academic motivation and academic performance In higher education, research on the learning process, student achievement, and stu- dents’ academic motivation play important role in learning and academic performance. Motivation is a popular issue for researchers and academicians. Motivation indicates the conditions in which individuals intensified informal, direct, and sustain behavior (Green et al. 2006). In the context of student learning, academic motivation is used to increase the effort and enthusiasm in the attachment, performance, and persistence in learning. Motivation is the desire and control to achieve a particular action or behavior (Cortright et al. 2013). Motivation is a psychological process resulting from the interac- tion between individual factors and environmental factors. Academic motivation is also an important and significant factor for academic learn- ing. Academic motivation regarding doing tasks, effort and persistence in academic tasks and understanding all subjects that is elected. Motivation has positive impact on learning by supporting, encouraging, and providing direction on learning activities (Mubeen et al. 2013). Although motivation is a confusing topic in organizational sci- ence, but organizational researchers present motivation as a basis for the development of effective theory (Steers et al. 2004). The social cognitive models stated that students 156 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance are motivated in different ways, either by intrinsic factors (cognitive) and extrinsic fac- tors (social and cultural) (Dweck, Leggett 1988). Failure in academic performance is considered as a result of low academic motivation. Academic motivation can be understood by using motivational theories such as self- determination theory, attribution theory, academic self-concept, need for achievement, expectancy theory, and self-efficacy theory. Self-determination theory emphasizes the electoral behavior intentionally, while the attribution theory emphasizes the explanation of the causes of individual behavior internally and externally (Hartman et al. 2013). Meanwhile, academic self-concept is a general view of individuals’ academic compe- tence that can drive the success academically (Bong, Clark 1999). McClelland states that need for achievement is a desire for achievement that emphasize on what directs the hope of success and fear of failure (Robbins, Judge 2011). Expectancy theory and self-efficacy theory are motivation theories that are most often used which emphasizes individual expectations for the competence or confidence in the ability to perform their duties and bound to certain desires, especially in learning activities. Furthermore, self- concordance theory identifies two reasons for achieving their goals, which is the reason that expressed a desire long-term (Sheldon, Elliot 1999) and the grounds were prompted by circumstances or by others (Gore, Rogers 2010). Motivation is referred to as the cognitive processes that occur in the personality then motivation is expressed into the social environment. Motivation can be characterized as a model of thought that drive the behavior of individuals (Achakul, Yolles 2013). The internal process can be influenced by personal and environmental factors associated with attachment to the activity and administration of reward and punishment on the student attachment. In general, the goal of motivational research was to examine the influence of personal and environmental factors to the internal processes as to provide energy and can drive behavior (Chen 2001). In the field of education, academic motivation research is tied to how personal and environmental factors in the learning process can affect student learning. Academic motivation is an important element in the learning process, although at the same time that element is not enough for students to achieve performance or better performance (Barrows et al. 2013). 2.2. Self-regulation and academic performance Self-regulation is important because educational objectives are to achieve expertise in lifelong learning. Self-regulated learning is an inherent aspect of cognitive learning, which includes knowledge, belief, and the skills learned (Kadhiravan 2012). Social Cog- nitive Theory provides a theoretical basis for the development of independent learning model within the individual, where contextual and behavioral factors interact to give the learners an opportunity to control the learning outcome. In this study, contextual factor is flexible assessment system, whereas behavioral factor is academic motivation. 157 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 Self-regulatory trait is one of the personality characteristics that influence motiva- tion. However, self-regulation also presents the personal beliefs or individual’s confi- dence of his ability in a particular task (Yusuf 2011). Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) proved the closeness of the relationship between nature and perception of stu- dents’ independence on their academic self-efficacy. In other words, self-regulation is positively related to students’ academic self-efficacy and students’ performance. Stu- dents with high self-efficacy are motivated to achieve high academic performance. Ac- cording to Pintrich and De Groot (1990), students with high self-regulation are more motivated to use strategies such as planning, organizing, and self-monitoring strategies than students with low self-regulation. Pintrich and De Groot (1990) also suggests that there is a correlation between academic motivation and self-regulation in learning, as well as positive influence of academic motivation and self-regulation to students’ aca- demic performance. Students who have high self-regulation will have great ideas about how and why cer- tain learning strategies used. Self-regulation combines motivational process such as self set goals and performance, maintain a positive belief about the ability of individuals, as- sessing learning and know the results, as well as experiencing a positive feeling as proud or satisfied with the efforts that have been made (Schunk 2005). Hong and O’Neils’ (2001) research results showed that one-dimensional self-regulation is the motivation. The dimensions of motivation in this study include self-efficacy and effort. Positive relationship between self-efficacy and self-regulation in the academic field has been extensively tested in the previous study (Zimmerman et al. 1992; Malpass et al. 1999). Self-regulation is seen as a condition or trait (Hong, O’Neil 2001). Conditions show a relatively volatile individual who showed variability in individuals who are subject to change. Meanwhile, the nature of the individual condition showed stable or fixed from time to time. According to Zimmerman (1990), self-regulated learners presented a high sense of efficacy in their ability for influencing knowledge and expertise in goals setting and its commitment to meet the challenges. Non self-regulated student was not involved in learning (Yusuf 2011). Individuals who do not have self-regulation will have low academic performance (Zimmerman 1986). The impact of students’ perceived self-efficacy on self-regulation has not been tested directly (Zimmerman et al. 1992). Research results of Zimmerman et al. (1992) sug- gested that students’ self-belief of efficacy against the strategically regulate learning is an important factor in academic motivation. Individuals with low self-efficacy will have a negative mindset towards task demands and that task is seen as a threat and not as a challenge (Yusuf 2011). They will also set goals lower. In addition, students who perceive themselves were able to organize its activities in the long term is students who believe on their ability to understand the lessons and were able to achieve better performance (Zimmerman et al. 1992). 158 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance Without academic motivation, self-regulation is difficult to achieve (Zumbrunn et al. 2011). Individuals with high self-regulation will be able to achieve high academic per- formance (Zimmerman 2008; Schunk, Zimmerman 2007; Wolters, Hussain 2015). Stu- dents that are motivated to learn will use their time and energy to learn and implement self-regulation. When students successfully apply self-regulation, they will be motivated to accomplish the learning tasks (Zimmerman 2000). In general, self-regulation and academic motivation supports each other in explaining student learning and student performance in the classroom. Self-regulation can encourage students’ intrinsic motivation for enhancing student learning (Cheng 2011). Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) also believe that the self-regulated ability was the best predictor of student learning performance. Boekaerts (1995), Corno (1986), as well as Pintrich and De Groot (1990) state that students’ academic motivation is an important component of self-regulation. In other words, academic motivation affects students’ self-regulation. However, self-regulation can im- prove or enhance the learning motivation. Chengs’ research results (2011) showed that self-regulation can enhance student learning. His research results showed that learning performance related to academic motivation and self-regulation. 2.3. Flexible assessment system and academic performance Flexible assessment system allows students to learn independently and indicates their involvement (Pacharn et al. 2013). The assessment can affect the motivation through its influence on the orientation of students to learn. The assessment system is an attempt to get information about the performance of the students and become the primary teach- ers’ responsibility. Several previous studies have shown their strength of assessment system that can support or encourage learning and student motivation (Harlen, Crick 2003; Natriello 1987). Flexible assessment system can increase students’ involvement in the learning ac- tivities and improve the students’ independence in learning. Involvement in learning will encourage individuals to participate actively so that it can drive motivation and learning behavior (Zimmerman, Martinez-Pons 1986). Flexible assessment system will encourage students to assess their strengths and weaknesses, designing studies that can increase motivation, and evaluate learning approaches in the past to choose a more ap- propriate learning strategy. Ames (1992) states that academicians can use a mastery goal orientation approach for their students, including the engagement in learning and feel the establishment that may affect the achievement or academic performance. Pacharn et al. (2013) stated that the flexible assessment system can be more effective in increasing student motivation and affect academic performance. Self-determination theory stated that students need a sense of competence, have autonomy or independence, and can communicate with others (Singh, P., Singh, N. 2013). According to Alkharusi 159 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 et al. (2014), there is relationship between motivation and students’ perceptions of as- sessment. This is because the perception of the assessment system is likely to affect students’ perception of his ability to complete a task. 2.4. Relationship between flexible assessment system, academic motivation, self-regulation, and academic performance Although a lot of research on education is effective teaching methods, but research on the relationship of assessment methods, academic motivation, self-regulated learning, and academic performance or student achievement remains to be examined carefully. Assessment methods is a method of teaching practice that is used to assess students in the classroom based on variety of matters specified as the basis for the assessment by teachers, students, friends, and so on (Smimou, Dahl 2011). The assessment method determines how students perform in the classroom based on multiple measurements as a determinant of educational system. Flexible assessment system will encourage student achievement through learning motivation and setting learning strategy. The assessment system will encourage the students put learning objectives, moving the students reach the learning objectives, and encourage students to choose the best strategy to achieve these objectives. Research regarding self-regulation and learning motivation indicates relationship between these two constructs (Schunk 2005). Students who have high self-regulation tend to have higher academic motivation compared to other students who do not have self-regulation (Pintrich 2003). Academic motivation shows students’ interest and ef- fort achieve their goals and contribute to the academic success (Dweck, Leggett 1988). Academic motivation is an important factor in student learning. Self-regulation is the process whereby individuals set goals, monitor, manage, and control motivation, cog- nition, and behavior (Rakes, Dunn 2010). Associated with motivation, self-regulated learners have orientation on purpose and have high self-efficacy in learning. Students’ competence and expertise did not explain fully the students’ academic achievement (Schunk, Zimmerman 2007). There are several other factors that play an important role in students’ academic performance, namely academic motivation (Areepattamannil et al. 2011). Academic motivation was positively related to learning strategies and academic performance (Rakes, Dunn 2010). This presents that academic motivation affects academic performance through self-regulation. In other words, self- regulation mediates the effect of academic motivation on academic performance. Re- sults of previous studies state that academic motivation and self-regulation are directly related to academic performance (Pintrich, De Groot 1990; Zimmerman, Martinez-Pons 1990; Van Den Hurk 2006; Fadlelmula et al. 2015). Based on social learning theory, there is significant relationship between academic motivation, self-regulation, and aca- demic performance. 160 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance Previous research also states that self-regulation is an important predictor for stu- dents’ academic motivation and students’ academic performance (Pothukochi et al. 2014). Self-regulation usually mediates the relationship between learner and environ- ment and affects the students’ performance or students’ academic achievement (Schunk 2005). According to Schunk (2005), academic motivation is actually followed self- regulatory learning but academic motivation is a construct that is separated from the self-regulatory learning. This study aims to examine the relationship models between flexible assessment system, academic motivation, self-regulation and academic perfor- mance. This study also examined the models using self-regulation and motivation as mediating variable. This study did not examine the effect of flexible assessment system directly to the academic performance. This study examined the effect of flexible assessment system in the academic performance mediated by academic motivation and self-regulation. It is based on research results Pacharn et al. (2013) which states that flexible assessment system did not directly affect the academic performance, but effect of flexible assess- ment system on academic performance ss mediated by academic motivation and self- regulation. Furthermore, previous studies claims that there are differences between men and women motivation (Vansteenkiste et al. 2005; Kusurkar et al. 2013). The gender dif- ferences issue in education in fact has been well documented in recent years and is still doing research to date (Baker 2002; Britner 2008; Meece et al. 2006). Velayutham, Aldrige, and Fraser (2012) suggest that there is gender influence in student’s academic motivation and self-regulation. According to Meece and Eccles (1993), compared to men, women have lower self-perceptions of their academic ability, but they perform better than men. Pajares and Viliante (2001) also proved in his research on the gender differences in academic motivation and self-regulated learning. Based on a variety of such explanation, the hypotheses that can be arranged are: H1: Flexible assessment system affects academic motivation. H2: Flexible assessment system affects self-regulation. H3: Academic motivation affects self-regulation. H4: Academic motivation affects academic performance. H5: Self-regulation affects academic performance. H6: Academic motivation mediates the effect of flexible assessment system on self- regulation and academic performance. H7: Self-regulation mediates the effects of flexible assessment system and academic motivation in academic performance. H8: Gender moderates the relationship model of flexible assessment system, aca- demic motivation, self-regulation, and academic performance. 