Ju Inter 4

British Educational Research Journal

Vol.
2011,38,iFirst
No. 2, April 2012,
Article, 1–19 pp. 219–237

Influence of student learning experience

on academic performance: the mediator
and moderator effects of self-regulation
and motivation
Hoi Kwan Ning* and Kevin Downing
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
British
10.1080/01411926.2010.538468
CBER_A_538468.sgm
0141-1926
Original
Taylor
02010
00
Dr
[email protected]
000002010
Hoi &
and
Education
KwanNing
Article
Francis
(print)/1469-3518
FrancisResearch Journal
(online)
This study examined the mediator and moderator roles of self-regulation and motivation con-
structs in the relationship between learning experience and academic success. Self-reported
measures of learning experience, self-regulation and motivation were obtained from 384 under-
graduate students from a university in Hong Kong. Structural equation modelling indicated that
self-regulation and motivation fully mediated the learning experience—academic performance
relation. In addition, hierarchical regression analysis also showed that both self-regulation and
motivation had small moderating effects on the link between learning experience and academic
performance. That is, the association between learning experience and cumulative GPA was
stronger for students with lower levels of self-regulation and motivation. The implications of
fostering motivation and enhancing university learning experience are discussed.
Introduction
A large body of existing literature has established the importance of the learning
experience/environment factor in influencing student learning and achievement.
Contemporary research based on the student approaches to learning (SAL) frame-
work suggest that students’ adoption of deep (meaningful learning) or surface (rote
learning) approaches is contingent on their experience with regard to their interac-
tion with the teaching and learning environment—in that it plays a mediator role in
predicting academic performance (Kember & Leung, 1998; Lizzio et al., 2002;
Diseth, 2007; Diseth et al., 2010).
*Corresponding author. Institutional Analysis Group, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee
Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/12/020219-19

© 2012 British Educational Research Association
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.538468
14693518, 2012, 2, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/01411926.2010.538468 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [03/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2
220 H. K. Ning and K. Downing
Psychologists and educators have long realised the significance of self-regulation

and motivation in explaining academic achievement (Corno, 1989; Zimmerman,
2001; Pintrich, 2004). A review of literature revealed that effective studying
requires not only that the student possesses knowledge of appropriate study skills,
but also a positive attitude towards learning, together with substantial motivation
and self-regulation (Reason et al., 2006; Crede & Kuncel, 2008; Roeser & Peck,
2009). Whilst the SAL framework provides solid foundation for the better under-
standing of student behaviour, the combination of motives and strategies into
distinct approaches (e.g. surface versus deep approaches) does not recognise the
possibility that students can flexibly apply different types of motives and strategies
to adapt to the learning environment (Pintrich, 2004). In contrast, the self-regu-
lated learning (SRL) framework characterised by specific cognitive, motivational
and behavioural constructs (Zimmerman, 2008) offers an all-round perspective of
the learning process.
Research on the relationship between learning experience and student behaviour
provides insights for educators to identify aspects of the curriculum and learning envi-
ronment that may be improved to generate more desirable student outcomes. Whilst
past research has demonstrated the significance of learning experience on influencing
students’ adoption of different approaches to learning (e.g. Richardson, 2006;
Diseth, 2007; Diseth et al., 2010; Webster et al., 2009), few attempts have been made
to examine its specific impact on the distinct components of motivation and self-regu-
lation (e.g. Remedios & Lieberman, 2008) or the relative importance of these
constructs as predictors of academic performance. Hence, the main objective of the
current study is to address these gaps in the existing literature.
Learning experience and student approaches to learning

Students’ learning experience can be defined as their interaction with the teaching
and learning environment and hence their study behaviour is contingent on their
learning experience in response to situational demands in relation to the learning
context (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Entwistle et al., 2003; Biggs & Tang, 2007). The
Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ: Ramsden, 1991) is a widely used instru-
ment to assess students’ learning experience and satisfaction. The CEQ assesses
different aspects of student learning experience at the level of the whole course or
programme and comprises the following scales: quality of teaching, clear goals and
standards, workload, assessment methods and study skills.
Previous work that has examined the influence of learning experience on study
behaviour was mostly based on the SAL framework derived from phenomenological
studies using naturalistic experiments and qualitative interviews with students
(Marton & Saljo, 1976a, 1976b; Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981; Biggs, 1987, 2001).
The SAL perspective conceptualises learning as a composition of motives and strate-
gies that characterise deep (meaningful learning) and surface (rote learning)
approaches to learning. The most popular SAL-oriented instruments include the
current and preceding versions of the Study Processes Questionnaire (SPQ: Biggs,
Student learning experience and academic performance 3
221
1987) and the Revised Approaches to Study Inventory (RASI: Entwistle & Tait,
1995).
Ramsden’s (1992) study based on Biggs’ SPQ and the CEQ revealed that
students tended to adopt surface approaches when the workload was perceived as
too heavy and when the course assessment encouraged reproductive learning rather
than genuine comprehension of concepts and ideas. Watkins’ (2001) study, which
included both secondary and tertiary students from Hong Kong, also reported that
students’ adoption of surface learning approaches were related to inappropriate
workload and assessment, whilst good teaching quality was linked to students’
adoption of deep approaches to learning. Previous work by Richardson (2003)
found that students CEQ scores were positively correlated with their adoption of
deep and strategic approaches to learning and negatively correlated with their adop-
tion of surface approach, as measured by the RASI. It was also found that students’
scores on the individual CEQ and RASI scales shared 80% of the variance. Diseth’s
(2007) study based on the CEQ and Entwistle’s Approaches and Study Skills Inven-
tory for Students (ASSIST) provided moderate support to a model in which course
experience predicted students’ approaches to learning, which in turn predicted
exam performance. It was found that appropriateness of workload contributed inde-
pendently to the prediction of examination grades, together with students’ use of
surface and strategic learning approaches. In contrast, a study by Webster et al.
(2009), based on university students from Hong Kong, demonstrated that students’
perception of good teaching was linked to both surface and deep approaches to
learning. The authors interpreted this finding from the perspective of Chinese learn-
ers and suggested that previous qualitative studies have also shown that Chinese
students tended to utilise memorisation of new information as the first step of learn-
ing and that this first step could enhance subsequent deep understanding of the
content (Kember & Gow, 1991; Kember et al., 2007). Irrespective of the conflicting
conclusions from previous studies, convincing evidence was provided in support of
the argument that learning experience is a major determinant of student learning
behaviour.
Self-regulation, motivation and achievement goals

