Andrew Schenck1*
Caiyun Zhang2- 1English Department, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
- 2Kansas International School, Zhengzhou Sias University, Xinzheng, China
Introduction: Cultural values may impact how well a learner uses self-regulated learning strategies in Confucian contexts, yet research remains limited.
Methods: To address the gap in past research, surveys were given to 281 Chinese university students concerning preferences for Confucian values, self-regulated learning, and self-regulated use of technology. Confucian values were then statistically compared to preferences for self-regulated learning and use of technology using regression and Pearson correlations.
Results: Results suggest that traditional cultural values that promote collectivism and power distance significantly impact perspectives on self-regulated learning. However, these same cultural values do not appear to significantly influence perspectives on self-regulated use of technology. Whereas conceptions about learning have been clearly defined by long-standing Confucian traditions, perspectives on new educational technology have not, explaining the findings.
Conclusion: New techniques may be developed to enhance self-regulated learning in Confucian heritage countries. Educational techniques that mirror collective cultural beliefs and respect norms for power distance may enhance performance in the classroom.
1 Introduction
Self-regulation, which refers to a student’s self-initiated processes for the improvement of learning, has a large impact on educational achievement (Zimmerman, 2015). In a recent meta-analysis of 22,838 students from grades 6 to 12, self-regulated learning strategies yielded an overall effect size of 0.84 (Graham et al., 2024). This is just one of a number of studies which exemplify the significant impact of individual autonomy on academic performance (Velki, 2009). Learners who have more control over their own educational development appear to outperform their peers. Increased agency in the learning process also leads to better academic performance (Anderson and Lu, 2017; Meer et al., 2019; Priyadarshini et al., 2019).
Despite the potential benefits of student empowerment, implementation of educational techniques that develop self-regulation may be more challenging in Confucian cultural contexts. This perspective is illustrated by a recent study, which suggests that students in China often lack behavioral or technical skills necessary for independent learning (Lin and Reinders, 2019). Studies also suggest that traditional teacher-centric approaches in other Confucian countries like South Korea and Japan (e.g., the grammar-translation approach) have led to challenges concerning the development of student autonomy and critical thinking skills (DeWaelsche, 2015; Egitim, 2022; McGuire, 2007). Traditional learning methods in Confucian heritage countries often rely heavily on traditional Chinese values that stress group action and teacher authority. Consequently, learners from these settings may not be willing to adopt more individualistic or autonomous learning practices, which are commonly found within Western contexts (Schenck, 2024a; Wang and Torrisi- Steele, 2015). While there appears to be a connection between Confucian cultural values and self-regulation, little research has been conducted to verify this claim. New empirical studies are needed to define the relationship between cultural values and preferences for self-regulation among learners in Confucian heritage contexts. With a concrete understanding of how learners conceptualize self-regulation, educators may develop more culturally responsive pedagogical techniques which promote autonomy and achievement.
2 Potential influences on self-regulation in Confucian EFL contexts
Self Determination Theory (SDT) describes underlying motives which compel learners to complete educational tasks. According to SDT, more internal motivations will lead to long-term utilization of learning strategies without the need for external reinforcement via rewards or punishments (Hagger et al., 2014). Internal motives that integrate values and behaviors into one’s sense of self may prompt autonomous action. Likewise, intrinsic motives for enjoyment or self-fulfillment may compel a learner to act independently (Knittle et al., 2023). These internal motivations compel students to regulate their own personal goals and learning behaviors, a process known as autonomous regulation. Research suggests that autonomous regulation leads to increased success, well-being, and persistence (Howard et al., 2021). In addition to inner motives for learning, external influences such as rewards and punishments often shape student behavior, as do feelings of shame or guilt. Collectively, these extrinsic forms of motivation compel a learner to manage behaviors in accordance with external social pressures, which is referred to as controlled regulation.
