Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Contention concerning whether or not Confucian values promote creative and independent learning reveals an ongoing debate, which is fueled by a gap in our understanding of how cultural values impact autonomous learning. To address the need for further research, surveys for evaluating Confucian beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies were given to 281 university students from a rural province in mainland China. Following data collection, cultural values were evaluated along with autonomous and controlled learning preferences using multiple linear regression. Statistical analysis revealed that support for traditional Confucian values was a significant predictor of both autonomous and controlled forms of regulation. The finding appears to suggest that collective values shape notions of educational autonomy. Learners with Confucian values may conceptualize autonomy as a group process of goal setting, learning, and evaluation, rather than a purely individual endeavor. To accommodate collectivist views of self-regulation, a hybrid form of classroom management may be needed, whereby egalitarian peer groups are given more autonomous tasks, while a teacher maintains some degree of autocratic control. By using educational techniques that mirror local cultural norms, pedagogical strategies for cultivating learner autonomy may become even more effective.

Keywords

autonomous regulation controlled regulation confucianism Chinese collectivist self-determination theory

Introduction

In the Analects, a compendium of the teachings of Confucius (2002), the relationship between superiors and their subjects is compared to the wind and the grass. Subordinates are obliged to obey just as “the grass must bend when the wind blows across it” (Yen Yuan: Book 12, 12.19). Although dating back to the warring states period, such values continue to impact countries such as China, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Vietnam (Marginson, 2011). Due to the influence of longstanding Confucian philosophical traditions, members of society are often compelled to cultivate an inner sense of benevolence, referred to as Ren. This virtue is then outwardly expressed through discreet forms of etiquette, referred to as Li, which include mandates to obey superiors and respect authority (Kim, 2013; Li & Hayhoe, 2012; Park & Chesla, 2007; Snell et al., 2022).

As with other aspects of Confucian society, relationships within educational institutions involve the establishment of hierarchical relationships as mandated by Li. In the classroom, teachers often take on a dominant role, serving as content experts tasked with the inculcation of established values and knowledge (Kim, 2013). Concerning this teacher-centric approach to learning, researchers such as Egitim (2017) point out that it poses challenges to the development of learner autonomy and critical thinking. Learners may be unwilling to act without clear direction from instructors or acknowledgement that their behavior will be tolerated. This view is also supported by research in contexts such as South Korea, where students appear reluctant to express opinions (DeWaelsche, 2015; McGuire, 2007; Niederhauser, 2012).

Strong pressures to obey authority and adhere to group norms appear to challenge theoretical conceptions of learner autonomy, which are meant to foster creativity, individuality, and innovation (Egitim, 2022; Schenck, 2023; Wang & Torrisi-Steele, 2015). Despite a common belief that Confucian values promote homogeneity and reduce independent action (Li & Hayhoe, 2012; Xu et al., 2018), Tan (2017a) argues that Confucianism represents an “open tradition,” which allows individuals the opportunity to change how Ren and Li are conceptualized and expressed. Contention concerning whether or not Confucian values promote independent action reveals an ongoing debate, which has limited our understanding of how cultural values impact autonomous learning. More research is needed to assess the true impact of Confucian philosophical traditions on educational perceptions and behaviors. Such study may yield insights that make strategies for learner autonomy more effective.

Literature Review

Self Determination Theory (SDT) has developed as a framework to explain motivations for learning, as well as their impact on educational learning styles and behaviors. Self-regulation is defined as “learning that results from students’ self-generated thoughts and behaviors that are systematically oriented toward their learning goals.” (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2013, p. 45). In accordance with SDT, self-regulation of learning may be influenced by both autonomous and external factors. Whereas autonomous factors like intrinsic motivation give a learner the ability to act on their own volition, external pressures like reward or punishment restrict a learner’s ability to act (Ryan & Deci, 2024).

According to SDT, student learning behaviors may be divided into two main categories: controlled regulation and autonomous regulation. Controlled regulation “involves feeling externally pressured or compelled to behave whether by the promise of a contingent reward, fear of punishment, ego involvement, or other external factors” (Ryan & Deci, 2024, p. 1). Motivation for controlled action is primarily external, and may be further subdivided into external regulation, which is caused by a motivation to obtain an award or avoid punishment, and introjected regulation, which is caused by motivation to avoid shame or guilt (Guay, 2022). In contrast, autonomous regulation “involves acting with a full sense of volition, endorsement, and choice” (Ryan & Deci, 2024, p. 1). This form of behavior is regulated by internal values and motivations. It is also further subdivided into identified regulation, which describes the acceptance of a social value or behavior, and intrinsic regulation, which describes behaviors motivated by enjoyment and self-fulfillment (Knittle et al., 2023). According to SDT, individuals with more autonomous motives for learning are more likely to continue a behavior without external reinforcement or contingency (Hagger et al., 2014). Research also suggests that autonomous motivation increases success, well-being, and persistence, whereas controlled regulation merely improves persistence, serving to decrease a learner’s sense of well-being (Howard et al., 2021).

Promoting self-regulation has had a positive impact on learning. In a recent meta-analysis of 58 studies, for example, autonomous regulation was found to have benefits in both academic (vocabulary, grammar, writing, reading, listening, speaking, and integrated language knowledge and skills) and affective (self-efficacy, motivation, and learning attitudes) domains (Zhang & Zou, 2024). Other studies suggest that self-directed learning can improve engagement and performance on learning tasks (Oga-Baldwin et al., 2017; Xu & Zhou, 2024). Finally, self-regulated learning has been shown to help learners develop moral agency, a psychological trait that prevents disengagement from educational tasks (Bembenutty, 2023). The potential of self-regulated learning strategies and the development of learner autonomy is clear.

