Karla Lobos
Rubia Cobo-Rendón
Daniela Bruna Jofré2- 1Escuela de Psicología, Facultad de Educación y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Andrés Bello, Concepción, Chile
- 2Laboratorio de Aprendizaje Multinivel en Educación Superior (AMES), Instituto de Bienestar Socioemocional (IBEM), Facultad de Psicología, Universidad del Desarrollo, Concepción, Chile
- 3Dirección de Docencia, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile
Introduction: The study on self-regulated learning in blended learning (BL) environments highlights its crucial relevance for both the academic development of students and the evolution of contemporary educational methods. This research focused on conceptualizing self-regulated learning in university contexts with a BL modality, using direct student perceptions.
Methods: An inductive qualitative approach with a phenomenological design was employed. Responses from 312 undergraduate students who had completed their first or second year were analyzed; 65 participated in 10 focus groups (two per area of knowledge according to OECD classification), and 247 participated through a survey. Descriptive analysis was used to obtain a range of content and meanings associated with students’ perceptions of SRL-BL.
Results: The study conceptualized SRL-BL as a process where students structure, monitor, and evaluate their learning using self-reflection and digital technologies, with particular emphasis on planning. Significant differences were identified between SRL-BL and traditional SRL; in face-to-face education, teacher supervision is greater, while in SRL-BL, students take on more responsibility and autonomy, developing self-management skills. Although SRL-BL fosters autonomy and responsibility, students face obstacles such as distractions from social media and leisure technologies, which affect their concentration and study planning.
Discussion: It is essential to address the new challenges students face to maintain a high level of SRL in Blended Learning environments (SRL-BL) and the strategies they use to overcome them. The need to update the concept of self-regulated learning (SRL) in the current educational context, influenced by technological advances, is concluded.
1 Introduction
Self-regulated learning (SRL) is a construct with strong empirical support regarding its importance for success in higher education (Bernardo et al., 2020). Self-regulated students are more successful in learning because they plan, set goals, organize, and self-evaluate throughout their learning process (Yahya et al., 2021).
Research in higher education associates self-regulated learning with successful academic pathways by promoting better performance and higher retention rates (Barrera Hernández et al., 2020; Díaz et al., 2019a; Merchan and Hernández, 2018; Panadero et al., 2016; Sáez et al., 2018), greater engagement in academic activities (Barrera Hernández et al., 2020), and better adjustment to university life (Hernández Barrios and Camargo Uribe, 2017). Interventions aimed at fostering self-regulation have proven effective in improving performance and preventing dropout (Díaz-Mujica et al., 2017; Dörrenbächer and Perels, 2016; Järvelä et al., 2019; Sáez et al., 2018; Yan, 2020).
SRL is understood as a cyclical and interdependent process that integrates the control, planning, and adaptation of thoughts, behaviors, and feelings aimed at achieving a learning goal (León-Ron et al., 2020). According to Zimmerman’s (2000) Social Cognitive Theory, self-regulation is achieved through three cyclical phases during learning: planning, execution, and evaluation. In the planning phase, students set goals they aim to achieve; in the execution phase, they deploy cognitive learning strategies (e.g., reading and note-taking) and metacognitive monitoring processes to complete tasks (e.g., time management); in the evaluation phase, students assess their progress and understanding of the material and evaluate the factors contributing to their performance. Based on these reflections, students may decide to modify their behaviors to achieve current tasks or begin new ones. These phases are interdependent and do not necessarily occur in a sequential order, nor do they happen only once during a task (Zhang et al., 2021).
Promoting this competence in university contexts is especially important. Higher education faces significant challenges, including the massification of enrollments, a new student profile, and high dropout rates in the early years of study (Díaz et al., 2019a; Ferreyra et al., 2017; Munizaga et al., 2018). Not all students have the tools to successfully face higher education; there are significant gaps in the knowledge level with which they enter university, their learning strategies and thinking skills, their behaviors in adjusting to university life, and their ability to autonomously control and manage their learning (Bernardo et al., 2020; Díaz et al., 2019b; Taranto and Buchanan, 2020).
Continuing studies during the pandemic relied on online education, a modality that demanded a more active and autonomous role from students (Besser et al., 2022; Kincade et al., 2020; Lobos et al., 2021). Research conducted in this scenario (Hodges et al., 2020; Viberga et al., 2018) indicates that online education exacerbates the previously mentioned gaps, as it requires students to have greater capabilities to self-regulate their learning compared to face-to-face education.
Post-pandemic higher education is expected to predominantly feature hybrid or Blended Learning (BL) models (Almazán Gómez, 2020; Lederman, 2020; Portillo, 2020). Research conducted with 8,265 Chilean university students during the confinement period (Lobos et al., 2021) comparing expectations versus experiences with Emergency Remote Education (ERE) indicated that the experience with ERE improved students’ perceptions of the quality and benefits of online education, contrasting with their initial expectations at the beginning of the confinement period. In Israel, a study with 1,217 university students (Besser et al., 2022) found results consistent with those of the Chilean students, concluding that adaptability and facing challenges with ERE generate a positive perception among students toward online education, facilitating the establishment of a post-pandemic Blended Learning model.
Recent research indicates that online teaching and learning have become imperative (Kamali and Bagheri-Nesami, 2022), setting a precedent for a new reality in higher education (Gqibani, 2022). There is a need to offer mixed teaching, as this style combines many advantages of both virtual and face-to-face formats while minimizing their disadvantages (Pollock, 2022). In line with this, Jamilah and Fahyuni (2022) suggest that online teaching should be modified and combined with face-to-face learning in mixed teaching methods, which can overcome the deficiencies of online and face-to-face learning alone. This vision is shared by teachers, students, and administrators, as concluded by the study by Guppy et al. (2022).
In the BL modality, the virtual component is carried out through virtual classrooms that provide a suitable environment for the development of resources and asynchronous learning activities. The use of virtual classrooms has steadily grown worldwide, not only due to the emergency created by the pandemic but also because of the impact of new digital technologies and the increasing demand for graduates with digital skills to address the ongoing digital evolution in our society (Afıfy et al., 2023).
The virtual classroom is identified as a space for educational innovation, characterized by its flexibility and the versatile integration of content through a variety of resources and learning activities (Martínez and Jiménez, 2020). As such, virtual classrooms represent one of the most important applications of educational technology and are a primary means in interactive online education systems (Afıfy et al., 2023). They emphasize student independence and motivation, aiming to strengthen autonomous learning, critical thinking, and collaborative work through interaction and the development of academic activities (Martínez and Jiménez, 2020).
Learning Management Systems (LMS) also serve as essential technological support for teaching and learning in universities worldwide (Ghazal et al., 2018). They provide teachers with platforms that allow for information dissemination and classroom management (Simon et al., 2024). LMSs host a variety of tools that can facilitate user communication, such as discussion forums, real-time chat modules, and email clients (Turnbull et al., 2023). All these changes position self-regulated learning as a necessary competency for every student facing higher education.
1.1 Self-regulated learning and online education
Online education depends on the student being in a different location from the teacher or the source of information (Ibrahem Qetesh et al., 2020; Quezada Cáceres and Salinas Tapia, 2021). This modern educational phenomenon has evolved with technological advancements (Eljak et al., 2023; Kaplan and Michael, 2016).
During the pandemic, this modality was referred to as Emergency Remote Education (ERE) because it did not meet all the requirements of online education but was considered a step toward it (Talidong, 2020). Post-pandemic, it is anticipated that there will be a process of curriculum flexibilization, not to migrate entirely to online teaching, but to integrate online teaching with traditional teaching and leverage its benefits (Almazán Gómez, 2020; Lederman, 2020; Pardo and Cobo, 2020). In this context, ERE helped increase awareness of the influence of self-regulated learning in higher online education (Ibrahem Qetesh et al., 2020; Quezada Cáceres and Salinas Tapia, 2021), highlighting areas of concern for post-pandemic BL education (Cobo-Rendón et al., 2022; Shesha, 2023).
The teaching modality that combines in-person components with online components through computer systems is known as BL, a relatively new term in literature that began to be used and researched in the late 1990s (Hrastinski, 2009). BL can be described as a teaching method with bimodal delivery (in-person and online) that aims to holistically, intentionally, and effectively integrate technologies, strategies, and pedagogical activities, optimizing time by eliminating barriers of space, time, and resources (Freeman et al., 2014; Sia et al., 2023).
BL education promotes interaction, reflection, critical thinking, and facilitates spaces for collaborative work and an active attitude toward the learning process (Singh and Thurman, 2019). Implementing this educational model poses significant challenges for students who struggle to self-regulate their learning (Besser et al., 2022; Kincade et al., 2020; Lobos et al., 2021). For example, in the planning phase of self-regulation, students must consider various factors such as access to a computer at home, internet connection quality, and plan a workload by estimating the time required for asynchronous activities (Zhang et al., 2021). Aristovnik et al. (2020) noted that BL online education created a perception of a heavier workload among students due to time management and academic work organization difficulties.
In the execution phase, students face higher barriers to seeking help, maintaining concentration, and actively monitoring the time spent on each task (Adnan and Anwar, 2020). Leveling strategies like mastery paths encourage the use of various cognitive strategies for the same content and force students to monitor their performance when they do not reach the expected level (Goksoy, 2018). In the evaluation phase, students must make value judgments about their learning outcomes and study processes, considering new factors like the organization of materials in the virtual environment and their digital competence. Online evaluation systems often allow multiple attempts, which can encourage students to reflect on their performance and take corrective measures in their learning processes (Zhang et al., 2021).
In this new scenario, where virtual classrooms are an integral part of university education and the online component complements and enhances learning, it is necessary to update the concept of self-regulated learning (SRL) to meet the new demands of the Blended Learning context. This study’s objectives are to:
1. Conceptualize the process of Self-Regulated Learning in the context of Blended Learning (BL), identifying its characteristics and specific strategies.
2. Compare and contrast the differences between the process of Self-Regulated Learning in Blended Learning (SRL-BL) and the traditional approach (SRL-T), highlighting the necessary adaptations for the contemporary educational context.
3. Identify the main benefits and obstacles students face in implementing Self-Regulated Learning in BL modalities, to propose effective strategies for overcoming them.
2 Method
2.1 Design
An inductive qualitative approach with a phenomenological design was employed. This design aims to identify and systematize the ways people understand, experience, conceptualize, and perceive aspects of reality (Marton, 1981). Hermeneutic text analysis was used to understand the meaning and significance of students’ discourses on SRL BL (Martínez Miguélez, 2002). This approach combines phenomenology, which focuses on describing lived experiences as they are experienced, with hermeneutics, which emphasizes the interpretation of the meanings of those experiences (Izcara, 2014). This combination allows researchers to gain a rich and deep understanding of students’ experiences by integrating both the detailed description of the experiences and the interpretation of their deeper meanings.
2.2 Participants
The sample consisted of 312 undergraduate students who had completed their first or second year of study. Sixty-five participated in 10 focus groups (two focus groups per knowledge area according to the OECD classification), and 247 participated in a survey. Of the participants, 56% (166) were women and 44% (131) were men, with an average age of 19.07 (SD 1.56). 48% (142) had completed their first year of study, and 52% (155) had completed their second. The students belonged to four Chilean universities that use the BL modality through their virtual classrooms. Table 1 describes the number of students according to their scientific area (OECD) and the type of participation in the study.
Table 1. Description of participants by scientific area and type of participation in the study.
2.3 Instruments
2.3.1 Focus groups
The focus groups were conducted in the classrooms of the participating universities, lasting between 45 and 70 min. The focus group script included the following topics: (a) Conceptualization of SRL (Example: What do you understand by SRL in a blended learning educational context?) (b) Differences between SRL in face-to-face and BL contexts (Example: What could be the differences between a student who self-regulates their learning in face-to-face education versus one who learns in both face-to-face and virtual teaching environments?) (c) Planning strategies used for SRL in BL (Example: How do you plan to meet the academic commitments of the virtual classroom?) (d) Execution strategies for SRL in BL (Example: What do you do to monitor your level of learning during your study in the virtual classroom?) (e) Evaluation strategies for SRL in BL (Example: Once you have completed a study cycle, what do you do to evaluate your learning?) and (f) Benefits and obstacles for SRL in BL (Example: In a blended learning study modality, what would be the benefits of possessing good self-regulated learning skills; what obstacles could you face for self-regulation in a blended learning context?).
2.3.2 Survey on self-regulated learning in BL environments
Written discourses were obtained from a survey with three open-ended questions created specifically for the research. The questions addressed the following topics: (a) students’ understanding of SRL in BL (How would you define SRL in BL?) (b) strategies they use for SRL in BL (What strategies would you use for SRL in BL?) and (c) differences they find between SRL in BL and traditional SRL (What differences could there be between SRL in a face-to-face educational context and SRL in BL?).
2.4 Procedure and ethical considerations
The survey was administered digitally via Google Forms and sent to the students of the participating universities through institutional email. Participants for the focus groups were obtained through non-probability sampling using the snowball technique. University professors with prior connections to the researchers were asked to invite 12 students from their courses to participate in the focus groups, ensuring that the courses covered the six OECD areas. Three of the seven focus groups were conducted in person, and four were conducted via videoconference using the Teams platform. Ethical guidelines and principles were followed, including the use of informed consent, secure storage of information in coded databases, and ensuring the confidentiality of the information.
2.5 Analysis plan
The analysis of the discourses was conducted in three main stages: (1) reviewing the information, (2) identifying units of analysis, and (3) categorizing. Using the constant comparison method, the information was coded and analyzed simultaneously. Coding continued until theoretical saturation of the generated categories was reached, meaning no new data provided additional information (Krause, 1995). Through descriptive analysis, a range of contents and meanings associated with students’ perceptions of SRL-BL was obtained.
To accomplish this, an immersive reading process is carried out, where the transcriptions are read multiple times to familiarize yourself with the content and gain a general overview. Notes are taken on general impressions and recurring themes. Then, for the phenomenological description, the text is divided into smaller meaning units that capture specific aspects of the experiences associated with SRL in BL described by the students. Codes are assigned to these meaning units, labeling them in a way that reflects their essential content. For the hermeneutic analysis, a reflection on the underlying meanings of the meaning units is conducted, considering the BL university context and the individual perspectives of the participants. The meaning units are then grouped into broader themes that capture recurring and significant patterns in the discourses about SRL in BL. Finally, the interpretations are reviewed and refined by comparing them with the existing literature.
3 Results
The study aimed to conceptualize self-regulated learning in university education contexts with a BL modality from the students’ perspectives. Their discourses were analyzed, and the results were organized into the following areas: (a) how they define it, (b) what competencies they consider it requires, (c) what strategies would facilitate better levels of SRL BL, (d) differences between SRL BL and SRL traditional, and (e) situations that threaten the achievement of SRL BL.
3.1 Definition of SRL in BL education
Students define SRL-BL considering the same three stages of traditional SRL: planning, execution, and evaluation. “I understand it as a process of self-reflection and action where the student structures, monitors, and evaluates their learning,” (E39) adding the use of technologies. However, when asked for a more detailed description of SRL-BL, their narratives focus on the planning stage and to a lesser extent on execution, with no content associated with the evaluation stage. “I understand it as a concept that encompasses everything that is an academic organization, which the student must develop independently, establishing schedules and finding the most suitable and efficient method for them using these virtual platforms” (E46). In less precise responses, students equate SRL-BL to autonomous learning. “It consists of having the necessary tools for proper learning without needing someone to regulate it,” and “I understand it as my autonomy to better manage my studies” (E44).
The students’ emphasis on planning and autonomy, coupled with the limited focus on execution and evaluation, suggests that they perceive SRL-BL primarily as a preparatory and organizational process. This may indicate a need for educational interventions that emphasize the iterative and cyclical nature of self-regulation, including reflection and self-assessment. The integration of technology in their definition’s points to an evolving understanding of SRL-BL, where digital tools are not merely aids but integral components of the learning process. This evolution reflects broader shifts in educational practices, emphasizing the role of technology in facilitating self-regulated learning. The lack of attention to evaluation suggests potential areas for development in instructional design and support. Educators might focus on enhancing students’ reflective practices and self-assessment skills to foster a more comprehensive understanding of SRL-BL that encompasses all stages of the self-regulation cycle.
This analysis reveals that while students recognize the fundamental components of SRL in blended learning environments, their conceptualizations are skewed toward planning and autonomy, with less emphasis on execution and evaluation. Addressing these gaps through targeted educational strategies could enhance students’ self-regulatory skills and contribute to more effective learning outcomes in blended contexts.
3.2 Skills for SRL BL
Regarding the necessary skills for SRL BL, students mention the need for emotional, digital, and distraction management skills (see Table 2). Additionally, students report that self-regulation in learning does not mean dedicating oneself solely to study but making personal and academic life coexist (see Table 2).
Table 2. Competencies for SRL in BL education scenarios.
The identification of emotional, digital, and distraction management skills reflects a complex understanding of what self-regulation in BL environments entails. Students appear to be aware that these skills not only facilitate learning but also contribute to their ability to manage stress and maintain a healthy balance between study and personal life. The emphasis on integrating personal and academic life suggests that students view self-regulation as a holistic process. It is not solely about achieving academic goals but about building a lifestyle that supports their overall development. This perspective indicates a mature understanding of self-regulation, where education is part of a broader context of personal growth. This analysis reveals that students perceive self-regulated learning in BL contexts as a multifaceted process requiring emotional, digital, and distraction management skills. Additionally, they emphasize the importance of balancing personal and academic life as an integral part of their learning experience. This comprehensive approach can guide the development of educational strategies that support not only academic success but also the overall well-being of students in blended learning environments.
3.3 Strategies for SRL in BL contexts
Students describe strategies they use to self-regulate their learning in BL educational contexts. These strategies correspond to the three stages of self-regulation in a differentiated manner (see Table 3).
Table 3. Planning Strategies Reported by Students in BL Scenarios.
3.3.1 Planning stage
To prepare their study, students indicate developing strategies such as listing tasks, prioritizing tasks, setting goals, organizing evaluations, and self-care actions. The tools used in this process are mainly analog, technological, and virtual, associated with time planning and activity organization (see Table 3). They also mention actions related to maintaining healthy routines, including good nutrition and taking care of rest and leisure spaces.
3.3.2 Execution stage
In the execution stage, students report using self-monitoring strategies such as asking themselves questions and taking formative tests. They also value feedback and help spaces, differentiated into (a) peer instances, (b) with teachers, and (c) online support materials such as tutorials, exercise videos, chat, and specialized forums (see Table 4). Notably, teacher support is mentioned by only one student and in exceptional situations.
Table 4. Execution strategies reported by students in BL Scenarios.
In the realm of self-monitoring their learning progress, students indicate that in BL contexts, there are more comparison parameters as their own and peers’ performance is visible in the virtual environment, and it is common for professors to use rubrics (see Table 5).
Table 5. Self-monitoring parameters in BL Scenarios.
3.3.3 Evaluation stage
Regarding the evaluation stage, students mention strategies that refer to judgment and reaction processes toward their study. Judgments are made about their study processes (materials, technological devices, physical space, study strategies, activity organization, and time planning) and their learning achievement (goals, grades, competencies, knowledge, and learning retention over time).
Students react by developing responses in two areas: their learning and their motivation. For learning, reactions are based on negative events where expected results are not achieved, whereas for motivation, students deploy responses for both good results (praise and rewards) and poor results (self-encouragement and avoidance of pessimistic thoughts) (see Table 6).
Table 6. Evaluation strategies in BL Scenarios.
The strategies students describe reveal a detailed and differentiated understanding of the stages of self-regulated learning in BL contexts. Planning focuses on establishing a conducive and organized learning environment, emphasizing the importance of balancing study and personal well-being. Execution is characterized by social interaction and the use of online resources, indicating an adaptation to the digital BL environment. Evaluation shows critical self-awareness, where students reflect on their practices and outcomes, adjusting their methods and motivation based on self-assessment. The infrequent mention of teacher support in students’ self-regulation strategies underscores a shift toward personalized learning in blended learning contexts. Students are increasingly proactive in their self-regulation, relying on peer support and digital resources. This adaptability is a key feature of the evolving landscape of blended learning. The analysis reveals that students apply various self-regulated learning strategies in BL environments distributed across the planning, execution, and evaluation stages. These strategies emphasize organization, self-monitoring, and critical reflection, highlighting student autonomy and integrating technological tools and support resources. Fostering these strategies can enhance students’ academic success and personal well-being in blended learning environments.
3.4 Differences between SRL-BL and SRL-T
Student narratives highlight differences between SRL-BL and traditional SRL (SRL-T) (see Table 7). In face-to-face education, there is a certain control exerted by the presence of the teacher, helping them concentrate on academic tasks, whereas in a BL context, self-control is required, which is seen as a challenge for SRL BL. In face-to-face education, the responsibility for learning falls on the teacher, while in a BL context, the responsibility shifts to the student, making self-regulation skills more critical.
Table 7. Differences between SRL-BL and SRL-T.
In face-to-face study, self-regulated learning (SRL) is implemented through academic activities provided by the teacher. In contrast, in SRL-BL, the student defines what and how to study, adapting it to their own needs. Related to this idea, SRL-BL is seen as a skill that levels, complements, and/or aids learning, leading to additional study actions required in a face-to-face context (see Table 7). From the students’ narratives, it is inferred that the virtual component favors SRL by providing a global view of the learning process and the academic load it will entail, which in face-to-face learning is limited to a more linear view of the learning process discovered class by class. This global view of the learning process particularly favors SRL BL in its execution stage (see Table 7).
The perceived differences between SRL-BL and SRL-T highlight a significant shift in the dynamics of responsibility and control in the learning process. In traditional environments, the external control provided by the teacher structures learning, whereas in BL, students must take a more active and autonomous role. This shift toward self-regulation in BL implies that students need to develop and apply planning, execution, and evaluation skills independently. The ability to adapt learning to their personal needs and the global view of the learning process in BL can facilitate a richer and more personalized learning experience. The analysis reveals that students perceive SRL-BL as an approach that requires more advanced and autonomous self-regulation skills compared to SRL-T. The need for self-control and personal responsibility in BL challenges students to become more independent learners. At the same time, the flexibility and global view of learning in BL contexts offer opportunities for more effective self-regulation and adaptive learning. Fostering these skills can enhance learning effectiveness and prepare students for more self-directed educational environments.
3.5 Threats to SRL BL
The main threat perceived by students to SRL BL is distraction. Students express that concentrating in a virtual learning environment is more difficult, making it more complex to adhere to study planning, requiring additional effort. For students, the BL scenario presents a learning context with new challenges where factors such as social networks, leisure technologies (TV, consoles, among others), personal activities, and the disorganization of the virtual environment become threats to SRL (see Table 8).
Table 8. Threats to SRL-BL.
Students’ perceptions of threats to SRL in BL contexts highlight the importance of a structured and distraction-free learning environment for successful self-regulation. The presence of multiple sources of distraction in the virtual environment challenges students to develop effective strategies to maintain concentration and adhere to their study plans. The need for additional effort to manage distractions suggests that students must be more conscious and deliberate in implementing self-regulation strategies in BL contexts. This includes setting clear boundaries for the use of leisure technologies and social networks, as well as creating an organized study environment that minimizes distractions.
The analysis reveals that distractions pose a significant threat to self-regulated learning in BL contexts, requiring conscious effort from students to stay focused and adhere to their study plans. Fostering self-regulation skills that specifically address these distractions can enhance learning effectiveness and help students face the unique challenges of blended learning environments.
4 Discussion
Discussing self-regulated learning in blended learning (SRL-BL) environments is not only relevant for the academic development of students but also for the continuous evolution and improvement of modern educational methods (Gqibani, 2022). This study aimed to conceptualize self-regulated learning in university educational contexts with a B-L modality, based on students’ perceptions.
The SRL-BL is defined as a process in which students structure, monitor, and evaluate their learning using both self-reflection and digital technologies. Students describe this process following the same three stages of traditional SRL: planning, execution, and evaluation, although with a notable emphasis on planning and, to a lesser extent, on execution, while the evaluation stage receives less attention. SRL-BL is also perceived as synonymous with autonomous learning, highlighting the student’s independence and the effective use of virtual platforms to organize their studies.
Self-regulated learning promotes autonomy and responsibility in students, crucial skills for their academic and professional success. In blended learning environments, where face-to-face teaching is combined with online instruction, these skills become even more important (Zimmerman, 2000). The results show that students understand SRL-BL as an integral process of self-reflection and action, structured in three stages: planning, execution, and evaluation, but with particular emphasis on the first two. This understanding reflects an adaptation of the traditional self-regulated learning model to the blended learning context, where digital technologies play a crucial role.
The lesser focus on the evaluation stage suggests a possible area for improvement in training students for more complete and effective self-regulation. This aligns with findings from other research indicating low metacognitive processes due to a lack of training in metacognition. Metacognition is often not a central component of the curriculum in many educational institutions. Students may not be familiar with effective self-assessment techniques, such as critical reflection, the use of rubrics or checklists, and self-observation. Another influencing factor is that in many educational systems, evaluation is traditionally centered on teachers and standardized tests, which can prevent students from developing self-assessment skills. If students do not see the value of self-assessment or are not motivated to reflect on their learning, they are less likely to develop metacognitive skills.
4.1 Necessary skills for SRL-BL
For SRL-BL, students identify emotional, digital, and distraction management skills, as well as the ability to balance study with personal life, highlighting the multifaceted nature of SRL-BL. These skills are essential to face the specific challenges of learning in mixed environments, where the physical presence of the teacher and the traditional classroom structure are largely replaced by the student’s autonomy and the use of digital tools.
Regarding emotional skills, virtual education can increase isolation and reduce social support, favoring feelings of loneliness and anxiety. High levels of stress and frustration can particularly decrease motivation and commitment to studies. Students may feel overwhelmed and demotivated, leading to procrastination behaviors that affect their academic performance. Similarly, various studies (Avdija, 2022; Hinds and Sanchez, 2022; Knezevic et al., 2023) indicate that stress and frustration negatively affect concentration, memory, and decision-making capacity.
Research during the pandemic period (Hodges et al., 2020) indicates that one of the obstacles identified by students for good performance in virtual education is the excessive workload, its poor distribution, and the lack of prioritization among the types of resources contained in virtual classrooms for learning. A well-planned curriculum of the academic load assigned to students, with a better balance in the amount and types of academic commitments, would stimulate a less stressful and frustrating learning environment that favors participation, information retention, and overall satisfaction with the educational experience.
Concerning the above, self-care behaviors mentioned by students (sleep care, nutrition, and leisure spaces) could be measures to combat stress and frustration. When these are absent, there is a greater likelihood of negative effects on physical health, such as insomnia, headaches, and other health problems. Similarly, another measure declared as relevant by students was the ability to maintain a healthy balance between academic responsibilities and personal life, a challenge associated with greater overall well-being.
In the case of digital skills, students highlight the mastery of virtual platforms and digital tools as a necessary aspect, implying that educational institutions must ensure students receive adequate training in these competencies (Afıfy et al., 2023). Additionally, including digital competencies in higher education is crucial for the current job market, where these skills are essential for almost all professions, bridging the gap between education and market demands, ensuring a workforce prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, and driving economic and social development.
Finally, effective self-regulation requires students to learn to manage distractions, a significant challenge in virtual learning environments where social networks and other leisure technologies are constantly available (Turnbull et al., 2023). In this scenario, being able to create an appropriate study space (without TV, loud noises, constant traffic, etc.), having a fixed study schedule can help maintain discipline, turning off notifications on the phone and other electronic devices, or using applications that block access to social networks and websites unrelated to study during work hours, keeping the digital desk tidy, closing unnecessary tabs and using applications and tools that help maintain focus, such as task list apps and time managers, even communicating needs to family, friends, and peers to ask them to respect those times to minimize interruptions. Using active study techniques like taking notes, making summaries, and participating in online discussions can keep the mind active and engaged with the study material. This together would help students better manage distractions and create a more productive learning environment.
4.2 Strategies for self-regulated learning in blended learning contexts
The strategies for SRL-BL mentioned by students are abundant and varied, indicating that the experience with virtuality has significantly transformed how university students’ study. Some examples include the increased possibility of collaborative study through tools like Google Docs, Microsoft Teams, and Slack, which allow students to work together in real-time regardless of geographic distance. Multimedia materials like videos, podcasts, and others enrich learning and enable students to access information in different formats. Virtual and augmented reality allow students to participate in simulations and conduct experiments in a safe and controlled environment. Immersive technologies offer more interactive and engaging learning experiences, which can improve the understanding of complex concepts. Despite all these opportunities provided by technologies, they can also maintain and/or exacerbate existing gaps among students, as not all possess the necessary skills to successfully face these challenges, including SRL skills.
In SRL-BL, students mention the use of analog and digital tools for planning, suggesting that students combine traditional methods with modern technologies to manage their learning, resulting in a greater repertoire of strategies for SRL. These strategies give students more opportunities to anticipate the study strategy that might be most favorable, estimate the effort it will require, evaluate its complexity to visualize additional support needs, all desired behaviors that favor academic success.
In the execution stage, students report implementing self-monitoring strategies that focus on learning achievement, how the study process is carried out, and seeking help. The self-monitoring and help-seeking strategies reflect a deep understanding of the importance of continuous reflection and collaborative support. The lesser mention of teacher support may indicate greater autonomy, but it also suggests that teachers need to be more available to assist when necessary (Trespalacios et al., 2021). Finally, in the evaluation stage, students express developing some judgment and reaction processes. Self-judgment and reaction strategies highlight the importance of critical reflection on the learning process and the adaptation of strategies based on the results obtained. It is worth noting that in the reaction processes, strategies associated with addressing motivational cognitive states appear, such as setting aside negative thoughts in response to a learning failure evaluation or self-reward in the case of success, aspects less considered in the conceptualization of SRL and therefore little considered in programs aiming to promote it.
4.3 Differences between SRL-BL and SRL-T
The perceived differences between SRL-BL and SRL-T highlight the central role of the student in their learning in a BL environment. In face-to-face education, the presence of the teacher provides greater structure and supervision, whereas in BL education, the student must take on more responsibility. This implies that students need to participate more proactively and autonomously in their learning, developing self-management and self-control skills that are less demanded in a traditional environment where the teacher more actively regulates learning (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Consequently, in SRL-BL, students need to have a more comprehensive view of their learning process and the academic load it generates, facilitating better planning and execution of their studies compared to face-to-face education, where the learning process is discovered more linearly and sequentially.
4.4 Threats to SRL-BL
The main threat identified for SRL-BL by students is distraction. Virtual environments present numerous distractors, such as social networks, leisure technologies (television, video game consoles), everyday activities, and the disorganization of the virtual environment (Aristovnik et al., 2020). These factors make it difficult to concentrate and adhere to study planning, requiring extra effort to maintain self-regulation of learning in BL contexts. These distractions can reduce the effectiveness of learning and increase the effort needed to stay focused and follow study plans. This would be a cross-cutting threat present throughout the entire SRL cycle, regardless of the stage.
The study’s results underscore the complexity of self-regulated learning in BL environments, highlighting both the necessary competencies and the challenges students face. Educational institutions must consider these findings to design interventions and supports that strengthen SRL-BL. The results highlight the need to provide training instances for students that include both digital skills and strategies for managing stress and frustration associated with online education.
Despite the fact BL promotes a role for students with greater autonomy and independence, the teacher’s role remains fundamental in the learning process. It is necessary to emphasize that teaching in digital environments does not seek to eliminate the teacher’s role but to optimize this relationship through more channels and means of teaching. This allows activities with active methodologies to be carried out during synchronous and/or face-to-face sessions, where the teacher can convey expectations, attitudes, values, experiences, and expertise, aspects that are difficult to teach otherwise.
It is important to note that the number of cases in this study is limited, which restricts the scope of its results. This is particularly sensitive in analyzing the differences that SRL-BL might present between areas of knowledge and/or educational levels of students. Future research should expand and diversify participants (e.g., students who are not in their first year of study, from different educational levels and different areas of science) to enrich knowledge on this topic and delve into the specific strategies that students deploy to increase the effectiveness of SRL. Current instruments that measure SRL do not consider virtual environments or new technologies, making them outdated. Future studies could focus on developing and studying the psychometric characteristics of instruments that measure SRL-BL, providing the opportunity for experimental designs to estimate the impact of SRL-BL intervention programs and identify the most effective strategies.
5 Conclusion
It is concluded that it is crucial to update the concept of self-regulated learning in an educational setting that has been impacted by technological advancements. Attention must be given to the new challenges students face in achieving a good level of SRL-BL and the strategies they are using to address these challenges.
The study has conceptualized the process of SRL-BL environments, where students structure, monitor, and evaluate their learning using self-reflection and digital technologies. It has been observed that students follow the traditional stages of planning, execution, and evaluation, although with a particular emphasis on planning and less on evaluation. This adaptation reflects the student’s independence and the effective use of virtual platforms to organize their studies.
Significant differences have been identified between SRL-BL and SRL-T. In face-to-face education, the presence of the teacher provides greater structure and supervision, while in B-L education, the student assumes greater responsibility and autonomy. This implies that students need to participate more proactively in their learning, developing self-management and self-control skills that are less demanded in a traditional environment. SRL-BL requires a more comprehensive view of the learning process and better planning due to the physical absence of the teacher to actively regulate learning.
Among the identified benefits are the promotion of autonomy and responsibility in students, crucial skills for their academic and professional success. However, students face significant obstacles such as distraction caused by social networks, leisure technologies, and the poor organization of the virtual environment. These factors negatively affect concentration and adherence to study planning, requiring additional strategies to effectively manage self-regulated learning in B-L contexts.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The study was authorized by Comité de Ética, Bioética y Bioseguridad of Universidad de Concepción, whose identifier code is CEBB 1099-2022. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
KL: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RC-R: Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DB: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JS: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the ANID-FONDECYT 11221355 “Impacto de una aplicación web de Autorregulación del Aprendizaje integrada al aula virtual en el Aprendizaje Autorregulado, el Compromiso y los Resultados Educativos de estudiantes universitarios.”
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adnan, M., and Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: students perspectives. J. Pedagogical Soci. Psychol. 1, 45–51. doi: 10.33902/JPSP.2020261309
Afıfy, M. K., Alqoot, A. M., and Zedan, S. A. K. (2023). Criteria for designing and evaluating the quality of virtual classrooms during emergency learning. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 24, 160–178. doi: 10.17718/tojde.1110817
Almazán Gómez, A. (2020). Covid-19: ¿Punto sin retorno de la digitalización de la educación? Rev. Int. Educ. Justicia Soc. 9:3.
Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., and Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: a global perspective. Sustain. For. 12:20. doi: 10.3390/su12208438
Avdija, A. (2022). Substance use and stress-induced cognitive impairment: the causes of anxiety and depression among college students. J. Drug Educ. 51, 70–81. doi: 10.1177/00472379221148384
Barrera Hernández, L. F., Vales García, J. J., Sotelo-Castillo, M. A., Ramos-Estrada, D. Y., and Ocaña-Zúñiga, J. (2020). Variables cognitivas de los estudiantes universitarios: su relación con dedicación al estudio y rendimiento académico. Psicumex 10, 61–74. doi: 10.36793/psicumex.v10i1.342
Bernardo, A. B., Tuero, E., Almeida, L. S., and Núñez, J. C. (2020). Motivos y factores explicativos del abandono de los estudios. Editorial Pirámide: Claves y estrategias para superarlo.
Besser, A., Flett, G. L., and Zeigler-Hill, V. (2022). Adaptability to a sudden transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: understanding the challenges for students. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 8, 85–105. doi: 10.1037/stl0000198
Cobo-Rendón, R., Bruna Jofre, C., Lobos, K., Cisternas San Martin, N., and Guzman, E. (2022). Return to university classrooms with blended learning: a possible post-pandemic COVID-19 scenario. Front. Educ. 7:7175. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.957175
Díaz, A., Lobos, K., and Bruna, D. (2019a). Promoción de la autorregulación del aprendizaje en el aula universitaria. Chile: Editorial Universidad de Concepción.
Díaz, A., Pérez, M. V., Bernardo, A., Cervero, A., and González-Pienda, J. A. (2019b). Affective and cognitive variables involved in structural prediction of university dropout. Psicothema 31, 429–436. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.124
Díaz-Mujica, A., Pérez, M., González-Pienda, J., and Núñez Pérez, J. (2017). Impacto de un entrenamiento en aprendizaje autorregulado en estudiantes universitarios. Perfiles Educativos 39, 87–104. doi: 10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2017.157.58442
Dörrenbächer, L., and Perels, F. (2016). Self-regulated learning profiles in college students: their relationship to achievement, personality, and the effectiveness of an intervention to foster self-regulated learning. Learn. Individ. Differ. 51, 229–241. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.09.015
Eljak, H., Ibrahim, A. O., Saeed, F., Hashem, I. A. T., Abdelmaboud, A., Syed, H. J., et al. (2023). E-learning based cloud computing environment: a systematic review, challenges, and opportunities. IEEE Access 12, 7329–7355. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3339250
Ferreyra, M. M., Avitabile, C., Botero Álvarez, J., Haimovich Paz, F., and Urzúa, S. (2017). Momento decisivo: La educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe. Washington DC: Grupo Banco Mundial.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Psychol. Cogn. Sci. 111, 8410–8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Ghazal, S., Al-Samarraie, H., and Aldowah, H. (2018). “I am still learning”: modeling LMS critical success factors for promoting students’ experience and satisfaction in a blended learning environment. IEEE Access 6, 77179–77201. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2879677
Goksoy, S. (2018). Teacher views on the applicability of mastery learning model in teaching learning process. Egit. Arast. 18, 1–16. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2018.78.10
Gqibani, S. L. (2022). Online teaching due to Covid-19: Case study on the impact on engineering students. 2022 IEE global engineering education conference. ed. M. Jemni, I. Kallel, and A. Akkari (IEEE Computer Society), 226–235.
Guppy, N., Verpoorten, D., Boud, D., Lin, L., Tai, J., and Bartolic, S. (2022). The post-COVID-19 future of digital learning in higher education: views from educators, students, and other professionals in six countries. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 53, 1750–1765. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13212
Hernández Barrios, A., and Camargo Uribe, Á. (2017). Autorregulación del aprendizaje en la educación superior en Iberoamérica: Una revisión sistemática. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología 49, 146–160. doi: 10.1016/j.rlp.2017.01.001
Hinds, J. A., and Sanchez, E. R. (2022). The role of the hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis in test-induced anxiety: assessments, physiological responses, and molecular details. Stress 2, 146–155. doi: 10.3390/stresses2010011
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., and Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educ. Rev. 27, 1–12.
Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Comput. Educ. 52, 78–82. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009
Ibrahem Qetesh, M., Acar, T., Jamal Saadh, M., and Mohammad Kharshid, A. (2020). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic achievement and self-regulated learning behavior for students of the faculty of pharmacy, Middle East University. Multicult. Educ. 6, 24–29. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4291130
Jamilah, J., and Fahyuni, E. F. (2022). The future of online learning in the post-COVID-19 era. KnE Soci. Sci. 7, 497–505. doi: 10.18502/kss.v7i10.11251
Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., and Malmberg, J. (2019). Capturing the dynamic and cyclical nature of regulation: methodological Progress in understanding socially shared regulation in learning. Int. J. Comp. Support. Collab. Learn. 14, 425–441. doi: 10.1007/s11412-019-09313-2
Kamali, M., and Bagheri-Nesami, M. (2022). The association between online self-regulated learning and E-learning acceptance among medical sciences students during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Nurs. Midwifery Sci. 9, 219–223. doi: 10.4103/jnms.jnms_97_22
Kaplan, A., and Michael, H. (2016). Higher education and the digital revolution: about MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the cookie monster. Bus. Horiz. 59, 441–450. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008
Kincade, L., Cook, C., and Goerdt, A. (2020). Meta-analysis and common practice elements of universal approaches to improving student-teacher relationships. Rev. Educ. Res. 90, 710–748. doi: 10.3102/0034654320946836
Knezevic, E., Nenic, K., Milanovic, V., and Knezevic, N. N. (2023). The role of cortisol in chronic stress, neurodegenerative diseases, and psychological disorders. Cells 12:23. doi: 10.3390/cells12232726
Krause, M. (1995). La investigación cualitativa: Un campo de posibilidades y desafíos. Revista Temas de Educación 7, 19–40.
Lederman, D. (2020). "Will shift to remote teaching be boon or bane for online learning?. Inside Higher Ed. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/03/18/most-teaching-going-remote-will-help-or-hurt-online-learning (Accessed November 25, 2023).
León-Ron, V., Sáez, F. M., Mella, J. A., Posso-Yépez, M., Ramos, C., and Lobos, K. A. (2020). Revisión sistemática sobre instrumentos de autorregulación del aprendizaje diseñados para estudiantes. Espacios 41, 29–53.
Lobos, K., Bustos-Navarrete, C., Cobo-Rendón, R., Fernández, C., Bruna, C., and Maldonado, A. (2021). Professors’ expectations about online education and its relationship with characteristics of university entrance and students’ academic performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Psychol. 12:2391. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.642391
Martínez, G., and Jiménez, N. (2020). Análisis del uso de las aulas virtuales en la Universidad de Cundinamarca. Colombia. Formación Universitaria 13, 81–92. doi: 10.4067/S0718-50062020000400081
Martínez Miguélez, M. (2002). Hermenéutica y análisis del discurso como método de investigación social. Paradigma, 23, 9–30. doi: 10.37618/PARADIGMA.1011-2251.2002.p9-30.id270
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us. Instr. Sci. 10, 177–200. doi: 10.1007/BF00132516
Merchan, N., and Hernández, N. (2018). Rol profesoral y estrategias promotoras de autorregulación del aprendizaje en educación superior. Revista Espacios 39:52.
Munizaga, F., Cifuentes, M., and Beltrán, A. (2018). Retención y abandono estudiantil en la educación superior universitaria en América Latina y el Caribe: Una revisión sistemática. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 26:61. doi: 10.14507/epaa.26.3348
Panadero, E., Klug, J., and Järvelä, S. (2016). Third wave of measurement in the self-regulated learning field: when measurement and intervention come hand in hand. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 60, 723–735. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2015.1066436
Pardo, K. H., and Cobo, C. (2020). Expandir la universidad más allá de la enseñanza remota de emergencia. Ideas hacia un modelo híbrido post-pandemia. (Barcelona, Spain: Outliers School).
Pollock, N. B. (2022). Student performance and perceptions of anatomy and physiology across face-to-face, hybrid, and online teaching lab styles. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 46, 453–460. doi: 10.1152/advan.00074.2022
Portillo, S. (2020). Enseñanza remota de emergencia ante la pandemia Covid-19 en educación media superior y educación superior. Propósitos y Representaciones 8:SPE3. doi: 10.20511/pyr2020.v8nSPE3.589
Quezada Cáceres, S., and Salinas Tapia, C. (2021). Modelo de retroalimentación para el aprendizaje: Una propuesta basada en la revisión de literatura. Rev. Mex. Investig. Educ. 26, 225–251.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
Sáez, F. M., Díaz, A. E., Panadero, E., and Bruna, D. V. (2018). Revisión sistemática sobre competencias de autorregulación del aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios y programas intracurriculares para su promoción. Formación Universitaria 11, 83–98. doi: 10.4067/S0718-50062018000600083
Shesha, L. S. (2023). “Blended learning as the baseline for post-COVID-19 higher education” in Active and transformative learning in STEAM disciplines. ed. M. D. Lytras (Leeds, England: Emerald Publishing Limited), 229–245.
Sia, J. K.-M., Chin, W. L., Voon, M. L., Adamu, A. A., and Tan, S. C. K. (2023). Transitioning from online teaching to blended teaching in the post-pandemic era: what has COVID-19 taught us? Cogent Educ. 10:2. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2282313
Simon, P. D., Jiang, J., Fryer, L. K., King, R. B., and Frondozo, C. E. (2024). An assessment of learning management system use in higher education: Perspectives from a comprehensive sample of teachers and students. Tech: Know. Learn.
Singh, V., and Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). Am. J. Dist. Educ. 33, 289–306.
Talidong, K. J. (2020). Implementation of emergency remote teaching (ERT) among Philippine teachers in Xi'an, China. Asian J. Distance Educ. 15, 196–201. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3881825
Taranto, D., and Buchanan, M. (2020). Sustaining lifelong learning: a self-regulated learning (SRL) approach. Discourse Commun. Sustain. Educ. 11, 5–15. doi: 10.2478/dcse-2020-0002
Trespalacios, J., Snelson, C., Lowenthal, P. R., Uribe-Flórez, L., and Perkins, R. (2021). Community and connectedness in online higher education: a scoping review of the literature. Distance Educ. 42, 5–21. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2020.1869524
Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., and Luck, J. A. (2023). Learning management systems and social media: a case for their integration in higher education institutions. Res. Learn. Technol. 31. doi: 10.25304/rlt.v31.2814
Viberga, O., Hatakkab, M., Bältera, O., and Mavroudia, A. (2018). The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 89, 98–110. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.027
Yahya, N. A., Md Said, J., and Mohd Yusof, A. (2021). Students’ self-regulated learning in open and distance learning for mathematics course. Educatum 8, 1–5. doi: 10.37134/ejsmt.vol8.1.1.2021
Yan, Z. (2020). Self-assessment in the process of self-regulated learning and its relationship with academic achievement. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 45, 224–238. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1629390
Zhang, T., Taub, M., and Chen, Z. (2021). Measuring the impact of COVID-19 induced campus closure on student self-regulated learning in physics online learning modules, in LAK21: 11th international learning analytics and knowledge conference, ed. M. Scheffel, N. Dowell, S. Joksimovic, and G. Siemens (New York, United States: Association for Computing Machinery). 110–120.
Keywords: self-regulated learning, online education, blended learning, university students, quality in education, education
Citation: Lobos K, Cobo-Rendón R, Bruna Jofré D and Santana J (2024) New challenges for higher education: self-regulated learning in blended learning contexts. Front. Educ. 9:1457367. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1457367
Edited by:
Carlos Saiz, University of Salamanca, SpainReviewed by:
Carlos Ossa, University of the Bío Bío, ChileRubén Abello, University of Concepcion, Chile
Copyright © 2024 Lobos, Cobo-Rendón, Bruna Jofré and Santana. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Karla Lobos, a2FybGFsb2Jvc0B1ZGVjLmNs