Transformational Teaching and Flow with Parallel and Serial Mediation Mechanism to Explain Student Performance in Political Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20262512Keywords:
serial mediation, parallel mediation, transformational teaching, flow, political expertise, political efficacy, academic performance, political educationAbstract
Introduction: research on transformational teaching has not yet clarified whether its effects arise through parallel cognitive and affective routes that emanate from flow, or through a sequential chain in which political expertise precedes political efficacy and then shapes performance. Resolving this issue matters for political education because it identifies the instructional levers most likely to cultivate democratic competence and durable academic gains.
Objective: this study positions flow as the proximal hub in the learning process and contrasts a parallel mediation model with a serial alternative that situates political expertise before political efficacy and, in turn, academic performance, estimating the relative strength of these pathways in political education.
Method: a cross-sectional survey of 312 undergraduates in West Sumatra was analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling with bias-corrected bootstrapping. The four dimensions of transformational teaching, namely Intellectual Stimulation, Inspirational Motivation, Individual Consideration, and Idealized Influence, were modeled simultaneously.
Results: Intellectual Stimulation, Inspirational Motivation, and Individual Consideration were positively associated with flow, whereas Idealized Influence showed no direct association when the other dimensions were entered jointly. Flow related positively to political expertise and to political efficacy, and both outcomes predicted academic performance. The indirect association from flow to performance via political expertise exceeded the association via political efficacy, indicating a dominant cognitive route; a complementary serial chain from flow to expertise to efficacy to performance was also supported.
Conclusions: in political education, transformational teaching most reliably improves performance by activating flow that strengthens political expertise, with affective efficacy contributing a smaller share and a serial mechanism operating alongside. Emphasizing Intellectual Stimulation, Inspirational Motivation, and Individual Consideration appears to be an effective strategy for triggering consequential learning states and enhancing outcomes.
References
1. Balwant PT, Birdi K, Stephan U, Topakas A. Transformational instructor-leadership and academic performance: a moderated mediation model of student engagement and structural distance. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2019;43(7): 884–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1420149.
2. Upsher R, Percy Z, Cappiello L, Byrom N, Hughes G, Oates J, et al. Understanding how the university curriculum impacts student wellbeing: a qualitative study. Higher Education. 2023;86(5): 1213–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00969-8.
3. Yozgat Bozok University, Yüner B. Transformational teaching in higher education: The relationship between the transformational teaching of academic staff and students’ self-efficacy for learning. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research. 2020;15(4): 350–366. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.323.19.
4. Aydin Kucuk B. Work Flow Experience in the Light of Leader-Member Exchange and Person-Job Fit Theories. Psychological Reports. 2022;125(1): 464–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120981927.
5. Fansurya AH, Susanto P, Abrian Y, Fadilah R, Wulansari N, Permata Lisna Y, et al. Tourist’s Length of stay: the perspective of flow experience theory. Cogent Business & Management. 2024;11(1): 2310258. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2310258.
6. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience.. 1st ed. New York: Harper & Row; 1990.
7. Jinmin Z, Qi F. Relationship between learning flow and academic performance among students: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023;14: 1270642. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1270642.
8. Guerra-Tamez CR. The Impact of Immersion through Virtual Reality in the Learning Experiences of Art and Design Students: The Mediating Effect of the Flow Experience. Education Sciences. 2023;13(2): 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020185.
9. Wang T, Manta O, Zhang Y. The Relationship Between Learning Motivation and Online Learning Performance: The Mediating Role of Academic Self-Efficacy and Flow Experience. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET). 2023;18(23): 27–38. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i23.43977.
10. Gold J, Ciorciari J. A Review on the Role of the Neuroscience of Flow States in the Modern World. Behavioral Sciences. 2020;10(9): 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10090137.
11. Dietrich A. Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the experience of flow. Consciousness and Cognition. 2004;13(4): 746–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2004.07.002.
12. Beaty RE, Zeitlen DC, Baker BS, Kenett YN. Forward flow and creative thought: Assessing associative cognition and its role in divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2021;41: 100859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100859.
13. Mao Y, Yang R, Bonaiuto M, Ma J, Harmat L. Can Flow Alleviate Anxiety? The Roles of Academic Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem in Building Psychological Sustainability and Resilience. Sustainability. 2020;12(7): 2987. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072987.
14. Mesurado B, Cristina Richaud M, José Mateo N. Engagement, Flow, Self-Efficacy, and Eustress of University Students: A Cross-National Comparison Between the Philippines and Argentina. The Journal of Psychology. 2016;150(3): 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1024595.
15. Wu J, Xie M, Lai Y, Mao Y, Harmat L. Flow as a Key Predictor of Subjective Well-Being Among Chinese University Students: A Chain Mediating Model. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12: 743906. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.743906.