Although often beneficial, self-regulation is not without its challenges. The degree of intervention or scaffolding required to promote self-regulation is not well known. In some studies, heightened teacher control appears to be closely related to less student motivation, thereby decreasing intrinsic motivation needed for autonomous learning (Noels et al., 1999). In other studies, problems with learner performance appear to signal a heightened need for teacher intervention. In a recent study of EFL learners in a Japanese high school, results suggest that giving learners autonomy to read a novel may hamper the development of vocabulary and cultivation of cultural awareness (Walsh, 2021). Other research also highlights the importance of teacher intervention, revealing that explicit strategy instruction and monitoring are essential for the development of students’ self-regulated language learning (Zhang & Zou, 2024).

Past research comes to different conclusions concerning the role of teacher intervention in self-regulation. Whereas some research supports less intervention (Noels et al., 1999), other research reports the need for more intervention (Walsh, 2021; Zhang & Zou, 2024). Debate concerning the teacher’s role reveals a gap in our understanding of the best methods for implementing autonomous learning strategies associated with SDT. The problem may be related to a lack of understanding about how differences in learner background or educational environment impact the effectiveness of self-directed learning. The degree to which teachers should intervene in the learning process may vary based upon individual characteristics of the learner (Nandagopal & Ericsson, 2012; Teng, 2024) or cultural factors (McInerney, 2008; Olaussen & Bråten, 1999).

Concerning culture, it has been conceptualized to be the “missing link in most motivation research,” serving to explain differences in the adaptation of self-directed strategies in indigenous populations (Bembenutty et al., 2023). Several studies have identified a link between cultural values and self-regulation (Schlaegel et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2023). Although interesting, this research is also incomplete. Many specific cultural contexts have not been adequately investigated. In countries such as China, for example, relationships between self-regulation and traditional values like Confucianism have not been thoroughly explored. Literature has identified a philosophical link between Confucian values and self-regulation (Chu & Vu, 2022), yet the real influence of these values in the classroom remains unknown.

Cultural values may have an impact on how self-regulation is conceptualized in Confucian heritage contexts. These contexts often place a higher value on explicit guidance and instruction from a teacher. Rather than valuing individual choice, learners in these contexts may prefer collective action and approval from a superior (Iyengar, 2011). More research is needed to assess the influence of Confucian values on perceptions of both autonomous and controlled regulation in learning. Such study may yield insights which allow self-regulated learning strategies to be more effectively implemented in countries influenced by Chinese philosophical traditions.

Potential Issues Associated with Confucianism

Concerning the development of SDT-based interventions, Silva et al. (2014) developed the following requirements for autonomy.

1. Relevance, by providing a clear and meaningful rationale for activities, facilitating self-endorsement;

2. Respect, by acknowledging the importance of clients’ perspective, feelings, and agenda;

3. Choice, by encouraging clients to follow their own interests and providing options whenever possible;

4. Avoidance of control, by not using coercive, authoritarian, or guilt-inducing language or methods. (p. 173)

These guidelines reveal a need to provide learners with agency over goal creation, task management, and achievement (Duckworth et al., 2009). While such freedom may be beneficial in some circumstances, it may also violate cultural norms in some Asian countries, thereby limiting the effectiveness of autonomous learning strategies. In Confucian societies, choice may be considered a group task, which is to be mediated by the group’s superior (e.g., a teacher). Learners in Confucian contexts may also highly value authoritarian control, seeking out approval before proceeding with an educational task. Research in Confucian countries confirms the influence of cultural beliefs concerning collectivism (group priority over the individual) and power distance (acceptance of unequal power relationships) (Northouse, 2018; Segundo, 2023).

Despite potential compatibility issues, the impact of Confucianism on self-regulated learning strategies has not been extensively investigated. Albeit limited, one study examined self-regulated writing strategy use in Hong Kong. While it found that sociocultural factors were impacting reduced intrinsic motivation among participants (Bai et al., 2021), it did not comprehensively examine how Confucian values impacted the results. Several different facets of Confucianism may influence self-regulated learning, as suggested by a survey of 400 respondents from different East Asian cities (Tokyo, Hanoi, Beijing, and Singapore); results of the survey revealed that Confucian cultural contexts highly valued qualities associated with face-saving, humility, group orientation, reciprocity, and hierarchy (Monkhouse et al., 2013). Face-saving, the fear of losing reputation, may make learners reluctant to act independently. Humility, referring to a modest view of one’s importance, may also make learners reluctant to act individually, since they fear that confidence, creativity, or independence may be perceived as arrogance. Group orientation, which represents the desire for collective action, and reciprocity, which is the exchange of ideas for mutual benefit, may both promote group cohesiveness. These qualities may support cooperative learning tasks, yet they may also place pressure on learners to obey group norms or act as a collective unit, thereby precluding independent action. Finally, hierarchy, which refers to a preference for distinct status or social differences, may prevent learners from accepting a more independent role in the learning process.

Confucian values could limit individual action and autonomy, which has led some researchers to conclude that the philosophy is undemocratic or antidemocratic (Huntington, 1991). However, more recent research suggests that “Certain elements in Confucian thought may be conducive to and congenial with the nurturing of citizens, indeed even better ones, well-suited to live in a democracy, perhaps one with a hue of Confucianism” (Yung, 2010, p. 1919). Tan (2017b) also recognizes that some elements of Confucian culture can be used to develop autonomous learning practices, yet self-regulated strategies must recognize existing cultural values for group norms or behaviors; she recommends “a model of self-directed learning that is underpinned by a shared moral vision of the good and underscores the collective resources and wisdom to promote individual and group learning” (p. 1). The debate concerning the true impact of Confucian values on independent action continues, revealing a need for additional research in education. This need is further evinced by problems with autonomous learning in Asian educational contexts. In one study conducted in Taiwan, for example, learners were reported to have “poor internal SRL [Self-Regulated Learning] processes and poor internal feedback, including poor self-assessment, inappropriate target goals, a failure to conduct follow-up learning, and a failure to achieve their goals” (Chou & Zou, 2020, p. 1). In another study conducted in Indonesia, learners were reported to lack agency. Concerning this issue, participants lacked forethought in learning strategies and purpose; were dependent on friends for learning and completing homework assignments, and were deficient in self-awareness and self-evaluation (Alfaiz et al., 2020). Countries like Taiwan and Indonesia have strong collectivist traditions and high power distance, as well as historical influences from Confucianism (Mangundjaya, 2013; Suryadinata, 2008). Resulting studies in these contexts appear to reveal a cultural incompatibility with self-regulated learning, which may preclude independent action and agency as learners use a more cooperative mindset for goal setting, feedback, and task completion.

