The SRL vs. ERL theory has shown that the combination of levels of student self-regulation and regulation from the teaching context produces linear effects on achievement emotions and coping strategies. However, a similar effect on stress factors and symptoms of university students has not yet been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to test this prediction. It was hypothesized that the level of student self-regulation (low/medium/high), in interaction with the level of external regulation from teaching (low/medium/high), would also produce (...) a linear effect on stress factors and symptoms of university students. A total of 527 undergraduate students completed validated questionnaires about self-regulation, regulatory teaching, stress factors and symptoms. Using an ex post facto design by selection, ANOVAs and MANOVAs (3 x 3; 5 x 1; 5 x 2) were carried out. The results confirmed that the level of self-regulation and the level of regulatory teaching jointly determined the level of stress factors and symptoms of university students. Once again, a five-level heuristic of possible combinations was configured to jointly determined university students’ level of academic stress. We concluded that the combination of different levels of student regulation levels and regulation from teaching process jointly determines university students’ level of academic stress. The implications for university students’ emotional health, stress prevention and well-being are established. (shrink)

This study is framed under the student approaches to learning tradition. The aim was to identify convergence in quantitative and qualitative responses of individuals when measuring their conceptions of and approaches to learning with a mixed methods design. A sample of 1110 Spanish Master’s level teacher education students completed a scale on approaches to learning, and a randomly selected subsample of 111 answered an open-ended question on how they learned. Overall, the qualitative and quantitative data did not support each other, (...) as inventory responses showed a clear predominance of a deep, non-surface approach to learning, whereas qualitative answers reflected a tendency towards lower-order conceptions of learning. Inconsistencies in the results suggest future research ought to use a combination of techniques when exploring constructs such as learning should they wish to draw valid conclusions. (shrink)