Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 12

1027561

research-article20212021
SGOXXX10.1177/21582440211027561SAGE OpenAcosta-Gonzaga and Ramirez-Arellano

Original Research

SAGE Open

The Influence of Motivation, Emotions,


April-June 2021: 1­–12
© The Author(s) 2021
DOI: 10.1177/21582440211027561
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211027561

Cognition, and Metacognition on journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Students’ Learning Performance:


A Comparative Study in Higher Education
in Blended and Traditional Contexts

Elizabeth Acosta-Gonzaga1 and Aldo Ramirez-Arellano1

Abstract
Previous research has proposed a conceptual model of the relationships between motivation, emotions, cognition, and
metacognition related to students’ learning performance and validated it in a blended learning context that combines
traditional learning with the use of educational technology. This study examined these relationships to test the hypothesis
that the levels of some factors in a face-to-face learning environment differ from those in a blended learning context,
finding that the conceptual model is valid for both settings. The role of positive emotions was significant in blended
learning but not in face-to-face learning. Furthermore, help-seeking and peer learning were relevant only in blended
learning. A positive relationship between academic motivations and metacognitive strategies was found in the face-to-
face context, whereas one from motivations to metacognitive and cognitive strategies was found in the blended context.
Negative emotions were present in both learning settings. This shows that the role of emotions is relevant to students’
perceived success.

Keywords
metacognition, cognition, emotions, motivation, students’ learning performance, higher education

Introduction contexts (Artino, 2009; Butz et al., 2015, 2016; Daniels &
Stupnisky, 2012; Niculescu et al., 2015; Pekrun et al., 2011;
Students’ poor learning outcomes are a multifactorial prob- Putwain et al., 2018; Stark et al., 2018). This theory analyzes
lem related to low learning performance, motivation, self- achievement emotions, which refer to emotions related to
regulation, and negative emotions, among other inter- and achieving an academic goal, such as studying for an exam.
extrapersonal factors. Theories and models have been pro- The control-value theory deems two dimensions of apprais-
posed to explain the relationships between the intrapersonal als, perceived control and perceived value. Perceived control
factors that influence students’ learning performance, inclu­ includes a sense of control over activities and outcomes
ding motivation, emotions, cognition, and metacognition. that can be executed by the student or external factors; it also
Motivation is an instigated, sustained, and goal-directed pro- involves the probability to obtain the desired outcome.
cess influenced by social and cognitive factors (Anderman & Perceived value implies the degree of importance that activ-
Dawson, 2011; Schunk et al., 2008). Emotions include real ity has for the students and the positive or negative value that
or unreal feelings that an individual has about a situation or the students give an academic assignment. Both students’
another individual (Pons et al., 2011). Cognition comprises control and value appraisals predict their emotions (Pekrun
judgments, memory, and reasoning (Efklides, 2011; Mayer & Perry, 2014). The achievement emotions are crucial in an
et al., 1997; Pintrich, 2004). Finally, metacognition is cog-
nition about cognition (Broadbent, 2017; Efklides, 2011; 1
Instituto Politécnico Nacional, México City, México
Flavell, 1976; Metcalfe & Shimamura, 1996), a higher level
Corresponding Author:
function that can affect the cognitive process.
Elizabeth Acosta-Gonzaga, Unidad Profesional Interdisciplinaria de
The control-value theory (Pekrun, 2006) is a framework Ingeniería Ciencias Sociales y Administrativas, Instituto Politécnico
for analyzing the relationships between cognition, motivation, Nacional, SEPI. Av. Te 950, Col. Granjas México 08400, México.
and emotion that has been validated in different learning Emails: elz.acosta.gonzaga@gmail.com; eacostag@ipn.mx

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationships between motivation, emotions, cognition, metacognition, and academic achievements
(adapted from Ramirez-Arellano et al., 2018).

academic setting because these determine the learning strate- et al., 2015; Pekrun & Perry, 2014; Putwain et al., 2018;
gies, and metacognitive and cognitive resources that students Stark et al., 2018) and performance (Chatzistamatiou et al.,
are going to use and, ultimately, will determine their aca- 2015; Cho & Heron, 2015).
demic performance (Daniels & Stupnisky, 2012). Others studies have also compared the effects of students’
Other studies have investigated these relationships in emotions and motivation in a different learning context, their
different terms; for example, Efklides (2011) proposes the findings have demonstrated that levels of negative emotions
metacognitive and affective model of self-regulated learn- differ between face-to-face and online learning contexts,
ing as a dynamic process that studies the effect of cognition, online students reported higher levels of anger and anxiety
metacognition, motivation, and emotions on self-regulated than face-to-face students (Butz et al., 2015), while the bore-
learning. Students’ decisions on what strategies they will dom levels of face-to-face students were higher than those of
use are determined by their abilities, metacognitive skills, online students (Butz et al., 2016). However, other studies
motivation, and emotions, as well as their metacognitive, have found no differences in the emotions experienced by
emotional, and affective experiences on academic activities. students in online and face-to-face contexts (Daniels &
Thus, it is essential to study the effects of these links on Stupnisky, 2012).
students’ performance. The effects of the motivation and emotions on the use of
The conceptual model proposed by (Ramirez-Arellano et learning strategies have also been investigated comparing
al., 2018) indicates causal and reciprocal relationships different learning settings. For example, in comparing online
between motivation, emotions, cognition, metacognition, and traditional students, some educational researchers
and students’ academic achievements (Figure 1). However, have been found that negative emotions—frustration and
the model has only been validated in a blended context. anxiety—predicted the use of learning strategies for students
The face-to-face learning context is a traditional environ- in the traditional environment, but not for students in the
ment for instruction, which relies on human–human interac- online learning environment (Marchand & Gutierrez, 2012).
tion (Vernadakis et al., 2012). The blended learning context In contrast, another study found that students in the online
is the mixture of face-to-face (or traditional) learning meth- context perceived that metacognitive and effort regula-
ods, instructions, and practices with an online environment tion strategies were stronger than for traditional students
(Brown, 2016; Drysdale et al., 2013) for sharing learning (Quesada-Pallarès et al., 2019). Similarly, the study by
materials and evaluating the students that support asynchro- Broadbent and Poon (2015) demonstrated that learning strat-
nous communication (teacher–student and student–student). egies of time management, metacognition, critical thinking,
Educational psychologists have demonstrated that aca- and effort regulation were relevant to academic success in
demic motivation is contextual and may vary depending on the online context, while that in the traditional context their
the educational context (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016). effects were smaller. However, a few studies have analyzed
While the role that emotions play during students’ learning is these effects between online and blended contexts. The
essential, these emotions may be influenced by the affective research by Broadbent (2017) found that students’ academic
attachment that students develop with teachers (Moriña, performance is highly determined by the use of cognitive
2019). This shows that teachers play a crucial role in foment- practices, metacognitive strategies, and resource manage-
ing students’ motivation and emotions (Trigueros et al., ment strategies for both online and blended contexts.
2020). Both academic emotions and motivation are a critical To the authors’ best knowledge, only a few comparative
part that determines students’ learning and persistence in the studies have been conducted on face-to-face and blended
classroom (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016). learning contexts. To clarify the role of the learning context
Analyzing the effects of academic motivation and emo- on motivation, emotion, learning strategies, cognition, meta-
tions in a traditional classroom, several studies have shown cognition, and learning achievements, the objective of this
that students’ motivation is highly related to emotions (Butz study is to compare the relationships introduced by the model
Acosta-Gonzaga and Ramirez-Arellano 3