Other studies conducted in Confucian heritage contexts such as China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and Singapore have revealed problems with autonomous learning. In a recent study of EFL learners in a Japanese high school, for example, the development of vocabulary and cultural awareness was limited by the self-directed learning approach, leading the researcher to suggest additional teacher intervention was needed (Walsh, 2021). Another study of 34 students from the Chinese mainland, who were transitioning from Chinese-medium high schools to EMI transnational universities in China, cited that several learners stopped participating in self-regulated learning tasks for listening at the midterm period (Zhou & Thomas, 2023). As in the case of other studies conducted in Confucian heritage contexts, results appear to have been impacted by pressures related to contextual cultural values. Learners disregarded self-regulated strategy development due to exam pressures, as suggested by Jiang and Zhang (2019). Standardized testing is predominant in countries such as China, Korea, and Japan, where systematic national curricula are utilized to inculcate core social and cultural values (Ozturgut, 2011). This standardized testing, which mirrors Confucian virtues that promote homogeneity, reveals an impact on independent action and intrinsic motivation. Collectivist pressures for achievement appear to influence autonomous learning in some Confucian contexts.

Overall, results suggest that cultural influences have an impact on self-regulated learning in Confucian heritage countries. While existing research provides intriguing insights, our understanding of this influence remains limited. Concerning this issue, Boekaerts (2002) argues:

Educational psychologists need to broaden the way they conceptualize the dynamics of learning contexts and find new ways to study the integrated processes that make up self-regulation in the context of the classroom. Doing so requires not only using a kaleidoscope of teaching methods, but also looking beyond these methods to explore the possibilities of theories that remain marginalized in educational research. (p. 589)

This quote reveals the importance of holistically examining self-regulated education so that diverse educational strategies may be developed. To further broaden our perspective of autonomous learning, the present study was designed to examine Confucian values and preferences for self-regulated learning strategies. The study was designed to provide new insights, which could lead to the creation of new pedagogical strategies for diverse educational contexts.

Research Questions

To assess potential links between Confucian values and preferences for self-regulated learning, the following questions were posed.

1. Do Confucian values have an impact on autonomous regulation of learning? How are Confucian values related to learner perceptions of autonomous regulation?

2. Do Confucian values have an impact on controlled regulation of learning? How are Confucian values related to learner perceptions of controlled regulation?

Method

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of cultural values on aspects of autonomous and controlled regulation of Confucian learners. To fulfill this aim, surveys were delivered to learners and evaluated using quantitative analysis of regression values and qualitative analysis of survey data.

Instruments

Cultural values were investigated using the Confucian Values Survey (CVS) by Monkhouse et al. (2013). The 24-item survey examines the following Confucian values: face-saving, humility, group orientation, hierarchy and reciprocity (See Appendix A). The categories were established using factor analysis from data which was collected from China, Japan, Singapore, and Vietnam. Each question had a Likert scale that ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Three questions were reverse items. Therefore, values from these questions had to be reversed before inferential statistics could be calculated (See Appendix A for information on reverse items). Reverse items may have some advantages in that they can reduce bias, provide better coverage of a construct, or control for acquiescence (a tendency to agree with survey items) (Weijters & Baumgartner, 2012). Results from the study by Monkhouse et al. (2013) suggest that the survey measures both collectivism and power distance. Whereas face-saving and hierarchy reflect preferences for the maintenance of status relationships, group orientation, reciprocity, and humility reveal a preference for maintaining group values and norms. The survey helped to provide information about collectivism and power distance, which could be compared to autonomous and controlled learning preferences. The study by Monkhouse et al. (2013) used extensive statistical analysis to confirm that the instrument is both valid and reliable.

To examine perceptions about both autonomous and controlled regulation, the Self-Regulation Questionnaire for Learning English (SRQ-LE) was used (See Appendix B). This instrument was an adaptation of the SRQ-L created by Black and Deci (2000) and Williams and Deci (1996). The instrument was obtained from the Center for Self Determination Theory (CSDT) (2025), which was established by top scholars in the field to disseminate resources about SDT. Validity of the instrument as a measure of both autonomous and controlled regulation has been evaluated. The variables were empirically differentiated with validity indices and had a relationship of zero, suggesting they work independently in the learning process (Merino-Soto et al., 2022). The instrument was designed as a measure for students in chemistry classes. Because participants for the study were all in English classes while completing the survey, the instrument was modified slightly to increase the validity by changing the focus from chemistry to English. The survey had twelve questions, five of which assessed autonomous motivations for language study (questions 1, 4, 8, 9, 10), and seven of which assessed controlled (extrinsic) motivations for language study (questions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12). Each question had a Likert scale that ranged from 1 (Not at All True) to 7 (Very True). Past studies revealed Cronbach’s alpha reliability values of .75 for controlled regulation and .80 for autonomous regulation (Black & Deci, 2000; Williams & Deci, 1996). Reliability of the instrument was also calculated in the present study by using Cronbach’s alpha, yielding acceptable values of α = .88 for autonomous questions and α = .82 for controlled questions.

To ensure that learners fully understood the instruments, each survey was translated into Chinese and examined by a native Chinese expert in English translation. Each question was examined to ensure that the instrument remained a valid representation of the original. The surveys were then transferred to Microsoft forms for delivery to student participants.