161 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 3. research methods 3.1. Samples and procedures research Research was conducted on students’ undergraduate program on economics and busi- nesses who were studying in Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta city was chosen because Yogya- karta is known as the first student city in Indonesia. Students from all over Indonesia went to Yogyakarta as their learning goals. Yogyakarta is a city of learning destination of Indonesian people; especially those living on the Java Island are occupied by half the population of Indonesia. In addition, the academic climate is still felt in Yogyakarta. The selection of the research setting was based on previous research. The previous research stated that students will perform well if there is a challenge, curious, and want to do the work independently. This study also examined the relationship model between flexible assessment system, academic motivation, self-regulation, and academic performance. This study used a survey method using questionnaires carried out its own distri- bution. The questionnaires were distributed to students as respondents of this study. Respondents were students of undergraduate program on economics and business that is still as active students in Yogyakarta. The survey was conducted about three months (September – November 2015). There are four types of primary data collection methods, especially that using questionnaires. Several methods that can be used in the survey are interviews with direct face to face, a questionnaire was sent or by correspond- ence, questionnaires were read over the telephone, questionnaires via electronic media, or combination of survey methods (Cooper, Schindler 2008; Neuman 2006; Sekaran, Bougie 2010). Primary data collection method using questionnaires survey conducted by researcher is the best method (Cooper, Schindler 2008; Neuman 2006; Sekaran, Bou- gie 2010). Research on students’ academic motivation is important because academic motivation significantly affect learning in school. In addition, academic motivation has been identified as one of the important and consistent predictors of learning outcomes such as academic performance. Research used the individual as the unit of analysis requires samples with specific criteria or characteristics. Undergraduate students of economic and business program were selected as respondents because self-regulation is one of the hidden curriculum to prepare students to become independent entrepreneur. Characteristics of the sample were used to convey the characteristics of the sample relative to the population. Re- search with individuals as the unit of analysis used the sample selection criteria. Sample selection method used in this study was non probability sampling, particularly purposive sampling. Requirement for selected sample was students who were active of under- graduate program on economic and business for four semesters. Students who have been through college for two years and declared free drop out selected as respondents. In addition, this study used self-assessment methods with anonymity. It is intended that students are willing to fill in the questionnaire honestly. The sample consisted of 326 students (with a response rate of 93.14%) of the 350 students. Respondents who were 162 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance students of undergraduate program on economics and business who were studying in Yogyakarta received a survey using a pen and paper questionnaires. Respondents were assured anonymity and guaranteed confidentially their answers by researcher completed the survey during study hours in campus. 3.2. Measurement The instruments were designed for the individuals as unit of analysis. Each of the respondents in this study was asked to complete four measurements, namely flexible assessment system, academic motivation, self-regulation, and academic performance. Questionnaires regarding flexible assessment system was taken and developed by pre- vious researchers, namely Pacharn et al. (2013). Academic motivation construct was measured using questionnaires from Nichols and Ultesch (1998). Self-regulation ques- tionnaires were taken from the study Hong and O’Neil (2001), while the academic performance questionnaires were taken from the research of Dyne et al. (1994) which had been adapted for educational setting in Indonesia. The questionnaires were adopted with little modification to fit local needs and research setting in Indonesia in the field of academic research. Modifications were made in the questionnaires translated from English into Bahasa Indonesia. Furthermore, the questionnaire was translated back into English (back translation) and adjusted to the learning system in Indonesia. All item questionnaires measured using Likert scale with 5-point starting from the number 1. This study used factor analysis as a way to examine the construct validity. The testing reliability of the research instrument with internal consistency test was used Cronbach’s alpha. Validity test used the varimax rotation with loading factor of at least 0.4 as suggested by Hair et al. (2006). Reliability test used Cronbach’s alpha with the al- pha value at least 0.7 as suggested by Hair et al. (2006). Furthermore, before testing the model by using structural equation modelling, researcher used correlation to examine the relationship among all constructs. Next, to examine the relationship model of flexi- ble assessment system, academic motivation, self-regulation, and academic performance was used structural equation modelling (SEM) using AMOS program. Meanwhile, to examine gender as moderating variable was used multigroup SEM. In addition, this study also using independent sample t test to complete the testing of gender differences. 4. results 4.1. Analysis of validity and reliability Collecting data in this study used questionnaires that have been developed by some previous researchers. Questionnaires were then translated into Bahasa Indonesia. Testing validity used in this study was content validity and construct validity. Content validity was done by discussing with experts. In accordance with the opinion of Sekaran and Bougie (2010), the questionnaires were also tested to students who have the same char- acteristics as respondents for improving the questionnaires. 163 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 Construct validity testing was done by using the factor analysis technique with or- thogonal and varimax rotation. Extraction factor was determined by taking eigenvalue more than one. This study used a loading factor above 0.4 as suggested by Hair et al. (2006) indicated that results of testing the construct validity is practically significant. Factor loading recorded value between 0.420 and 0.774. Given all the items noted above extracted 0.4, there were some items that turned out to be removed because these items did not valid. Items that had construct validity based on the results of the factor analysis were then tested for reliability. Items of questionnaires that have been qualified by construct validity were tested reliability. Reliability testing in this study used internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha values more than 0.7. Based on the results of testing the reliability, instruments that were valid and reliable used in subsequent testing in descriptive statistics. Cron- bach’s alpha values as the reliability tests measuring instrument in this study resulted in a score of 0.803 for flexible system assessment construct, 0.828 for academic motiva- tion construct, 0.886 for self-regulation construct, and 0.808 for academic performance construct. Cronbach’s alpha values of all variables used in this study were above 0.7. Table 1. Valid and Reliable Questionnaires, Loading Factor, and Cronbach Alpha Questionnaires Flexible Assessment System Academic Motivation Self Regulation Performance Flexible Assessment System3 .574 Flexible Assessment System4 .503 Flexible Assessment System7 .500 Flexible Assessment System9 .420 Flexible Assessment System10 .566 Flexible Assessment System11 .666 Flexible Assessment System12 .612 Flexible Assessment System13 .507 Flexible Assessment System14 .595 Flexible Assessment System15 .672 Flexible Assessment System16 .637 Flexible Assessment System19 .527 Academic Motivation1 .548 Academic Motivation2 .622 Academic Motivation3 .532 Academic Motivation6 .545 Academic Motivation7 .645 Academic Motivation8 .662 Academic Motivation9 .570 164 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance Questionnaires Flexible Assessment System Academic Motivation Self Regulation Performance Academic Motivation11 .712 Academic Motivation12 .686 Academic Motivation13 .572 Academic Motivation14 .576 Academic Motivation18 .437 Self-Regulation1 .642 Self-Regulation2 .669 Self-Regulation3 .736 Self-Regulation4 .743 Self-Regulation5 .767 Self-Regulation6 .708 Self-Regulation7 .497 Self-Regulation8 .555 Self-Regulation9 .696 Self-Regulation10 .774 Self-Regulation11 .692 Self-Regulation14 .462 Self-Regulation16 .475 Self-Regulation17 .450 Performance1 .531 Performance2 .480 Performance3 .497 Performance4 .513 Performance5 .450 Performance8 .519 Performance9 .584 Performance10 .588 Performance11 .547 Performance12 .636 Performance13 .617 Performance14 .589 Performance16 .457 Performance20 .483 Cronbach Alpha (α) .803 .828 .886 .808 N of items 12 12 14 14 End of Table 1. 165 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 Based on the results of the reliability testing, researcher stated that the reliability of the measuring instrument of this study was far above the cut-off line reliability as recommended by Hair et al. (2006). Results of testing the validity and reliability with many items that valid and reliable questionnaire presented in the Table 1. 