16. Shin M, Bolkan S. Intellectually stimulating students’ intrinsic motivation: the mediating influence of student engagement, self-efficacy, and student academic support. Communication Education. 2021;70(2): 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2020.1828959.
17. Bolkan S, Goodboy AK, Griffin DJ. Teacher Leadership and Intellectual Stimulation: Improving Students’ Approaches to Studying through Intrinsic Motivation. Communication Research Reports. 2011;28(4): 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.615958.
18. Yukhymenko-Lescroart MA. The role of passion for sport in college student-athletes’ motivation and effort in academics and athletics. International Journal of Educational Research Open. 2021;2: 100055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100055.
19. Acosta-Gonzaga E. The Effects of Self-Esteem and Academic Engagement on University Students’ Performance. Behavioral Sciences. 2023;13(4): 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13040348.
20. Abrian Y, Fansurya AH, Fadilah R, Adnan MF, Adrian A, Surenda R, et al. The challenge of customer-oriented and emotional labor demand for hospitality internship students. Cogent Education. 2024;11(1): 2393927. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2393927.
21. Roorda DL, Jak S, Zee M, Oort FJ, Koomen HMY. Affective Teacher–Student Relationships and Students’ Engagement and Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Update and Test of the Mediating Role of Engagement. Dowdy E (ed.) School Psychology Review. 2017;46(3): 239–261. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3.
22. Wang D. The Mechanism of Teacher Influence on the Learning Engagement of Students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET). 2022;17(21): 135–149. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i21.35109.
23. Keller AS, Davidesco I, Tanner KD. Attention Matters: How Orchestrating Attention May Relate to Classroom Learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2020;19(3): fe5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-05-0106.
24. Oliveira W, Hamari J, Joaquim S, Toda AM, Palomino PT, Vassileva J, et al. The effects of personalized gamification on students’ flow experience, motivation, and enjoyment. Smart Learning Environments. 2022;9(1): 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00194-x.
25. Liu Q, Nesbit JC. The Relation Between Need for Cognition and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2024;94(2): 155–192. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231160474.
26. Boman B. The influence of SES, cognitive, and non-cognitive abilities on grades: cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from two Swedish cohorts. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2023;38(2): 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00626-9.
27. Hayat AA, Shateri K, Amini M, Shokrpour N. Relationships between academic self-efficacy, learning-related emotions, and metacognitive learning strategies with academic performance in medical students: a structural equation model. BMC Medical Education. 2020;20(1): 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-01995-9.
28. Akamatsu D, Nakaya M, Koizumi R. Effects of Metacognitive Strategies on the Self-Regulated Learning Process: The Mediating Effects of Self-Efficacy. Behavioral Sciences. 2019;9(12): 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9120128.
29. Cheung D. The Combined Effects of Classroom Teaching and Learning Strategy Use on Students’ Chemistry Self-Efficacy. Research in Science Education. 2015;45(1): 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9415-0.
30. Ilham I, Surya Afdal S. The Urgency of Internalization of Minangkabau Cultural Values At Education Institutions. SHAHIH: Journal of Islamicate Multidisciplinary. 2024;8(2). https://doi.org/10.22515/shahih.v8i2.7925.
31. Wolf EJ, Harrington KM, Clark SL, Miller MW. Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2013;73(6): 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237.
32. Sagan A. Sample size in multilevel structural equation modeling – the Monte Carlo approach. Econometrics. 2019;23(4): 63–79. https://doi.org/10.15611/eada.2019.4.05.
33. Beauchamp MR, Barling J, Zhen Li, Morton KL, Keith SE, Zumbo BD. Development and Psychometric Properties of the Transformational Teaching Questionnaire. Journal of Health Psychology. 2010;15(8): 1123–1134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105310364175.
34. Alscher P, Ludewig U, Kleinkorres R, McElvany N. When will they know what they don’t know? Political knowledge and the infamous “Unskilled and Unaware” effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2025;81: 102370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102370.
35. Scotto TJ, Xena C, Reifler J. Alternative Measures of Political Efficacy: The Quest for Cross-Cultural Invariance With Ordinally Scaled Survey Items. Frontiers in Political Science. 2021;3: 665532. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.665532.
36. Guenther P, Guenther M, Ringle CM, Zaefarian G, Cartwright S. Improving PLS-SEM use for business marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management. 2023;111: 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.03.010.
37. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2011;19(2): 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
38. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).. Third edition. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2022.
39. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).. Second edition. Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne: SAGE; 2017.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Al rafni, Putri Minas Sari, Milya Novera, Ika Sandra, Haryanti, Cici Nur Azizah, Zikri Alhadi, M Fachri Adnan, Suryanef, Alfi Husni Fansurya (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