Participants

The study was designed to examine the influence of Confucian values on preferences for self-regulated strategies. Therefore, a purposive sample was selected from a university in a rural area of mainland China. These learners were all Chinese nationals, who shared the Chinese L1. Having a similar sociolinguistic background in a context influenced by Confucian cultural traditions helped to ensure that the target cultural variable was being measured. In total, 281 participants were recruited, 170 female and 111 male. Ages ranged from 18 to 26, with the majority of learners being between 20 to 22 years old. Learners’ majors included nursing, business administration, finance, English, and information management. Although 281 learners initially started the survey, not all learners finished each survey. In addition, some learners missed some of the questions from each survey. Only 245 respondents filled out each question from the CVS, while only 214 respondents finished all of the SRQ-LE (See Appendix C for more information about completion rates for each question).

Procedure

After obtaining IRB approval for the investigation from Fort Hays State University (IRB Reference Number: 25-0016), three instructors administered surveys to respondents in English classes at the university. The respondents were all English learners and studied in classes that ranged in size from 25 to 60. The Confucian Values Survey was given at the beginning of class, whereas the Self-Regulation Questionnaire-LE was given at the end of class time. Surveys were administered via Microsoft forms. For each survey, learners were given a QR code to scan and the surveys were completed by phone. These surveys were optional. Instructors explained that these surveys were not compulsory, and no adverse impact would result from opting out of the surveys. Further, learners could opt out of the survey at any time without fear of penalty. Following the collection of survey data, it was downloaded and prepared for statistical evaluation. First, all Likert responses were coded on a scale from 1 to 7, with seven representing the highest value for truth or agreement. Following this, values from three items in the Confucian Values Survey were reversed. After coding Likert scale values into numerical values, questions from the Confucian Values Survey were averaged based upon each category (face-saving, humility, group orientation, hierarchy and reciprocity) for each respondent. These average scores were then used to predict perceptions of autonomy (for both learning and technology). Questions from the Self-Regulation Questionnaire-LE were also separated and averaged for each variable, autonomous regulation and controlled regulation.

Research question one sought to examine the influence of Confucian values on preferences for autonomous regulation. First, categories from the Confucian survey (face-saving, humility, group orientation, hierarchy and reciprocity) were compared to values for autonomous regulation using the Pearson product correlation. This statistic was used to provide information about the strength of relationships between variables. Following this calculation, categories from the Confucian survey were used as independent variables in linear regression, while the score for autonomous regulation was used as the dependent variable. Multiple linear regression provides information about how Confucian values (the independent variable) predict the outcome of autonomous regulation (the dependent variable). Using both methods provided a more comprehensive perspective of the data, allowing for the exploration of associations and modelling of predictive relationships. Such calculation triangulated and strengthened the findings. Because regression is a parametric test, Q-Q plots were also calculated to ensure that values were normally distributed. For research question two, the same procedure was followed, with the exception that values for controlled regulation were used for calculation and evaluation.

Results and Discussion

Question 1

Autonomous Regulation

Before addressing each research question, descriptive statistics for the SRQ-LE and CVS were calculated. Results of the SRQ-LE suggest that autonomous regulation was more highly valued than its counterpart, controlled regulation. Likert scores for autonomy were half a point higher on average. As for values obtained from the CVS, reciprocity had the highest mean value, which was followed by hierarchy (See Appendix C for more information on average scores for each survey).

Following assessment of descriptive statistics, inferential statistics were calculated, revealing a clear link between perceptions of learner autonomy and cultural values. Preferences for autonomous learning were closely linked to group orientation, reciprocity, and hierarchy (See Table 1). With the exception of survey question 4, which concerns a need for intellectual growth, all of the survey questions were significantly correlated to the three aforementioned Confucian virtues. The finding appears to suggest that group processes promoting interaction and sharing are an important part of an SDT learning paradigm. Collective values of group orientation and reciprocity may be conceptualized as an essential form of empowerment. This perspective may contradict past assertions that individualistic learner participation will always be more effective. Western cultural bias toward democratic leadership and participation in education may need to be reconsidered, yielding more culturally appropriate techniques for a Confucian cultural context. Rather than representing an independent, individual learning process, autonomous learning may be conceptualized more through a Confucian lens, which values group decision making processes.

A highly significant correlation with hierarchy may also suggest that autonomous regulation in Confucian contexts could benefit from teacher interventions that are considered more autocratic in traditional Western contexts. Rather than avoiding control, as in standard SDT models, teachers may need to provide some direct intervention. They may also need to provide additional positive feedback to ensure that all learners’ independent learning styles are perceived with approbation. A hybrid approach to education may be needed, whereby learners can form democratic and autonomous groups among peers, while teachers maintain more autocratic control of these groups. This hybrid leadership style may help empower learners who hold traditional Confucian beliefs and may be reluctant to act without approval from either a group or superior.

Although significant, both face-saving and humility are smaller correlations. These factors may be less prevalent elements of a Confucian learner’s autonomous learning paradigm. Face-saving and humility represent means of maintaining reputation and receiving praise, which are associated with introjected (controlled) regulation of educational tasks. Individual learners with higher values for these two Confucian virtues may require careful consideration when adapting autonomous learning practices. Teachers may need special training for such learners, which helps them to become more comfortable making decisions independently. Learners may also need assurance that their ideas will be embraced and encouraged by other group members.

Following correlation, regression was evaluated, yielding additional insights. A learner’s view of autonomous regulation was significantly influenced by Confucian philosophical beliefs (See Table 2). The R-Square value of .21 suggests that more than 20% of preferences for autonomous regulation can be explained by the selected Confucian values. ANOVA values reveal a significant F value of 10.837 (p < .01) (See Appendix D for more detail). The findings appear to suggest that Confucian virtues do indeed have some impact on perceptions of autonomous learning. However, not all of the independent variables (face saving, humility, group orientation, reciprocity, and hierarchy) had a significant value with respect to the impact on autonomous regulation. As revealed in Table 3, only reciprocity had a significant impact. Collinearity statistics were also checked to ensure that other variables were not impacted by this association. VIF values below 4 and Tolerance values above .25 suggest that correlations between the variables were not masked by the regression model.