in (Ramirez-Arellano, Acosta-Gonzaga, Bory-Reyes and This evidence is sustained by Vanslambrouck et al. (2019)
Hernández-Simón, 2018) to support the conjecture that the who examined the self-regulation strategies of adult students
levels of some factors in a face-to-face learning environment in a blended learning context, finding that students used
differ from those in a blended learning context. Thus, this strategies such as organizing, rehearsal, and help-seeking.
study analyzes the following hypothesis: Moreover, a systematic review by Broadbent and Poon
(2015) showed that critical thinking, a metacognitive pro-
Hypothesis 1: The relationships between motivation, cess, correlated positively with the online grade, whereas
emotions, cognition, metacognition, and learning perfor- learning strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, and organization)
mance are also preserved in face-to-face contexts. did not correlate with academic outcomes.
Similar findings can be seen in the meta-analysis by
This article is organised as follows. The first section Ohtani and Hisasaka (2018) who demonstrated that the
introduces a brief description of relevant related work. relationships between metacognitive strategies, academic
The next sections illustrate the methodology, research performance, and intelligence, finding that metacognition
method, and results, respectively. Finally, the last section was a more significant predictor of academic achieve-
presents the discussion and conclusions. ment than intelligence in the online learning context.
Broadbent (2017) similarly analyzed self-regulation (a
metacognitive strategy), time management, elaboration,
Related Work and rehearsal (learning strategies) in online and blended
The following section presents previous research on face-to- contexts, finding that self-regulated learning correlates
face and technology-based learning settings concerning the with academic performance, time management and elabora-
effects of cognition, metacognition, emotions, and motiva- tion are relatively important, while rehearsal is not relevant
tion on students’ learning outcomes. to academic achievement in online and blended contexts.
Finally, Broadbent and Poon (2015) found a weaker rela-
tionship between metacognitive processes and self-regula-
Cognition and Metacognition in Face-to-Face and tion in online than in face-to-face contexts.
Technology-Based Learning Contexts
Several studies have compared the relationships between Emotions in Face-to-Face and Technology-Based
learning outcomes and forms of metacognition such as self-
regulation (Barnard et al., 2009; Broadbent, 2017; Broadbent
Learning Environments
& Poon, 2015). Emotions have a significant effect on learning achievement
In terms of face-to-face learning contexts, the significant in face-to-face, blended, and online settings. In face-to-face
effects of metacognition and learning strategies on students’ environments, emotions are positively associated with moti-
learning achievement have been widely studied (Asikainen vations and learning strategies in reaching achievements
et al., 2018; Efklides, 2018; King & McInerney, 2016). In (Pekrun & Perry, 2014). Research has shown that positive
studying the self-regulated learning strategies (metacogni- and negative emotions influence cognitive and learning strat-
tive factors), several studies have corroborated that students egies in different ways (Daniels et al., 2015; Marchand &
with higher levels of self-regulation achieved higher learn- Gutierrez, 2012; Mega et al., 2014). Positive emotions
ing outcomes (Chatzistamatiou et al., 2015; González et al., (enjoyment, curiosity, and pride) increase the use of flexible
2016). In particular, regarding the research about the meta- learning strategies, self-regulation, and critical thinking
cognitive construct of critical thinking, it was demonstrated (Pekrun et al., 2011; Pekrun & Perry, 2014). For example, the
that this has a positive effect on learning outcomes (Haseli study by Chatzistamatiou et al. (2015) found that enjoyment
& Rezaii, 2013; Kong, 2014; Mega et al., 2014; Pérez et al., was related to motivation and self-regulation, which in turn
2012). Therefore, the studies above show that the effects of can influence students’ current and future engagement. Also,
the cognitive and metacognitive strategies on students’ Ranellucci et al. (2015) demonstrated that enjoyment was
learning achievements were corroborated in a face-to-face useful to predict students’ learning strategies such as elabora-
context. tion, critical thinking, and self-monitoring.
The effects of metacognition on students’ learning out- On the contrary, negative emotions reduce the use of self-
comes have recently been analyzed in blended and online regulation practices and promote external guidance (Mega
contexts as well. It has found evidence that there is a correla- et al., 2014; Pekrun, 2011; Tze et al., 2014, 2016). Evidence
tion between cognitive and metacognitive strategies with was found in the study by Tze et al. (2016) who noted that
students’ motivations and emotions (Kim et al., 2014). The boredom has a significant impact on motivation, learning
strategies of self-regulation are also highly correlated with strategies, and academic outcomes, having the highest
motivation, which plays an essential role in encouraging stu- detrimental impact on students’ achievement. Similarly,
dents to use learning strategies to obtain the desired goal Marchand and Gutierrez (2012) demonstrated that stu-
(Schumacher & Ifenthaler, 2018). dents who felt very frustrated were more likely to use less
4 SAGE Open