4.2. Descriptive statistics For performing statistical analysis, the researcher used a series of analysis the relation- ship among all constructs or research variables using bivariate correlation analysis. Correlation between two constructs or variables used in this study was significantly positive. Standard deviation, reliability scale, and correlations among all study variables are presented in Table 2. Table 2. Mean, standard deviation, DAN correlations between research variables Mean SD α 1 2 3 4 Flexible Assessment System (1) 3.913 0.2024 0.803 1.000 Academic Motivation (2) 3.787 0.3286 0.828 0.533** 1.000 Self-Regulation (3) 3.846 0.1673 0.886 0.508** 0.597** 1.000 Performance (4) 3.704 0.2665 0.808 0.367** 0.387** 0.559** 1,000 Notes: correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Based on Table 2, the mean of three variables was moderate (mean values between 3.704 and 3.913) and the standard deviation was relatively small (standard deviation values between 0.1673 and 0.3286). In addition, all correlations were obtained quite strong. Correlation between flexible assessment system and academic motivation was positive significantly (r = 0.533, p < 0.01). Correlation between flexible assessment sys- tem and self-regulation was positive significantly (r = 0.508, p < 0.01). Correlation be- tween flexible assessment system and academic performance was positive significantly (r = 0.367, p < 0.01). Correlation between academic motivation and self-regulation was positive significantly (r = 0.597, p < 0.01). Correlation between academic motivation and academic performance was also positive significantly (r = 0.387, p < 0.01). Mean- while, the correlation between self-regulation and the performance was also positive significantly (r = 0.559, p < 0.01). That is not too strong correlation between these variables is likely due to the characteristics of the variables in this study. 4.3. Hypothesis testing results Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the data collected was used to test the validity and reliability of measuring instruments. This was due to ex- ploratory factor analysis developed theories about the constructs that make up the meas- uring instrument that was understood by the respondents as samples. Exploratory factor analysis is a statistical method used to found the underlying structure of construct. 166 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance Exploratory factor analysis is a technique within factor analysis for identifying the relationships between measured constructs. Meanwhile, confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the theory is built. Exploratory factor analysis is also used to extract a set of relevant factors, whereas confirmatory factor analysis is used to test the model. Confirmatory factor analysis is also used to examine the discriminant validity of the constructs. Specifically, researcher tested four constructs in the relationship model of flexible assessment system, academic motivation, self-regulation, and academic perfor- mance as different latent factors. The strength of the relationship between flexible as- sessment system, academic motivation, self-regulation, and academic performance were examined through Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). One of the major advantages of SEM is that this model relationships at the item level and explicitly accounting for meas- urement error (Byrne 2001). Anderson and Gerbing (1988) recommended for analyzing separately the measurement models and structural models. The measurement model was used to confirmatory factor analysis for determining the items used in the study load on constructs. The structural model was used to examine relationships among constructs. This study used previously published scales to collect data that were relevant for this study. Results of the testing model suggested that there was significant effect of academic motivation and self-regulation as independent variable on the academic per- formance as dependent variable. Meanwhile, flexible assessment system was not exam- ined directly effect on academic performance, but was mediated by academic motivation and self-regulation. Furthermore, in addition academic motivation also affected self- regulation and both affected academic performance. One of the objectives of this study was examination the influence of academic motivation and self-regulation as mediating variables in the relationship model between flexible assessment system and academic performance. Table 3 describes the results of the mediating test of the model using structural equation models with two-stage approach. Structural equation model in this study was designed and tested using AMOS 4.0 software Program (Byrne 2001). The structural model determined by allowing each item of every measurement fit on the latent factors. At first, the researcher conducted dimensional analysis using confirmatory factor analysis, which covers all measures to examine the relationship between the unobserved variables and observed variables that serve as indicators of them. Furthermore, the test results of mediation model of academic motivation and self-regulation on the relationship between flexible assess- ment system and academic performance presented in Table 2. The results showed that the hypothesized model fit to the data (χ2 = 6.052; df = 1, p = 0.014; GFI = 0.991, AGFI = 0.909, CFI = 0.946). Based on the results of the model testing, flexible assessment system influenced academic motivation and self-regulation positively and significantly (hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 were supported). Impact academic motivation on self-regulation and aca- demic performance was also positive significantly (hypothesis 3 and hypothesis 4 were 167 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 supported). Meanwhile, self-regulation had positive effect on academic performance (hypothesis 5 was supported). Based on Table 3, it can be stated that academic mo- tivation mediated the effect of flexible assessment system on academic performance and self-regulation (hypothesis 6 was supported). While self-regulation also mediated the influence of flexible assessment system and academic motivation on performance (hypothesis 7 was supported). This study used a 0.9 for goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) and comparative fit index (CFI) as recommended by Byrne (2001). Testing hypotheses 1 through 7 were supported by the goodness of fit index or GFI that is above 0.90. Changes in chi-square test were used to evaluate the best model fit to the data (Byrne 2001). Meanwhile, to test the hypothesis 8 that evalu- ated the effects of gender differences in this research model used multigroup structural equation modelling (multigroup SEM). The test results of gender as a moderating flex- ible relationship model assessment system, academic motivation, self-regulation, and performance presented in Table 4. Based on the results of multigroup SEM in Table 4, chi square (χ2) for unconstrained models was 4.481 with a degree of freedom 2, while constrained models were 11.130 with a degree of freedom 7. The gender moderating generated chi square value 6.289 and the degree of freedom is 5. The results then compared with the χ2 table with a significance level of 5%. Based on χ2 table, chi square value with the degree of freedom 5 was 11.0705. Because the χ2 value was less than the χ2 table, the difference was not significant. In other words, gender did not moderate the relationship model flexible assessment system, academic motivation, self-regulation and performance (hypothesis 8 was not supported). Structural model in Figure 1 shows that academic motivation and self-regulation mediates the effect of flexible assessment system on academic performance. Meanwhile, gender does not moderate the relationship models. This means there is no difference between male and female students in the model of the relationship. Table 3. Analysis of mediating model Beta (β) Critical Ratio Flexible Assessment System à Academic Motivation 0.220 3.602 Flexible Assessment System à Self-Regulation 0.127 2.164 Academic Motivation à Self-Regulation 0.371 6.354 Academic Motivation à Performance 0.150 2.258 Self-Regulation à Performance 0.243 3.668 GFI = 0.991 AGFI = 0.909 CFI = 0.946 p = 0.014 Chi Square = 6.052 Df = 1 168 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance Table 4. Results of Testing Gender as Moderating Variable Using Multigroup SEM Multigroup SEM Unconstrained Model Pria Wanita Β CR Β CR Flexible assessment system à academic motivation 0.235 2.692 0.222 2.591 Academic motivation à Self-regulation 0.369 4.342 –0.352 4.317 Flexible assessment system à Self-regulation 0.102 1.206 0.165 1.999 Academic motivation à Performance 0.280 2.953 0.051 0.569 Self-regulation à Performance 0.104 1.113 0.422 4.689 GFI = 0.993 Chi-Square = 4.841 df = 2 Multigroup SEM Constrained Model Pria Wanita Β CR Β CR Flexible assessment system à academic motivation 0.240 3.714 0.213 3.714 Academic motivation à Self-regulation 0.351 6.119 0.368 6.119 Flexible assessment system à Self-regulation 0.140 2.274 0.130 2.274 Academic motivation à Performance 0.131 2.249 0.163 2.249 Self-regulation à Performance 0.257 4.316 0.305 4.316 GFI = 0.983 Chi-Square = 11.130 df = 7 Flexible Assessment System Gender Self- Regulation Academic Performance Academic Motivation S S S S S NS Fig. 1. Relationship model among research variables 169 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 Furthermore, the researchers conducted further analysis of gender differences in academic motivation, self-regulation, flexible assessment system, and academic perfor- mance. The respondents of this study consisted of 161 males and 165 females. Tests carried out using independent sample t test. The results are presented Table 5. Table 5. Test Results Gender Differences Independent Samples Test Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t Df Sig. (2-tail ed) Mean Diff. Std. Error Diff. 