The significance of reciprocity as a predictor may explain reports of collaborative cheating among some Chinese learners (Tsui & Ngo, 2016; Zhang & Yin, 2019). Reciprocity, which places importance on sharing ideas and resources, may preclude learning practices that require independence in goal setting, learning, or evaluation. The importance of reciprocity may signal a need for educational reform in some Confucian contexts. To ensure that learners do work independently, strict regulation of learner activity may be needed. As an alternative, a new paradigm for autonomous learning may be adapted to Confucian cultural contexts. Rather than promoting individual autonomy, educators may adopt a policy of “group” autonomy. Learners may be more effectively empowered through group goal setting and decision-making, which mirrors collectivist cultural beliefs and practices.

Table 1.

Autonomous Regulation Survey Question Correlations to Confucian Values

		Face saving	Humility	Group orientation	Reciprocity	Hierarchy
I Will participate actively in class because I feel like it’s a good way to improve my understanding of English	r	.086	.070	.188**	.362**	.239**
	p	.202	.305	.006	.000	.000
	N	219	217	216	217	219
I Will participate actively in class because a solid understanding of English is important to my intellectual growth	r	.063	.045	.107	.317**	.212**
	p	.357	.507	.118	.000	.002
	N	219	217	216	217	219
I Am likely to follow my instructor’s suggestions for studying English because he/she seems to have insight about how best to learn the material	r	.282**	.160	.278**	.413**	.351**
	p	.000	.019	.000	.000	.000
	N	215	214	213	213	215
The reason that I will work to expand my knowledge of English is because it’s interesting to learn more about the English	r	.076	.155*	.274**	.299**	.204**
	p	.264	.023	.000	.000	.003
	N	217	215	215	215	217
The reason that I will work to expand my knowledge of English is because it’s a challenge to really understand how to speak and write in English	r	.208**	.186**	.344**	.392**	.308**
	p	.002	.006	.000	.000	.000
	N	218	216	216	216	218

* signifies p<0.05.

** signifies p<0.01.

Table 2.

Regression Model for Autonomous Regulation


Model	R	R square	Adjusted R square	Std. Error of the estimate
1	.463^a	.214	.194	1.05360

^aPredictors: (Constant), Hierarchy, Humility, Group Orientation, Face Saving, Reciprocity.

Table 3.

Correlation Coefficients for Each Independent Variable^a

Model		Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	t	Sig	Collinearity statistics
Model		B	Std. Error	Beta	t	Sig	Tolerance	VIF
1	(Constant)	3.205	.468		6.842	.000
	Face saving	−.001	.058	−.002	−.024	.981	.766	1.306
	Humility	−.065	.075	−.062	−.871	.385	.791	1.264
	Group orientation	.091	.098	.069	.923	.357	.696	1.437
	Reciprocity	.386	.094	.430	4.118	.000	.363	2.759
	Hierarchy	.017	.089	.018	.190	.849	.436	2.294

^aDependent Variable: Autonomous Regulation.

Question 2

Controlled Regulation

Pearson correlations revealed a significant link between controlled regulation and Confucian values (See Table 4). Survey questions concerning controlled regulation were often significantly linked to reciprocity, hierarchy, and group orientation. At the same time, the number of correlations for these three virtues were proportionately less than its autonomous counterpart. Questions three and twelve did not correlate to group orientation. Furthermore, question two did not correlate to any of the Confucian virtues. Perhaps externally motivated learners rely slightly less on inter-personal relationships, choosing to perform tasks according to an individual’s role in a Confucian classroom. Despite appearing less consequential, the number of correlations may still signal a need to place high value on pedagogical tasks that promote collective action. Associations with the virtue of hierarchy may also reveal a need to provide more explicit guidance and control by teachers in Confucian educational contexts.

In contrast to results concerning autonomous learning, face-saving and humility tended to have much higher correlations to controlled learning preferences. Because face-saving requires an individual to look at others’ opinions, it mirrors values for controlled regulation, which are governed by external rules and influences. Likewise, humility is a value that helps others to interact or participate in group settings. As a result, learners in Confucian contexts may obey external rules and regulations (external regulation) and be more highly impacted by praise and shame (introjected regulation). To better accommodate learners who hold these traditional virtues in high esteem, teachers may need to provide special training which can better promote autonomy, creativity, and innovation. This may be accomplished in three steps. First, teachers can carefully outline classroom rules and expectations which explicitly encourage novel behaviors for task completion. Next, teachers can ensure that peers all acknowledge and understand the importance of novel behaviors. Finally, teachers may need to normalize the process of creativity in completion of educational tasks, providing consistent examples, as well as ample encouragement.

Regression also revealed that controlled regulation was significantly influenced by preferences for Confucian values (See Table 5). The R-Square value of .21 suggests that more than 20% of preferences for controlled regulation can be explained by the selected Confucian virtues. ANOVA values reveal a significant F value of 9.965 (p < .01) (See Appendix D for more detail).

Findings suggest that Confucian values impact external sources of motivation for learning. However, not all independent variables had a significant impact on controlled regulation. As revealed in Table 6, only face-saving and reciprocity served as significant predictors. Collinearity statistics were again checked to ensure that other variables were not impacted by association. VIF values below 4 and Tolerance values above .25 suggest that correlations between the other variables were not masked by these significant correlations.

The highly significant correlation of face-saving to controlled regulation may be related to the “external” nature of the virtue. Like controlled regulation, which may rely on external sources of praise or punishment, face-saving requires an understanding beyond that of the individual, which is obtained through careful scrutiny of group perceptions, behavioral norms, and societal rules. As with autonomous regulation, special consideration of reciprocity values may require the reform of educational tasks, which better utilize collectivist values for decision-making and action. By acting as a group, learners’ stress or anxiety associated by individual action may be reduced, thereby heightening participation and innovation.

Table 4.