meaningful learning strategies; their study also gives evi- and Perry (2014) and Putwain et al. (2018) proposed that
dence that there is a strong relationship between anxiety and motivation is positively related to enjoyment and negatively
the use of meaningful learning strategies. Furthermore, related to boredom. Furthermore, Chatzistamatiou et al.
Pekrun (2011) showed that negative emotions—anger, anxi- (2015) suggested that students who value an academic task
ety, and shame—decrease intrinsic motivation but increase (a component of motivation) will use metacognitive or cog-
extrinsic motivation, encouraging students to avoid failure. nitive strategies to attain a better outcome. Thus, the degree
Daniels et al. (2015) suggested that cognitive strategies may of motivation will determine the selection and use of learn-
reduce the effect of boredom. ing strategies, which in turn will affect students’ academic
In online settings, Kim et al. (2014) found that students’ achievement (Ulstad et al., 2018).
emotions to be positively correlated with motivation and per- The effects of motivation on students’ emotions have also
formance. This can be observed in the study by Butz et al. been observed in online contexts. For example, in compar-
(2015) and Price et al. (2018) who examined the effects of ing online students versus on-campus students, Butz et al.
emotions on students’ overall achievements, analyzing their (2015) found that students with a higher self-efficacy have
impact on metacognitive and cognitive strategies. Students lower levels of boredom, anxiety, anger, shame, and hope-
with a lower level of boredom but higher levels of enjoyment lessness; higher levels of enjoyment and pride; and higher
and pride used higher levels of cognitive strategies, whereas levels of cognitive strategy and self-regulation. This finding
students who felt less bored, angry, shameful, and hopeless is similar to that found by Barak et al. (2016), who have cor-
but more engaged and prideful used a higher level of meta- roborated that intrinsic motivation encourages students to
cognitive strategy (self-regulation). learn in Masive Open Online Courses (MOOC). This means
Similarly, Kim and Hodges (2012) indicated that enjoy- that when a student feels competent, it has observed that
ment and pride have positive effects on motivation, whereas self-efficacy beliefs are positively related to positive emo-
boredom, anxiety, anger, shame, and hopelessness have the tions, whereas students who feel very frustrated are more
opposite effect. This is also in line with Cho and Heron likely to use less meaningful learning strategies (Marchand
(2015), who found that negative emotions (anger, anxiety, & Gutierrez, 2012). Also, in using multimedia resources for
and shame) reduce intrinsic motivation, which encourages learning, it has found that the learning environment influ-
students’ avoidance of failure and the use of more mean- ences the emotions of students, which in turn affected their
ingful learning strategies, concluding that students need achievements; the study highlighted that students’ emotions
motivational and emotional support to reach achievement were essential predictors of their learning (Stark et al.,
satisfaction. 2018). Therefore, similar to the face-to-face context in
Finally, in comparative studies, Marchand and Gutierrez online settings, is well recognized that motivations and
(2012) found that in blended and face-to-face settings, the emotions are associated with students’ achievements (Cho
positive emotion of hope has a positive relationship with the & Heron, 2015).
cognitive strategy of elaboration, and that self-efficacy is the Contrasting online and blended contexts, Vanslambrouck
most important predictor of students’ emotions in both con- et al. (2018) examined students’ motivations and found that
texts. However, the effect of frustration and anxiety on learn- students appreciate face-to-face sessions, while the flexibil-
ing strategies was significant for traditional students but not ity of online sessions motivates students’ participation, con-
for online students. While Acosta-Gonzaga and Walet (2018) cluding that the right balance between face-to-face and
compared computer-based versus traditional assessments for online sessions is necessary. Similarly, Butz et al. (2015)
teaching mathematics, their results suggest that enjoyment found that students’ control and value appraisals are highly
plays an important role in adopting online assessments. associated with emotions and students’ achievements and
that this relationship is affected by synchronous hybrid learn-
ing environments.
Motivation in Face-to-Face and Technology-Based
Learning Environments
Research Method
In traditional settings, it has been demonstrated that motiva-
tion has a significant effect on students’ learning outcomes. The authors used structural equation modeling (SEM) to
For example, the study by González et al. (2016) found a estimate the causal relationships in both face-to-face and
direct effect of motivation on metacognition, whereas the blended models. In the face-to-face learning context, data to
study by Stewart et al. (2015) showed that the effects of self- construct the causal model were collected from 222 univer-
efficacy (a motivational component) during the use of meta- sity students enrolled in several courses in management and
cognitive strategies were stronger than the negative emotion industrial engineering degree programs at a University in
of anxiety. In English teaching, Zhang et al. (2017) found Mexico: 119 participants are male and 103 participants are
that learning strategies mediate the relationship between female between the ages of 19 and 21 years (M = 20.5,
motivation and vocabulary acquisition. Likewise, Pekrun SD = 2.1). Students were surveyed at the end of their
Acosta-Gonzaga and Ramirez-Arellano 5