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper ACAD. MOTV. Equal variances assumed .036 .851 –.876 324 .382 –.04257 .04858 –.13813 .05300 Equal variances not assumed –.877 323.902 .381 –.04257 .04855 –.13808 .05295 FLEX. ASS. Equal variances assumed .464 .496 –1.867 324 .063 –.08906 .04771 –.18291 .00479 Equal variances not assumed –1.865 320.826 .063 –.08906 .04775 –.18300 .00488 SELF– REG. Equal variances assumed .348 .555 –2.362 324 .019 –.11380 .04818 –.20858 –.01902 Equal variances not assumed –2.360 322.072 .019 –.11380 .04821 –.20864 –.01895 PERFM. Equal variances assumed .412 .522 –.017 324 .987 –.00070 .04242 –.08416 .08276 Equal variances not assumed –.017 321.966 .987 –.00070 .04245 –.08422 .08282 170 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance Based on test results using independent sample t test it appears that there was no dif- ference between males and females in academic motivation and self-regulation in learning (hypothesis 8 was not supported). In addition, perception of males and females in flexible assessment system was no different. Academic performance between males and females was also no difference. In other words, there was no gender difference among students in Yogyakarta as student city in Indonesia on academic motivation, self-regulation in learn- ing, academic performance, and their perceptions of flexible assessment system. 5. Discussion Previous research has shown that motivated students were the key to success in the classroom (Pajares 2001; Velayutham, Aldrige 2013). With these motivations, the stu- dents’ academic achievement will be increased through the increasing students’ attend- ance in the classroom, participation actively in class, ask and explain his opinion, doing the task of individuals or groups, and add time to study. The results of this study present that both academic motivation and self-regulation affect performance. This is consistent with previous studies (Hong, O’Neil 2001; Nonis, Hudson 2006; Kanfer et al. 2010; Barrows et al. 2013; Pintrich, De Groot 1990). According to Pintrich (2000), many previous studies have examined the relationship between self-regulation, motivation, and performance and the results also showed the same thing. The results of this study indicated those students’ academic motivation influence positively learning strategies and academic performance. This is consistent with the research result of Vansteenkiste et al. (2005) and the research results of Sobral (2004). This study also presented that the motivation encourage students doing for self-regula- tion in accordance with the results of Pintrichs’ research (2004). From the review of the research results conducted by Pintrich (2003) concluded that students are more motivat- ed academically will show higher self-regulation in learning. In general, students who have self-regulation were likely to have a high academic performance (Pintrich 2003). Academic motivation is seen as an important factor that encouraged individuals to be bound in self-regulation (Wolters, Hussain 2015). The relationship between students’ academic motivation and students’ academic performance have been studied regularly in the literature (Ames 1992; Green et al. 2006; Peklaj et al. 2006; Colquitt et al. 2000). Motivation indeed been recorded in education as the variables that affect academic per- formance through the study effort as a mediator (Vansteenkiste et al. 2005). Research results of Kusurkar et al. (2010) showed that motivation correlates significantly with good learning strategies and good learning effort. Meanwhile, flexible assessment system did not have direct effect on academic per- formance. Flexible assessment system was a system or method of assessment. Accord- ing Smimou and Dahl (2011), assessment methods determine how well students have performed in class based on various measures as determined by the teacher on the education system. In this study, flexible assessment system affected academic perfor- 171 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 mance through academic motivation and self-regulation. This was consistent with the research results of Pintrich (2000) and the research results of Boekaerts and Corno (2005) which stated that self-regulation may mediate the relationship between individual and contextual factors influencing the student achievement or academic performance. Flexible assessment system did not directly affect the students’ academic performance. This system actually affected the students’ motivation and students’ learning strategies. This means that flexible assessment system affected academic performance through academic motivation and self-regulation. Self-regulation is the ability of individuals to control their behavior to achieve the goal. The results of this study indicated that self-regulation affects performance. The results of this study were consistent with the research results of Velayutham et al. (2012) which stated that self-regulation in learning are important factors that affect the results of the learning process and determinant of students’ academic success. The researchers acknowledged that learning in school involves the cognitive pro- cesses or simple information exchange (Pintrich et al. 1993). The variables which are affect learning for example personal choice, individual needs, and motivational beliefs (Pintrich, De Groot 1990). Researchers generally make the motivation as core of learn- ing research. Motivation will encourage the students to be active, to control, to set goals, and doing self-regulation (Pintrich 2004). Students must actively do the learning activities in order to achieve better academic performance. Motivation also encourages self-regulation to control, monitor, and regulate various aspects. Self-regulation is done by determining the objectives, criteria, and standard assumptions. This is what will encourage individuals achieve goals. The results of this study are consistent with the research results of Zimmerman (2002). Zimmerman’s (2002) self-regulated learning theory emphasizes the role of motivation in achieving and maintaining students’ self- regulation in learning. This result was consistent with the results research of Pintrich (2004) which states that self-regulation is a mediator between the personal characteristics which in this case is the academic motivation and contextual which in this case is the flexible assessment system. Students who have self-regulation will have higher academic achievement (Ve- layutham et al. 2012; Dunn et al. 2012; Cleary, Zimmerman 2004). Furthermore, the linkage of students in the learning process depends on students’ self-efficacy beliefs, the perception of the ability to do the work and the results obtained. Other variable in the self-regulation is the effort. Students can arrange their effort will be able to learn better than students who are not able to regulate their effort (Pintrich 2003). Self-regulation is an effortful process that can encourage student achievement. The results of this study indicated that self-regulation is influenced by academic motivation. This was consist- ent with the research results of Wolters and Hussain (2015) which stated that academic motivation is a factor that encourages individuals to be bound in self-regulation. The results of this study are also in line with the research results of Pintrich and De Groot (1990), which showed a strong relationship between motivation and self-regulation. 172 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance The results of this study indicated that there is no difference between men and women in the relationship model proposed in this study. This means that students’ academic motivation, self-regulation, academic performance, and perception of flexible assessment system between male and female are not different. The results of this study also indicated that there was no statistically significant mean difference among academic motivation, self-regulated learning, academic performance, and perception of flexible assessment system with respect to gender. The results of this study provide empirical support for the theoretical relationship between cognitive evaluation theories and self- regulated learning strategies in the context of the classroom. 