Controlled Regulation Survey Question Correlations to Confucian Values

		Face saving	Humility	Group orientation	Reciprocity	Hierarchy
I Will participate actively in class because others might think badly of me if I didn’t	r	.214**	−.041	.027	.058	.018
	p	.001	.544	.688	.394	.790
	N	218	216	216	216	218
I Will participate actively in class because I would feel proud of myself if I did well in the course	r	.099	.067	.111	.318**	.245**
	p	.142	.326	.104	.000	.000
	N	219	217	216	217	219
I Am likely to follow my instructor’s suggestions for studying English because I would get a bad grade if I didn’t do what he/she suggests	r	.174*	.106	.262**	.376**	.332**
	p	.011	.128	.000	.000	.000
	N	210	208	208	208	210
I Am likely to follow my instructor’s suggestions for studying English because I am worried that I am not going to perform well in the course	r	.348**	.191**	.238**	.377**	.314**
	p	.000	.006	.001	.000	.000
	N	210	208	208	208	210
I Am likely to follow my instructor’s suggestions for studying English because it’s easier to follow his/her suggestions than come up with my own study strategies	r	.273**	.170**	.316**	.338**	.249**
	p	.000	.013	.000	.000	.000
	N	213	212	211	211	213
The reason that I will work to expand my knowledge of English is because a good grade in English will look positive on my record	r	.220**	.200**	.289**	.391**	.380**
	p	.001	.003	.000	.000	.000
	N	218	216	216	216	218
The reason that I will work to expand my knowledge of English is because I want others to see that I am intelligent	r	.210**	.056	.082	.197**	.182**
	p	.002	.411	.232	.004	.007
	N	218	216	216	216	218

* signifies p<0.05.

** signifies p<0.01.

Table 5.

Regression Model for Controlled Regulation

Model summary
Model	R	R square	Adjusted R square	Std. Error of the estimate
1	.457^a	.209	.188	.96085

^aPredictors: (Constant), Hierarchy, Humility, Group Orientation, Face Saving, Reciprocity.

Table 6.

Correlation Coefficients for Each Independent Variable^a

Model		Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	t	Sig	Collinearity statistics
Model		B	Std. Error	Beta	t	Sig	Tolerance	VIF
1	(Constant)	2.950	.447		6.599	.000
	Face saving	.140	.053	.191	2.614	.010	.781	1.281
	Humility	−.099	.071	−.101	−1.389	.166	.787	1.271
	Group orientation	.043	.094	.037	.464	.643	.674	1.485
	Reciprocity	.260	.092	.314	2.831	.005	.340	2.938
	Hierarchy	.052	.086	.060	.610	.543	.434	2.305

^aDependent Variable: Controlled Regulation.

Implications of Findings

Results of the present study provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between self-regulation and cultural beliefs, which moves beyond prior research of Confucian heritage contexts, such as that of Bai et al. (2021). Inferential statistics reveal a significant link between Confucian values and self-regulation. This link is exemplified by data concerning both autonomous and controlled regulation, which correlated significantly to Confucian beliefs. Findings suggest that local Confucian values have an impact on how self-regulation is conceptualized. This may also have implications on a broader scale, suggesting that differences in local cultural values may have a significant impact on self-regulation in diverse contexts.

As learners appear to utilize a Confucian philosophical framework for understanding self-regulation, it appears necessary to develop educational techniques that work within this framework. For example, heightened teacher involvement may be needed in accordance with values for hierarchical control. This perspective may explain why some studies of self-regulation in contexts like Japan or China report a need for more teacher involvement (Walsh, 2021; Zhang & Zou, 2024).

The present study also provides empirical evidence to support the recommendations of Tan (2017b), who advocates a combination of values related to both individual and group development when adapting self-regulation to Confucian heritage contexts. Techniques will need to balance individual achievement with group goals and norms. Western paradigms of individualistic educational achievement may not be successful in such environments. While results of the present study have implications for contexts in which Confucian values predominate, the study also highlights the importance of investigating local cultural factors that impact the cultivation of motivation and learning strategies. Further research will be needed to develop more effective frameworks for the adaptation of self-regulated learning strategies to diverse educational environments.

Conclusion

Statistical analysis revealed that autonomous and controlled forms of motivation were significantly linked to traditional Confucian virtues. The findings appear to suggest that notions of learning autonomy are influenced by collectivist values (e.g., group orientation, reciprocity, and hierarchy). As a result, learners from Confucian contexts may differ in how comfortable they are with independent action. Some learners may be reluctant to act on their own, fearing that doing so would violate group norms for propriety. Others may rely heavily on explicit instruction and guidance from the teacher, limiting the progress of autonomous learning initiatives.

For traditional Confucian learners, empowerment may come from participation in groups, which foster collective goal setting and decision-making. Some research suggests that such collaboration in small groups can increase commitment, reduce “social loafing,” and generate readiness to compensate for other group members (Kleingeld et al., 2011; Seijts & Latham, 2000; Wegge & Haslam, 2005). In a Confucian setting, egalitarian peer groups may also promote autonomy. Since peers often share a common status, problems of suppression caused by differences in rank or position (power distance) may be reduced, giving learners more autonomy than in whole class settings. Additionally, utilizing peer groups may stimulate more creativity when students are reluctant to act independently without approval from peers or teachers. Finally, small peer groups may serve as scaffolds, leading to further independent activity as learners gain confidence. While extensive use of autonomous learning groups may be useful, some autocratic control may also be needed to ensure that these groups promote acceptance and foster innovation.