courses. The surveys were anonymous and answered in pen- strategies, whereas help-seeking, peer learning, effort regula-
cil-and-paper format. To obtain their final grade, the students tion, and time and environment belong to learning strategies.
had to take three paper-based exams. Data collection took The questions in this survey were answered on a Likert-type
place from September to December 2018, and all the stu- scale between 1 (not at all true of me) and 7 (very true of me).
dents participated voluntarily. Finally, a construct of learning achievement was com-
In the blended learning context, data were collected from puted for both learning contexts, including OG. For the face-
116 Mexican students (49 males and 67 females) between the to-face learning context, OG was calculated by considering
ages of 20 and 22 years (M = 20.66, SD = 1.87). University learning activities and exams. For the blended learning con-
students were enrolled in a blended course in applied com- text, OG was calculated by considering online examinations,
puting in biological sciences as part of a chemical biology learning activities, and an end-of-term project. The interac-
degree program. The Moodle platform was utilized to deliver tions between the students and the learning content were
lectures, learning activities, and materials, which were recorded in a Moodle log file. As the learning content com-
designed following multimedia principles (coherence, redun- plies with the SCORM standard (The Advanced Distributed
dancy, spatial contiguity, and modality; R. E. Mayer, 2001) Learning Initiative, 2004), Moodle can track the number of
and considering the SCORM (Sharable Content Object items reviewed in each piece of learning content. The learn-
Reference Model) standard (The Advanced Distributed ing content and SCORM objects were organized in a hierar-
Learning Initiative, 2004). A Moodle log file was utilized to chical structure of topics and subtopics. Students had to
record the interactions between the students and the learning examine all topics and subtopics to review a given learning
materials. The blended course also included face-to-face ses- content. Students needed to log in to Moodle each time to
sions (one per week) for student feedback and in-depth review the learning content of the current or previous ses-
explanations of learning activities. The lectures and learning sion. They were not permitted to download the learning con-
content were organized on a weekly schedule, often compris- tent or to browse it offline. A weekly face-to-face session
ing learning activities that had to be delivered within the was scheduled to give feedback and explain the learning
same week through Moodle. The lectures that were sched- activities in detail.
uled for a given week remain opened until the end of the
course; thus; the students can review it several times as they
need. Three online course exams were considered for the
Data Gathering and Data Analyses
overall grade (OG) of each student. At the end of their The study aimed to validate and compare a set of causal rela-
courses, students were surveyed using the Moodle platform. tionships between the constructs in two learning contexts.
From the beginning of the study, all students were For both learning contexts, students answered the SED and
informed of the aim of the research; they expressed their MSLQ instruments in the middle of the course, after the first
consent to participate voluntarily in the study. It was also exam was done. Each student’s OG was reported at the end
explained that they could withdraw their consent at any time. of the semester.
All students agreed for their data to be used in the study Before applying the SEM, the validity and reliability of
(British Educational Research Association, 2018). the constructs were confirmed. Cronbach’s alphas higher
than or equal to .70 were acceptable for internal consistency.
Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted
Instruments (AVE) indicate convergent validity, with values higher than
For both learning settings, the authors used the Student .7 for CR and .5 for AVE being acceptable (Hair et al., 2006).
Engagement and Disaffection in School (SED; Skinner et al., Discriminant validity is established when the square root of
2008) questionnaire to measure students’ negative—bore- AVE of each construct is higher than the correlation between
dom, frustration, and anxiety—and positive—enjoyment, the other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
enthusiasm, fun, pride, and interest—emotions. The students The SEM analyses were performed using AMOS (Version
responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale between 1 (strongly 22) with the maximum likelihood estimation procedure. To
disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). measure the model’s fitness, χ2/df, Tucker–Lewis index
The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI),
(MSLQ; Pintrich, 1991; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990) evalu- and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were
ates the value and expectancy components of motivation in considered. The acceptable values for χ2/df were below 5
both face-to-face and blended learning contexts. The value (MacCallum et al., 1996), those for TLI, CFI, and NFI were
component comprises intrinsic goal motivation (IGM), above 0.90 (Byrne, 2016), and those for RMSEA ranged
extrinsic goal motivation (EGM), and task value, whereas from 0.08 to 0.05 or less (Byrne, 2016). Also, a two-way
the expectancy component comprises control of learning analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to measure
beliefs, self-efficacy, and test anxiety. Self-regulation and the effect of the students’ gender and the learning context
critical thinking belong to metacognitive strategies. (blended or face-to-face) on the subconstructs of the causal
Organization, elaboration, and rehearsal belong to cognitive model such as IGM, EGM, and help-seeking.
6 SAGE Open

Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha, CR, and AVE of Constructs (Latent Variables) of the Hypothetical Causal Models in the Face-to-Face and
Blended Learning Contexts.

Cronbach’s alpha Cronbach’s CR CR AVE AVE


Construct face-to-face alpha blended face-to-face blended face-to-face blended
Motivation .858 .894 .897 .919 .644 .667
Negative emotions .828 .767 .895 .806 .739 .589
Positive emotions — .92 — .94 — .757
Metacognitive–cognitive strategies — .926 — .945 — .774
Metacognitive strategies .841 — .926 — .862 —
Cognitive strategies .865 — .917 — .788 —
Learning strategies .727 .75 .880 .84 .785 .571
Learning achievement 1 1 1 1 1 1

Note. For the blended context, the constructs of metacognitive and cognitive strategies were merged into metacognitive–cognitive strategies.
CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 2. Discriminant Validity of Constructs (Latent Variables) of the Hypothetical Causal Models in the Face-to-Face Learning
Context.

Negative Metacognitive Cognitive Learning Learning


Construct Motivation emotions strategies strategies strategies achievement
Motivation .803
Negative emotions −.548 .86
Metacognitive strategies .711 −.45 .929
Cognitive strategies .699 −.439 .821 .888
Learning strategies .602 −.544 .645 .636 .886
Learning achievement .209 −.261 .153 .183 .17 1

Note. The values in the diagonal are the square root of each construct’s AVE, and the values off-diagonal are the correlations between the constructs.
AVE = average variance extracted.

Results correlations, discriminant validity was established for all the


constructs. Therefore, discriminant validity was confirmed
Reliability and Validity in the face-to-face learning context. To confirm the discrimi-
Table 1 presents the results of the causal models for face-to- nant validity in the blended context, the constructs of meta-
face and blended settings with Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and cognitive and cognitive strategies were merged into one and
AVE. In the face-to-face context, the latent variables included named metacognitive–cognitive strategies.
motivation, negative emotions, metacognitive strategies, cog-
nitive strategies, learning strategies, and learning outcomes. Causal Model
The Cronbach’s alphas of all constructs ranged between .727
and .865, which are acceptable for the SEM, and the CR and Figure 2 shows the results of the causal model in the face-to-
AVE values were above .9 and .6, respectively. face and blended learning contexts with path weights stan-
In the blended context, the latent variables included moti- dardized. In the blended context, the causal model fit the data
vation, positive emotions, negative emotions, metacogni- well with χ2/df = 1.737, TLI = 0.904, CFI = 0.919, NFI =
tive–cognitive strategies, learning strategies, and learning 0.90, and RMSEA = 0.080. In the face-to-face context, the
outcomes. The Cronbach’s alphas of all constructs ranged results are also suitable, with χ2/df = 2.633, TLI = 0.917,
between .767 and .926, which are acceptable for the SEM, CFI = 0.936, NFI = 0.902, and RMSEA = 0.080. All the
and the CR and AVE values were above .9 and .6, respec- constructs except positive emotions were significant for both
tively. Thus, for both contexts, convergent validity was con- contexts, with positive emotions only being meaningful in
firmed for all the constructs. the blended context.
Table 2 shows the discriminant validity for the face-to- The following relationships were significant for both
face context, and Table 3 shows the discriminant validity for learning contexts. Motivation has a positive causal relation
the blended context. In both tables, the values aligned diago- with metacognitive strategies, as motivated students empha-
nally show the square root of AVE, and the others show the size the autonomy and control of the learning (Figure 2). The
correlations. As the diagonals show higher values than the path coefficient of motivation to metacognitive strategies in
Acosta-Gonzaga and Ramirez-Arellano 7

Table 3. Discriminant Validity of Constructs (Latent Variables) of the Hypothetical Causal Models in the Blended Learning Context.