According to Silva et al. (2014), strategies to develop self-determination require relevance (providing a clear rationale for activities), respect (acknowledging the importance of the student’s perspective), choice (encouraging clients to follow their own interests), and avoidance of control (not using authoritarian or coercive control). While self-determination generally posits that autonomous regulation will promote intrinsic motivation and the development of longer-lasting positive learning habits, adapting this theoretical framework to a traditional Confucian educational context may be challenging. Initiatives to distinguish oneself from others is often a distinctly American trait, which differs from Asian narratives which are known to focus “on the benefits to the organization as a whole” (Iyengar, 2011, p. 43). In traditional Confucian contexts, learners tend to place a higher value on group goals, which is referred to as collectivism (Northouse, 2018; Segundo, 2023). Collective beliefs may be incompatible with educational strategies that promote individual action and learning initiatives. Power distance, which refers to the degree to which unequal power relationships are accepted, may also limit autonomous learning initiatives. In Confucian contexts, power distance tends to be more highly valued than in Western contexts like the United States (Northouse, 2018). As a result, top-down control of classrooms is often preferred, serving as a potential obstacle to the development of individual autonomy. Increasing student choice without control from a superior (the teacher) may conflict with traditional Confucian norms that promote both group action and autocratic control.
Culture is a key variable which impacts the effectiveness of self-regulated learning (Bembenutty et al., 2023; Schlaegel et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2023). However, little research has investigated this influence in Confucian heritage contexts like China. Although recent literature has identified a philosophical link between Confucian values and self-regulation (Chu and Vu, 2022), little empirical research has been conducted to verify this relationship. In addition, research conducted in Confucian heritage contexts has not clearly defined the cultural variables impacting self-regulation. In a recent study of self-regulated strategy use in Hong Kong, for example, cultural factors were briefly mentioned to have an impact on intrinsic motivation among participants, yet the study lacks detailed description of Chinese cultural variables involved in the process of self-regulation (Bai et al., 2021). Several different values associated with Confucianism may influence self-regulated learning, as revealed in a study of 400 respondents from four different East Asian countries (Japan, Vietnam, China, and Singapore); the study revealed five underlying cultural values that reflect Confucianism: face-saving, humility, group orientation, reciprocity, and hierarchy (Monkhouse et al., 2013). Face-saving, which denotes a fear of losing reputation, and humility, which describes a modest view of one’s importance, may both influence the degree to which a learner acts independently. For example, learners may avoid acting in novel new ways, fearing that doing so could violate norms for propriety. Group orientation, which refers to the desire for collective action, and reciprocity, which denotes the exchange of ideas for mutual benefit, may also promote group cohesiveness at the expense of expanding individual initiatives in education. Finally, hierarchy, the preference for distinct status or social differences, may compel learners to obey authority figures, thereby precluding independent action necessary for the development of self-regulated learning.
Although Confucian values may influence self-regulated learning, the actual impact is unclear. Tan (2017) has proposed a theoretical link between Confucian values and self-regulated learning, suggesting that traditional values for self-development should be combined with group values to provide a more culturally relevant model of self-directed learning. Although insightful, the study does not provide empirical evidence to define the relationship between Confucianism and self-regulation. Such research also neglects to identify how modern technology influences this relationship. As pointed out by Alsaleh (2024), technology is a dominant global force that can drive cultural homogenization and “overshadow local identities” (p. 1). It is essential that cultural values be examined alongside beliefs about technology when investigating self-regulated learning. Such study may provide new insights about how technological tools can be used to promote culturally responsive self-regulated learning.
By considering both cultural and technological factors when evaluating self-regulated learning, the efficacy (or inefficacy) of an educational technique may be more accurately assessed. In a study of self-regulated learning conducted in Taiwan, for example, interpretation of results through joint examination of cultural and technological influences may yield insights. Concerning self-regulated learning, the study reported that “students often have 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 and Zou, 2020, p. 1). This may be influenced by cultural factors like power distance or collectivism. Due to cultural values that promote adherence to authority and group action, learners may be reluctant to behave independently without adequate support from teachers or peers. At the same time, technology may have had an impact on how cultural values influenced self-regulation. The study showed that many students’ abilities to monitor learning and set goals did improve as a result of using the technology. Although the technological intervention may have complemented traditional cultural values, this issue was not adequately explored in the study. In fact, very little research exists in Confucian heritage contexts to examine relationships between cultural values, attitudes about self-regulated learning, and associated technological tools. More research is clearly needed.
2.1 Gaps in our understanding of cultural influences on self-regulation
Research reveals a gap in our understanding of how cultural values influence self-regulated learning and technology. Concerning cultural values, studies conducted in Confucian contexts with high power distance and collectivism suggest that learners lack agency or self-awareness required for self-regulated learning (Alfaiz et al., 2020; Chou and Zou, 2020; Walsh, 2021). A study of Japanese high school students, for example, revealed that self-regulation for language learning had its limitations. Learners who read novels did gain some metacognitive strategy skills, yet failed to cultivate skills for vocabulary acquisition or cultural awareness. As a result, the author recommended that further assistance from the teacher was needed (Walsh, 2021). Another study of Chinese university students revealed a high dropout rate for learners who agreed to participate in self-regulated listening tasks (Zhou and Thomas, 2023).
More research is needed to help educators understand how Confucian values may impact individualistic educational strategies rooted in the SDT paradigm. Currently, research conducted in contexts with Confucian traditions do report difficulties with individualistic goal setting and management of learning, a reliance on group strategies for completion of schoolwork, or failure to participate in activities for self-regulation (Alfaiz et al., 2020; Chou and Zou, 2020). Such results may suggest that educational reforms are required for collective societies with high power distance. Additional teacher intervention may be needed for some educational tasks, as was suggested in a recent study of Japanese high school students (Walsh, 2021). While some initial research appears to suggest a cultural conflict with SDT, more research is needed to clearly discern how Confucian values impact self-regulated learning.
Research is also needed to examine how cultural values impact self-regulation of technology in the classroom. Although extensive research has been conducted to examine technology’s role in self-regulated learning (Urbina et al., 2021; Yot-Domínguez and Marcelo, 2017), little research examines how this role is impacted by cultural values. Albeit limited, some research does suggest that Confucian values impact how technology is used in contexts such as South Korea (Schenck, 2024b, 2025). More research of relationships between self-regulation, technology, and cultural values may yield insights concerning potential pedagogical reforms in contexts with Confucian cultural traditions and influences. Further inquiry may help clarify the needs of learners in Confucian contexts, thereby giving educators the ability to adapt education to make it culturally relevant.
3 Research questions
To assess potential links between Confucian values and self-regulation, the following questions were posed:
1. Do Confucian values have some impact on perceptions of self-regulation in learning? How are Confucian values related to individual components of self-regulated learning, namely, autonomous and controlled regulation?
2. Do Confucian values have some impact on perceptions of self-regulated use of technology? How are Confucian values related to individual components of self-regulated technology use, namely, autonomous and controlled regulation?
4 Methods
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of Confucian values on self-regulation. Autonomous and controlled aspects of regulation were evaluated for both learning and technology via quantitative analysis of survey data.
4.1 Participants
The study sought to examine links between Confucian values and self-regulation. Therefore, participants for the study were purposively sampled from a university in a small city in the middle of mainland China. 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.
4.2 Instruments
To evaluate cultural values, the Confucian Values Survey by Monkhouse et al. (2013) was used. 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 statistical calculations could be conducted (see Appendix A for information on reverse items). The study reveals various values associated with collectivism and power distance. Whereas face-saving and hierarchy may reveal the maintenance of clearly delineated status relationships (power distance), group orientation, reciprocity, and humility appear to promote the maintenance of group values and norms (collectivism). The survey helped to provide information about both 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. Calculation of Cronbach’s alpha for the present study further confirmed reliability of the instrument, yielding a high value of 0.89.
To examine perceptions of self-regulated learning, 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 originally designed for students in chemistry classes. Therefore, the language for the instrument had to be modified slightly for use with the English language learning participants of the present study. 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 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 alpha reliability values of 0.75 for controlled regulation and 0.80 for autonomous regulation (Black and Deci, 2000; Williams and Deci, 1996). Calculation of Cronbach’s alpha for the present study yielded a high value for the instrument of 0.91.
To examine perceptions of self-regulated technology use, the Autonomy and Competence in Technology Adoption Questionnaire (ACTA) was utilized (see Appendix C). The instrument was designed to examine competence in self-regulation with technology. 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 5 (very true). Past studies revealed alpha reliability values that ranged from 0.73 to 0.82 for questions designated for autonomous regulation (2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10) and controlled regulation (1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12) [Autonomy and Competence in Technology Adoption Questionnaire (ACTA), 2025; Peters et al., 2018]. Calculation of Cronbach’s alpha for the present study yielded a high value for the instrument of 0.89.
Before the surveys were administered, they were translated into Chinese and examined by a Chinese native speaking expert in English translation. Each question was examined to ensure that the instrument remained a valid and accurate representation of the original. The surveys were then transferred to Microsoft forms for delivery to student participants.
4.3 Data collection
After obtaining IRB approval for the investigation, three instructors administered surveys to the participants. To help prevent survey fatigue, instruments were delivered at different times. The Confucian Values Survey was given at the beginning of class, whereas the Self-Regulation Questionnaire-LE and ACTA were 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. After respondents provided informed consent, survey data was collected, downloaded, and prepared for statistical evaluation. First, all Likert responses were coded with numerical values, with either five or seven representing the highest value for truth or agreement. Following this, values from three items in the Confucian Values Survey were reversed as required.
4.4 Data analysis
First, questions from the Confucian Values Survey were averaged for each participant based upon category (face-saving, humility, group orientation, hierarchy and reciprocity). These average scores were then used as independent variables to predict self-regulation of both learning and technology when using multiple linear regression. Next, variance Inflation Factors (VIF) and tolerance values were calculated to ensure that relationships between independent variables did not impact regression results. A VIF below 5 and tolerance level above 0.2 suggested that there was no multicollinearity (similarity between the factors).
Research question one sought to examine the influence of Confucian values on self-regulation of learning. Whereas categories from the Confucian Values Survey were used as independent variables, one overall score for self-regulation was calculated for use as the dependent variable. The score for self-regulation, referred to as the Relative Autonomy Index (RAI), was calculated for each participant by subtracting the average controlled regulation from the average autonomous regulation for each participant. The RAI provided one measure to evaluate the degree to which self-regulation was driven by intrinsic vs. extrinsic factors. As the RAI increases, a learner’s preference for autonomous regulation increases. Conversely, preference for controlled regulation decreases as the RAI increases.
Next, independent variables were compared to the dependent variable using multiple linear regression. Because this is a parametric test, Q-Q plots were calculated to ensure that values were normally distributed. Following calculation of linear regression, controlled and autonomous averages for each learner were correlated to Confucian categories using the Pearson correlation. Such comparison triangulated information obtained from regression, providing insights concerning individual components of self-regulation, namely, autonomous and controlled regulation. Analysis of these individual determinants provided additional information about the relationship between Confucian cultural values and the RAI.
Research question two sought to assess the influence of Confucian values on preferences for self-regulation of technology. To fulfill this aim, the same procedure was used, except the RAI for autonomous utilization of technology, which was obtained from ACTA, was used for calculations of inferential statistics.
5 Results
5.1 RQ1: Confucian influences on self-regulated learning
Confucian values had a significant impact on self-regulated learning preferences for the Chinese participants. Regression results in Table 1 suggest that 9% of the RAI concerning language learning can be explained by Confucian cultural beliefs. While this is not a large percentage, it is a significant value that helps to explain attitudes toward self-regulation in Confucian contexts. Resulting regression coefficients also suggest that face-saving is the most notable influence. The factor was highly significant, yielding a negative standardized Beta coefficient (β = −0.283; t = −3.605; p < 0.01). Although not quite significant, reciprocity was nearly significant at a = 0.05 (β = 0.225; t = 1.895; p = 0.06). None of the other independent variables had significant standardized Beta coefficients. All VIF values were below 5 and tolerance levels were above 0.2, suggesting that there was no multicollinearity (see Appendix D for more information on independent variables and regression values of self-regulated learning). Concerning Pearson correlations, there was a very strong link to both autonomous and controlled regulation (see Table 2). With the exception of humility for controlled regulation, all of the Confucian cultural values had a positive and significant correlation to both types of self-regulation.
Table 1. Regression model summary for self-regulation of learning.
Table 2. Self-regulation of learning (Pearson).
5.2 RQ2: Confucian influences on autonomous use of technology
Self-regulation of technology was not significantly predicted by Confucian values. Results of Table 3 suggest the RAI is not substantially impacted by cultural values. Only 3% of learner preferences for self-regulation could be explained by evaluating the learners’ Confucian values. None of the independent variables had significant standardized Beta coefficients. All VIF values were below 5 and tolerance levels were above 0.2, suggesting that there was no multicollinearity (see Appendix E for more information on independent variables and regression values of self-regulated learning). Correlating Confucian values to both autonomous and controlled regulation resulted in some significant correlations. However, these correlations were only significant with autonomous regulation (see Table 4). Group orientation, reciprocity, and hierarchy were all significantly correlated to preferences for autonomous regulation, whereas controlled regulation had no significant correlations to Confucian values.
Table 3. Regression model for self-regulation of technology.
Table 4. Self-regulation of technology (Pearson).
6 Discussion
6.1 RQ1: Confucian influences on self-regulated learning
Results suggest that Confucian values have a significant impact on self-regulated learning preferences. As the RAI increased, preferences for face-saving significantly decreased. Since larger RAI values denote a higher dependence on autonomous regulation (intrinsic motivation), the finding suggests that external social pressures associated with face-saving have a negative impact on a learner’s willingness to act autonomously. Concerning regression, the significance of face-saving may suggest that maintaining a learner’s reputation requires special care and consideration when implementing self-regulation in China. For example, training may be required to help learners embrace autonomous behavior as a collective norm, thereby promoting individual action, as well as self-efficacy and self-confidence. The near significance of reciprocity may reflect the importance placed on sharing resources and ideas as a group.
While Confucian values revealed only a small significant impact on the RAI for self-regulated learning, they were highly correlated to individual components of self-regulation (both autonomous and controlled). By investigating each type of motivation, many distinct relationships between the variables could be discovered. These relationships shown in Table 2 reveal that face-saving is more significant for controlled regulation. This correlation makes sense, since face-saving requires consideration of externally bestowed social roles and behavioral norms. In addition, correlations with group orientation and hierarchy may signify the importance of collective action and top-down decision-making. Finally, correlations to reciprocity could suggest a willingness to share information or ideas, which may explain past reports of collaborative cheating among some Chinese learners (Tsui and Ngo, 2016; Zhang and Yin, 2019).
Results of statistical analysis reveal a close link between cultural values and preferences for self-regulation. This relationship may be considered when developing new pedagogical strategies. For example, group-oriented methods to create and manage educational tasks may be developed which align with Confucian collective values. In addition, educational tasks may retain some autocratic authority over decision-making and management of learning tasks, thereby mirroring cultural preferences for hierarchical roles and power distance. Culturally responsive pedagogy may ultimately serve as a scaffold, giving students a learning framework that they can easily navigate and understand. It is important to note that the relationship between cultural values and regulated learning may not be unidirectional. As learners begin to develop confidence with self-regulation, they may become more comfortable using educational strategies that challenge existing cultural norms. While results of the present study provide intriguing insights, additional research is needed to test the accuracy of conclusions.
6.2 RQ2: Confucian influences on self-regulated use of technology
In contrast to conceptions of learning, Confucian values did not have a large influence on self-regulation of technology. Regression was not significant, nor were correlations to controlled aspects of regulation. Although less significant, Confucian values for group orientation, reciprocity, and hierarchy were significantly tied to autonomous regulation. There appears to be a weak relationship between preferences for autonomous control of technology and cultural values. This relationship may suggest that culturally responsive technological strategies which integrate group-oriented strategies or direct oversight from a teacher will be more effective. While intriguing, this finding must be interpreted with caution since correlation does not necessarily prove causation.
Overall, the lack of significance concerning cultural relationships and technology may reflect the relatively new addition of technology to ancient cultural traditions. Whereas learning has been clearly defined in some of the earliest Confucian texts, the utilization of cell phones, laptops, or iPads has not. Technology may lack a clear role in the existing cultural framework. Because technology is new, historical traditions like Confucianism may not be readily applied to conceptualize its use, explaining the findings. Conceptions of technology may culturally differ from those of learning, which have been molded through longstanding historical traditions.
6.3 Implications of findings
Results of regression and correlation suggest that Confucian values are much more closely linked to self-regulated learning than self-regulated use of technology. Concerning self-regulation of learning, the Confucian value of face-saving significantly predicted the RAI. Pearson correlations were also significant for nearly all the Confucian virtues, with the exception of humility, which was not significant for controlled regulation. Strong relationships between Confucianism and learning autonomy suggest that cultural conceptions shape the way learners view SDT. This finding appears to confirm the assertions of Tan (2017), who contends that Confucian cultural values for individualistic self-development must be combined with collective values that promote group action. Results appear to confirm the idea that group-oriented values should be integrated with self-regulated learning strategies employed in Confucian heritage contexts.
The significant impact of Confucian values on self-regulated learning may be explained by traditional ethics, which serve to shape how education is conceived. According to Kim (2009), Confucianism directly impacts pedagogy by framing “the ways in which knowledge is transmitted and applied to define modernities in East Asia” (p. 55). Due to the influence of Confucianism on attitudes about education, it may be important to carefully craft pedagogical techniques to mirror traditional cultural beliefs. To accommodate learners’ needs for group orientation and reciprocity, more collaborative tasks to promote goal setting and decision-making could be used. To accommodate a need for distinct roles based on status (hierarchy), more authoritative oversight from teachers may also be useful. A hybrid approach to self-regulated pedagogy could be developed, one which considers both collective values and power distance. Rather than providing individual freedom, a hallmark of SDT approaches largely devised in Western contexts, a hybrid approach which integrates both group action and top-down control by a teacher may be more effective. Additional research is needed to assess the veracity of this claim and test potential pedagogical applications.
7 Conclusion
Although motivations for learning have been extensively studied, the impact of cultural values like Confucianism has been largely ignored within past research. As results of this study would suggest, traditional Confucian values which promote collective action and respect for authority shape how learners perceive autonomous action. Due to the presence of cultural values that promote collective action and power distance, reform of the more individualistic SDT approach to education may be useful in Confucian heritage countries.
Past research suggests that avoidance of control and implementation of democratic methods are necessary to effectively promote self-regulation (Silva et al., 2014). In Confucian contexts, however, learners may be uncomfortable acting without some kind of explicit control by a teacher. Additionally, learners may conceptualize autonomy as a group affair, whereby an individual’s group is given some autonomy with respect to the teacher. By using peer groups, learners may be less hesitant to speak, since there is no authoritative figure to demand humility and respect. Research appears to confirm this assertion, suggesting that small group collaboration can increase commitment and initiative to act, thereby reducing “social loafing” (Kleingeld et al., 2011; Seijts and Latham, 2000; Wegge and Haslam, 2005). In addition, authoritative leadership may occasionally be needed to ensure that hierarchical status relationships are maintained in accordance with Confucian virtues.
While this study provides unique insights concerning the potential impact of Confucian values on self-regulation, there are key limitations which require further research. First, the sample was limited in size and collected from only one context in mainland China. Additional large-scale studies which examine different Confucian heritage contexts are needed to provide a more comprehensive perspective of self-regulation. Moreover, qualitative examination of relationships between cultural values, self-regulation, and technology is needed to further triangulate the findings. Finally, regression and correlation were used to show potential influences of Confucianism on the SDT paradigm, yet experimental studies are still needed to test the impact of new pedagogical techniques that integrate cultural values. New culturally responsive techniques may better promote language learning in Confucian contexts, yet design and testing have been limited thus far, revealing a need for further research.
Data availability statement
The data presented in the study can be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Fort Hays State University IRB. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because oral consent was obtained and no identifying or personal information was collected about the students. This protected each student’s personal information.
Author contributions
AS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CZ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
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.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
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.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1591474/full#supplementary-material
References
Alfaiz, R. H. R., Triyono, M. D., and Septya Suarja, N. (2020). Student personal agency weakness in autonomous learning: preliminary research. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Change 13, 973–989.
Alsaleh, A. (2024). The impact of technological advancement on culture and society. Sci. Rep. 14:32140. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-83995-z
Anderson, M. L., and Lu, F. (2017). Learning to manage and managing to learn: The effects of student leadership service. Manag. Sci. 63, 3246–3261. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2483
Autonomy and Competence in Technology Adoption Questionnaire (ACTA). (2025). Center for Self-Determination Theory. Available online at: https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/autonomy-and-competence-in-technology-adoption-questionnaire/
Bai, B., Wang, J., and Nie, Y. (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? Camb. J. Educ. 51, 65–84. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2020.1778639
Bembenutty, H., Liem, G. A. D., Allen, K. A., King, R. B., Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., et al. (2023). Culture, motivation, self-regulation, and the impactful work of Dennis M. McInerney. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 35:28. doi: 10.1007/s10648-023-09743-3
Black, A. E., and Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: a self-determination theory perspective. Sci. Educ. 84, 740–756. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
Chou, C. Y., and 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. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 17, 1–27. doi: 10.1186/s41239-020-00233-y
Chu, I., and Vu, M. C. (2022). The nature of the self, self-regulation and moral action: implications from the Confucian relational self and Buddhist non-self. J. Bus. Ethics 180, 245–262. doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04826-z
DeWaelsche, S. A. (2015). Critical thinking, questioning and student engagement in Korean university English courses. Linguist. Educ. 32, 131–147. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2015.10.003
Egitim, S. (2022). Do Japanese students lack critical thinking? Addressing the misconception. Power Educ. 14, 304–309. doi: 10.1177/17577438221107203
Graham, S., Cao, Y., Kim, Y. S. G., Lee, J., Tate, T., Collins, P., et al. (2024). Effective writing instruction for students in grades 6 to 12: a best evidence meta-analysis. Read. Writ. 38, 1–46. doi: 10.1007/s11145-024-10539-2
Hagger, M. S., Hardcastle, S. J., Chater, A., Mallett, C., Pal, S., and Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2014). Autonomous and controlled motivational regulations for multiple health-related behaviors: between-and within-participants analyses. Health Psychol. Behav. Med. 2, 565–601. doi: 10.1080/21642850.2014.912945
Howard, J. L., Bureau, J. S., Guay, F., Chong, J. X., and Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: a meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16, 1300–1323. doi: 10.1177/1745691620966789
Kim, T. (2009). “Confucianism, modernities and knowledge: China, South Korea and Japan” in International handbook of comparative education. eds. R. Cowen and A. M. Kazamias (New York, NY: Springer Netherlands), 857–872.
Kleingeld, A., Van Mierlo, H., and Arends, L. (2011). The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 1289–1304. doi: 10.1037/a0024315
Knittle, K., Fidrich, C., and Hankonen, N. (2023). Self-enactable techniques to influence basic psychological needs and regulatory styles within self-determination theory: An expert opinion study. Acta Psychol. 240, 104017–104011. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104017
Lin, L., and Reinders, H. (2019). Students’ and teachers’ readiness for autonomy: beliefs and practices in developing autonomy in the Chinese context. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 20, 69–89. doi: 10.1007/s12564-018-9564-3
McGuire, J. M. (2007). Why has the critical thinking movement not come to Korea? Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 8, 224–232. doi: 10.1007/BF03029258
Meer, J. V. D., Skalicky, J., and Speed, H. (2019). I didn’t just want a degree: students’ perceptions about benefits from participation in student leadership programmes. J. Leadersh. Educ. 18, 25–44. doi: 10.12806/V18/I1/R3
Monkhouse, L. L., Barnes, B. R., and Hanh Pham, T. S. (2013). Measuring Confucian values among East Asian consumers: a four country study. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 19, 320–336. doi: 10.1080/13602381.2012.732388
Peters, D., Calvo, R. A., and Ryan, R. M. (2018). Designing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Front. Psychol. 9, 1–15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797
Priyadarshini, C., Singh, S., David, R., and Bin Sayeed, O. (2019). Effect of student leadership on academic performance and perceived employability: a longitudinal study on scale development and validation in the Indian context. South Asian J. Manag. 26, 106–134.
Schenck, A. (2024a). Examining relationships between classroom leadership styles and Confucian values: a study of Korean EFL learner preferences. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 33, 659–670. doi: 10.1007/s40299-023-00762-w
Schenck, A. (2024b). Examining relationships between technology and critical thinking: a study of South Korean EFL learners. Educ. Sci. 14:652. doi: 10.3390/educsci14060652
Schenck, A. (2025). “What Would Confucius Do? A Study of Cultural Factors Impacting the Use of AI in Confucian EFL Contexts” in Integrating AI Into Pedagogical Education. ed. V. Wang (Hershey, PA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing), 103–118.
Schlaegel, C., Gunkel, M., and Taras, V. (2023). COVID-19 and individual performance in global virtual teams: The role of self-regulation and individual cultural value orientations. J. Organ. Behav. 44, 102–131. doi: 10.1002/job.2671
Segundo, M. G. (2023). Leadership and culture: What difference does it make? Regent University research roundtables proceedings, pp. 104–119. Available online at: https://www.regent.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Regent-Research-Roundtables-2022-Global-Consulting-Segundo.pdf
Seijts, G. H., and Latham, G. P. (2000). The effects of goal setting and group size on performance in a social dilemma. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 32, 104–116. doi: 10.1037/h0087105
Silva, M. N., Marques, M. M., and Teixeira, P. J. (2014). Testing theory in practice: the example of self-determination theory-based interventions. Eur. Health Psychol. 16, 171–180.
Tan, C. (2017). A Confucian perspective of self-cultivation in learning: its implications for self-directed learning. J. Adult Contin. Educ. 23, 1–14. doi: 10.1177/1477971417721719
Tsui, A. P. Y., and Ngo, H. Y. (2016). Social- motivational factors affecting business students’ cheating behavior in Hong Kong and China. J. Educ. Bus. 91, 365–373. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2016.1231108
Urbina, S., Villatoro, S., and Salinas, J. (2021). Self-regulated learning and technology-enhanced learning environments in higher education: a scoping review. Sustainability 13, 1–12. doi: 10.3390/su13137281
Velki, T. (2009). Relationship between academic self-regulation, academic achievement and health. Bulg. J. Psychol. 1, 105–118.
Walsh, N. (2021). A study into the benefits of autonomous reading of a novel in an advanced English as a foreign language classroom. J. Lit. Lang. Teach. 10, 2–14.
Wang, V., and Torrisi- Steele, G. (2015). Confucian and Western teaching and learning. Int. J. Adult Vocat. Educ. Technol. 6, 52–64. doi: 10.4018/ijavet.2015010104
Wegge, J., and Haslam, S. A. (2005). Improving work motivation and performance in brainstorming groups: the effects of three group goal-setting strategies. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 14, 400–430. doi: 10.1080/13594320500349961
Williams, G. C., and Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 767–779. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767
Yot-Domínguez, C., and Marcelo, C. (2017). University students’ self-regulated learning using digital technologies. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 14, 1–18. doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0076-8
Zhang, Y., and Yin, H. (2019). Collaborative cheating among Chinese college students: the effects of peer influence and individualism- collectivism orientations. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 45, 54–69. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1608504
Zheng, C., Liang, J. C., Chai, C. S., Chen, X., and Liu, H. (2023). Comparing high school students’ online self-regulation and engagement in English language learning. System 115:103037. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2023.103037
Zhou, S., and Thomas, N. (2023). To survive or to thrive? Synthesizing the narrative trajectories of students’ self-regulated listening practice in an EMI transnational higher education context. Lang. Educ. 39, 270–289. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2023.2260358
Keywords: self-regulated learning, autonomous regulation, controlled regulation, technology, Confucianism, self determination theory, Chinese
Citation: Schenck A and Zhang C (2025) Is Confucianism compatible with autonomous learning? An investigation of cultural influences on self-regulated learning in China. Front. Educ. 10:1591474. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1591474
Edited by:
Xiaochen Wang, Chongqing University of Education, ChinaReviewed by:
Fei Sun, Shandong University of TCM, ChinaMinghui Shi, East China Normal University, China
Copyright © 2025 Schenck and Zhang. 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: Andrew Schenck, YXNjaGVuY2tAYXVzLmVkdQ==