The main purpose of this study is to examine how student learning experience influ-
ences self-regulation, motivation and academic performance. Social cognitive theo-
rists (Boekaerts, 1997; Winne & Perry, 2000; Zimmerman, 2001, 2008; Wolters,
2003; Pintrich, 2004; Boekaerts & Corno, 2005) characterised self-regulation as
competence in monitoring and regulating one’s learning via the use of a variety of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies, including goal setting and planning, organis-
ing and transforming information and monitoring understanding etc. (Zimmerman,
2008). Unlike the SAL framework, which combines motives and strategies into
distinct approaches, the SRL viewpoint derived from mainstream cognitive, metacog-
nitive and motivational theories (Pintrich, 2000; Boekaerts & Corno, 2005) explains
the learning process by a model of interplay between distinct cognitive, behavioural,
4
motivational, as well as social contextual factors (Pintrich, 2004). In this sense, the
SRL framework offers a much richer but more specific description of study motives
and strategies than the SAL model.
Over the years motivational theorists offered various perspectives of motivation,
which have led to the different operationalisation of this construct. The self-
determination theory (SDT: Deci et al., 1991) distinguishes between different types
of motivation based on different goal orientations that give rise to an action. The most
basic distinction is between intrinsic motivation, which refers to doing something out
of inherent interest, and extrinsic motivation, which refers to doing something
because it leads to a separable/external outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The theory of
achievement goals, on the other hand, focuses on the purposes or reasons an individ-
ual is pursuing an achievement task and the standard or criteria that are used to judge
performance (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000). Goal theorists (Elliot, 1997; Harack-
iewicz et al., 1997; Molden & Dweck, 2000) suggested that individuals are motivated
either by mastery goals or performance goals. Students who are mastery-oriented
focus on becoming proficient in a task via development of knowledge, skill and under-
standing relative to their own previous performance, whilst performance-oriented
students focus on demonstrating competence through comparison with others
(Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000).
Not totally unlike in nature, both achievement goal and self-determination theories
emphasise on the broad distinction between ‘learning for the sake of acquiring knowl-
edge’ (mastery goal orientation or intrinsic motivation) and ‘learning for the sake of
obtaining good grades’ (a performance goal or extrinsic motivation). Both viewpoints
are grounded in social cognitive theories that emphasise the role of social factors as
predictors of achievement-related behaviour. Self-determination theory focuses on
the impact of social environment factors on motivation via the variables of compe-
tence, autonomy and relatedness (Muller et al., 2006); achievement goal theory, on
the other hand, focuses on the interaction of task perception and dispositional goals
in influencing cognition, affect and behaviour (Ntoumanis, 2001).
Learning and Study Strategies Inventory, self-regulation and motivation

In the past several decades a number of instruments were developed under the self-
regulated learning framework. For example, the widely used Learning and Study
Strategies Inventory (LASSI: Weinstein & Palmer, 2002) is an 80-item self-report
inventory, which assess student motivation and self-regulatory behaviour, as
measured by various scales including the use of self-testing strategies and study aids,
information processing, time management and concentration etc (Zimmerman,
2008).
In terms of the motivational aspect of self-regulated learning, the items in the
LASSI motivation scale assess students’ diligence and willingness to exert the effort
necessary to successfully complete academic requirements (Weinstein & Palmer,
2002). Although the motivation construct is non-theory specific, items such as ‘Even
when I don’t like a course, I work hard to get a good grade’ and ‘I set goals for the
223
grades I want to get in my classes’ appear to be conceptually linked to performance-

oriented goals and extrinsic motivation (Braten & Olaussen, 2000). Moreover, the
LASSI attitude scale with items such as ‘I am able to study subjects I do not find
interesting’ and ‘I do not care if I finish college as long as I have a good time’ (reversed
scale) also appear to assess students’ attitudes towards academic success and achieve-
ment. Students who score high on the motivation and attitude scales tend to view
university education as important and understand how academic success is related to
their future life goals.
The conceptual model framework