Negative Positive Metacognitive– Learning Learning


Construct Motivation emotions emotions cognitive strategies strategies achievement
Motivation .816
Negative emotions −.305 .768
Positive emotions .431 −.694 .87
Metacognitive–cognitive strategies .475 −.563 .652 .88
Learning strategies .406 −.564 .584 .752 .755
Learning achievement .155 −.329 .234 .313 .311 1

Note. The values in the diagonal are the square root of each construct’s AVE, and the values off-diagonal are the correlations between the constructs.
AVE = average variance extracted.

Figure 2. Results of the causal model.


Note. The dotted lines indicate that the relationships and constructs were only observed in the blended learning context. Values in blue color represent
the factor loadings of each subfactor. Values written in italics apply to the face-to-face learning context. IGM = intrinsic goal motivation; EGM = extrinsic
goal motivation; TV = task value; SR = self-regulation; CT = critical thinking; OR = organization; EL = elaboration; RE = rehearsal; CLB = control of
learning beliefs; SE = self-efficacy; TA = test anxiety; ET = enthusiasm; EN = enjoyment; FU = fun; PR = pride; IN = interest; OG = overall grade;
BO = boredom; FR = frustration; AN = anxiety; ER = effort regulation; TE = time and environment; PL = peer learning; HS = help-seeking.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

the face-to-face context was higher than the path coefficient blended context apply the same learning strategies as tradi-
of motivation to metacognitive–cognitive strategies in the tional students except for peer learning and help-seeking.
blended context, indicating that face-to-face students apply Furthermore, learning strategies have a positive influence
reasoned judgments and analyze data and facts to draw rea- on students’ achievements, and the path coefficients in both
sonable conclusions more so than blended learning students. contexts are similar (face-to-face: .312***; blended:
In the face-to-face setting, students use learning strategies .369***). A relationship between metacognitive and cogni-
such as time and environment management and effort regula- tive strategies was only observed in the face-to-face context
tion, which are influenced by cognitive strategies such as because the two were joined into a single construct in the
organization, elaboration, and rehearsal. Students in the blended context.
8 SAGE Open

The latent endogenous construct of motivation has a sig- Marchand and Gutierrez (2012) demonstrated a positive
nificant causal relation with negative emotions. The differ- association between hope and sophisticated studying strate-
ence in the contexts’ path coefficients (face-to-face: –.754; gies (such as elaboration).
blended: –.325) means that students’ motivation in the This study also found that peer learning, help-seeking,
blended context mitigates negative emotions more effec- and test anxiety were significant for blended learning stu-
tively. The results also highlight the negative impact of nega- dents but not for traditional students (Broadbent, 2017;
tive emotions on learning strategies. This effect is higher in Broadbent & Poon, 2015). This could indicate that blended
the blended learning environment (–.181*) than in the face- learning students tend to support their learning by using
to-face context (–.424***). strategies such as peer learning and help-seeking more often
Finally, in the blended learning context, students’ aca- than traditional students do. Broadbent (2017) and Maki and
demic motivation influences positive emotions, which are Maki (2007) found similar results, with blended learning stu-
critical in determining how students select metacognitive dents outperforming traditional students in the use of learn-
and cognitive strategies. ing strategies. This is also consistent with Sun et al. (2018),
which found that students tended to apply help-seeking as a
learning strategy in the pre-class component (internet-based
The Effect of Learning Context and Gender
learning) of a flipped math course. Their results also showed
The result of two-way ANOVA shows no significant interac- that help-seeking was essential in obtaining higher academic
tion between the effect of the learning context and gender on achievements.
IGM, EGM, task value, control of learning beliefs, self-effi- The results also showed that students’ motivations in the
cacy, rehearsal, elaboration, organization, self-regulation, blended context were significantly correlated with positive
critical thinking, boredom, frustration, anxiety, effort regula- emotions, as indicated by Butz et al. (2015) and Schumacher
tion, and time and environment (p >.01). However, the main and Ifenthaler (2018).
effect of learning context shows that face-to-face students The relationships between motivation, emotions, cogni-
have higher levels of IGM (M = 5.28, SD = 0.72), EGM (M tion, metacognition, and learning achievements are pre-
= 5.24, SD = 0.86), task value (M = 5.45, SD = 0.78), con- served in the face-to-face context, except that blended
trol of learning beliefs (M = 5.23, SD = 0.71), and self- learning students do not recognize the use of metacognitive
efficacy (M = 5.33, SD = 0.71) than blended students: IGM and cognitive strategies separately. Although Broadbent and
(M = 4.94, SD = 0.76), EGM (M = 4.69, SD = 0.75), task Poon (2015) compared online and traditional students, their
value (M = 5.0, SD = 0.75), control of learning beliefs (M = findings indicated that peer learning (a learning strategy) is
4.84, SD = 0.73), and self-efficacy (M = 4.78, SD = 0.66) prioritized in the context of online learning. The authors
(p < .01). On the contrary, face-to-face environments have also pointed out that cognitive strategies such as rehearsal,
less level of help-seeking (M = 4.26, SD = 0.7) than their elaboration, and organization were related to traditional
counterparts in a blended environment (M = 4.58, SD = students’ grades, concluding that the effects of the metacog-
0.78) (p < .01). The female students report significantly nitive strategy of self-regulation are weaker in the online
higher levels of organization (M = 5.1, SD = 0.73) than context than in the traditional classroom, as was confirmed
male students (M = 4.84, SD = 0.79) (p < .01). in this study.
The findings reveal a strong relationship between stu-
dents’ academic motivations and metacognitive strategies
Discussion and Conclusion
(i.e., self-regulation and critical thinking) in the face-to-face
Based on the literature and “blinded,” this study validated context, and motivation and metacognitive–cognitive strate-
the influence of motivation, emotions, cognition, and meta- gies in the blended context, which means that students who
cognition on students’ learning performance in face-to- are motivated by IGM, EGM, and task value tend to apply
face and blended learning settings, confirming that these more sophisticated metacognitive strategies such as self-reg-
relationships depend on the learning context (Pekrun, 2006; ulated learning and critical thinking. The differences found
Ranellucci et al., 2015). However, positive emotions were in the contexts imply that academic motivation depends on
significantly related to metacognitive strategies only in the the learning context; in other words, academic motivation is
blended context. This indicates that positive emotions such contextual, and can vary over time and be determined by
as enthusiasm or enjoyment encourage students to use more teachers, parents, or peer activity (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al.,
sophisticated metacognitive and cognitive strategies, as was 2016). This finding is consistent with the findings of Butz
also pointed out by Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. (2016). Similar et al. (2015). Moreover, a component of motivation, self-
results are also mentioned by Kim et al. (2014), who found efficacy, is essential in applying various metacognitive strat-
that students’ cognitive processes can differ according to egies and resources that are crucial for academic achievement
their emotions. Likewise, Butz et al. (2015) stated that emo- (Komarraju & Nadler, 2013; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al.,
tions are useful in explaining cognitive processes and meta- 2016) as was validated in this study. Students who chose
cognitive strategy (such as self-regulated learning), whereas blended and online courses were more willing to perceive
Acosta-Gonzaga and Ramirez-Arellano 9