6. Conclusions Psychologists claim that when people experience a sense of fit between the various important aspects of themselves and environmental aspects, the results or positive and adaptive responses will occur (Rodriguez et al. 2013). In the academic achievement domain, fit between students’ academic motivation, self-regulation, and the learning environment associated with students’ academic performance. The results of this study indicate that academic motivation and self-regulation are powerful influence on aca- demic performance. Learning environment which is in this study shown as a flexible assessment system affects academic performance through academic motivation and self- regulation. The findings of this study highlighted the importance of self-regulation and academic motivation in improving academic performance. This study found that gender had not an impact on the motivation and learning strategies used by undergraduate pro- gram on students of economics at private university in Yogyakarta. Based on the results of this study, it can not be recommended that females should be treated differently in courses in comparison to males and vice versa. Although this article provides empirical support for the proposed model trough seven hypotheses were supported, overcoming the potential limitation of this study provides guidance for further research. One limitation to the present study is the self-report nature of all variables. The use of self-report to assess academic motivation and self- regulation may limit to students’ subjective perception. The shared variance inherent in this method suggests that the relations found here may be overstated and bounced beta. Another limitation is the difficulty in making a causal statement or conclusion without longitudinal analysis. This study used cross sectional data that can not be used for ex- amining mediating model. Future research that assessed the flexible system, academic motivation, self-regulation, and academic performance using other valid method should provide useful insights. The third limitation is the use small amounts of data led to this study can not be generalized even for the same research setting. Further research should be able to use the data in larger quantities. One of the strengths of my study is that we used structural equation modelling ap- proach and have found a well-fitting model for the relationship between flexible assess- 173 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 ment system, academic motivation, self-regulation, and academic performance. Despite these limitations, the present study provides a substantial contribution as a preliminary study that links flexible assessment system, academic motivation, self-regulation, and academic performance within an academically and ethnically diverse population of college students. These research findings have implications for both practitioners and academicians, because they demonstrate that assessment system can improve motivation and learning strategies that can ultimately improve performance. One recommendation that can be given to teachers is that teachers can improve student learning through how to teach learning awareness. Learning awareness can not be transformed to the learner but teachers can affect the motivation of the students by interacting with the students and determining appropriate assessment system. references Achakul, C.; Yolles, M. 2013. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in personality: assessing knowledge profiling and the work preference inventory in a Thai population, Journal of Organizational Transfor- mation, & Social Change 10(3): 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1179/1477963312Z.0000000005 Alkharusi, H.; Aldhafri, S.; Anabhani, H. 2014. Classroom assessment: teacher practices, student perceptions, and academic self-efficacy beliefs, Social Behavior and Personality 42(5): 835–856. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.5.835 Ames, C. 1992. Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation, Journal of Educational Psycho- logy 84(3): 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.84.3.261 Anderson, J. C.; Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recom- mended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.103.3.411 Areepattamannil, S.; Freeman, J. G.; Klinger, D. A. 2011. Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and academic achievement among Indian adolescent in Canada and India, Social Psychology of Educa- tion 14: 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218–011–9155–1 Baker, D. 2002. Editorial: where is gender and equity in science education?, Journal of Research in Science Education 39(8): 659–664. Bandura, A. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning, Educational Psychologist 28(2): 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3 Barrows, J.; Dunn, S.; Lloyd, C. A. 2013. Anxiety, self-efficacy and college exam grades, Universal Journal of Educational Research 1(3): 204–208. Boekaerts, M. 1995. Self-regulated learning: bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotiva- tion theories, Educational Psychology 30(4): 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3004_4 Boekaerts, M.; Corno, L. 2005. Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention, Applied Psychology: an International Review 54(2): 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464–0597.2005.00205.x Bong, M.; Clark, R. E. 1999. Comparisons between self-concept and self-academic in academic moti- vation research, Educational Psychologist 34(3): 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_1 Britner, S. L. 2008. Motivation in high school science students: a comparison of gender differences in life, physical, and earth science classes, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45(8): 955–970. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20249 https://doi.org/10.1179/1477963312Z.0000000005 https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.5.835 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9155-1 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3004_4 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_1 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20249 174 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance Byrne, B. M. 2001. Structural equation modelling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Chen, A. 2001. Theoretical conceptualization for motivation research in physical education: an integra- tive perspective, Quest 53(1): 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2001.10491729 Cheng, E. C. K. 2011. The role of self-regulated learning in enhancing learning performance, The International Journal of Research and Review 6(1): 1–16. Cleary, T. J.; Zimmerman, B. J. 2004. Self-regulation empowerment program: a school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning, Psychology in the Schools 41(5): 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10177 Colquitt, J. A.; Le Pine, J. A.; Noe, R. A. 2000. Toward the integrative theory of training motivation: a meta analysis path analysis of 20 year of research, Journal of Applied Psychology 85(5): 678–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.85.5.678 Cook, A. 2001. Assessing the use of flexible assessment, Assessment and Assessment in Higher Edu- cation 26(6): 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930120093878 Cooper, D. R.; Schindler, P. S. 2008. Business research methods. 10th ed. Singapore: The McGraww Hill Int. Corno, L. 1986. The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning, Contemporary Edu- cational Psychology 11(4): 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361–476X(86)90029–9 Cortright, R. N.; Lujan, H. L.; Blumberg, A. J.; Cox, J. H.; Dicarlo, S. E. 2013. Higher levels of in- trinsic motivation are related to higher levels of class performance for male but not female students, Advance Psychology Education 37(2): 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00018.2013 Dunn, K. E.; Lo, W. J.; Mulvenon, S. W.; Sutcliffe, R. 2012. Revisiting the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire: a theoretical and statistical reevaluation of the metacognitive self-regulation and effort regulation subscale, Educational Psychological Measurement 72(2): 312–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411413461 Dweck, C. S.; Leggett, E. L. 1988. A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality, Psycho- logy Review 95(2): 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–295X.95.2.256 Dyne, L. V.; Graham, J. W.; Dienesch, R. M. 1994. Organizational citizenship behavior: construct redefinition, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal 37(4): 765–802. https://doi.org/10.2307/256600 Fadlelmula, F. K.; Cakiroglu, E.; Sungur, S. 2015. Developing structural model on the relationship among motivational beliefs, self-regulated learning strategies, and achievement in mathematics, Inter- national Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 13(6): 1355–1357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763–013–9499–4 Gibbs, G.; Simpson, C. 2004. Conditions under which assessment support students’ learning, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1(1): 3–31. Gore, J. S.; Rogers, M. J. 2010. Why do I study? the moderating effect of attachment style on academic motivation, The Journal of Social Psychology 150(5): 560–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365448 Green, J.; Nelson, G.; Martin, A. J.; Marsh, H. 2006. The causal ordering of self-concept and academic motivation and its effect on academic achievement, International Education Journal 7(4): 534–546. Hair, J. E.; Black, W. C.; Babin, B. J.; Anderson, R. E.; Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International Inc. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2001.10491729 https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10177 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.678 https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930120093878 https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90029-9 https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00018.2013 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411413461 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 https://doi.org/10.2307/256600 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9499-4 https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365448 175 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 Harlen, W; Crick, R. D. 2003. Testing and motivation for learning, Assessment in Education, Princi- ples, Policy, & Practice 10(2): 169–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594032000121270 Hartmann, J. Q.; Widhar, S. C.; Carrick C. 2013. Strong faculty relationships and academic motiva- tion as potential outcomes of undergraduate research, North American Journal of Psychology 15(1): 215–234. Hong, E.; O’Neil, H. F. 2001. Construct validation of a trait self-regulation model, International Jour- nal of Psychology 36(3): 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590042000146 Kadhiravan, S. 2012. Self-regulated learning of adolescent in relation to their achievement motivation, Journal of Psychosocial Research 7(2): 211–218. Kanfer, R.; Wolf, M. B.; Kantrowitz, T. M.; Ackerman, P. L. 2010. Ability and trait complex predictors of academic and job performance: a person-situation approach, Applied Psychology: an International Review 59(1): 40–69. Klein, H. J.; Noe, R. A.; Wang, C. 2006. Motivation to learn and course outcomes: the impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enabler, Personnel Psychology 59(3): 665–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–6570.2006.00050.x Kusurkar, R. A.; Kruitwagen, C.; Ten Cate, O. T. J.; Croiset, G. 2010. Effects of age, gender, and educational background of strength of motivation for medical school, Advances in Health Science Education 15(3): 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459–009–9198–7 Kusurkar, R. A.; Ten Cate, O. T. J; Vos, C. M. P.; Westers, P.; Croiset, G. 2013. How motivation affects academic performance: a structural equation modeling analysis, Advances in Health Sciences Educa- tion Theory Practice 18(1): 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459–012–9354–3 Lichtinger, E.; Kaplan, A. 2015. Employing a case study approach to capture motivation and self- regulation of young students with learning disabilities in authentic educational contexts, Metacognition Learning 10(1): 119–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409–014–9131–1 Malpass, J. R.; O’Neil, H. F. Jr.; Hocevar, D. 1999. Self-regulation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, worry, and high-takes math achievement for mathematically gifted high school students, Roeper Re- view 21(4): 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199909553976 Meece, J. L.; Eccles, J. S. 1993. Introduction: recent trends in research on gender and education, Educational Psychologist 28(4): 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2804_2 Meece, J. L.; Glinke, B. B.; Burg, S. 2006. Gender and motivation, Journal of School Psychology 44(5): 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.004 Mubeen, S.; Saeed, S.; Arif H.M. 2013. An investigation the gender difference into the status of intrinsic motivation towards science learning among intermediate science students, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science 10(6): 81–85. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837–1068185 Mulkey, J. R.; O’Neill, H. F. Jr. 1999. The effects of test item format on self-efficacy and worry dur- ing high-stakes computer-based certification examination, Computer in Human Behavior 15(3–4): 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747–5632(99)00033–3 Natriello, G. 1987. The impact of evaluation processes on students, Educational Psychologist 22(2): 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2202_4 Neuman, W. L. 2006. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 6th ed. New York: Allyn and Bacon. Nichols, J. D.; Ultesch, W. E. 1998. An alternative learning program: effects on student motivation and self-esteem, The Journal of Educational Research 91(5): 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597554 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594032000121270 https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590042000146 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00050.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-009-9198-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9354-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9131-1 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199909553976 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2804_2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.004 https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-1068185 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00033-3 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2202_4 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597554 176 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance Noe, R. A. 1986. Trainee attributes and attitude: neglectes influences on training effectiveness, Aca- demy of Management Review 11(4): 736–749. Noe, R. A.; Schmitt, N. 1986. The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: test of model, Personnel Psychology 39(3): 497–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–6570.1986.tb00950.x Nonis, S. A.; Hudson, G. I. 2006. Academic performance of college students: influence of the spent studying and working, Journal of Education for Business January/February: 151–159. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.3.151–159 Pacharn, P.; Bay, D.; Felton, S. 2013. The impact of a flexible assessment system on students’ moti- vation, performance, and attitude, Accounting Education: an International Journal 22(2): 147–167. Pajares, F. 2001. Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation, The Journal of Educational Research 95(1): 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598780 Pajares, F.; Viliante, G. 2001. Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of middle school students: a function of gender orientation? Contemporary Educational Psychology 26(3): 366– 381. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1069 Paulsen, M. B.; Gentry, J. A. 1995. Motivation learning strategies and academic performance: a study of college finance classroom, Financial Practice and Education 5(1): 78–89. Peklaj, C.; Zagar, D.; Pecjak, S.; Levpuscek, M. P. 2006. Motivation and self-efficacy in student at- tending heterogeneous and ability-grouped classes, Studia Psychologica 48(4): 333–347. Pintrich, P. R. 2000. Multiple-goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientation in learning and achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology 92(3): 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.92.3.544 Pintrich, P. R. 2003. A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts, Journal of Educational Psychology 95(4): 667–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.95.4.667 Pintrich, P. R. 2004. A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students, Educational Psychology Review 16(4): 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648–004–0006-x Pintrich, P. R.; De Groot, E. V. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of class- room academic performance, Journal of Educational Psychology 82(1): 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.82.1.33 Pintrich, P. R.; Marx, R. W.; Boyle, R. A. 1993. Beyond cold conceptual change: the role of motiva- tional beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change, Review of Educa- tional Research 63(1): 167–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063002167 Pothukachi, B. R.; Kumar, S. A.; Dash, M. 2014. A study of the impact of self-regulated learning on academic and career goal clarity among postgraduate women student of Bangalore, The IUP Journal of Soft Skills (VIII) (2): 39–48. Rakes, G. C.; Dunn, K. E. 2010. The Impact of online graduate students’ motivation and self-regulation on academic procrastination, Journal of Interactive Online Learning 9(1): 78–93. Robbins, S. P.; Judge, T. A. 2011. Organizational behavior 14th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Prentice Hall. Rodriguez, S.; Romero-Canyas, R.; Downey, G.; Mangels, J. A.; Higgins, E. T. 2013. When school fits me: how fit between self-beliefs and task benefits boots math motivation and performance, Basic and Applied Psychology 35(5): 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.823613 Schunk, D. H. 2005. Commentary on self-regulation in school contexts, Learning and Instruction 15: 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.013 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00950.x https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.3.151-159 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598780 https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1069 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063002167 https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.823613 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.013 177 Business, Management and Education, 2016, 14(2): 153–178 Schunk, D. H.; Zimmerman, B. J. 2007. Influencing student’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of read- ing and writing through modeling, Reading and Writing Quarterly 23(1): 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560600837578 Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. 2010. Research methods for business: a skill building approach. 5th ed. Sin- gapore: A John Wiley, Sons, Ltd. Sheldon, K. M.; Elliot, A. J. 1999. Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(3): 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.76.3.482 Shiu, S. C.; Lin, S. Y. 2012. The relationship between learning motivation and innovative behavior in the university students: from perspective of creative self-efficacy, International Journal of Art and Sciences 5(5): 33–38. Singh, P.; Singh, N. 2013. Difficulties in emotion regulation: a barrier to academic motivation and performance, Journal of The Indian Academy of Applied Psychology 39(2): 289–297. Smimou, K.; Dahl, D. W. 2011. On the relationship between students’ perceptions of teaching quality, methods of assessment, and satisfaction, Journal of Education for Business 87(1): 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.550339 Sobral, D. T. 2004. What kind of motivation drives medical students learning quest? Medical Educa- tion 38(9): 950–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365–2929.2004.01913.x Steers, R. M.; Mowday, R. T.; Shapiro, D. L. 2004. The future of work motivation theory, Academy of Management Review 29(3): 379–387. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.13670978 Tannenbaum, S. I.; Yukl, G. 1992. Training and development in work organization, Annual Review of Psychology 43: 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.002151 Tucker, C. M.; Zayco, R. A.; Herman, K. C. 2002. Teacher and child variables as predictors of aca- demic engagement among low-income African American children, Psychology in The Schools 39(4): 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10038 Van Den Hurk, M. 2006. The relation between self-regulated strategies and individual study time, prepared participation and achievement in problem-based curriculum, Active Learning in Higher Edu- cation 7(2): 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787406064752 Vansteenkiste, M.; Zhou, M.; Lens, W.; Soenens, B. 2005. Experiences of autonomy and control among Chinese learners. Vitalizing or mobilizing?, Journal of Educational Psychology 97(3): 468– 483. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.97.3.468 Velayutham, S.; Aldrige, J. M. 2013. Influence of psychosocial classroom environment on students’ motivation and self-regulation in science learning: a structural equation modeling approach, Research in Science Education 43(2): 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165–011–9273-y Velayutham, S.; Aldrige, J. M.; Fraser, B. 2012. Gender differences in student motivation and self-reg- ulation in science learning: a multi-group structural equation modeling analysis, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 10(6): 1347–1368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763–012–9339-y Wolters, C. A.; Hussain, M. 2015. Investigating grit and it’s relations with college students’ self- regulated learning and academic achievement, Metacognition Learning 10(3): 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409–014–9128–9 Yusuf, M. 2011. The impact of self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and self-regulated learning strategies on students’ academic achievement, Procedia Social Behavioral Science 15: 2623–2626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.158 Zimmerman, B. J. 1986. Becoming a self-regulated learner: which are the key subprocesses? Con- temporary Educationa Psychology 11(4): 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361–476X(86)90027–5 https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560600837578 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482 https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.550339 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01913.x https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.13670978 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.002151 https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10038 https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787406064752 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.468 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9273-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9339-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9128-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.158 https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5 178 D. W. Ariani. Why do i study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-regulation on student performance Zimmerman, B. J. 1990. Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: the emergency of social cognitive perspective, Educational Psychology Review 2(2): 173–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01322178 Zimmerman, B. J. 2000. Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn, Contemporary Educational Psy- chology 25(1): 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016 Zimmerman, B. J. 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview, Theory into Practice 41(2): 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 Zimmerman, B. J. 2008. Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, method- ologies developments, and future prospects, American Educational Research Journal 45(1): 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909 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(3): 663–677. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029003663 Zimmerman, B. J.; Martinez-Pons, M. 1986. Development of structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies, American Educational Research Journal 23(4): 614–628. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312023004614 Zimmerman, B. J.; Martinez-Pons, M. 1990. Student difference in self-regulated learning: relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use, Journal of Educational Psychology 82(1): 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.82.1.51 Zumbrunn, S.; Tadlock, J.; Roberts, E. D. 2011. Encouraging self-regulated learning in the classroom: a review of the literature, Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC). Virginia Com- monwealth University. Dorothea Wahyu ArIANI. Dr, S.E., M.T. senior lecturer and researcher of Maranatha Christian University, Indonesia; board member of Indonesian Economic Graduate – branch Yogyakarta; board member of Inspect Researchers Yogyakarta. Research interest: human resource management, organi- zational behaviour, management of education, operations management, quality management, organi- zational development. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01322178 https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029003663 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312023004614 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51