Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Influence of Self-Regulation on Learner’s Behavioral Intention to Reuse E-Learning Systems: A Moderated Mediation Model

Xu, Jia, Qiu, Xiaoyan·2021·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.763889PMC PMC8558232
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Learners’ behavioral intention to reuse e-learning is of great significance to the implementation and management of e-learning in higher education. This study examined the relationship between self-regulation and behavioral intention to reuse by focusing on the mediating role of study engagement and the moderating role of peer collaboration. Based on a sample of 379 undergraduates from central China, we found that self-regulation positively influences behavioral intention to reuse via study engagement. In addition, moderated path analysis indicated that peer collaboration strengthened the direct effect of self-regulation on study engagement and its indirect effect on behavioral intention to reuse. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed as well.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.763889

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The proposed model.
Figure 1 The proposed model.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 The mediating role of study engagement. Unstandardized path coefficients were reported; ***p<0.001 and **p<0.01.
Figure 2 The mediating role of study engagement. Unstandardized path coefficients were reported; ***p<0.001 and **p<0.01.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 The moderating role of peer collaboration on the relationship between self-regulation and study engagement.
Figure 3 The moderating role of peer collaboration on the relationship between self-regulation and study engagement.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 The moderating role of peer collaboration on the indirect effect.
Figure 4 The moderating role of peer collaboration on the indirect effect.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Al-Emran, 2020, Do knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing really affect e-learning adoption? An empirical study, 1983
  2. Ally, 2004, Foundations of educational theory for online learning, 15
  3. Lamborn, 1992, The significance and sources of student engagement, 11
  4. Radha, 2020, E-learning during lockdown of Covid-19 pandemic: a global perspective, Int. J. Control Autom., 13, 1088

Cited by

See all 13

Metadata

Authors
Xu, J., & Qiu, X.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2021-10-18
Volume
12
ISSN
1664-1078
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.763889
PMC
PMC8558232
Cited by
13
References
66
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (1203-413000068/2020AI010)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.