themselves as competent to be successful in their studies emotions. Also, decision-makers should seek motivators that
(Clayton et al., 2010). foster academic enjoyment, enthusiasm, and fun to promote
In the face-to-face learning context, a positive and direct the use of metacognitive skills in students.
association was observed between metacognitive and cogni- In the face-to-face context, negative emotions had a nega-
tive strategies, which may imply that students who practice tive influence on learning strategies and, consequently, on
critical thinking and self-regulated processes also apply cog- academic performance; thus, the self-efficacy and task value
nitive strategies such as organization, elaboration, and (higher values of the indicator variables) must be developed
rehearsal (Varasteh et al., 2016). to reduce negative emotions.
Students’ motivation has been found to decrease negative These recommendations aim to establish effective teach-
emotions (Pekrun & Perry, 2014 ; Putwain et al., 2018). ing strategies in the classroom and can be used by educa-
However, previous evidence also highlights that technology- tional practitioners to improve the use of technology for
based students report higher levels of technology-related teaching. Notably, however, motivation and emotions may
anger, anxiety, and helplessness (Butz et al., 2015; Loderer vary during the course, and these fluctuations cannot be
et al., 2020). The findings of this study show that those nega- captured in the proposed causal model. To tackle this issue,
tive emotions occurred in both learning contexts, indicating an experiment with repeated measures over a semester
a significant role of emotions in students’ perceived success could analyze these psychological factors. This study paves
(Butz et al., 2015; Cho & Heron, 2015; Ranellucci et al., the way for new research into the interactions between
2015) and that emotions depend on the related technology- motivation, emotions, cognition, and metacognition in a
based learning environment (Loderer et al., 2020). longitudinal study.
Cognitive learning strategies in the face-to-face context
increase the use of learning strategies such as effort regula- Author Contributions
tion and time and environment (Stegers-Jager et al., 2012). A.R.-A. analyzed and interpreted the student’s data regarding the
For both learning contexts, the results showed that bored, relationships between emotions, motivations, and academic
frustrated, and anxious students tend not to use learning achievements, and has also substantively reviewed the final draft.
strategies. This is consistent with Tze et al. (2016), who men- E.A.-G. performed the theoretical background of the relationships
tioned that academic boredom negatively affects students’ included in the model to validate it, and has also drafted the paper
learning process and achievement. In addition, the path and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. Both the
from negative emotions such as frustration and anxiety to authors read and approved the final manuscript.
learning strategies was significant for the traditional setting
(Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016; Marchand & Gutierrez, Declaration of Conflicting Interests
2012; Ramirez-Arellano et al., 2018); also, learning strate- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
gies positively influence students’ learning achievement respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
(Price et al., 2018; Puzziferro, 2008; Ramirez-Arellano, article.
Acosta-Gonzaga, et al., 2018; Ramirez-Arellano, Bory-
Reyes, & Hernández-Simón, 2018; Sun et al., 2018). The Funding
learning strategies, peer learning and help-seeking were sig- The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
nificant for blended learning students but not for face-to-face the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work
students, suggesting that these strategies compensated for was supported by Instituto Politécnico Nacional (Grant Numbers:
the guidance teachers would provide (Pekrun, 2011; Pekrun 20195324 and 20194925).
et al., 2002). This was supported by a one-way ANOVA
that shows a significant difference in help-seeking between ORCID iDs
the face-to-face (M = 4.26, SD = 0.7) and the blended Elizabeth Acosta-Gonzaga https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5413
(M = 4.58, SD = 0.78) contexts. -1063
In summary, the findings of this study suggest that the Aldo Ramirez-Arellano https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6782-9847
conceptual model can be useful for both learning contexts
confirming the proposed hypothesis. However, positive emo- References
tions are relevant for blended learning students, as they posi-
Acosta-Gonzaga, E., & Walet, N. R. (2018). The role of attitudinal
tively affect metacognitive–cognitive strategies, but not for
factors in mathematical on-line assessments: A study of under-
traditional students, which may imply that the role of emo- graduate STEM students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
tions is specific to the learning environment (Ranellucci Education, 43(5), 710–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.
et al., 2015). 2017.1401976
For both learning settings, students’ emotions play an The Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative. (2004). SCORM®
important role in academic performance; it is suggested to 2004 (Sharable Content Object Reference Model), 4th edition—
establish motivators that help students increase their positive ADL initiative. https://adlnet.gov/projects/scorm/
10 SAGE Open