This present study aims to extend current literature by examining how learning expe-
rience/environment interact with student motivation and self-regulation to predict
academic performance. Whilst available research has demonstrated that learning
experience/environment influence students’ approaches to learning and academic
performance (e.g. Diseth et al., 2010), research regarding its specific impact on
student motivation and self-regulation is relatively rare (e.g. Remedios & Lieberman,
2008). Based on previous empirical evidence, we hypothesise that motivation and self-
regulation will have a mediating effect on the relationship between learning experience
and academic performance. That is, we postulate that student motivation and self-
regulation could potentially explain (or account for) the influence of learning experi-
ence on academic performance. From a conceptual standpoint, one might also expect
that students with high levels of motivation and self-regulation to perform well
academically regardless of situational constraints in the learning environment (e.g.
Talib et al., 2009). It is thus reasonable to hypothesise that the learning experience
factor plays a stronger role in predicting academic performance for students with lower
levels of self-regulation and motivation than for highly motivated and self-regulated
learners. In other words, student motivation and self-regulation could potentially
serve as moderators that alter the strength of association between learning experience
and academic performance. Specifically, this study examines the constructs of self-
regulation and motivation as both intervening mediator and moderator variables in
the learning experience—academic achievement relation.
According to James and Brett (1984), a particular variable may function both as a
mediator and as a moderator in the same model. In the mediator scenario one can
differentiate between a full and a partial mediation model (James & Brett, 1984).
Partial mediation occurs when the effect from the independent variable to the depen-
dent variable is reduced in absolute size (but still differ significantly from zero) in the
presence of mediator variable(s). Full mediation occurs when the independent vari-
able no longer affects the dependent variable in the presence of mediator variable(s).
Since the full mediation model is the most parsimonious, it is generally taken as the
theoretical baseline model against which to evaluate the fit of target models (James
et al., 2006). Previous research which examined the impact of learning experience on
students’ approaches to learning and academic performance have indicated that the
direct relationship between learning experience and examination grade disappeared
6
when controlling for the effect of SAL (Diseth, 2007). This empirical evidence
provides the basis for the postulation of an a priori full mediation model in which the
mediators (self-regulation and motivation) fully account for the total effect of learning
experience on academic performance. In the context of this study, we hypothesise that
learning experience exerts influence on academic performance strictly via the media-
tion of students’ self-regulation and motivation. The reader is referred to recent meth-
odological articles that advocate a priori specification of hypotheses for meditation
analysis (James et al., 2006; Mathieu & Taylor, 2006; Wood et al., 2008).
In the moderator scenario, a variable is regarded as a moderator if it affects the
nature of the relationship between two other variables, but without necessarily
being correlated with either of them. James and Brett (1984) provided the follow-
ing definition of a moderator: ‘a variable Z is a moderator if the relationship
between two (or more) other variables, say X and Y, is a function of the level of Z’
(p. 310). In this study we also hypothesise that the strength of association between
learning experience and academic performance vary for differing levels of motiva-
tion and self-regulation. Specifically, we postulate that the association between
learning experience and academic performance is stronger as self-regulation and
motivation decrease.
Methods
Participants and procedure
The participants were 384 final-year undergraduate students (161 males, 223
females) from a university in Hong Kong, with an age range from 22 to 24 years (M
= 22.14, SD = .97). All participants belonged to the same cohort and were all enrolled
in the same undergraduate programme. They were invited to complete the question-
naires prior to their final year degree examinations. The measures were administered
during regular class sessions coordinated with help from lecturers. Students were
briefed on the nature of the questionnaires and confidentiality was confirmed. They
were allowed as much time as they needed to complete the questionnaires, typically
requiring 35 to 45 minutes. Only for the purpose of this study, students A-level score
and cumulative GPA were also obtained from institutional records.
Materials
Learning experience
The CEQ was adapted to assess students’ undergraduate learning experience, with
the wordings of the items in the questionnaire slightly modified. The CEQ consists
of 24 items measuring five aspects of learning experience, including Good Teaching—
six items (e.g., ‘The teaching staff worked hard to make their subjects interesting’);
Clear Goals and Standards—four items (e.g., ‘The staff made it clear right from the
start what they expected from students’); Appropriate Workload—six items (e.g., ‘I
was generally given enough time to understand the things I had to learn’); Appropriate
225
Assessment—four items (e.g., ‘The assessment methods of the courses in this

programme required an in-depth understanding of the course content’); and Generic
Skills—six items (e.g., ‘As a results of my programme, I feel confident about tackling
unfamiliar problems’). The students were instructed to rate the 24 items based on
their perception of the undergraduate programme as a whole (not with reference to,
for example, any particular lecturer or course), on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Self-regulation and motivation

We assessed students’ self-regulation by means of seven scales from the LASSI. Each
of the LASSI scales consists of eight items and students gave a response to each item
on a Likert-type scale, from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me). The seven
scales are as follows: Time Management (e.g., ‘I find it hard to stick to a study sched-
ule’); Self-Testing (e.g., ‘I review my notes before the next class’); Study Aids (e.g.,
‘My underlining is helpful when I review text material’); Information Processing
(e.g., ‘I translate what I am studying into my own words’); Selecting Main Ideas (e.g.,
‘I have difficulty identifying the important points in my reading’); Test Strategies
(e.g., ‘I have trouble understanding exactly what a test question is asking’); and
Concentration (e.g., ‘I concentrate fully when studying’).
Student motivation was examined using the attitude and motivation scales of the
LASSI, with the following sample items for Attitude (e.g., ‘I am able to study subjects
I do not find interesting’) and Motivation (e.g., ‘I set goals for the grades I want to
get in my classes’).
Prior and current academic performance

In order to control for prior academic aptitude, which may influence students’ learn-
ing experience, motivation, self-regulation and academic performance, we were able
to obtain their entry A-level scores from institutional records. In Hong Kong,
students’ academic ability for university admission is assessed by A-level exam results.
A-level scores are calculated on a ‘point’ basis with two A-level subjects or one A-level
subject plus two Advanced-supplementary (AS) level subjects being counted. For
A-level subjects, grade A = 10 points, B = 8 points, C = 6 points, D = 4 points and
E = 2 points, whilst for AS level subjects, grade A = 5 points, B = 4 points, C = 3
points, D = 2 points and E = 1 point. Thus, the maximum score for each student is
20 points. We consider that, for the purposes of this study, the A-level score is a
reasonable measure of students’ prior academic achievement.
The measure of students’ current academic performance is based on their final
cumulative GPA, which constitutes their average grade attained in all courses
completed during their study. It is expressed as a numeric value based on the follow-
ing scale: A+ = 4.3, A = 4, A− = 3.7, B+ = 3.3, B = 3, B− = 2.7, C+ = 2.3, C = 2,
C− = 1.7, D = 1 and F = 0. Although this scale is ordinal and uneven, its skewness
and kurtosis of −.48 and .40 are less than the stringent criterion of |1|, which is a
8
common rule-of-thumb for normality (Kline, 2005). Thus, we deem that for the
purpose of this study cumulative GPA is a justifiable measure of students’ academic
success at university.
Results
Descriptive statistics (Cronbach’s alphas, means, standard deviations, intercorrela-
tions) of the manifest CEQ and LASSI scales, A-level score and cumulative GPA are
shown in Table 1. Results indicated that all scales have high reliability (Cronbach’s
alpha ranging from .74 to .92) and the bivariate correlations between all measured
variables exhibited the expected positive directions.
Prior to examining mediator effects, confirmatory factor analyses were performed
to assess the validity of the measurement models, i.e., the reliability of the CEQ scales
in measuring learning experience and the LASSI scales in measuring self-regulation
and motivation. After the validity of the measurement models have been established,
structural equation modelling was used to test the hypothesised mediator model with
multiple intervening constructs. Lastly, the postulated moderator effects of motiva-
tion and self-regulation were assessed using hierarchical regression analysis.
Models that fit the data well are associated with small, insignificant chi-square
statistics. As the significance of the chi-square goodness-of-fit test is sensitive to the
sample size (often significant for large sample size, see Bentler & Bonett, 1980),
several model fit indices were considered in addition to the chi-square test. The four
indices reported here are the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI: > .90 = acceptable fit, > .95
= excellent fit) (Tucker & Lewis, 1973), the comparative fit index (CFI: > .90 =
acceptable fit, > .95 = excellent fit) (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Bentler, 1990), the root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA: < .08 = acceptable fit, < .05 = excel-
lent fit) (Brown & Cudeck, 1992) and the standardised root mean square residual
(SRMR: < .08 = acceptable fit, < .05 = excellent fit) (Bollen, 1989).
Measurement models
Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the two-factor model (with the two latent
constructs of motivation and self-regulation) describing the LASSI scales has satis-
factory fit statistics (χ2[25] = 50.08, p < .05, TLI = .98, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .040,
SRMR = .037). Confirmatory factor analysis of the 24 items in the CEQ also
supported the five-factor solution originally proposed, comprising the five scales of
Clear Goals and Standards, Appropriate Workload, Appropriate Assessment, Good
Teaching and Generic Skills. We then examined a measurement model in which all
five CEQ scales were evaluated simultaneously. Results suggested that this model fits
the data reasonably well (χ2[5] = 16.15, p < .05, TLI = .97, CFI = .98, RMSEA =
.051, SRMR = .040).
The structural model that combines the expected relations is presented in
Figure 1. This model fits the data well (χ2[96] = 241.23, p < .001, TLI = .96, CFI
= .96, RMSEA = .052, SRMR = .043) with all LASSI and CEQ scales loaded
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, reliabilities) and intercorrelations among the variables included in the study
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Learning experience
1. Appropriate workload –
2. Clear goals and standards .17 ** –
3. Appropriate assessment .22 *** .25 *** –
4. Good teaching .23 *** .54 *** .32 *** –
5. Generic skills .20 ** .42 *** .39 *** .40 *** –
Motivation
6. Attitude .19 ** .28 *** .29 *** .42 *** .36 *** –
7. Motivation .21 ** .26 *** .24 *** .47 *** .39 *** .83 *** –
Self-regulation
8. Concentration .12 .30 *** .25 *** .35 *** .30 *** .48 *** .45 *** –
9. Time management .28 *** .28 *** .17 ** .32 *** .37 *** .29 *** .32 *** .26 *** –
10. Self-testing .15 * .31 *** .22 *** .31 *** .31 *** .50 *** .48 *** .35 *** .22 ** –
11. Study aids .20 ** .22 *** .19 ** .22 *** .26 *** .34 *** .30 *** .33 *** .21 ** .27 *** –
12. Information processing .11 .27 *** .29 *** .24 *** .32 *** .28 *** .33 *** .39 *** .18 ** .41 *** .35 *** –
13. Selecting main ideas .09 .33 *** .20 ** .34 *** .34 *** .31 *** .29 *** .37 *** .17 ** .43 *** .39 *** .46 *** –
14. Test strategies .10 .35 *** .24 *** .31 *** .35 *** .40 *** .37 *** .29 *** .20 ** .37 *** .31 *** .38 *** .70 *** –
15. Prior academic achievement .12 .20 ** .16 * .26 *** .27 *** .38 *** .32 *** .25 *** .27 *** .30 *** .21 ** .32 *** .38 *** .31 *** –
16. Current academic performance .19 ** .31 *** .27 *** .34 *** .28 *** .69 *** .65 *** .50 *** .44 *** .57 *** .39 *** .42 *** .45 *** .48 *** .45 *** –
Mean 3.03 3.29 3.12 3.37 3.46 2.32 2.54 3.51 3.34 3.48 3.29 3.61 3.40 3.57 12.77 3.02
SD 0.84 0.76 0.83 0.80 0.75 0.85 0.92 1.07 1.01 0.99 0.97 1.12 0.94 1.08 2.10 0.43
Cronbach’s Alpha 0.77 0.85 0.74 0.92 0.87 0.90 0.89 0.81 0.76 0.82 0.82 0.89 0.83 0.90
Notes: *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05.

Student learning experience and academic performance
227
9
10
strongly onto their respective latent constructs. Overall, the whole model accounted
for 67% of the variance in cumulative GPA. The proportion of variance explained in
the self-regulation and motivation constructs are also presented in Figure 1, along
with all the standardised path coefficients.
Figure 1. Structural model with standardised coefficients
Past research has demonstrated that the causal direction between learning experi-
ence and SAL may be converse (e.g., Kember & Leung, 1998; Richardson, 2006).
Since both learning experience and LASSI measures were collected after the end of
the programme, it is possible that other structural models may exist that also fit the
data. With this in mind, we examined an alternative model with reversed causal
ordering between learning experience, self-regulation and motivation. We fitted a
model with paths leading from self-regulation and motivation to learning experience
and from learning experience to academic performance. Confirmatory factor analysis
showed that the fit of this model was inadequate (χ2[96] = 350.73, p < .001, TLI =
.90, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .083, SRMR = .122). Therefore, the mediator and
moderator analyses described in the remaining sections were based on the original
hypothesised model as depicted in Figure 1.
Self-regulation and motivation as mediators of learning experience on academic performance

