Modeling the Relationships Among Cognitive Flexibility, Cognitive Control, and Self-Regulated Learning: The Mediating Role of Cognitive Engagement

Seyed Ali  Ghaemmaghami; Mohammadbagher Kajbaf

Authors

Seyed Ali Ghaemmaghami Ph.D. Student in Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1915-6422
Mohammadbagher Kajbaf Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6359-8052

Abstract

Purpose: The present study aimed to model the relationships of cognitive flexibility and cognitive control with university students’ self-regulated learning, with cognitive engagement examined as a mediator.

Methods and Materials: This fundamental, descriptive-correlational study used structural equation modeling. Through convenience sampling, 365 university students in Isfahan were recruited during the 2025–2026 academic year; after excluding six invalid questionnaires, data from 359 participants were analyzed. Data were collected using the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory developed by Dennis and Vander Wal (2010), the Cognitive Control and Flexibility Questionnaire developed by Gabrys et al. (2018), the Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire developed by Bouffard et al. (1995), and the Cognitive Engagement Subscale developed by Reeve (2013). Pearson correlation coefficients and structural equation modeling with maximum-likelihood estimation were conducted using SPSS version 26 and AMOS version 26. Bootstrap procedures were used to examine the indirect effects.

Findings: The proposed model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data (RMSEA = .061, CFI = .903, IFI = .915, GFI = .935, χ²/df = 3.977). Cognitive flexibility had positive and significant direct effects on cognitive engagement, β = .607, p < .001, and self-regulated learning, β = .436, p < .001. Cognitive control also positively predicted cognitive engagement, β = .256, p = .028, and self-regulated learning, β = .478, p = .005. Cognitive engagement had a positive direct effect on self-regulated learning, β = .267, p = .047. The indirect effect of cognitive control on self-regulated learning through cognitive engagement was significant, β = .069, p = .024. In contrast, the indirect effect of cognitive flexibility on self-regulated learning through cognitive engagement was not significant, β = .162, p = .071.

Conclusion: Cognitive flexibility and cognitive control appear to contribute directly to university students’ self-regulated learning. Cognitive engagement also serves as a mechanism through which cognitive control is associated with self-regulated learning; however, its mediating role in the relationship between cognitive flexibility and self-regulated learning was not supported. Educational programs aimed at strengthening attentional control, inhibition of distractions, strategic flexibility, and active cognitive engagement may therefore promote students’ self-regulated learning.