Anderman, E. M., & Dawson, H. (2011). Learning with motiva- students’ learning experiences in a self-paced online math-
tion. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of ematics course. Distance Education, 36(1), 80–99. https://doi.
research on learning and instruction (pp. 219–241). Routledge. org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1019963
Artino, A. R. (2009). Think, feel, act: Motivational and emotional Clayton, K., Blumberg, F., & Auld, D. P. (2010). The relationship
influences on military students’ online academic success. between motivation, learning strategies and choice of environ-
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(2), 146–166. ment whether traditional or including an online component.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9020-9 British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 349–364.
Asikainen, H., Hailikari, T., & Mattsson, M. (2018). The interplay https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00993.x
between academic emotions, psychological flexibility and self- Daniels, L. M., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2012). Not that different
regulation as predictors of academic achievement. Journal of in theory: Discussing the control-value theory of emotions
Further and Higher Education, 42(4), 439–453. https://doi.org in online learning environments. The Internet and Higher
/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1281889 Education, 15(3), 222–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc
Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in .2012.04.002
massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language Daniels, L. M., Tze, V. M. C., & Goetz, T. (2015). Examining bore-
and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49–60. dom: Different causes for different coping profiles. Learning
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.010 and Individual Differences, 37(2015), 255–261. https://doi.
Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S.-L. org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.004
(2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learn- Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R.
ing environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), (2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses
1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005 studying blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education,
British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical guide- 17, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.003
lines for educational research, fourth edition (2018). https:// Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motiva-
www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educa- tion and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model.
tional-research-2018-online Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080
Broadbent, J. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner’s /00461520.2011.538645
self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance. Efklides, A. (2018). Gifted students and self-regulated learning:
The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 24–32. https://doi. The MASRL model and its implications for SRL. High Ability
org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.004 Studies, 0(0), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2018.15
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strat- 56069
egies & academic achievement in online higher education Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In
learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235).
Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihe- Lawrence Erlbaum.
duc.2015.04.007 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equa-
Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review tion models with unobservable variables and measurement
of the empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://
of online tools in face-to-face teaching. The Internet and doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Higher Education, 31, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihe- González, A., Rodríguez, Y., Faílde, J. M., & Carrera, M. V.
duc.2016.05.001 (2016). Anxiety in the statistics class: Structural relations with
Butz, N. T., Stupnisky, R. H., & Pekrun, R. (2015). Students’ self-concept, intrinsic value, and engagement in two samples
emotions for achievement and technology use in synchro- of undergraduates. Learning and Individual Differences, 45,
nous hybrid graduate programmes: A control-value approach. 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.019
Research in Learning Technology, 23. https://doi.org/10.3402/ Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham,
rlt.v23.26097 R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed., Vol. 5).
Butz, N. T., Stupnisky, R. H., Pekrun, R., Jensen, J. L., & Harsell, Prentice Hall.
D. M. (2016). The impact of emotions on student achievement Haseli, Z., & Rezaii, F. (2013). The effect of teaching critical think-
in synchronous hybrid business and public administration pro- ing on educational achievement and test anxiety among junior
grams: A longitudinal test of control-value theory. Decision high school students in Saveh. European Online Journal of
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(4), 441–474. Natural and Social Sciences, 2(2 Suppl.), 168–175.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12110 Kim, C., & Hodges, C. B. (2012). Effects of an emotion control
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: treatment on academic emotions, motivation and achievement
Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). in an online mathematics course. Instructional Science, 40(1),
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9165-6
Chatzistamatiou, M., Dermitzaki, I., Efklides, A., & Leondari, Kim, C., Park, S. W., & Cozart, J. (2014). Affective and motiva-
A. (2015). Motivational and affective determinants of self- tional factors of learning in online mathematics courses. British
regulatory strategy use in elementary school mathematics. Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 171–185. https://
Educational Psychology, 35(7), 835–850. https://doi.org/10.1 doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01382.x
080/01443410.2013.822960 King, R. B., & McInerney, D. M. (2016). Do goals lead to outcomes
Cho, M.-H., & Heron, M. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning: The or can it be the other way around? Causal ordering of mas-
role of motivation, emotion, and use of learning strategies in tery goals, metacognitive strategies, and achievement. British
Acosta-Gonzaga and Ramirez-Arellano 11

Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 296–312. https:// research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4),
doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12107 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive
achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regula- development. In: R. Calvo, S. D’Mello (eds)., New perspec-
tion matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 67–72. tives on affect and learning technologies. Explorations in the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.005 Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance
Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical Technologies (vol 3). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital 4419-9625-1_3.
classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R.
strategy. Computers & Education, 78, 160–173. https://doi. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and per-
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009 formance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ).
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48. https://
Adaptive motivation and emotion in education: Research doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002
and principles for instructional design. Policy Insights from Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic
the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 228–236. https://doi. emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achieve-
org/10.1177/2372732216644450 ment: A program of qualitative and quantitative research.
Loderer, K., Pekrun, R., & Lester, J. C. (2020). Beyond cold tech- Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10
nology: A systematic review and meta-analysis on emotions .1207/S15326985EP3702_4
in technology-based learning environments. Learning and Pekrun, R., & Perry, R. P. (2014). Control-value theory of achieve-
Instruction, 70, 101162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learnin- ment emotions In International handbook of emotions in edu-
struc.2018.08.002 cation (pp. 120–141). Routledge.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Pérez, P. M., Costa, J.-L. C., & Corbí, R. G. (2012). An explana-
Power analysis and determination of sample size for covari- tory model of academic achievement based on aptitudes, goal
ance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), orientations, self-concept and learning strategies. The Spanish
130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.5209/
Maki, R. H., & Maki, W. S. (2007). Online courses. In Handbook rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n1.37283
of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 527–552). John Wiley. Pintrich, P. R. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated
Marchand, G. C., & Gutierrez, A. P. (2012). The role of emo- Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). https://eric.
tion in the learning process: Comparisons between online ed.gov/?id=ED338122
and face-to-face learning settings. The Internet and Higher Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing
Education, 15(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihe- motivation and self-regulated learning in college students.
duc.2011.10.001 Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407. https://doi.
Mayer, J. D., Chabot, H. F., & Carlsmith, K. M. (1997). Chapter 2 org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
Conation, affect, and cognition in personality. In G. Matthews Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-
(Ed.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 124, pp. 31–63). https:// regulated learning components of classroom academic per-
doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(97)80119-7. formance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning: Vol. Cambridge https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
University Press. Cambridge University Press. Pons, F., Rosnay, M. D., & Cuisinier, F. (2011). Cognition and
Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & De Beni, R. (2014). What makes a emotion. In V. G. Aukrust (Ed.), Learning and cognition in
good student? How emotions, self-regulated learning, and education (pp. 78–84). Elsevier.
motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of Price, M. J., Mudrick, N. V., Taub, M., & Azevedo, R. (2018).
Educational Psychology, 106(1), 121–131. https://doi.org/10 The role of negative emotions and emotion regulation on
.1037/a0033546 self-regulated learning with MetaTutor. In R. Nkambou, R.
Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1996). Metacognition: Knowing Azevedo, & J. Vassileva (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems
about knowing. MIT Press. (pp. 170–179). Springer.
Moriña, A. (2019). The keys to learning for university students Putwain, D. W., Pekrun, R., Nicholson, L. J., Symes, W., Becker,
with disabilities: Motivation, emotion and faculty-student rela- S., & Marsh, H. W. (2018). Control-value appraisals, enjoy-
tionships. PLOS ONE, 14(5), Article e0215249. https://doi. ment, and boredom in mathematics: A longitudinal latent
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215249 interaction analysis. American Educational Research Journal,
Niculescu, A. C., Tempelaar, D., Dailey-Hebert, A., Segers, M., & 55(6), 1339–1368. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218786689
Gijselaers, W. (2015). Exploring the Antecedents of Learning- Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-
Related Emotions and Their Relations with Achievement regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfac-
Outcomes. Frontline Learning Research, 3(1), 1–17. tion in college-level online courses. American Journal of
Ohtani, K., & Hisasaka, T. (2018). Beyond intelligence: A meta- Distance Education, 22(2), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1080
analytic review of the relationship among metacognition, /08923640802039024
intelligence, and academic performance. Metacognition and Quesada-Pallarès, C., Sánchez-Martí, A., Ciraso-Calí, A., &
Learning, 13(2), 179–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409- Pineda-Herrero, P. (2019). Online vs. classroom learning:
018-9183-8 Examining motivational and self-regulated learning strategies
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emo- among vocational education and training students. Frontiers in
tions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02795
12 SAGE Open

Ramirez-Arellano, A., Acosta-Gonzaga, E., Bory-Reyes, J., & Trigueros, R., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., Lopez-Liria, R., Cangas, A. J.,
Hernández-Simón, L. M. (2018). Factors affecting student González, J. J., & Álvarez, J. F. (2020). The role of percep-
learning performance: A causal model in higher blended tion of support in the classroom on the students’ motivation
education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), and emotions: The impact on metacognition strategies and
807–815. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12289 academic performance in math and English classes. Frontiers
Ramirez-Arellano, A., Bory-Reyes, J., & Hernández-Simón, in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02794
L. M. (2018). Emotions, motivation, cognitive–metacog- Tze, V. M. C., Daniels, L. M., & Klassen, R. M. (2016). Evaluating
nitive strategies, and behavior as predictors of learning the relationship between boredom and academic outcomes:
performance in blended learning. Journal of Educational A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1),
Computing Research, 57(2), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1177 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9301-y
/0735633117753935 Tze, V. M. C., Klassen, R. M., & Daniels, L. M. (2014). Patterns of
Ranellucci, J., Hall, N. C., & Goetz, T. (2015). Achievement boredom and its relationship with perceived autonomy support
goals, emotions, learning, and performance: A process model. and engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3),
Motivation Science, 1(2), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.001
mot0000014 Ulstad, S. O., Halvari, H., Sørebø, Ø., & Deci, E. L. (2018).
Schumacher, C., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). The importance of Motivational predictors of learning strategies, participation,
students’ motivational dispositions for designing learning exertion, and performance in physical education: A random-
analytics. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), ized controlled trial. Motivation and Emotion, 42(4), 497–512.
599–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9188-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9694-2
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Lombaerts, K., Philipsen, B., &
in education: Theory, research, and applications (3rd ed.). Tondeur, J. (2018). Students’ motivation and subjective task
Merrill Prentice Hall. value of participating in online and blended learning environ-
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). ments. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 33–40. https://
Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.002
motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Pynoo, B., Thomas, V., Lombaerts,
100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840 K., & Tondeur, J. (2019). An in-depth analysis of adult stu-
Stark, L., Malkmus, E., Stark, R., Brünken, R., & Park, B. (2018). dents in blended environments: Do they regulate their learning
Learning-related emotions in multimedia learning: An appli- in an “old school” way? Computers & Education, 128, 75–87.
cation of control-value theory. Learning and Instruction, 58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.008
42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.003 Varasteh, H., Ghanizadeh, A., & Akbari, O. (2016). The role of task
Stegers-Jager, K. M., Cohen-Schotanus, J., & Themmen, A. P. N. value, effort-regulation, and ambiguity tolerance in predicting
(2012). Motivation, learning strategies, participation and medi- EFL learners’ test anxiety, learning strategies, and language
cal school performance. Medical Education, 46(7), 678–688. achievement. Psychological Studies, 61(1), 2–12. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04284.x org/10.1007/s12646-015-0351-5
Stewart, G., Seifert, T. A., & Rolheiser, C. (2015). Anxiety and self- Vernadakis, N., Giannousi, M., Derri, V., Michalopoulos, M., &
efficacy’s relationship with undergraduate students’ percep- Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2012). The impact of blended and tradi-
tions of the use of metacognitive writing strategies. Canadian tional instruction in students’ performance. Procedia Technology,
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1). 1, 439–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.02.098
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2015.1.4 Zhang, Y., Lin, C.-H., Zhang, D., & Choi, Y. (2017). Motivation,
Sun, Z., Xie, K., & Anderman, L. H. (2018). The role of self-reg- strategy, and English as a foreign language vocabulary learn-
ulated learning in students’ success in flipped undergraduate ing: A structural equation modelling study. British Journal of
math courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 41–53. Educational Psychology, 87(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.003 bjep.12135

You might also like