Abstract
AbstractIn student-centric learning environments, such as blended learning, students’ metacognitive self-regulation is required to plan, monitor, and control their learning processes and achieve positive learning outcomes. The lack of metacognitive self-regulation may lead students to encounter difficulties that, eventually, affect their learning perceptions. Therefore, understanding how to drive students' metacognitive self-regulation is essential to delivering an effective blended learning process that supports students' learning perceptions. This study examines the structural relationships between academic self-efficacy, student–student interaction, student–lecturer interaction, metacognitive self-regulation (including planning, monitoring, and regulating), and perceived learning using structural equation modeling. The data were collected from 1675 undergraduate students who experienced blended learning at Egyptian universities. The findings revealed that academic self-efficacy, student–student interaction, and student–lecturer interaction have significant direct effects on the planning, monitoring, and regulating dimensions of metacognitive self-regulation. Furthermore, metacognitive self-regulation dimensions not only influence perceived learning but also mediate the effects of academic self-efficacy, student–student interaction, and student–lecturer interaction on perceived learning, except for monitoring, which has an insignificant mediation effect on the relationship between student–student interaction and perceived learning. The findings of this study may help researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders gain deep insights regarding how to promote tertiary students’ metacognitive self-regulation and learning perceptions during the blended learning experience.
Funder
Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Education
Reference83 articles.
1. Afifi, G. M. H. (2011). E-learning as an alternative strategy for tourism higher education in Egypt. Quality Assurance in Education, 19(4), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881111170078
2. Alavi, M., Marakas, G. M., & Yoo, Y. (2002). A comparative study of distributed learning environments on learning outcomes. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.4.404.72
3. 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
4. Anthonysamy, L., Koo, A.-C., & Hew, S.-H. (2020). Self-regulated learning strategies and non-academic outcomes in higher education blended learning environments: A one decade review. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3677–3704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10134-2
5. Artino, A. R. (2007). Online military training: Using a social cognitive view of motivation and self-regulation to understand students’ satisfaction, perceived learning, and choice. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 191–202.