Structural equation modelling was used to examine whether the relationship
between learning experience and academic performance was actually mediated by
self-regulation and motivation. Following the guidelines from James et al. (2006) and
Wood et al. (2008), we assessed the hypothesised full mediation model based on the
following conditions: (1) the independent variable X (learning experience) has direct
Figure 1. Structural model with standardised coefficients

Note: All paths were significant at p < .001, with the exception of the direct path from learning
experience to current academic performance
229
effect on the mediators M (i.e. self-regulation and motivation); (2) the mediators
have direct effects on the dependent variable Y (academic performance); (3) the
inclusion of the independent variable adds nothing to the prediction of the depen-
dent variable over that already explained by the mediators (R2y.mx is not significantly
greater than R2y.m); and (4) the mediators add uniquely to the prediction of the
dependent variable in relation to the independent variable (R2y.mx is significantly
greater than R2y.x).
By examining the path coefficients in Figure 1, one can see that, after controlling
for prior academic achievement, learning experience was found to exert significant
and positive influence on both self-regulation (β = .44, p < .001) and motivation (β =
.30, p < .001) (Condition 1), which were both significantly predictive of cumulative
GPA (Motivation: β = .41, p < .001; Self-Regulation: β = .51, p < .001) (Condition
2). With regards to Condition 3, the structural model with the exclusion of the learn-
ing experience construct accounted for 65% of the variance in cumulative GPA. Since
the whole model accounted for 68% of the variance in cumulative GPA, these results
indicated that the inclusion of the independent variable (learning experience) did not
contribute much to the prediction of the dependent variable (CGPA) over that
already explained by the mediators (self-regulation and motivation). Statistically, chi-
square difference test for nested models indicated that R2y.mx = .68 was not signifi-
cantly greater than R2y.m = .65 (∆χ2[56] = 54.01, p > .05), implying the satisfaction
of Condition 3. In relation to Condition 4, learning experience alone was found to
account for 13% of the variance in cumulative GPA. Together with the inclusion of
prior academic achievement 28% of the total variance in cumulative GPA was
accounted for (R2y.x = .28). The inclusion of the two mediator constructs in the
model significantly increased the proportion of variance explained in cumulative GPA
(R2y.mx = .68, ∆χ2[27] = 220.09, p < .05), which demonstrated the satisfaction of
Condition 4. Taken together, the impact of learning experience upon academic
performance was shown to be fully mediated by both self-regulation and motivation.
Self-regulation and motivation as moderators of learning experience on academic

performance
In order to examine the moderator effects of self-regulation and motivation on the
relationship between learning experience and academic performance, we
conducted hierarchical regression analysis with cumulative GPA as the dependent
variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Learning experience, self-regulation and motiva-
tion were computed as summed variables of the respective CEQ and LASSI scales.
The three predictor variables were standardised to avoid problems associated with
multicollinearity (Frazier et al., 2004).
In the hierarchical regression model, the order of entry was as follows. After
controlling for previous academic achievement in block 1 of the hierarchical regres-
sion model, learning experience was entered in block 2 to test for the main effect.
The self-regulation variable was added in block 3 together with its interaction with
learning experience, followed by the addition of motivation and its interaction with
12
learning experience in block 4. Significant moderator effect is indicated by a signif-

icant interaction term (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Results of the hierarchical regression analysis are presented in Table 2. After
controlling for prior academic achievement, significant and positive main effects
were detected for all three constructs of learning experience (β = .17, p < .001), self-
regulation, (β = .34, p < .001) and motivation (β = .29, p < .001) in predicting
academic performance. The significant interaction of learning experience and moti-
vation (β = −.11, p < .05) provided support to our hypothesis that motivation
moderates the effects of learning experience on academic performance. The interac-
tion between learning experience and self-regulation was also statistically significant
(β = −.12, p < .05), providing support for the hypothesised moderator effect of self-
regulation on learning experience.
To analyse the moderation effects in more detail, additional simple slope analyses
were conducted to visualise the strength of the linear relationship between learning
experience and cumulative GPA across high and low-levels of motivation and self-
regulation (computed as +1 and −1 standard deviations from the mean) (Aiken &
West, 1991). These additional analyses supported the significant moderator effects of
both constructs in the relationship between learning experience and academic perfor-
mance. As illustrated in Figure 2a, the positive relationship between learning experi-
ence and cumulative GPA appeared stronger for those individuals who reported
lower levels of motivation than those with high-levels (i.e., the slope for those with
lower levels of motivation showed a steeper gradient). Lifor self-regulation, Figure 2b
also showed that the positive relationship between learning experience and cumula-
tive GPA is stronger for those individuals who reported lower levels, rather than
higher levels of self-regulation. This is consistent with our hypothesis that the positive
effect of learning experience on academic performance is stronger for students with
Table 2. Hierarchical regressions of cumulative GPA predictors
Standardised coefficients
Predictor variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Step 1
Previous academic achievement 0.45 *** 0.41 *** 0.20 *** 0.18 ***
Step 2
Learning experience 0.25 *** 0.19 *** 0.17 **
Step 3
Self-regulation 0.53 *** 0.34 ***
Learning experience x self-regulation −0.26 *** −0.12 *
Step 4
Motivation 0.29 ***
Learning experience x motivation −0.11 *
R2 0.20 0.26 0.61 0.66
R2 Change 0.06 *** 0.36 *** 0.05 ***
Notes: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

231
Figure (2a) Motivation and (2b) Self-regulation as moderators of the effect of learning experience
on academic performance
lower levels of motivation and self-regulation than that for highly motivated and self-
regulated learners.
Figure (2a) Motivation and (2b) Self-regulation as moderators of the effect of learning experience on academic performance
Discussion
Building on past research, which has suggested links between learning experience and
academic achievement via students’ approaches to learning (Lizzio et al., 2002;
Diseth, 2007; Diseth et al., 2010), this study extends the current literature by explor-
ing the potential roles of self-regulation and motivation as intervening variables
(mediators and moderators) in the learning experience—academic performance rela-
tion. We were interested in assessing the interaction and relative contribution of these
factors in explaining academic performance.
Structural model analysis confirmed the postulation regarding the mediator roles
of self-regulation and motivation in the relationship between learning experience and
academic performance. As hypothesised, learning experience did not exert direct
influence on academic performance, but instead via full mediation of students’ moti-
vation and self-regulation. Specifically, this finding suggests that if self-regulation
and motivation can be enhanced in those students who rated their learning experi-
ences negatively, their academic performance may also improve. In addition to the
mediator effects, this study also provided new insights into our current understand-
ing of the influence of learning experience on academic achievement via the analysis
of moderator effects. Our findings provided support for the moderator function of
self-regulation and motivation in the association between learning experience and
academic achievement. The moderated effects of learning experience on cumulative
GPA suggested that learning experience had a stronger influence on cumulative
GPA when students’ self-regulation and motivation were low. This finding implies
that whilst all students gain from good learning experience (in terms of cumulative
GPA), its influence on academic performance was stronger for those with lower
levels of self-regulation and motivation reported.
14
Regarding the implications of the present work, the findings from this study are
particularly relevant to advancing research in curriculum design in the higher educa-
tion setting. Our results suggest that learning experience factors (including teaching
quality, clear goals and standards, appropriate workload and assessment and generic
skills development) affect student motivation and self-regulation, which in turn influ-
ence academic performance (i.e., the mediator effects). Since past research has
repeatedly demonstrated that student motivation, attitude and self-regulation can be
learned or enhanced through educational interventions (King, 1991; Letteri, 1992;
Weinstein, 1994a, 1994b; Hanley, 1995), it might be worthwhile for teachers to
incorporate such activities into the standard curriculum to bolster positive study
behaviour. In terms of obtaining good grades, our findings also suggest that students
with lower levels of motivation and self-regulation are more dependent on the exter-
nal learning environment (experience) than their highly motivated and self-regulated
counterparts (i.e. the moderator effects). Such awareness can allow educators to
incorporate appropriate strategies into the existing curricula to enhance student expe-
rience and promote epistemological development. From a practical standpoint, we
suggest that educators should focus on the promotion of constructivist learning envi-
ronments to enhance student motivation and encourage self-regulatory behaviour
(e.g., Muller et al., 2006; Downing et al., 2009). The adoption of a student-centred
approach to learning and teaching, which emphasises the involvement of the student
in terms of negotiating the setting of workload and assessment tasks, is also likely to
exert a positive influence on students’ affective and cognitive domains, in addition to
their perceptions of the learning environment.
There are some limitations to this study that should be noted. Firstly, as the current
study is based on students enrolled in a single undergraduate programme at a univer-
sity in Hong Kong, the results may not be generalisable to all university students.
Secondly, since only a small proportion of the variance in self-regulation (35%) and
motivation (17%) were explained by our hypothesised structural model, this implies
that other than prior academic achievement and learning experience, other factors
(not examined in this study) may contribute to students’ self-regulation and motiva-
tion reported. Literature in motivation and goal theory suggests that competence-
related feedback influences students’ goal adoption, motivation and self-regulatory
behaviour (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000; Molden & Dweck, 2000). In the current
study we cannot rule out that other factors, such as mid-course performance or teach-
ers’ feedback in class, could have affected students’ motivation and self-regulation
measured at the end of the programme. In addition, much research has shown that
self-efficacy beliefs influence students’ academic motivation and aspirations,
academic goal persistence, learning and achievements etc. (Schunk, 1995; Pajares,
1996; Alfassi, 2003). Future research needs to address these potential factors and
possibly other social-contextual variables (e.g., parental education, socio-economic
status), which have all been shown to influence academic motivation and self-
regulation (e.g., Salili & Lai, 2003; Downing et al., 2007).
The current study focused on one type of motivation as measured by the LASSI.
Although this motivation construct is non-theory specific, its constituent items seem
233
to depict a construct which resembles performance-oriented goals and extrinsic types

of motivation. Whilst traditional motivational researchers view learning that is an
outcome of intrinsic motivation as superior and more desirable than learning that is
fostered through extrinsic motivation (Hidi, 2000), most contemporary researchers
acknowledge that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, in many real-world settings,
frequently coexist and may exert simultaneous positive influences on behaviour
(Lepper & Henderlong, 2000; Covington & Mueller, 2001). Whilst it wasn’t explic-
itly examined in the current study, it is reasonable to argue that learning experience
could very likely exert similar influence on students’ intrinsic motivation towards
learning. It would therefore be very worthwhile that future studies incorporate both
intrinsic (mastery-oriented) and extrinsic (performance-oriented) motivation
constructs in a unified model and examine their relative contribution in the link
between learning experience and academic achievement.
Finally, recent arguments for a reciprocal relation between learning experience and
motivation or study approach constructs have been put forward. As suggested by
Richardson (2006), the causal direction between learning experience and students’
approaches to learning may be reciprocal in nature. In other words, one might expect
students’ prior study approach to exert impact on their learning experience and, in
turn, influence later study approach and academic performance. This assertion found
some support from a recent study (Remedios & Lieberman, 2008), which examined
the influence of students’ pre-course expectations and achievement goals etc. on their
course evaluation ratings (course experience). Their findings revealed that students
with a mastery goal orientation (a motivational measure) were more likely to look
forward to the course and this contributed to positive course evaluation (but the effect
was small). Although in this study we have examined an alternative structural model
in which self-regulation and motivation were modeled as antecedents of learning
experience, the current study design precludes longitudinal inferences regarding the
bi-directional reciprocal ordering of observed associations between learning experi-
ence, self-regulation and motivation in influencing academic performance. Thus,
proper panel studies with multiple measurements of learning experience, self-
regulation and other motivational constructs are needed to investigate and pinpoint
their precise temporal and causal relations.
Despite these limitations, results from the present study do offer significant new
insights and extend our existing knowledge in this emerging area of student learning.
The present findings add to the body of research by documenting the precise interac-
tions between learning experience and student motivation and self-regulation in
predicting academic achievement. Since our findings provide convincing evidence
regarding the importance of both learning experience and study behaviour in predict-
ing university academic success, educators need to pay attention to these two
dynamic aspects of student learning from the pedagogical and instructional design
perspectives. Furthermore, continuous monitoring of student learning experience,
possibly via the use of appropriate teaching and coursework feedback assessments or
focus group studies, is also encouraged in the review of programme design and
teaching practices.
16
References
Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions (Thousand
Oaks, CA, Sage).
Alfassi, M. (2003) Promoting the will and skill of students at academic risk: an evaluation of an
instructional design geared to foster achievement, self-efficacy and motivation, Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 30(1), 28–40.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho-
logical research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Bulletin, 107(2),
238–246.
Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, D. G. (1980) Significant tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of cova-
riance structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
Biggs, J. B (1987) The study process questionnaire (SPQ): manual (Hawthorn, VIC, Australian
Council for Educational Research).
Biggs, J. B. (2001) The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F, British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
Biggs, J. B. & Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd edn) (Maidenhead,
UK, McGraw-Hill Education).
Boekaerts, M. (1997) Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers, policy
makers, educators, teachers and students, Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186.
Boekaerts, M. & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment
and intervention, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 199–231.
Bollen, K. A. (1989) Structural equations with latent variables (New York, John Wiley & Sons).
Braten, I. & Olaussen, B. S. (2000) Motivation in college: understanding Norwegian college
students’ performance on the LASSI motivation subscale and their beliefs about academic
motivation, Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 177–187.
Brown, M. & Cudeck, R. (1992) Alternative ways of assessing model fit, Sociological Methods and
Research, 21, 230–258.
Corno, L. (1989) Self-regulated learning: a volitional analysis, in: B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.
Schunk (Eds) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theory, research, and practice
(New York, Springer-Verlag), 111–142.
Covington, M. & Mueller, K. J. (2001) Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation: an approach/avoid-
ance reformulation, Educational Psychology Review, 13, 157–176.
Crede, M. & Kuncel, N. R. (2008) Study habits, skills and attitudes: the third pillar supporting
collegiate academic performance, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 425–453.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G. & Ryan, R. M. (1991) Motivation and education: the
self-determination perspective, Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346.
Diseth, A. (2007) Approaches to learning, course experience and examination grade among
undergraduate psychology students: testing of mediator effects and construct validity, Studies
in Higher Education, 32(3), 373–388.
Diseth, A., Pallesen, S., Brunborg, G. S. & Larsen, S. (2010) Academic achievement among first
semester undergraduate psychology students: the role of course experience, effort, motives
and learning strategies, Higher Education, 59, 335–352.
Downing, K., Ho, R., Shin, K., Vrijmoed, L. & Wong, E. (2007) Metacognitive development and
moving away, Educational Studies, 33(1), 1–13.
Downing, K., Kwong, T., Chan, S., Lam, I. & Downing, W. -K. (2009) Problem-based learning
and the development of metacognition, Higher Education, 57(5), 609–621.
Elliot, A. (1997) Integrating the ‘classic’ and ‘contemporary’ approaches to achievement motiva-
tion: a hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation, in: M. L.
235
Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds) Advances in motivation and achievement (vol. 10) (Greenwich,
CT, JAI Press), 143–179.
Entwistle, N. J., McCune, V. & Hounsell, J. (2003) Investigating ways of enhancing university
teaching-learning environments: measuring students’ approaches to studying and perceptions
of teaching, in: E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. J. Entwistle & J. van Merrienboer (Eds) Powerful
learning environments: unravelling basic components and dimensions (Oxford, UK, Elsevier
Science), 89–108.
Entwistle, N. J. & Tait, H. (1995) The revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (Edinburgh, Centre
for Research into Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh).
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P. & Baron, K. E. (2004) Testing moderator and mediator effects in coun-
seling psychology research, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.
Hanley, G. L. (1995) Teaching critical thinking: focusing on metacognitive skills and problem
solving, Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 68–72.
Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K. E., Carter, S., Lehto, A. & Elliot, A. (1997) Predictors and conse-
quences of achievement goals in the college classroom: maintaining interest and making the
grade, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284–1295.
Harackiewicz, J. & Sansone, C. (2000) Rewarding competence: the importance of goals in the
study of intrinsic motivation, in: C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds) Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation (London, Academic Press), 79–103.
Hidi, S. (2000) An interesting researcher’s perspective: the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors
on motivation, in: C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
(London, Academic Press), 309–339.
James, L. R. & Brett, J. M. (1984) Mediators, moderators and tests for mediation, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 307–321.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A. & Brett, J. M. (2006) A tale of two methods, Organizational Research
Methods, 9, 233–244.
Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1991) A challenge to the anecdotal stereotype of the Asian students,
Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 117–128.
Kember, D. & Leung, D. Y. P. (1998) Influences upon students’ perceptions of workload,
Educational Psychology, 18, 293–307.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P. & Ma, R. S. F. (2007) Characterizing learning environments capable
of nurturing generic capabilities in higher education, Research in Higher Education, 16, 117–128.
King, A. (1991) Improving lecture comprehension: effects of a metacognitive strategy, Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331–346.
Kline, R. B. (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd edn) (New York,
Guilford Press).
Lepper, M. R. & Henderlong, J. (2000) Turning ‘play’ into ‘work’ and ‘work’ into ‘play’:
twenty-five years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, in: C. Sansone & J. M.
Harackiewicz (Eds) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (London, Academic Press), 257–307.
Letteri, C. A. (1992) Diagnosing and augmenting basic cognitive skills, in: J. W. Keefe & H. J.
Walbert (Eds) Teaching for thinking (Reston, VA, National Association of Secondary
Principals), 59–71.
Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2000) Multiple pathways to learning and achievement: the
role of goal orientation in fostering adaptive motivation, affect and cognition, in: C. Sansone
& J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (London, Academic Press),
195–227.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K. & Simons, R. (2002) University students’ perceptions of the learning envi-
ronment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice, Studies in Higher
Education, 27(1), 27–52.
Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976a) On qualitative differences in learning: II – outcome and process,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
18
Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976b) On qualitative differences in learning: II – outcome as a func-

tion of the learner’s conception of the task, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46,
115–127.
Mathieu, J. E. & Taylor, S. R. (2006) Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational
type inferences in organizational behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031–1056.
Molden, D. C. & Dweck, C. S. (2000) Meaning and motivation, in: C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz
(Eds) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (London, Academic Press), 131–159.
Muller, F. H., Palekcic, M., Beck, M. & Wanninger, S. (2006) Personality, motives and learning
environment as predictors of self-determined learning motivation, Review of Psychology, 13(2),
75–86.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001) Empirical links between achievement goal theory and self-determination
theory in sport, Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 397–409.
Pajares, F. (1996) Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings, Review of Educational Research, 66,
543–578.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000) The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning, in: M. Boekaerts &
P. R. Pintrich (Eds) Handbook of self-regulation (San Diego, CA, Academic Press), 13–39.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004) A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning
in college students, Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher
education (Philadelphia, PA, Open University Press).
Ramsden, P. (1991) A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the Course
Experience Questionnaire, Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129–150.
Ramsden, P. (1992) Learning to teach in higher education (London, Routledge).
Ramsden, P. & Entwistle, N. J. (1981) Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches
to studying, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(3), 368–383.
Reason, R. D., Terenzini, P. T. & Domingo, R. J. (2006) First things first: developing academic
competence in the first year of college, Research in Higher Education, 47, 149–175.
Remedios, R. & Lieberman, D. A. (2008) I liked your course because you taught me well: the
influence of grades, workload, expectations and goals on students’ evaluations of teaching,
British Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 91–115.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2003) Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in a short
web-based course, British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 433–442.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2006) Investigating the relationship between variations in students’ percep-
tions of their academic environment and variations in study behavior in distance education,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 867–893.
Roeser, R. W. & Peck, S. C. (2009) An education in awareness: self, motivation and self-regulated
learning in contemplative perspective, Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 119–136.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new
directions, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Salili, F. & Lai, M. K. (2003) Learning and motivation of Chinese students in Hong Kong: a
longitudinal study of contextual influences on student’ achievement orientation and perfor-
mance, Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 51–70.
Schunk, D. H. (1995) Self-efficacy and education and instruction, in: J. E. Maddux (Ed) Self-
efficacy, adaptation and adjustment: theory, research and application (New York, Plenum
Press), 281–303.
Talib, O., Luan, W. S., Azhar, S. C. & Abdullah, N. (2009) Uncovering Malaysian students’ moti-
vation to learning science, European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 266–276.
Tucker, L. R. & Lewis, C. (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis,
Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.
Watkins, D. (2001) Correlates of approaches to learning: a cross-cultural meta-analysis, in: R.
Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds) Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (Mahwah, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum), 165–195.
237
Webster, B. J., Chan, W. S. C., Prosser, M. T. & Watkins, D. A. (2009) Undergraduates’ learning
experience and learning process: quantitative evidence from the East, Higher Education, 58,
375–386.
Weinstein, C. E. (1994a) Strategic learning/strategic teaching: flip sides of a coin, in: P. R.
Pintrich, D. R. Brown & C. E. Weinstein (Eds) Student motivation, cognition and learning (New
Jersey, Erlbaum), 257–273.
Weinstein, C. E. (1994b) Students at risk for academic failure: learning to learn classes, in: K.W.
Pritchard & R.M. Sawyer (Eds) Handbook of college teaching (Westport, CT, Greenwood
Press), 375–385.
Weinstein, C. E. & Palmer, D. R. (2002) LASSI user’s manual (2nd edn) (Clearwater, FL, H & H
Publishing).
Winne, P. H. & Perry, N. E. (2000) Measuring self-regulated learning, in: M. Boekaerts, P.
Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds) Handbook of self-regulation (San Diego, CA, Academic Press),
531–566.
Wolters, C. A. (2003) Regulation of motivation: evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-
regulated learning, Educational Psychologist, 38, 189–205.
Wood, R. E., Goodman, J. S., Beckmann, N. & Cook, A. (2008) Mediation testing in management
research, Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 270–295.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001) Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an over-
view and analysis, in: B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds) Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: theoretical perspectives (2nd edn) (Mahwah, New Jersey Erlbaum), 1–38.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008) Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background,
methodological developments and future prospects, American Educational Research Journal,
45(1), 166–183.

Ju Inter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ju Inter 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ju Inter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

British Educational Research Journal

Influence of student learning experience

ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/12/020219-19

Psychologists and educators have long realised the significance of self-regulation

Learning experience and student approaches to learning

Self-regulation, motivation and achievement goals

Learning and Study Strategies Inventory, self-regulation and motivation

grades I want to get in my classes’ appear to be conceptually linked to performance-

The conceptual model framework

Assessment—four items (e.g., ‘The assessment methods of the courses in this

Self-regulation and motivation

Prior and current academic performance

Notes: *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05.

Self-regulation and motivation as mediators of learning experience on academic performance

Figure 1. Structural model with standardised coefficients

Self-regulation and motivation as moderators of learning experience on academic

learning experience in block 4. Significant moderator effect is indicated by a signif-

Table 2. Hierarchical regressions of cumulative GPA predictors

Predictor variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Notes: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

to depict a construct which resembles performance-oriented goals and extrinsic types

Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976b) On qualitative differences in learning: II – outcome as a func-

You might also like

Notes: * p < .001; p < .01; * p < .05.

Notes: * p < .05; p < .01; * p < .001.