In traditional Confucian contexts, self-regulation may not be conceptualized as an individual endeavor. Instead, it may be envisioned to be a group process. Results of the present study appear to confirm this perspective, suggesting that a hybrid form of classroom regulation is needed. Strategies for self-regulation which combine both individual and group values may be more successful in collectivist contexts, since they mirror traditional cultural norms. Individual strategies for self-development may be coupled with group strategies that promote goal setting, motivation, and achievement. Although intriguing, findings are still incomplete, revealing a need for further research. There are key limitations that must be addressed to ensure generalizability of the results. First of all, the present study was limited to students that were purposively sampled from only one context in mainland China. Although this context does indeed have traditions rooted in Chinese values, beliefs or behaviors may differ from other settings with similar historical and cultural influences. More study is needed to see how learners from various Confucian heritage contexts conceptualize self-regulated learning. In addition, research must be followed by the development and testing of new pedagogical techniques to promote self-regulation, which can help to reconcile individualistic characteristics of autonomous learning with cultural values that promote collective action and harmony. Through additional research and experimentation, more culturally responsive pedagogical techniques may be developed to promote education in diverse contexts.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material - Can Autonomy Be a Group Affair? Investigating the Relationship Between Self-Regulated Learning and Confucian Cultural Values

Supplemental material for Can Autonomy Be a Group Affair? Investigating the Relationship Between Self-Regulated Learning and Confucian Cultural Values by Andrew Schenck and Caiyun Zhang in International Journal of Chinese Education

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Andrew Schenck

Ethics Considerations

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The authors obtained IRB approval from Fort Hays State University on October 4, 2024 to conduct the survey. The approval reference number is 25-0016.

Consent to Participate

Before surveys were given, learners provided informed consent to participate and publish the study. The informed consent was provided during the month of November 2024.

Author Contributions

A.S.: Conceptualization, methodology, draft writing, and revision, C.Z.: Conceptualization, methodology, and revision.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon reasonable request.*

Consent from Authors

Both authors gave consent to submit the manuscript to this journal.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online.

References

Alfaiz

R. H. R.

Triyono

M. D.

Septya Suarja

(2020). Student personal agency weakness in autonomous learning: Preliminary research. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 13(7), 973–989.

Bai

Wang

Nie

(2021). Self-efficacy, task values and growth mindset: What has the Most predictive power for primary school students’ self-regulated learning in English writing and writing competence in an Asian Confucian cultural context? Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1778639

Bembenutty

(2023). Influential role of self-regulated learning in preventing moral disengagement. Theory Into Practice, 62(3), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2023.2226550

Bembenutty

Liem

G. A. D.

Allen

K. A.

King

R. B.

Martin

A. J.

Marsh

H. W.

Craven

R. G.

Kaplan

Schunk

D. H.

DiBenedetto

M. K.

Datu

J. A. D.

(2023). Culture, motivation, self-regulation, and the impactful work of dennis M. McInerney. Educational Psychology Review, 35(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09743-3

Black

A. E.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237x(200011)84:6<740::aid-sce4>3.0.co;2-3

Boekaerts

(2002). Bringing about change in the classroom: Strengths and weaknesses of the self-regulated learning approach—Earli presidential address, 2001. Learning and Instruction, 12(6), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00010-5

Center for Self Determination Theory (CSDT) . (2025). Self-regulation questionnaires (SRQ). Retrieved from. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/self-regulation-questionnaires/

Chou

C. Y.

Zou

N. B.

(2020). An analysis of internal and external feedback in self-regulated learning activities mediated by self-regulated learning tools and open learner models. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00233-y

Chu

M. C.

(2022). The nature of the self, self-regulation and moral action: Implications from the Confucian relational self and Buddhist non-self. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(1), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04826-z

10.

Confucius . (2002). The analects of confucius (J. Legge, trans.). Project Gutenberg. Retrieved from. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3330/pg3330.txt

11.

DeWaelsche

S. A.

(2015). Critical thinking, questioning and student engagement in Korean university English courses. Linguistics and Education, 32(1), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.10.003

12.

Duckworth

Akerman

MacGregor

Salter

Vorhaus

(2009). Self-regulated learning: A literature review [research report no. 33]. Centre for research on the wider benefits of learning. Institute of Education, University of London.

13.

Egitim

(2017). The role of autonomy in critical thinking. Global Japanese Review, 9(1), 155–164. https://hdl.handle.net/10291/20647

14.

Egitim

(2022). Do Japanese students lack critical thinking? Addressing the misconception. Power and Education, 14(3), 304–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/17577438221107203

15.

Guay

(2022). Applying self-determination theory to education: Regulations types, psychological needs, and autonomy supporting behaviors. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 37(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211055355

16.

Hagger

M. S.

Hardcastle

S. J.

Chater

Mallett

Pal

Chatzisarantis

N. L. D.

(2014). Autonomous and controlled motivational regulations for multiple health-related behaviors: Between-and within-participants analyses. Health psychology and behavioral medicine, 2(1), 565–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2014.912945

17.

Howard

J. L.

Bureau

J. S.

Guay

Chong

J. X.

Ryan

R. M.

(2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 16(6), 1300–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789

18.

Huntington

S. P.

(1991). Democracy’s third wave. Journal of Democracy, 2(2), 12–34. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0016

19.

Iyengar

(2011). The art of choosing (2nd ed.). Grand Central Publishing.

20.

Jiang

A. L.

Zhang

L. J.

(2019). Chinese students’ perceptions of English learning affordances and their agency in an english-medium instruction classroom context. Language and Education, 33(4), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1578789

21.

Kim

(2013). Confucianism and acceptable inequalities. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 39(10), 983–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453713507015

22.

Kleingeld

Van Mierlo

Arends

(2011). The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1289–1304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024315

23.

Knittle

Fidrich

Hankonen

(2023). Self-enactable techniques to influence basic psychological needs and regulatory styles within self-determination theory: An expert opinion study. Acta Psychologica, 240(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104017

24.

Hayhoe

(2012). Confucianism and higher education. In Banks

J. A.

(Ed.), SAGE encyclopedia of diversity in education (1, pp. 443–446). Sage.

25.

Mangundjaya

W. L. H.

(2013). Is there cultural change in the national cultures of Indonesia? In Kashima

Kashima

E. S.

Beatson

(Eds.), Steering the cultural dynamics: Selected papers from the 2010 congress of the international association for cross-cultural psychology. https://doi.org/10.4087/ZFMU44273

26.

Marginson

(2011). Higher education in east Asia and Singapore: Rise of the Confucian model. Higher Education, 61(5), 587–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9384-9

27.

McGuire

J. M.

(2007). Why has the critical thinking movement not come to Korea? Asia Pacific education review, 8(2), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03029258

28.

