Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10134-2

Self-regulated learning strategies and non-academic

outcomes in higher education blended learning
environments: A one decade review

Lilian Anthonysamy 1 & Ah-Choo Koo 2 & Soon-Hin Hew 2

Received: 30 September 2019 / Accepted: 6 February 2020/ Published online: 19 February 2020
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Although university students use their digital devices for almost everything, current
studies shows that students have difficulties with digital learning because they lack in
self-regulated skills which in return lead to low performance. Self-regulated learning
strategies (SRLS) are used assist students to learn efficiently. While many researchers
have investigated SRLS towards academic outcomes such as grades, little is known
about the use of SRLS towards non-academic outcomes that are also essential to assist
university students’ learning progression. Hence, there is a need to understand how best
to utilise SRLS to drive positive non-academic outcomes in digital learning within a
blended learning environment. The systematic review methodology follows PRISMA
guidelines to explore the current literature. Different sources were searched using
predefined search items. A total of 239 retrievals were found which were screened
for duplication. A closer screening was done on the abstracts and titles of 239 papers
after duplication removal. 28 full text papers were evaluated for eligibility. Finally, 14
papers were then selected for the review. Most of the papers included in the review
were peer-reviewed articles published in social science and educational journals. List of
self-regulated learning strategies and non-academic outcomes used in a blended learn-
ing environment in higher education institutions were identified. Majority of the 14
reviewed papers investigated metacognitive knowledge, resource management and
motivational belief strategies towards learning performance whereas cognitive engage-
ment strategies was the least researched. Results revealed that generally, SRLS posi-
tively correlate with non-academic outcomes. At the end of the review, research gap
and the future direction are presented.

Keywords Self-regulatedlearningstrategies . Self-regulated learning . Learningstrategies .

Blended learning . University . Higher education . Learning performance . Non-academic
outcome

* Lilian Anthonysamy
lilian.anthonysamy@mmu.edu.my

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

3678 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

1 Introduction

Digital technology is the catalyst for transformation in education in this twenty-first

century. Due to the rapid and continuing innovation in educational technology in this
digital era, blended learning is confidently emerging. Blended learning is a term that
describes traditional classroom learning and online learning as methods to create a
student-centered, self-paced and flexible approach to student learning (Tang & Chaw,
2016). In other words, blended learning describes a partially digital environment in
which conventional face to face classes are supported by offline or online activities
conducted via computer technologies (Anthonysamy, Ah-Choo, and Soon-Hin, 2019).
Digital learning is any instructional practice that effectively uses technology to support
the learning experience of students. Since the inception of digital learning in 1999
(Sivaranjani and Prakash, 2014), the education system has become more solid by
providing students with technology for thorough understanding and acquisition of
knowledge. In this growing digital age, students may rely on a social cognitive
presence developed by Bandura (1986) who suggest that the method of learning
through social influence helps in different learning environments. Technology has
made it possible to adapt to this learning pedagogy. Digital learning approach provides
flexibility, higher engagement and learning convenience as students are able to learn
with technologies anytime, anywhere. To sum it up, digital learning puts control in the
hand of students. They can control what they wish to learn and when.
In spite of these benefits, success in the blended learning environment relies on
learner’s control of digital learning processes. It has been noted that students’ learning
processes are one of the challenges in the blended learning environment (Boelens, De
Wever and Voet, 2017) and more attention should be paid to increasing learner control
because digital learning brings more challenges to university students as it demands for
a higher student engagement and self-regulated learning (Zhu, Au and Yates, 2016).
Likewise, based on the World Economic Forum’s Future of Job Survey Report (2018),
active learning and teaching approaches are among 2022’s trend abilities where it has
been reported that one of the challenges confronted by learners in this twenty-first
century is not only about what they learn but how they learn. Hence, to keep pace in
this dynamic digital environment, the current generation of students are in need of
quality education where learning strategies are being developed and mastered. Litera-
ture revealed that one of the key predictors to academic success lies in the capability of
an individual in managing their own learning progression.
Self-regulated learning is the active process in which students play a major role in
mastering their own learning process. Self-regulated learning strategies (SRLS) are
used to assist students to learn efficiently. Example of SRLS are rehearsal, elaboration,
organisation, time management, peer learning, effort regulation, monitoring, and so
forth which involves the use of cognition, metacognition, motivation, environmental,
and behaviourial components derived from social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986).
Self-regulation is evidently one of the most vital competencies for the twenty-first
century and has been noted as an evident key to success (OECD, 2013a, 2013b).
Acquiring self-regulation skills in digital learning is absolutely a necessity because
undergraduates are expected to possess self-management skills in pursuing their aca-
demic goals independently. Many researchers affirmed that in order to excel and be
more effective in digital learning, students need to equip themselves with self-
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704 3679

regulation abilities (Greene et al., 2018; Kizilcec, Pérez-Sanagustín, and Maldonado,

2017; Phillips et al., 2015). Also, previous research had clearly revealed that students
performed better online with the use of self-regulated learning strategies as opposed to
those who did not (Sedigheh, Rashid, & Reza, 2012; Haron et al., 2015). Likewise,
literature has shown that SRLS plays a role in distinguishing high scorers from low
scorers based on their academic tasks which is focused on understanding, instead of
acquisition (Greene et al., 2018). Studies reported a positive relationship between self-
regulated learning strategies and non-academic outcomes (Cho, Kim & Choi, 2017;
Broadbent & Poon, 2015; Cho & Shen, 2013; Li, Ye, Tang, Zhou, & Hu, 2018).
Furthermore, a positive attitude learning may lead to positive student outcomes
(Boelens, De Wever, & Voet, 2017). Literature have also reported that self-regulated
learning strategies does contribute to higher student engagement (Pellas, 2014). There-
fore, students need to self-regulate their learning because they are expected to engage
actively in the online learning process (Phillips et al., 2015). Self-regulated learning is a
significant predictor to academic and non-academic outcomes (Haron, Harun, Ali,
Salim, & Hussain, 2015).
Academic performance is the measurement of student achievement across various
academic subjects measured by objective measures such as Grade Point Average
(GPA), examination results, or final course grades (Honicke & Broadbent, 2016;
Yang, Quadir, Chen, & Miao, 2016; Vo, Zhu, & Diep, 2017). On the other hand,
learning performance is defined as a permanent change in behaviour of students’
understanding and abilities that support long-term retention and transfer of knowledge
(Soderstrom & Bjork, 2015) measured through non-academic outcomes. Non-
academic outcomes is a measure to quantify students’ overall attitude towards learning
using subjective measures such as student satisfaction, student engagement and attitude
towards learning (Yang, Quadir, Chen, & Miao, 2016; Vo, Zhu, & Diep, 2017; Li, Ye,
Tang, Zhou, & Hu, 2018). Researcher Anderson (2009) suggests that external and
internal assessments are integral in measuring non-academic outcomes. External as-
sessment are teacher-centered and internal are student-centered. For example, self-
reflection is an example of internal assessment which is a strategy to support student
learning growth and understanding of the learning area. This will enable students to
have a sense of student learning achievement. Besides that, observation of student
responses or behaviour is an example of external assessment.
While the student performance in a blended learning setting is measured by
both academic and non-academic measures, literature affirmed that using academ-
ic measures alone may not give a full picture of students’ performance(Bowyer,
2017) and it is often regarded as a short term fluctuation of change in students’
behaviour that might create an illusion of competence (Soderstrom & Bjork,
2015). In addition to that, academic measures alone may also not reflect quality
learning that lead students to obtain knowledge to be used in real situations (Biggs
and Tang, 2011). Although digital learning have beneficial effects on non-
academic outcomes (Li, Ye, Tang, Zhou, & Hu, 2018), literature have shown that
many students are not self-regulated learners. Thus, they are less motivated as they
do not have the ability to use learning strategies to assist them in the learning
progression (Cho & Heron, 2015). Example of failure in non-academic outcomes
includes having negative attitudes towards learning (Milligan & Littlejohn, 2016)
and not being able to accomplish task as expected (Barnard et al., 2009).
3680 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

