Blended learning has gained popularity in higher education, especially during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite the benefits and availability of online resources, there is a noticeable lack of student engagement with online materials. Using rich data on engagement with the e-learning platform Moodle for undergraduate business students, we uncover a blended learning intention-behavior gap. While students find online learning content useful and efficient, and report an intention to use it in their studies, Moodle logs show that students tend to ignore online content during the semester. Our survey results suggest that disengagement with online materials may be explained by ‘strategic’ learning behavior, which prioritizes assessed elements of the course over additional learning content. Using regression analysis, we demonstrate that the ‘strategic’ learning approach can be detrimental to learning outcomes, as completion of online activities in the course has a significant positive effect on performance—a benefit students often disregard when weighing the optional online exercises against assessed assignments. Thus, the study provides evidence that a more holistic learning-to-learn strategy, which includes regular engagement with online materials, is more effective for enhancing students’ academic success.
BaragashR. S.Al-SamarraieH. (2018). An empirical study of the impact of multiple modes of delivery on student learning in a blended course. The Reference Librarian, 59(3), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2018.1467295
3.
BroadbentJ.PoonW. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
4.
BroadbentJ.SharmanS.PanaderoE.Fuller-TyszkiewiczM. (2021). How does self-regulated learning influence formative assessment and summative grade? Comparing online and blended learners. The Internet and Higher Education, 50, Article 100805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100805
5.
CariniR.KuhG.KleinS. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
6.
CarrollP.WhiteA. (2017). Identifying patterns of learner behaviour: What business statistics students do with learning resources. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 18(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2016.0169
7.
ChenJ. (2024). Effects of learning analytics-based feedback on students’ self-regulated learning and academic achievement in a blended EFL course. System, 124, Article 103388, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103388.
8.
ChenJ.LinT. (2008). Does downloading PowerPoint slides before the lecture lead to better student achievement?International Review of Economics Education, 7(2), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1477-3880(15)30092-X
9.
ChiuT. (2021). Digital support for student engagement in blended learning based on self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, Article 106909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909
10.
ChuangH.WengC.ChenC. (2018). Which students benefit most from a flipped classroom approach to language learning?British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12530
11.
CluskeyG.Jr.HodgesC.SmithS. (2006). The impact of online quizzing on student success in an introductory financial accounting class. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 3(7), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v3i7.1697
12.
CrispV.WardC. (2008). The development of a formative scenario-based computer assisted assessment tool in psychology for teachers: The PePCAA project. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1509–1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.02.004
13.
De PaolaM.GioiaF.ScoppaV. (2023). Online teaching, procrastination and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 94, Article 102378, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2023.102378.
14.
DunloskyJ.RawsonK.MarshE.NathanM.WillinghamD. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
15.
FredricksJ.BlumenfeldP.ParisA. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
16.
GlushenkovaM.ZagatoM. (2023). Effect of COVID-19 on digitalisation of higher education: A tale of one business school. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(6), 10. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.6.10
17.
HolmesN. (2018). Engaging with assessment: Increasing student engagement through continuous assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417723230
18.
HuangH.HwangG.-J.JongM. S.-Y. (2022). Technological solutions for promoting employees’ knowledge levels and practical skills: An SVVR-based blended learning approach for professional training. Computers & Education, 189, Article 104593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104593
LiawS. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864-873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005
24.
LuC.CutumisuM. (2022). Online engagement and performance on formative assessments mediate the relationship between attendance and course performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1). Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00307-5
25.
MaL.LeeC. (2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning using the ARCS model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1397–1408. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12579
26.
MarteauT.HollandsG.FletcherP. (2012). Changing human behavior to prevent disease: The importance of targeting automatic processes. Science, 337(6101), 1492–1495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226918
27.
MilićevićV.DenićN.MilićevićZ.ArsićL.Spasić-StojkovićM.PetkovićD.StojanovićJ.KrkicM.MilovančevićN.JovanovićA. (2021). E-learning perspectives in higher education institutions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, Article 120618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120618
28.
MitićK.DjenićS. (2024) Improvement of learning outcomes in traditional learning model by introducing online activities and big data analytics. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(7), 3783–3798, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2190362
29.
Morgan-ThomasA.DudauA. (2019). Of possums, hogs, and horses: Capturing the duality of student engagement in eLearning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18(4), 564–580. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2018.0029
30.
MuirT.MilthorpeN.StoneC.DymentJ.FreemanE.HopwoodB. (2019). Chronicling engagement: Students’ experience of online learning over time. Distance Education, 40(2), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1600367
31.
PrasadP.MaagA.RedestowiczM.HoeL. (2018). Unfamiliar technology: Reaction of international students to blended learning. Computers & Education, 122, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.016
32.
RaesA.VannesteP.PietersM.WindeyI.NoortgateW.DepaepeF. (2020). Learning and instructions in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students’ engagement and the effect of quizzes. Computers & Education, 143, Article 103682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682
33.
RasheedA.KamsinA.AbdullahA. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, Article 103701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701
34.
RowlandC. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
35.
ShahS.ZhongjunT. (2021). Elaborating on the consumer’s intention–behavior gap regarding 5G technology: The moderating role of the product market-creation ability. Technology in Society, 66, Article 101657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101657
36.
SharmaB.NandR.NaseemM.ReddyE. (2020). Effectiveness of online presence in a blended higher learning environment in the Pacific. Studies in Higher Education, 44(8), 1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1602756
37.
SheeranP. (2002). Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265
38.
SheeranP.WebbT. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265
39.
Suarez-PerdomoA.Ruiz-AlfonsoZ.Garces-DelgadoY. (2022). Profiles of undergraduates’ networks addiction: Difference in academic procrastination and performance. Computers & Education, 181, Article 104459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104459
40.
SummersR.BurgessA.HigsonH.MooresE. (2024). How you teach and who you teach both matter: Lessons from learning analytics data. Studies in Higher Education, 49(3), 576–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2245424
41.
SummersR.HigsonH.MooresE. (2020). Measures of engagement in the first three weeks of higher education predict subsequent activity and attainment in first year undergraduate students: A UK case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1822282
42.
ThoutenhoofdE.PirrieA. (2015). From self-regulation to learning to learn: Observations on the construction of self and learning. British Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3128
43.
van EerdeW.KlingsieckK. (2018). Overcoming procrastination? A meta-analysis of intervention studies. Educational Research Review, 25, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.002
44.
van WykM. (2019). Student support toward self-directed learning in open and distributed environments. IGI Global.
45.
WangN.ChenJ.TaiM.ZhangJ. (2021) Blended learning for Chinese university EFL learners: Learning environment and learner perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(3), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1607881
46.
WitkowskiP.CornellT.2015. An investigation into student engagement in higher education classrooms. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 10, 56–67.
47.
XuL. (2024). Learning approach and learning effect of undergraduates in blended learning of business courses: Evidence from China. The International Journal of Management Education, 22(3), Article 101042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.101042
48.
ZhangJ.ZouL.MiaoJ.ZhangY.HwangG.ZhuY. (2019). An individualized intervention approach to improving university students’ learning performance and interactive behaviors in a blended learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636078
49.
ZhangY.PaquetteL.HuX. (2024). Academic procrastination, incentivized and self-selected spaced practice, and quiz performance in an online programming problem system: An intensive longitudinal investigation. Computers & Education, 214, Article 105029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105029.
50.
ZhaoY.LiY.MaS.XuZ.ZhangB. (2025). A meta-analysis of the correlation between self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 230, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105279.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