McInerney

(2008). The motivational roles of cultural differences and cultural identity in self-regulated learning. In Schunk

D. H.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 369–400): Erlbaum.

29.

Merino-Soto

Chávez-Ventura

López-Fernández

Chans

G. M.

Toledano-Toledano

(2022). Learning self-regulation questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and measurement invariance evidence in Peruvian undergraduate students. Sustainability, 14(18), Article 11239. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811239

30.

Monkhouse

L. L.

Barnes

B. R.

Hanh Pham

T. S.

(2013). Measuring Confucian values among East Asian consumers: A four country study. Asia Pacific Business Review, 19(3), 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2012.732388

31.

Nandagopal

Ericsson

K. A.

(2012). An expert performance approach to the study of individual differences in self-regulated learning activities in upper-level college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(5), 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.018

32.

Niederhauser

J. S.

(2012). Motivating learners at South Korean universities. English Teaching Forum, 50(3), 28–31. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ997526.pdf

33.

Noels

K. A.

Clément

Pelletier

L. G.

(1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00003

34.

Northouse

P. G.

(2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.): Sage.

35.

Oga-Baldwin

W. Q.

Nakata

Parker

Ryan

R. M.

(2017). Motivating young language learners: A longitudinal model of self-determined motivation in elementary school foreign language classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49(1), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.010

36.

Olaussen

B. S.

Bråten

(1999). Students’ use of strategies for self-regulated learning: cross-cultural perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(4), 409–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383990430405

37.

Ozturgut

null

Author (2011). Learning by example: Standardized testing in the cases of China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 9(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.58809/DPYD4742

38.

Park

Chesla

(2007). Revisiting Confucianism as a conceptual framework for Asian family study. Journal of Family Nursing, 13(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840707304400

39.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2024). Self-determination theory. In Maggino

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 6229–6235). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_2630-2

40.

Schenck

(2023). Investigating the influence of classroom leadership preferences on the use of technology: A survey of Korean university learners. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 4(3), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.61186/johepal.4.3.118

41.

Schlaegel

Gunkel

Taras

(2023). COVID-19 and individual performance in global virtual teams: The role of self-regulation and individual cultural value orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(1), 102–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2671

42.

Schunk

D. H.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2013). Self-regulation and learning. In Reynolds

W. M.

Miller

G. E.

Weiner

I. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (pp. 45–68). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop207003

43.

Segundo

M. G.

(2023). Leadership and culture: What difference does it make? Regent university research roundtables proceedings, 32(2), 104–119. Retrieved from. https://www.regent.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Regent-Research-Roundtables-2022-Global-Consulting-Segundo.pdf

44.

Seijts

G. H.

Latham

G. P.

(2000). The effects of goal setting and group size on performance in a social dilemma. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 32(2), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087105

45.

Silva

M. N.

Marques

M. M.

Teixeira

P. J.

(2014). Testing theory in practice: The example of self-determination theory-based interventions. European Health Psychologist, 16(5), 171–180.

46.

Snell

R. S.

C. X.

Lei

H. W.

(2022). Junzi virtues: A Confucian foundation for harmony within organizations. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 11(1), 183–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-022-00146-1

47.

Suryadinata

(2008). State and Chinese religions in Indonesia: Confucianism, tridharma, and Buddhism during the suharto rule and after. In Tan

(Ed.), After migration and religious affiliation: Religions, Chinese identities and transnational networks (pp. 19–42). World Scientific Publishing Co.

48.

Tan

(2017a). Confucianism and education. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved 5 Feb. 2025, from. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.226

49.

Tan

(2017b). A Confucian perspective of self-cultivation in learning: Its implications for self-directed learning. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 23(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971417721719

50.

Teng

L. S.

(2024). Individual differences in self-regulated learning: Exploring the nexus of motivational beliefs, self-efficacy, and SRL strategies in EFL writing. Language Teaching Research, 28(2), 366–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211006881

51.

Tsui

A. P. Y.

Ngo

H. Y.

(2016). Social-motivational factors affecting business students’ cheating behavior in Hong Kong and China. The Journal of Education for Business, 91(7), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1231108

52.

Walsh

(2021). A study into the benefits of autonomous reading of a novel in an advanced English as a foreign language classroom. The Journal of Literature in Language Teaching, 10(1), 2–14.

53.

Wang

Torrisi- Steele

(2015). Confucian and Western teaching and learning. [IJAVET]. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 6(1), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijavet.2015010104

54.

Wegge

Haslam

S. A.

(2005). Improving work motivation and performance in brainstorming groups: The effects of three group goal-setting strategies. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 14(4), 400–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500349961

55.

Weijters

Baumgartner

(2012). Misresponse to reversed and negated items in surveys: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 737–747. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0368

56.

Williams

G. C.

Deci

E. L.

(1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.4.767

57.

Chen

(Eds.), (2018). Understanding Chinese culture: Philosophy, religion, science and technology. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8162-0

58.

Zhou

(2024). Unraveling the interplay between social-emotional need satisfaction and self-regulated learning: Longitudinal evidence from university students in China’s EMI programs. Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 13621688241304875. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241304875

59.

Yung

(2010). Can Confucianism add value to democracy education? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1919–1926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.1010

60.

Zhang

Zou

(2024). Self-regulated second language learning: A review of types and benefits of strategies, modes of teacher support, and pedagogical implications. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(4), 720–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2055081

61.

Zhang

Yin

(2019). Collaborative cheating among Chinese college students: The effects of peer influence and individualism-collectivism orientations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1608504

62.

Zheng

Liang

J. C.

Chai

C. S.

Chen

Liu

(2023). Comparing high school students’ online self-regulation and engagement in English language learning. System, 115(1), Article 103037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103037

63.

Zhou

Thomas

(2023). To survive or to thrive? Synthesizing the narrative trajectories of students’ self-regulated listening practice in an EMI transnational higher education context. Language and Education, 39(1), 270–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.2260358

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.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB