An Exploration of Online Learning Habits and Academic Productivity of BSIT Students

This study explores the relationship between online learning habits and academic productivity among Bachelor of Science in Information Technology (BSIT) students at West Visayas State University–Himamaylan City Campus (WVSU-HCC) during the first semester of Academic Year 2025–2026. Grounded in Zimmerman’s (1989) Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) theory, Davis’s (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Vygotsky’s (1978) Constructivist Learning Theory, Sweller’s (1988) Cognitive Load Theory, and Astin’s (1984) Theory of Student Involvement, the study investigates how students’ learning behaviors in digital environments impact their academic productivity. A quantitative-correlational research design was employed, involving 117 BSIT students selected through stratified random sampling. Data were collected using a validated and reliable researcher-developed survey instrument, with internal consistency coefficients of α = .916 for online learning habits and α = .910 for academic productivity. Descriptive statistics and Spearman’s rank-order correlation were used to analyze the data. Results revealed that BSIT students commonly engaged in productive online learning habits, including collaboration, time management, and digital tool use. A statistically significant and strong positive correlation was found between students’ online learning habits and their academic productivity. These findings suggest that well-developed self-regulatory and digital competencies are predictive of higher academic output in online and blended learning environments. The study concludes with recommendations for integrating SRL training, promoting peer collaboration, optimizing instructional design, and implementing institutional strategies that support cognitive and emotional engagement in virtual learning settings.

online learning habits, academic productivity, self-regulated learning, digital tools, higher education, BSIT students, blended learning, technology acceptance model

1. Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cho, M. H., & Shen, D. (2013). Affective and cognitive influences on the academic performance of college students in online learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(4), 461–484. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.4.e [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516661713 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in MOOCs. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 27–42). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Panadero, E., Johnsson, A., &Botella, J. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). International Universities Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Talidong, K. J. B., & Toquero, C. M. D. (2021). Mobile learning grounded on universal instructional design principles on the shift to emergency online education. Journal of Digital Educational Technology, 1(1), ep2102. https://doi.org/10.21601/jdet/10943 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study