While many researchers have investigated SRLS towards academic outcomes such
as course grades, grade point average and final course marks (Broadbent & Poon,
2015), little is known about the use of SRLS towards non-academic outcomes in digital
learning within a blended learning environment in higher education that are essential to
assist university students’ learning progression (Li, Ye, Tang, Zhou, & Hu, 2018).
Examining how SRLS can enhance students’ learning performance in the context of
non-academic measures in a blended learning environment are needed (Zhu, Au, and
Yates, 2016; Yamada et al. 2016). Moreover, how SRLS can assist students become
better online learners are lagging behind (Wandler and Imbriale, 2017). This study
intends to answer two questions: ‘What self-regulated learning strategies are required
for digital learning in a blended learning environment?’ and ‘How does self-regulated
learning strategies drive positive non-academic outcomes within a blended learning
environment among undergraduates?’ It is believed that the explicit reporting of
description on SRLS and factors such as participants and learning setting will help
researchers further understand the different learning strategies used to assess non-
academic outcomes. Thus, the use of self-regulated learning strategies towards non-
academic outcomes warrants a systematic review.

2 Methods

This review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews
and Meta Analyses) guidelines for systematic reviews (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, &
Altman, 2009). PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in
systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA systematic process comprises of the
following four stages: (1) Identification (2) Screening (3) Eligibility and (4) Included
(see Fig. 3). Identification stage involves identifying articles through database search
and other sources. Screening stage finds duplicates articles and remove them. The
eligibility stage indicates the number of articles that will be assessed and excluded.
Finally, the included stage shows the remaining articles that will be included in the
analysis after subtracting the excluded articles. The PRISMA guidelines assist re-
searchers to identify, extract and synthesize evidence in a systematic review. This will
also enable authors to have an improved understanding of the reporting guidelines of
different study designs (Turner et al., 2012). Simply put, PRISMA was developed to
improve the transparency and completeness of the reporting of systematic reviews.
Improved reporting can lead to better judgement and decision making based systematic
review outcome. PRISMA focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized
trials and evaluations of interventions research (Moher et al., 2009). As such, this study
is looking at the intervention of self-regulated learning strategies towards non-academic
outcomes in digital learning within a blended learning environment.
This study searched studies related to self-regulated learning strategies towards
non-academic outcomes from different databases such as Science Direct, Springer-
Link, Emerald Insight and ERIC. Time and access are the two criteria that justify
the choice of the four databases. Besides that, the databases were selected based
on the reference list in the included papers and numerous papers published over
the last 10 years related to self-regulated learning strategies and non-academic
outcomes in blended learning environments. Furthermore, the chosen databases
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704 3681

has published numerous peer-reviewed articles in social science and educational

journals. The determination of keywords is based on the research goal and
objective. Keywords enable a study to narrow down the search criteria in order
to achieve the research aim. The aim of this review is twofold: Firstly, to identify
what are the self-regulated learning strategies used in digital learning within a
blended learning context in higher education and to delve deeper into the literature
to explore any research gap(s). Secondly, to understand how self-regulated learn-
ing strategies (SRLS) can be utilised effectively in digital learning in order to
achieve non-academic outcomes in higher education institutions. The search
criteria from the literature includes the keywords shown in Table 1. The search
was performed in August 2019. Papers were eligible for review if they have
fulfilled the inclusion criteria (see Fig. 1). On the other hand, papers were
excluded if they did not fulfil the criteria listed in Fig. 2. Figures 1 and 2
summarizes the criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of papers for the review.

2.1 Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria was mainly guided by the PICOS approach (participants,
interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design) (Liberati et al., 2009).
Hence, the retrieved papers explored undergraduates’ use of SRLS in digital
learning within a blended learning environment in higher education settings
towards non-academic outcomes through quantitative, qualitative or mixed meth-
od approach. Papers focused on the impact of SRLS on academic outcomes were
excluded. Blended learning environment which comprises of a partially digital
environment in which conventional face to face classes are supported by online
activities conducted via blended learning software are studied. Hence, studies
involving a fully traditional classroom learning, a wholly digital environment
(e.g MOOC) and a distance learning environment (e,g distance learning/educa-
tion) were excluded. Studies can involve the use of one or more self-regulated
learning strategies. Respondents from universities, colleges or university-college
were included in this review. Respondents can be of any gender, age, or pursuing
any type of course/subject/programme as this review is not focused on the
demographic aspects but students’ learning processes in digital learning. Full-
time undergraduates were selected because blended learning are usually exten-
sively carried out in higher education institutions than in schools. Studies where
respondents were not classified as higher education students were excluded in
this study. Since the term online learning or digital learning has only been in
existence since 1999 (Sivaranjani and Prakash, 2014), therefore papers were
restricted to peer reviewed English language journal papers published within
year 1999 to 2019. Conference papers, other oral presentations, reports, book
reviews, book chapters and synopsis were excluded from this review. Articles
before the year 1999 were excluded because the use of digital learning was
hardly introduced before these dates. Besides that, considering how Information,
communications and technology have evolved and their use in digital learning in
the last years, it seems reasonable to restrict the search to the last 10 years. This
study also considered papers that employed quantitative, qualitative or mixed
method research design.
3682 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

Table 1 Search terms

1. effort regulation
2. Self-regulated learning strategies
3. self-regulated learning
4. cognitive engagement
5. rehearsal
6. elaboration
7. organisation
8. critical thinking
9. metacognitive knowledge
10. planning
11. monitoring
12. regulating
13. resource management
14. time and study environment
15. peer learning
16. help seeking
17. motivational beliefs
18. self-efficacy
19. task value beliefs
20. goal orientation
21. or/1–20
AND
22. online learning
23. blended learning
24. online blended learning
25. e-learning
26. partial digital learning environment
27. digital learning
28. or/22–27
AND
29. higher education
30.tertiary education
31. higher learning institution
32. or/ 29–31
AND
33. university students
34. undergraduate
35. or / 33–34
AND
36. learning performance
37. non-academic outcomes
38. subjective outcomes
39. perceived learning outcomes
40. Social interaction
41. Student engagement
42. Student satisfaction
43. Or/36–42
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704 3683

Peer-reviewed journal papers

Published between year 1999- 2019

Use of SRL Strategies in digital learning within a

blended learning environment in Higher Education
Inclusion
Non-academic outcome as endogenous
variable(s)

SRL Strategies as
exogenous variable(s)

Respondents are
undergraduates

Fig. 1 Inclusion criteria for the systematic review

2.2 Selection process and results

Following the PRISMA Flow diagram in Fig. 3, after searching from databases with the
given search terms found in Table 1, a total of 239 papers were obtained in the
Identification Stage. In the screening stage, a reference software (Mendeley) was used
to remove duplicates, where no duplicates were found. Subsequently, only the titles and
abstracts of the 239 papers were examined to see if they fulfil the inclusion criteria in
Fig. 1. Records that did not fulfil the inclusion criteria were excluded and the total
number was noted in the flow diagram in Fig. 3 (n = 211). Next stage is eligibility. The
number of full text articles for eligibility was obtained by subtracting records excluded

Conference papers, book reviews, book chapters,

synopsis, books and dissertations

No SRL Strategies investigated

Exclusion Conceptual papers

Any other types of students (e.g school

students)

Academic outcome as endogenous

variable(s)

Fig. 2 Exclusion criteria for the systematic review

3684 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

Identification

Records identified through database search

Stage

(n =239)

Records after duplicates removed

(n = 239)
Screening
Stage

Records screening of title Records excluded for not

and abstracts meeting inclusion criteria in
(n = 239) Figure 2
(n = 211)
Eligibility
Stage

Potential full-text articles Full-text articles excluded,

assessed for eligibility with reasons:
(n =28) 1 had no statistical
information
8 did not involve SRLS
2 investigated academic
outcomes as endogenous
variables
2 did not investigate SRLS
Included
Stage

Studies included in the as exogenous variables

systematic review (Refer to 1 investigated a fully online
Table 3) course
(n = 14) (Refer to Table 4)
(n = 14)

Fig. 3 Flow diagram of papers included in review based on PRISMA

from records screened. In this eligibility stage, there were 28 articles to be fully
examined. Each article was fully scrutinized by reading every page to examine whether
they fulfil the inclusion criteria which is the use of SRLS in digital learning within a
blended learning environment in higher education settings towards non-academic
outcomes such as perceived learning outcome, student interaction, and student engage-
ment and student satisfaction (see Fig. 1). If any papers did not fulfil any of the
inclusion criteria, it will be excluded from the review. The reason for exclusions is
tabled in Table 4. There were fourteen full text articles that did not fulfil the inclusion
criteria and were excluded (n = 14). Total articles excluded and reasons of exclusion
were included in Table 4 and Fig. 3 respectively. In the final Included Stage, the
number of studies in final synthesis was obtained by subtracting the full text articles
excluded with full-text article assessed. Hence, 14 papers were finally eligible for
review fulfilling all the inclusion criteria of this study. All final reviewed papers
examined the application of SRL strategies by students who enrolled themselves in a
blended course where the outcome variable was based non-academic outcomes. Hence,
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704 3685

the final papers were searched for SRL Strategies, Non- academic outcome(s), Meth-
odology and Findings (see Table 3).

3 Descriptive findings

3.1 Description of included papers

Fourteen papers were selected for review due to its fulfilment of the inclusion criteria in
Fig. 1. Figure 3 shows the flow diagram of the selection process based on PRISMA
guidelines. A full list of included papers (n = 14) and excluded papers (n = 14) with
reasons of exclusions are found in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The information
presented include the title of paper, aim of study, SRL Strategies, non-academic
outcome, methodology, and findings. The fourteen papers selected for the systematic
review are described by country, methodology and non-academic outcomes. Final
papers were summarized by countries in order to have a bird’s eye view on how this
type of review research fair across countries (see Table 2). Three papers were from
China, followed by United States, Thailand, Korea and Japan with two papers each.
There was one paper from Austria, Italy and Greece each. All in all, there was one
paper published in year 2005 and another in year 2010. The remaining papers were
published consecutively from year 2012 to 2019. This could indicate the rising
importance of digital learning towards non-academic outcomes in recent years. Vast
majority of papers fall in the Asian region, followed by European Union and Northern
America.

3.2 Summary of methodology of the reviewed papers

Eleven studies had adopted a quantitative research design (Chang, 2005; Chen et al.,
2013; Dumford and Miller, 2018; Wichadee, 2018; Fanguy et al., 2018; Kuo et al.,
2013; Paechter and Maier, 2010; Pellas, 2014; Yamada et al., 2016; Tsai, 2014; Noh
and Kim, 2019), two studies adopted a qualitative research design (Cacciamani et al.,
2012; Goda et al., 2015), followed by one study on mixed method design (Mikum

Table 2 Source of Papers by Country

Country Frequency Percentage (%)

China 3 21%
Italy 1 7%
United States 2 14%
Thailand 2 14%
Korea 2 14%
Austria 1 7%
Greece 1 7%
Japan 2 14%
Total 14 100%
Table 3 Systematic Review table (Arranged by year)
No Author
1 Chang (2005)
2 Paechter & Maier (2010)
3 Cacciamani et al. (2012)
3686
Title Aim(s) of study SRL Strategies Non-Academic Methodology, Findings
Outcome sample size, Gender
Applying Self-Regulated to examine the effect of Motivational Beliefs Learning outcome, n = 28 (1st and 2nd year If students perceive task as
Learning Strategies in a self-regulated learning (Task Value beliefs, Student Engagement students) Gender important, they will be more
Web-Based strategies on learners’ self-efficacy) Re- measured as Interest. n = 2 M / 26 F Meth- interested (higher student
Instruction—An Investi- perception of motivation source Management odology: Question- engagement).
gation of Motivation within web-based in- (effort regulation) naire (MSLQ) When effort regulation is more,
Perception structions then students will achieve
better learning outcome.
Higher self-efficacy entails
higher confidence and ability
to perform a task and achieve
learning outcome.
Online or face-to-face? To obtain a comprehensive Resource management Perceived Learning n = 2196 Gender Interaction with the tutor
Students’ experiences view of students’ (peer learning, help Outcome (measured n = 1361 F/ 821 M / contributed positively to the
and preferences in experiences and seeking, time and as perceived 14 missing values satisfaction
e-learning preferences in e-learning study environment). achievements. Methodology: Quanti- Interaction with peer students
in Austria Peer learning is Student satisfaction tative (Questionnaire) contributed positively to the
measured Interaction satisfaction
with peer students. Motivation contributed
Help seeking negatively to the satisfaction.
measured as Self-regulated learning
interaction with the strategies (measured as
tutor. Time and study Individual learning
environment is processes) improves
measured as perceived learning outcome.
Individual learning
processes.
Motivational beliefs
Influence of participation, The goal of this study was Cognitive Engagement Cognitive Learning n = 67 Gender n = 13 Cognitive presence in students
facilitator styles, and to analyse the influence (Organization),- Outcome (measured M / 59F does contribute to a better
metacognitive reflection of different levels of Metacognitive as knowledge Methodology: Qualitative learning outcomes.
on knowledge building participation, facilitator Knowledge, Resource Building) High levels of participation, a
style, and metacognitive supportive facilitator style,
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704
Table 3 (continued)

No Author Title Aim(s) of study SRL Strategies Non-Academic Methodology, Findings

Outcome sample size, Gender

in online university reflection on the Management (Help and ample opportunities for
courses students’ Knowledge seeking) metacognitive reflection
Building activity. strategies are most conducive
for fostering learning
performance (epistemic
agency for knowledge
building).
4 Chen et al., 2013 What Drives a Successful To examine the Motivational Beliefs Learning outcome, n = 306 Gender n = NA Students with higher computer
Web-Based Language determinants of college (self-efficacy) Re- Student Satisfaction Methodology: self-efficacy will have higher
Learning Environment? students’ learning source Management Cross-sectional Sur- learning outcome and satis-
An Empirical Investiga- satisfaction in a (Study environment, vey faction.
tion of the Critical Fac- web-based language peer help, help seek- Interaction (Peer learning, help
tors Influencing College learning environment. ing) seeking, study environment)
Students’ Learning Sat- significantly influences
isfaction learning outcome and
satisfaction.
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

5 Kuo et al. (2013) A Predictive Study of This study investigated
Student Satisfaction in factors (i.e., Interaction,
Online Education Internet self-efficacy,
Programs self-regulation)
associated with student
satisfaction in online
learning settings.
Metacognitive Student satisfaction n = 108 Gender n = 83 F / Learner-instructor interaction
Knowledge (planning, 25 M (help seeking),
monitoring and Methodology: learner-content interaction
regulating) measured Quantitative (planning, monitoring and
as learner-content in- (Questionnaire) regulating), and Internet
teraction. self-efficacy were good pre-
Resource Management dictors of student satisfac-
(help seeking and peer tion.
learning). Help Interactions among students
seeking measured as (peer learning) and
learner-instructor in- self-regulated learning did
teraction. Peer learn- not contribute to student sat-
ing measured as inter- isfaction.
actions among stu-
dents.
Motivational beliefs
(technological
3687
Table 3 (continued)
3688

No Author Title Aim(s) of study SRL Strategies Non-Academic Methodology, Findings

Outcome sample size, Gender

self-efficacy) mea-
sured as Internet self--
efficacy.
6 Pellas(2014) The influence of computer to investigate and determine Technological Student Engagement n = 305 Gender n = 124F Metacognition positively
self-efficacy, empirically the role of self-efficacy (mea- (cognitive, / 181 M correlated with students’
metacognitive self-efficacy, sured as computer behavioural and Methodology: engagement.
self-regulation and meta-cognitive self reg- self-efficacy), meta- emotional) Quantitative Computer self-efficacy was a
self-esteem on student ulation and self-esteem cognition knowledge (Questionnaire) significant predictor of stu-
engagement in online in order to direct and (measured as dents’ engagement at the
learning programs: Evi- indirect these effects on metacognitive self-- correlation level.
dence from the virtual students’ engagement regulation) Self-efficacy and metacognitive
world of Second Life factors (cognitive, be- self-regulation were signifi-
havioral and affective) cant predictors of emotional
and cognitive engagement
factors, but negatively for the
behavioral.
7 Tsai(2014) Exploring the effects of To investigate applied Metacognition (planning, Learning performance n = 124 Gender n = 57 m Students who received the
online team based online team-based monitoring and / 67F intervention of
learning and learning (TBL) and regulating). Methodology: self-regulation learning strat-
co-regulated learning on co-regulation learning Resource management Quantitative egies significantly had better
students’ development (CRL) to improve stu- (peer learning, help (Experiment and computing skills than those
of computing skills dents’ learning perfor- seeking) questionnaire) without the intervention.
mance. Co-regulation improves
students’ learning in an
online learning environment.
8 Goda et al. (2015) Procrastination and other to describe definite learning Resource management Learning Outcomes n = 441 Gender n = 359 F Students with self-regulation
learning behavioral types in e-learning, (time management) / 82 M and metacognition can
types in e-learning and considering timing and measured as Methodology: achieve a timely submission.
their relationship with progress of learning, and procrastination. Longitudinal Study Students with high
learning outcomes to investigate the Motivational beliefs (learning logs) self-regulation and motiva-
relationships between (goal orientation) tion is better in achieving
these learning types and higher learning outcomes.
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704
Table 3 (continued)
No Author Title
9 Yamada et al. (2016) How does self-regulated
learning relate to active
procrastination and oth-
er learning behaviors?
10 Mikum et al. (2018) Students’ participation in
peer-to-peer communi-
cation supported by so-
cial media
11 Dumford & Miller (2018) Online learning in higher
education: exploring
advantages and
disadvantages for
engagement
12 Wichadee (2018) Significant predictors for To examine the
effectiveness of blended
Aim(s) of study SRL Strategies Non-Academic Methodology, Findings
Outcome sample size, Gender
the ultimate learning Goal orientation affects student
outcomes engagement.
to investigate the causal Motivational Beliefs Student engagement n = 183 Gender n = NA Self-regulated learning
overall relationships (self-efficacy), measured as timely Methodology: strategies does promote
between SRL factors, Cognitive submission. Quantitative timely submission of reports
procrastination, and Engagement (Questionnaire) (student engagement).
learning behaviours
such as learning
outcomes related to
timely submissions.
To examine the asking and Resource management Social Interactive n = 86 Gender n = 30 M / Instructor’s participation
answering questions (peer learning and Engagement 56 F motivated students’
between peers in a help seeking). Peer measured as Student Methodology: Mixed participation.
face-to-face learning is measured Participation. Method Motivation increases students’
computer-programming as Peer-to-peer com- (Questionnaire and engagement and interaction
course through social munication. Help Interviews) (measured as participation).
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704
media. seeking measured as
instructor’s
participation.Motivati-
onal beliefs
This study explores the Metacognitive Student Engagement n = 300,543 Gender Findings reported that the more
ways in which taking Knowledge n = 105,190 M / online courses taken by
courses through an (Regulating measured 195,353 F students, the more engaged
online medium impacts as reflection), Methodology: with the online activities.
student engagement Resource Quantitative Interaction and collaborative
Management (Help (Questionnaire) learning did not provide
Seeking measured as evidence of enhancing
interaction, Peer student engagement.
learning measured as
collaborative learning)
Resource Management Effectiveness n = 149 Gender n = 90 F / The more students had
effectiveness of blended (Help Seeking (measured as 59 /M face-to-face support, the
3689
Table 3 (continued)
3690

No Author Title Aim(s) of study SRL Strategies Non-Academic Methodology, Findings

Outcome sample size, Gender

learning in a language learning in two aspects: measured as face to learning Methodology: better their learning perfor-
course learning performance face support) performance and Quantitative mance and student satisfac-
and satisfaction satisfaction) (Questionnaire) tion (significant predictor of
learning performance).
Students with higher levels of
motivation are more likely to
engage in online classroom
activities.
13 Fanguy et al. (2018) The role of motivation in to understand what role Motivational Beliefs (goal Student Engagement n = 2434 Gender Students who have higher levels
the use of lecture motivation plays in orientation) n = 1241 F / 1193 M of motivation are more likely
behaviours in the online increasing the likelihood Methodology: to engage in digital learning.
classroom. that students engage in Quantitative SRL
lecture behaviours in Measure: Survey
general, and how (Questionnaire)
motivation affects the
differing types of lecture
behaviours.
14 Noh & Kim (2019) Effectiveness of a To evaluate the Resource management Student engagement, n = 91 Gender n = NA Groups who obtained blended
self-directed learning effectiveness of a (help seeking) Student satisfaction. Methodology: coaching showed a
program using blended self-directed learning measured as blended Quantitative significantly higher
coaching among nursing program using blended coaching (Experiment and competency.
students in clinical prac- coaching among nursing questionnaire) Blended coaching increased
tice: a students in clinical prac- engagement with online
quasi-experimental re- tice. activities.
search design Groups who received blended
coaching reported a higher
satisfaction compared to the
group who didn’t.
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704 3691

et al., 2018). In summary, the most used method to assess SRLS among students was
self-reported questionnaire.

3.3 Summary of outcome measures for reviewed papers

Out of the 14 papers reviewed, non-academic outcomes were defined in several

variables. Some studies used more than one non-academic outcome. Seven studies
used student engagement and interaction (Chang, 2005; Dumford and Miller, 2018;
Fanguy et al., 2018; Mikum et al., 2018; Pellas, 2014; Noh and Kim, 2019; Yamada
et al., 2016), five studies employed student satisfaction (Chen et al., 2013; Wichadee,
2018; Kuo et al., 2013; Paechter and Maier, 2010; Noh and Kim, 2019), four studies
used learning outcomes (Chen et al., 2013; Cacciamani et al., 2012; Paechter and
Maier, 2010; Goda et al., 2015) and two studies used learning performance (Wichadee,
2018; Tsai, 2014) as the non-academic outcomes.

4 SLR findings and discussion

The details of the final fourteen papers selected for the systematic review is presented in
Table 3.
The findings of the systematic literature review tabulated fourteen SRL strategies
that were narrowed down with the following search criteria: (1) SRLS (2) blended
learning (3) non-academic outcome(s) and (4) higher education. The fourteen SRLS
stemmed from Social Cognitive Theory are listed in Tables 4 and 5.
Based on Table 5, SRL strategies can be classified into four domains: (1) cognitive
engagement, (2) metacognitive knowledge, (3) resource management (Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons, 1986) and (4) motivational beliefs (Pintrich, 1999) which is shown in
Table 6.

4.1 Cognitive engagement

Cognitive engagement combines basic and complex strategies for acquiring knowl-
edge, retaining and retrieval of information. The four cognitive engagement strategies
are rehearsal (rehearsal strategies are best for simple tasks and activation of information
in working memory rather than acquiring new information in long term memory),
elaboration (elaboration refers to the ability to connect prior knowledge with new
information with the objective of remembering the new material), organisation (orga-
nisation refers to the ability of a learner to select the appropriate information and
organise their thoughts during a learning process) and critical thinking (critical thinking
refers to the ability of synthesizing and evaluating online material to make them more
meaningful and memorable). In Table 3, only two out of fourteen papers examined the
relationship between cognitive engagement domain and non-academic outcomes. Cog-
nitive engagement strategies that were found to be the least researched may indicate
that students might prefer face to face teaching for knowledge acquisition. Cacciamani
and associates revealed that cognitive presence especially organisation strategy which
relates to a learner’s capacity to select data and organise their thinking during a learning
process does contribute to a better learning outcome (Cacciamani et al., 2012). For
Table 4 Excluded Studies
No. Author
1 Chen et al. (2019)
2 Gá & Soldado (2014)
3 Galy, Downey, & Johnson (2011) The Effect of Using E-Learning Tools in Online and Campus-based Classrooms on
4 Joo, Joung, & Kim (2014)
5 Kew et al. (2018)
6 Lin(2018)
7 Yick et al. (2018)
8 Bernard et al. (2014)
9 Cheng et al. (2019)
10 Ertmer et al. (2011)
11 Lee et al. (2015)
12 Padgett et al. (2018)
13 Swanson(2018)
14 Zusho(2017)
3692
Paper Title Exclusion Reason
Using game-based negotiation mechanism to enhance students’ goal setting and regu- System instruments as exogenous variables.
lation
Self-assessment via a blended-learning strategy to improve performance in an ac- Doesn’t involve SRL Strategy
counting subject
Using Academic Outcome (measured as grades) as endogenous
Student Performance variables
Structural relationships among self-regulated learning, learning flow, satisfaction, and Fully online course
learning persistence in cyber universities
Examining the motivation level of students in e-learning in higher education institution Demographic profile of students as exogenous variables
in Thailand: A case study
Impacts of a flipped classroom with a smart learning diagnosis system on students’ Doesn’t involve SRL Strategy
learning performance, perception, and problem solving ability in a software
engineering course
Effectiveness of blended learning in the first year of fashion education Academic outcome (grades) as endogenous variables
A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the Doesn’t involve SRL Strategy
general to the applied
Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: a Doesn’t involve SRL Strategy
meta-analysis
Student-content interactions in online courses: the role of question prompts in Doesn’t involve SRL Strategy
facilitating higher-level engagement with course content
Autonomy Support for Online Students Doesn’t involve SRL Strategy
Engagement: what is it good for? The role of learner engagement in healthcare Doesn’t involve SRL Strategy
simulation contexts
Assessing the Effectiveness of the Use of Mobile Technology in a Collegiate Course: A Doesn’t involve SRL Strategy
Case Study in M-learning
Toward an Integrated Model of Student Learning in the College Classroom Conceptual paper
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704 3693

Table 5 Self-regulated learning strategies (SRLS)

No. Self-regulated learning Strategies

1 Rehearsal
2 Elaboration
3 Organization
4 Critical Thinking
5 Planning
6 Monitoring
7 Regulating
8 Time and Study Environment
9 Effort regulation
10 Peer learning
11 Help Seeking
12 Self-efficacy
13 Task value
14 Goal orientation

example, using organisation strategies involves a student outlining notes while learning
online, tabulating data to organise online information, generating concept mapping or
creating graphical data. Furthermore, Yamada and researchers reported that more
utilization of cognitive strategies in general promotes better student engagement
(Yamada et al., 2016). Elaboration strategies which include paraphrasing online mate-
rials to be learned, taking notes, reconnecting ideas, and explaining the ideas to another
individual is required for digital learning as it requires a deeper processing of

Table 6 Self-regulated learning strategies (SRLS) and its corresponding domain

No. Self-regulated learning Strategies Domain

1 Rehearsal Cognitive Engagement

2 Elaboration
3 Organization
4 Critical Thinking
5 Planning Metacognitive Knowledge
6 Monitoring
7 Regulating
8 Time and Study Environment Resource Management
9 Effort regulation
10 Peer learning
11 Help Seeking
12 Self-efficacy Motivational Beliefs
13 Task value
14 Goal orientation
3694 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

information because it is thought to be a higher-level strategy (Broadbent and Poon,

2015). For example, when students learn something through a digital content, they may
relate the online information to what they know. This will help learners build internal
connections between prior knowledge and items to be learned, thus improving student
engagement. Besides that, rehearsal strategy enables students to acquire knowledge and
retain information at a very basic level. For example, a student watches a video
repeatedly to remember and understand the material may also contribute to a better
learning performance. Moreover, a student who carefully examines an online material
and reflect on it independently to make reasoned judgements is said to have utilized the
critical thinking strategy of cognitive engagement. On the contrary, Broadbent and
Poon (2015) stated that cognitive engagement strategies were less useful for academic
outcomes in the blended learning environment as past research have revealed that
cognitive strategies work differently in both traditional and online settings. Hence, it
can be strongly postulated from the findings of this review that cognitive engagement
strategies are worth employing to achieve non-academic outcomes.

4.2 Metacognitive knowledge

Metacognitive is an internal guide that enables an individual to be aware of their

cognition processes and to use the cognitive abilities to learn. Metacognitive strategies
include planning (planning activities include skimming an online material before
reading, doing a task analysis of the problem, planning the sequence, timing, and
completion of activities directed at learning goals) monitoring (monitoring activities of
the learning process are in relation to defined learning goals) and regulating which is
closely linked to monitoring strategies. As students monitor their learning progress, it
needs some fine tuning and continuous adjustments to bring back academic behavior in
line with goal-attainment (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). For example, regula-
tion process is when a student is reading an online material, and then they go back and
re read the portion of text to align with what is needed to achieve. From the final
review, six studies examined the effect of metacognitive strategies on non-academic
outcomes. Five studies measured metacognitive strategies as reflection and found that
metacognitive strategies are most conducive for fostering learning performance
(Chang, 2005; Cacciamani et al., 2012; Dumford and Miller, 2018; Tsai, 2014), one
study found metacognitive strategies to be good predictors to student satisfaction (Kuo
et al., 2013) whereas another study revealed that metacognitive strategies correlate
positively with student engagement (Pellas, 2014). Interestingly, a study conducted by
Goda and associates reported that students with metacognitive skills managed their
time better in the aspect of timely assignment submission, thus enhancing learning
performance (Goda et al., 2015). Planning strategy enable students to search through
and manage the vast information available online and to use those information to a
learning goal in a blended learning environment. This planning strategy enables
students to approach task planning more efficiently and thus lead to a better non-
academic outcomes. Additionally, monitoring strategies which include setting goals,
tracking while doing an online task, and self-testing through questions about the online
material are useful for learning progression in digital learning as literature in this review
study showed that metacognitive strategies are good predictors to non-academic
outcomes. Furthermore, regulating strategies which basically means students who
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704 3695

reflect on what they have learned are closely linked to monitoring strategies. Despite
knowing the importance of metacognitive strategies in digital learning, Azevedo and
his associates discovered that students frequently used ineffective metacognitive strat-
egies within the online learning environment (Azevedo, Moos, Greene, Winters, &
Cromley, 2008). Therefore, proper employment of metacognitive strategies are a must
in digital learning because students are always faced with metacognitive challenges
such as task planning, monitoring and regulating throughout a blended learning course.
In all, metacognitive strategies enable students be involved in higher cognitive level
activities rather than to just copy and paste which will then foster an improved learning
performance.

4.3 Resource management

Resource management comprises of behavioral and environmental components of self-

regulated learning strategies which comprises of time and study environment (refers to
the capability to manage one’s own study time and tasks), effort regulation (the ability
for an individual to have perseverance when faced with academic challenges), peer
learning (the collaboration with other students or peers in order to aid in the learning
process and help seeking (refers to asking other people for help, such as the instructor
or one’s peers, or consulting external help and resources). From the final review, eleven
papers examined resource management strategies towards non-academic outcomes.
Table 7 tabulates the four strategies of resource management domains and their
relationship towards non-academic outcomes.
Based on Table 7, all findings reported a positive relationship between resource
management strategies and non-academic outcomes except one (Kuo et al., 2013). In a
blended learning setting, students have the flexibility of time and place to work on a
task or study for a blended learning course. Hence, this strategy is pivotal in digital
learning because it gives the students a choice to manage time and location effectively
as it translates to good learning performance. Time management skills include time
planning, scheduling, and managing one’s time. For example, a student may schedule a
weekly time to read articles or to complete an assignment. Time management entails
that students have awareness of deadlines and time needed to accomplish tasks as well
prioritizing learning tasks. Apart from that, effort regulation which is the ability for a
student to have perseverance when faced with academic challenges may assist students
to achieve learning performance. In other words, the effort and extent a student goes to
accomplish a learning goal is effort regulation. For example, a student continue to study
even though the learning material is uninteresting or difficult, the student continue to
explore a certain software for an assignment, or student views online tutorial to learn
how to accomplish a difficult academic task. The use of this strategy reflects commit-
ment to completing a goal. It can help students handle setbacks and failures better
within the online learning process. Consequently, peer learning encourages students to
learn from each other based on the belief that students learn well by explaining their
ideas to others and by taking part in learning activities where they can learn a great deal
from their peers (Effeney, Carroll, & Bahr, 2013). Students who uses this strategy
illustrates a social cohesion among themselves and their peers that drives an enhanced
learning performance through friendships and the desire to excel in their studies. An
interesting observation from the present review revealed that help seeking was the most
3696 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

Table 7 Resource Management Strategies towards non-academic outcomes.

Author Findings Relationship

Chang (2005) When effort regulation is more, then students will achieve better positive
learning outcome.
Chen et al. (2013) Peer learning, help seeking, and study environment strategies positive
significantly influences learning outcome and satisfaction.
Cacciamani et al. (2012) Help seeking strategies does contribute to a better learning positive
outcome.
Dumford and Miller (2018) Help seeking and peer learning did not provide evidence of negative
enhancing student engagement.
Wichadee (2018) Help seeking strategies improves learning performance and positive
student satisfaction.
Kuo et al. (2013) Help seeking is good predictors of student satisfaction. positive negative
Peer learning did not contribute to student satisfaction.
Mikum et al. (2018) Help seeking and peer learning improves student engagement positive
and interaction.
Paechter and Maier (2010) Help seeking and peer learning improves student satisfaction. positive
Tsai (2014) Help seeking and peer learning improves students’ learning positive
performance in an online learning environment.
Noh and Kim (2019) Help seeking strategy increased engagement with online positive
activities and reported a higher satisfaction compared to the
group who didn’t use the strategy.
Goda et al. (2015) Time management strategy enabled the achievement of positive
learning outcome.

Frequency of SRL Strategies used

Goal orientaon 4
Task value 3
Self-efficacy 7
Self-regulated learning strategies

Help Seeking 9
Peer learning 6
Effort regulaon 2
Time and Study Environment 3
Regulang 1
Monitoring 4
Planning 5
Crical Thinking 5
Organizaon 2
Elaboraon 1
Rehearsal 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Frequency

Fig. 4 SRL Strategies used by authors.

Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704 3697

used strategies (see Fig. 4) and this strategy had a significant positive relationship with
non-academic outcomes such as learning outcome, student satisfaction and student
engagement which suggests that academic support is a very crucial part of students
learning progress (Amiri Gharghani, Amiri Gharghani, & Hayat, 2019). For example,
students may seek help from peers and teaching staff to get assistance. This strategy
enables students to optimize their learning by seeking help from teaching staff or even
textbooks. From this systematic review, the results indicate that resource management
strategies may be a good predictor for non-academic outcomes. Possibly, when students
are completing an online task, managing the behavioral aspect of themselves and
leveraging on the external environment resources is a smart way of managing learning
progression. All in all, resource management strategies enable students to manage and
control internal and external resources in the learning process to achieve learning
performance.

4.4 Motivational beliefs

Motivation is what helps students reach learning goals or complete tasks. Motivational
domains include self-efficacy (capability of a student to confidently navigate through
online materials and produce a positive outcome), task value beliefs (an individual’s
beliefs about the value of doing a task, and comprises of the sum of the components of
attainment value, the utility value, and the intrinsic value, minus the cost value
component) and goal orientation (general goals formulated by a learner to a course as
a whole). Goal orientation focuses on three general orientations which are mastery,
extrinsic and relative ability. Eight studies investigated motivational strategies towards
non-academic outcome of students in the final review. Table 8 tabulates the motiva-
tional beliefs strategies towards non-academic outcome.

Table 8 Motivational belief strategies towards non-academic outcomes.

Author Findings Relationship

Chang (2005) If students perceive task as important, a higher student positive

engagement will be achieved.
Higher self-efficacy entails higher confidence and ability
to achieve learning outcomes.
Chen et al. (2013) Students who had higher computer self-efficacy will have positive
higher learning outcome and satisfaction.
Fanguy et al. (2018) Students who have higher levels of motivation are more positive
likely to engage in digital learning.
Kuo et al. (2013) Internet self-efficacy are good predictors of student satisfaction. positive
Mikum et al. (2017) Motivation increases students’ engagement and interaction. positive
Paechter et al. (2010) Motivation contributed negatively to the satisfaction. negative
Yamada et al. (2016) Motivation does promote student engagement positive
Goda et al. (2014) Students with high motivation is better in achieving higher positive
learning outcomes. positive
Goal orientation affects student engagement.
3698 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

Based on Table 8, most results from this review reported a significant positive
relationship between motivational belief strategies and non-academic outcomes. Only
one study produced a contradictory result (Paechter et al., 2010). A possible explana-
tion for this is perhaps the environment structured in that study context was less
supportive which led to a negative relationship between motivation strategies and
student satisfaction. Motivational belief strategies help to promote the different aspects
of learning progression. Motivation also acts like a psychological supportive tool in
students’ learning processes. Students who are highly self-efficacious may be able to
directly boost their learning performance because they are more confident, independent
and motivated to learn. Likewise, task value beliefs also does contribute to a better non-
academic outcomes because if students perceive a task is important, they will put effort
to complete it well. Example of beliefs include the course will be useful for them in
some way (e.g. help them cope with higher education), in their major (e.g., they need
this information for upper level courses), or their career and life in general (e.g., this
will help them somehow in graduate school). Task value beliefs can help reinforce
students’ belief that the learning task is of value to them and will benefit them in some
way or another. Subsequently, goal orientation enable students to have some goals or
standards to compare their progress with. In a traditional classroom, a concern over social
comparison is there. But in an online environment, this may not be the case. Overall, a
vast majority of the reviewed papers reported that motivational beliefs strategies play a
role in enhancing students’ learning outcome, engagement and satisfaction. Thus,
assisting students to utilise motivational beliefs strategies should be prioritized in the
context of digital learning to help students manage their emotional factors.

Table 9 Plot of self-regulated learning strategies in online learning in Higher Education

Authors (year) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 Chang (2005) x x x x
2 Paechter & Maier(2010) x x x x x x x
3 Cacciamani et al.(2012) x x x x x
4 Chen et al.(2013) x x x x
5 Kuo et al. (2013) x x x x x x
6 Pellas (2014) x x x x
7 Tsai (2014) x x x x x
8 Goda et al. (2015) x x
9 Yamada et al. (2016) x x x x x
10 Mikum et al.(2017) x x x x x
11 Dumform & Miller (2018) x x x
12 Wichadee(2018) x
13 Fanguy et al. (2018) x
14 Noh & Kim(2019) x
Total 1 1 2 5 5 4 1 3 2 6 9 7 3 4

1- Rehearsal, 2-Elaboration, 3-Organization, 4-Critical Thinking, 5-Planning, 6-Monitoring, 7-Regulating, 8-

Time and Study Environment, 9-Effort Regulation, 10-Peer Learning, 11-Help Seeking, 12-Self-Efficacy, 13-
Task Value Beliefs 14-Goal Orientation.
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704 3699

Table 9 maps the SRLS from Table 5 that authors used in a blended learning
environment in higher education institutions.
Based on the extensive systematic review pertaining to self-regulated learn-
ing strategies in blended learning environment in higher education, a major gap
was highlighted that warrants attention of the research community. From
Table 10, it is evident that even though fourteen strategies have been investi-
gated in previous studies, several strategies have been investigated more such
as help seeking and self-efficacy. Even though several researchers discovered
that many university students use ineffective cognitive and metacognitive strat-
egies within the online learning environment (Hashemyolia, Asmuni, Ayub,
Daud, and Shah, 2015), there is still limited research on cognitive and
metacognitive strategies towards non-academic outcomes. In addition, earlier
studies had not examined all domains of SRLS and are lacking understanding
of how different aspects of self-regulation function together (Mägi, Männamaa,
and Kikas, 2016).

5 Conclusion

This paper reviews the impact of SRL strategies on non-academic outcomes in

higher education in digital learning within a blended learning environment
within a span of 10 years. This study contributes to a substantial number of
prevailing concerns revealed in the literature surrounding SRL strategies and
non-academic outcomes whereby a deeper understanding is gained on the
studied constructs. Understanding the relationship between self-regulated learn-
ing and non-academic success is needed because of its implications on students,

Table 10 Frequency and percentage of self-regulated learning strategies used by authors

No Self-regulated learning strategy Counts Percentage from

total (14 papers)

1 Rehearsal 1 7%
2 Elaboration 1 7%
3 Organization 2 14%
4 Critical Thinking 5 36%
5 Planning 5 36%
6 Monitoring 4 29%
7 Regulating 1 7%
8 Time and Study Environment 3 21%
9 Effort regulation 2 14%
10 Peer learning 6 43%
11 Help Seeking 9 64%
12 Self-efficacy 7 50%
13 Task value 3 21%
14 Goal orientation 4 29%
3700 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

institutions and educators. The aim of this study is to enable understanding in

the context of SRL strategies towards non-academic outcomes in digital
learning.
In relation to the first research question, the results of the systematic review
revealed fourteen strategies used in digital learning. By knowing this, it creates
awareness among students and educators. The paper also highlights a striking
absence of research in cognitive and metacognitive strategies towards non-
academic outcomes even though literature revealed that the use of effective
cognitive and metacognitive strategies are largely missing among students in
digital learning. In addition to that, future research should effectively explore
all domains of self-regulated learning strategies in digital learning. Thus, by
understanding how the different domains of self-regulated learning strategies
function together, educators can play a role in educating students to be aware
of their learning progression through encouraging students to utilise self-
regulated learning strategies. This is vital step in offering practical understand-
ing for higher education institutions in providing the way to high-quality
education for students.
The second research question highlights clearly that SRL strategies does
contribute towards non-academic outcomes. This findings can aid students and
educators about the strategies needed to achieve a positive outcome. For
example, findings from this study can help students understand that non-
academic outcomes are as important as academic outcomes for the learning
growth of students. Moreover, it is recommended that educators should assist
students in their development of self-regulative habit by infusing self-regulation
skills in the classroom. Self-regulated learning skills are essential in highly
autonomous learning situations to achieve success. Therefore, it is vital that
self-regulative habit is cultivated through practise. This practice will enable
students to cultivate positive learning habits and behaviour which can improve
students’ non-academic outcomes. For example, digital learning challenges can
be tackled by increasing the utilization of SRL strategies.
With this understanding, educators and students can know how to best utilise
SRL strategies to drive positive student outcomes in digital learning within the
higher education blended learning environment. Hence, future research should
effectively explore more empirical work to better understand how all domains
of SRL strategies can enhance non-academic outcomes in higher education and
to provide stronger empirical evidence in the evaluation of non-academic
outcomes of students. All in all, the utilization of SRL strategies enable
students to achieve better non-academic outcomes in a blended learning
environment.

References

Anderson, P. (2009). What makes a difference? How measuring the non-academic outcomes of schooling can
help guide school practice. Assessment and Student Learning: Collecting, Interpreting and Using Data to
Inform Teaching, 15–19.
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704 3701

Anthonysamy, L., Ah-Choo, K., Soon-Hin, H. (2019). Development and validation of an instrument to
measure the effects of self-regulated learning strategies on online learning performance. Journal of
Advanced Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, 11(10-special issue), 1093–1099. https://doi.
org/10.5373/JARDCS/V11SP10/20192910.
Amiri Gharghani, A., Amiri Gharghani, M., & Hayat, A. A. (2019). Correlation of motivational beliefs and
cognitive and metacognitive strategies with academic achievement of students of Shiraz University of
Medical Sciences. Strides in Development of Medical Education, In Press (In Press), 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.5812/sdme.81169.
Azevedo, R., Moos, D.C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F.I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated
regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology
Research and Development, 56(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9067-0
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and
blended learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iheduc.2008.10.005.
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of
blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Berkshire:
McGraw Hill.
Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic
literature review. Educational Research Review. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001.
Bowyer, J. (2017). Evaluating blended learning: Bringing the elements together. Research Matters, (23), 17–
26. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/research-matters/
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online
higher education learning environments: A systematic review. Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007.
Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T., & Fujita, N. (2012). Influence of participation, facilitator
styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. Computers and
Education, 58(3), 874–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.019.
Chang, M. M. (2005). Applying self-regulated learning strategies in a web-based instruction - an investigation
of motivation perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 217–230. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09588220500178939.
Chen, Y.-C., Yeh, R. C., Lou, S.-J., & Lin, Y.-C. (2013). What drives a successful web-based language
learning environment? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing college students’
learning satisfaction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1327–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.sbspro.2013.10.463.
Chen, Z. H., De Lu, H., & Chou, C. Y. (2019). Using game-based negotiation mechanism to enhance students’
goal setting and regulation. Computers and Education, 129, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2018.10.011.
Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on
students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7.
Cho, M.H. & Heron, M.L. (2015). Self-regulated learning: The role of motivation, emotion, and use of
learning strategies in Students' learning experiences in a self-paced online mathematics course. Distance
Education, 36(1), 80–99. Retrieved November 29, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/161247/.
Cho, M.H., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 290–301.
Cho, M.H., Kim, Y., & Choi, D. H. (2017). The effect of self-regulated learning on college students’
perceptions of community of inquiry and affective outcomes in online learning. Internet and Higher
Education, 34, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.04.001
Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and
disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 452–465. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12528-018-9179-z.
Effeney, G., Carroll, A., & Bahr, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Key strategies and their
sources in a sample of adolescent males. Australian Journal of Educational & Develop- mental
Psychology, 13, 58–74.
3702 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses: The role of
question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 23(2–3), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9047-6.
Fanguy, M., Costley, J., Lange, C., Baldwin, M., & Han, S. (2018). The role of motivation in the use of lecture
behaviors in the online classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 17, 471–484.
https://doi.org/10.28945/4131.
Gá, V., & Soldado, R. M. (2014). Self - assessment v ia a blended learning strategy to improve performance in
an accounting subject, (2), 41–54.
Galy, E., Downey, C., & Johnson, J. (2011). The effect of using e-learning tools in online and campus-based
classrooms on student performance. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 10(1), 209–
230. https://doi.org/10.28945/1503.
Goda, Y., Yamada, M., Kato, H., Matsuda, T., Saito, Y., & Miyagawa, H. (2015). Procrastination and other
learning behavioral types in e-learning and their relationship with learning outcomes. Learning and
Individual Differences, 37, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.001.
Greene, J. A., Copeland, D. Z., Deekens, V. M., & Yu, S. B. (2018). Beyond knowledge: Examining digital
literacy’s role in the acquisition of understanding in science. Computers and Education, 117, 141–159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.003.
Hashemyolia, S., Asmuni, A., Ayub, A. F. M., Daud, S. M., & Shah, J. A. (2015). Motivation to use self-
regulated learning strategies in learning management system amongst science and social science under-
graduates. Asian Social Science, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n3p49.
Haron, H. N., Harun, H., Ali, R., Salim, K. R., & Hussain, N. H. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies
between the performing and non-performing students in statics. Proceedings of 2014 international
conference on interactive collaborative learning, ICL 2014, (December), 802–805. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICL.2014.7017875.
Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic
review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002.
Joo, Y. J., Joung, S., & Kim, J. (2014). Structural relationships among self-regulated learning , learning flow ,
satisfaction, and learning persistence in cyber universities. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(6),
752–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745421.
Kew, S. N., Petsangsri, S., Ratanaolarn, T., & Tasir, Z. (2018). Examining the motivation level of students in e-
learning in higher education institution in Thailand: A case study. Education and Information
Technologies, 23(6), 2947–2967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9753-z.
Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner
behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33.
Kuo, Y., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction
in online education programs | Kuo | the international review of research in open and distributed learning.
The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1). Retrieved from http://www.
irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1338/2416
Lee, E., Pate, J., & Cozart, D. (2015). Autonomy support for online students. TechTrends, 59(4), 54–59.
Li, J., Ye, H., Tang, Y., Zhou, Z., & Hu, X. (2018). What are the effects of self-regulation phases and strategies for
Chinese students? A meta-analysis of two decades research of the association between self-regulation and
academic performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(DEC), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02434.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., … Moher, D. (2009).
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate
healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 339. https://doi.
org/10.1136/bmj.b2700.
Lin, Y. T. (2018). Impacts of a flipped classroom with a smart learning diagnosis system on students’ learning
performance, perception, and problem solving ability in a software engineering course. Computers in
Human Behavior, 95. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.036.
Mägi, K., Männamaa, M., & Kikas, E. (2016). Profiles of self-regulation in elementary grades: Relations to
math and reading skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2016.08.028.
Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2016). How health professionals regulate their learning in massive open online
courses. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.005.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine,
151(4), 264–269.
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704 3703

Mikum, S., Suksakulchai, S., Chaisanit, S., & Murphy, E. (2018). Students’ participation in peer-to-peer
communication supported by social media. Education and Information Technologies, 23(2), 659–679.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9628-8.
Noh, G. O., & Kim, D. H. (2019). Effectiveness of a self-directed learning program using blended coaching
among nursing students in clinical practice: A quasi-experimental research design. BMC Medical
Education, 19(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1672-1.
OECD. (2013a). PISA 2012. Results in focus. What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they
know. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2013b) Skilled for life? Key findings from the survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/SkillsOutlook_2013_ebook.pdf
Padgett, J., Cristancho, S., Lingard, L., Cherry, R., & Haji, F. (2018). Engagement: What is it good for? The
role of learner engagement in healthcare simulation contexts. Advances in Health Sciences Education.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9865-7.
Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning.
Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004.
Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on
student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of second life.
Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048.
Phillips, B. N., Turnbull, B. J., & He, F. X. (2015). Assessing readiness for self-directed learning within A
non-traditional nursing cohort. Nurse Education Today, 35, 1–7.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International
Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470.
Report, I. (2018). The future of jobs Report 2018 insight Report Centre for the new Economy and Society.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756712473437.
Sedigheh, S., Rashid, M. S. M., & Reza, B. (2012). Self-regulated learning strategies (SRLS) and academic
achievement in pre-university EFL learners. Education, XXXVII(1), 1–35.
Sivaranjani, B., & Prakash, S. (2014). E- learning – An overview. International Journal of Engineering and
Management Research, 4(4), 117–123.
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000.
Swanson, J. A. (2018). Assessing the effectiveness of the use of Mobile Technology in a Collegiate Course: A case
study in M-learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9372-1.
Tang, C. M., & Chaw, L. Y. (2016). Digital literacy: A prerequisite for effective learning in a blended learning
environment? The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(1), 54–65.
Tsai, C. W. (2014). Exploring the effects of online team-based learning and co-regulated learning on students’
development of computing skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 665–680. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10494820.2014.917106.
Turner, L., Shamseer, L., Altman, D. G., Weeks, L., Peters, J., Kober, T., & Moher, D. (2012). Consolidated
standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled
trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.
org/10.1002/14651858.mr000030.pub2.
Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-
level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17–28.
Wandler, J., & Imbriale, W. (2017). Promoting undergraduate student self-regulation in online learning
environments, Online Learning 21(2).
Wichadee, S. (2018). Significant predictors for effectiveness of blended learning in a language course. JALT
CALL Journal, 14(1), 25–42.
Yamada, M., Goda, Y., Matsuda, T., Saito, Y., Kato, H., & Miyagawa, H. (2016). How does self-regulated
learning relate to active procrastination and other learning behaviors? Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 28(3), 326–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9118-9.
Yang, J. C., Quadir, B., Chen, N. S., & Miao, Q. (2016). Effects of online presence on learning performance in
a blog-based online course. Internet and Higher Education, 30, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iheduc.2016.04.002.
Yick, K. L., Yip, J., Au, S. C., Lai, Y. Y., & Yu, A. (2018). Effectiveness of blended learning in the first year of
fashion education. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 12(2), 178–188.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2018.1546910.
Zhu, Y., Au, W., & Yates, G. (2016). University students’ self-control and self-regulated learning in a blended
course. Internet and Higher Education, 30, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.04.001.
3704 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:3677–3704

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student
use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.
Zusho, A. (2017). Toward an integrated model of student learning in the college classroom. Educational
Psychology Review, 29(2), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9408-4.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Affiliations

Lilian Anthonysamy 1 & Ah-Choo Koo 2 & Soon-Hin Hew 2

1
Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Creative Multimedia, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia