www.ijcrsee.com
491
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
Original scientific paper
Received: April 21, 2025.
Revised: July 04, 2025.
Accepted: August 05, 2025.
UDC:
37:159.922.072-057.874
37.013.77
10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-2-491-503
© 2025 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
*
Corresponding author:
maksym.karpovets@oa.edu.ua
Abstract: This research aimed to track the impact of performance as a pedagogical technique on students’ reflective
and coping strategies. The study was conducted at the National University of Ostroh Academy (Ukraine) in the first autumn
semester of 2024 (from September to December) on a sample of 120 students from such study programs as Psychology and
Public Health. The type of design was a pretest-posttest experimental design (PPED), where we measured indicators both before
(pretest) and after (posttest) the performance intervention. The methodological framework consisted of three approaches: the
Reflective Problem-Solving Strategies (RPSS) (Savchenko and Makienko), the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS)
(Endler and Parker), and the BASIC Ph model (Lahad and Leykin). The study presented descriptive statistics, a chi-square
test (x2), and Pearson’s correlation analysis to show connections between reflective and coping strategies. The study stated
that performance positively changes reflective strategies, transforming and adapting them to external conditions. In particular,
the results showed that students most frequently employed reflective strategies such as “Criticality in Analyzing and Evaluat-
ing Information” and “Making Decisions Based on Internal Standards” to achieve a more effective and systematic analysis of
problems that arise during problem-solving. The Pearson correlation analysis revealed that reflective strategies correlate most
strongly with active and adaptive coping strategies, such as the Social Distraction Scale (CSSS) and Social Support (BASIC Ph),
indicating the importance of social (group) interaction in the development of cognitive skills. Altogether, the avoidance coping
strategies have been decreased significantly, indicating an increase in problem-solving, decision-making, and responsibility.
The conclusion is that performance increases reflective strategies by directly solving problems, using external resources as
emotional support and social coordination within the group. Performance can create open conditions for reflective problem-solving
and deep emotional support between participants, which will further increase student achievement and learning motivation.
Keywords: performance in higher education, performativity, reflective strategies, coping strategies, resilience, students.
Maksym Karpovets
1*
, Valeriy Borysenko
1
, Ihor Pasichnyk
1
, Olha Nedzvedovska
1
1
Institute of Social and Humanitarian Management, National University of Ostroh Academy, Ostroh, Ukraine
e-mail: maksym.karpovets@oa.edu.ua, ihor.pasichnyk@oa.edu.ua,
valerii.borysenko@oa.edu.ua, olga.nedzvedovska@oa.edu.ua
The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping
Strategies in Higher Education
Introduction and Theoretical Framework
The modern educational environment is characterized by the fundamental revision of classical
didactic approaches, considering the growing crisis in how knowledge is acquired and reproduced. In
particular, the traditional or singular teaching approach assumes that the teacher is the subject, and the
student is the object, where the main task is the accumulation and assimilation of knowledge (Hu, 2024, p.
215). Modern developmental psychologists and educators (Marchenko, Slipchuk and Yuzkiv, 2023; Shin,
2023; Bokolo, 2024) emphasize the fundamental inefficiency of the linear knowledge transition, underlin-
ing the importance of interaction and engagement for effective learning. In this approach, the teacher dis-
tances themselves from the student, assuming automatic reproduction of the material without emotional
or physical engagement. Students need direct engagement in learning, not so much to understand but to
experience knowledge performatively: “In order to address this, institutions of higher education all around
the world are required to deploy engaging and innovative approaches to improve the motivation and learn-
www.ijcrsee.com
492
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
ing satisfaction of their students” (
Bokolo, 2024, p. 1402). This fact illustrates the dual connection between
cognitive processes and performative actions. On the one hand, knowledge needs its practical embodi-
ment to be transformed into individual experience to acquire a more useful and “actionable” meaning.
On the other hand, performativity enables the development of new types of knowledge and skills, often
creating uncertain conditions in which students work together to seek solutions.
In our study, we define performance as a pedagogical approach that allows achieving educational
and extracurricular results through interactive, body-oriented, and demonstrative collaboration between
teacher and students. Accordingly, performative tasks are the results of using appropriate performative
techniques (role-playing, dramatic scenarios, process drama, embodied learning, reflection, and meta-
cognition) to create more engaging, interactive, and profound experiences. Applying performance and
performativity in higher education offers an alternative to classical pedagogical methods. The classical
approach suggests the teachers’ role lies in a vertical hierarchy of their students (Chapman, 2021; Sahito,
2025), where the latter perceive knowledge merely as received information – a set of skills and abilities
for further professional development. In contrast, a performance approach in higher education eliminates
the hierarchy between educational roles, enabling a freer and often spontaneous educational process.
Some scholars connect performative learning with active learning, where the latter “has been ac-
cepted as a new learning-teaching methodology that focuses more on the participation of students than the
traditional learning-teaching model” (
Sahito, 2025
, p. 110). Students must be perceived as active learners,
and what is visible and easily observable is measured (Macfarlane and Tomlinson, 2017). Following the
theories of Vygotsky and Piaget, proponents of this approach believe that active learning improves stu-
dents’ cognitive skills, problem-solving skills, and socialization (Bucklin et al., 2021;
Sahito, 2025
). Active
learning involves utilizing interactive tools to achieve better cognitive outcomes. In an interactive learning
environment, students function as learning resources for each other: they communicate, observe each
other’s work, share ideas, and make collective decisions. Macfarlane (2014) underlines this activity in the
following way: “In parallel, students are now expected to demonstrate more visibly that they are ‘learning’
rather than simply being offered the opportunity to attend lectures and seminars. What it means to be a stu-
dent, not just the product of their intellectual endeavors undertaken in private, is now observed and evalu-
ated” (p. 339). The physical presence of students in the classroom fosters social interaction and cohesion
(Baars et al., 2020), through which they exchange experiences and acquire new knowledge.
In contrast, performative learning is already a tool that enables students to transform knowledge
and algorithmic (operational) skills (Carlomagno, 2021). Some of these tools and actions are conscious,
which take performance beyond the group into one’s individual life: “With awareness comes the ability to
adjust your actions and how you interpret the actions of others” (Schechner, 2020, p. 4). This conclusion
is relevant to any performance, including educational performance. Karpovets and Pasichnyk (2024) note
the performative perspective “assumes two critical conditions: both the use of performative methods in the
activation of one’s cognitive abilities during educational activities and the achievement of the best result
of cognitive activity as a performance” (p. 58). The pressure to meet grading standards and achieve high
academic outcomes can either motivate students to refine their cognitive strategies or lead to maladaptive
coping behaviors such as procrastination and avoidance. The task of teachers is to create an environment
through their performance that promotes self-reflection and motivation for learning (Achdiyah, Latipun and
Yuniardi, 2023, p. 86). Engagement in performance encourages students to grow closer to one another
and to push beyond the boundaries of familiar cognitive schemes and models.
Performance focuses on the procedural aspect of education, where psychological processes
such as emotional and physical engagement, student well-being and performance satisfaction are fun-
damental (
Kulkarni et al., 2020; Nysveen et al., 2022). A distinctive feature of this educational “effective-
ness” is that performance always means an activity in front of the audience or self-presentation. As Cvejić
(2015) suggests, a person enacts performativity (and simultaneously becomes performative) to the extent
that they can sense themselves and present their performance to others (p. 72). Hence, presentation in
performance involves not only presenting the material, but also one’s identity and often a group vision,
which usually involves stress and anxiety (
Caron et al., 2021; Grieve et al., 2021). Although some studies
show that the presence of an audience might encourage a person to perform better (Zaharani and Sirehar,
2020
), there is still a need to find coping strategies that students can rely on during performative learning,
from the preparation stage to the final presentation.
Performative activity in higher education encompasses a wide range of actions, from engaging
www.ijcrsee.com
493
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
with emotional intelligence (Padilla Petry et al., 2022; Bokolo, 2024) to transforming of cognitive para-
digms (Nicolaides, 2022; Østern et al., 2023) through the performance of specific scenarios and practices.
In a psychological context, one of the primary functions of performance in higher education is to shift the
ways of thinking within academic activity (Karpovets and Pasichnyk, 2024). Students primarily assessed
based on grades may focus solely on memorization and achieving high marks – essential but not central
to a deep understanding of the subject. Performative activity redirects cognitive processes from surface
learning to more critical and reflective comprehension of material by encouraging interaction and reflexiv-
ity (Macfarlane, 2014, p. 342), thereby fostering a holistic adjustment of thinking processes through col-
laborative actions. In such interaction, there are no better or worse results; every contribution is valuable
and significant. Consequently, students experience less pressure than traditional classes, as the process
rather than the outcome becomes the focal point of academic activity. By creating a comfortable and
inclusive environment for interaction, educators aim to overcome students’ fears and biases rooted in
their cultural backgrounds. In other words, the teacher’s “psychological goal” is to liberate students from
error stress or feelings of guilt. Regarding this fact, the main elements of performance in higher educa-
tion include staging, interactivity, mimesis, improvisation, creativity, and presentation (Macfarlane, 2014;
Nysveen et al., 2022; Shin, 2023; Li, 2023).
The involvement of students in performance enables them to develop critical cognitive abilities and
skills, which are essential for both successful learning and socialization. Researchers emphasize that
one’s interaction with classmates positively affects cognitive processes and changes (Anderson, 2013;
Slavin, 2014; Qureshi, 2021; Arjomandi et al., 2023); thus, we assume that the more students interact
with performance in their physical classrooms, the more they improve their cognitive abilities and strate-
gies. Performance encourages not only the accumulation of knowledge about the subject but also de-
velops personal and collective interest, creative skills, meaning-making, and problem-solving, as well as
metacognitive techniques that help correct and regulate successful and unsuccessful cognitive strategies
(Balashov, 2022). Finally, the interplay between reflective and coping strategies/sources in performance
determines students’ capacity to engage in meaningful reflection and adopt those techniques that either
support or hinder their academic success (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of the mutual influence of reflective and coping strategies on students’ learning success
Higher education presents students with numerous academic, social, and psychological challenges
that demand effective reflective and coping strategies (Gustems-Carnicer et al., 2019; Kalamazh et al.,
2024). As Endler and Parker (1994) state, “coping strategies play a significant role in a person’s adapta-
tion to stressful life events” (p. 50); thus, learning at the university influences the development of essential
strategies for long-term sustainability. Egozi-Farkash et al. (2025) state that resilience is a multi-faceted
construct influenced by many factors, from individual personality traits to external support systems. We
also agree with Waterhouse and Samra (2025), who define “coping as a dynamic process that is the out-
come of the interaction between the individual and their environment” (p. 26). The university is such an
external environment that, in addition to challenges, can also offer opportunities for resilience. In our case,
we define coping strategies as specific psychological and behavioral techniques that help students man-
age stress during learning, enabling them to stay focused, motivated, and perform more effectively. All in
all, understanding the relationship between academic performance and students’ reflective and coping
strategies within the environment is crucial for developing interventions that foster resilience, adaptability,
and overall well-being in higher education settings.
www.ijcrsee.com
494
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
We hypothesize that incorporating performance into the classroom will strengthen students’ reflec-
tive strategies, encouraging them to seek coping strategies that focus on social adaptation and interac-
tion. We assume that the more students resolve complex group tasks, the more they develop their cogni-
tive abilities through social coping without avoiding learning challenges and problems.
Materials and Methods
We conducted an empirical study with a sample of 120 volunteer students from the Institute of So-
cial and Humanitarian Management at the National University of Ostroh Academy (Ukraine), representing
undergraduate programs such as “Psychology” (74%) and “Public Health” (26%). Participants did not re-
ceive any remuneration for their participation, and all of them belonged to the Ukrainian ethnic group. We
did not consider gender differences in the sample since most students are women (Mage = 18,57, SDage =
1,32). We collected the research data during the first autumn semester of 2024, which started in Septem-
ber and finished in December. The questionnaires enabled us to collect data that was available online in
Google Forms, which we provided access to at the beginning and end of the courses. Participants could
click on the link to the questionnaire and fill out the data while remaining anonymous.
T
he experiment with performance will show how students combine reflective and coping strategies
to achieve performative tasks and learning success. In our study, we employed a pretest-posttest experi-
mental design (PPED), where we measured indicators of the selected methodologies both before (pretest)
and after (posttest) the performance intervention. The research design involved the use of three empirical
methods: the Reflective Problem-Solving Strategies (RPSS) (Savchenko, 2016), the Coping Inventory for
Stressful Situations (CISS) (Endler and Parker, 1990), and the BASIC Ph model (Lahad, 2017). The use of
these models provided a robust methodological triangulation, enhancing the validity of our findings.
The RPSS approach consisted of 35 statements that allowed us to explore four reflective strate-
gies for solving complex problems: Deep Information Processing, Criticality in Analyzing and Evaluat-
ing Information, Making Decisions Based on Internal Standards, and a Rational Approach to Problem-
Solving. Each statement proposes two options that describe a specific aspect of the reflective strategy.
The respondent must choose one of the given options, which is rated 1 or 0. Each reflective strategy has
a defined range of points, which are divided into low, medium, and high levels. The scales were tested
for consistency of their components using Cronbach’s alpha (
Savchenko, 2016
, p. 191). As Savchenko
(2016) states, cognitive strategies propose a specific strategy for obtaining, storing, and utilizing informa-
tion to achieve a particular goal (p. 192). There is no conceptual or methodological distinction between
reflective or cognitive strategies, as they are equally aimed at actualizing certain mental operations to
resolve a difficult situation or challenge.
Simultaneously, the CISS and BASIC Ph models unpacked the specific resources that contribute
to achieving the obtained cognitive results during performance. The CISS model is a designed framework
that allows the definition of coping styles based on three primary dimensions: Task-Oriented Coping,
Emotion-Oriented Coping, and Avoidance-Oriented Coping (
Endler and Parker, 1990
; Endler and Parker,
1994). The latter coping has two aspects – Distraction and Social Diversion – also present in this re-
search. The methodology comprises 48 questions, each rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (ranging from “never”
to “most often”), providing an opportunity to explore coping strategies essential for managing stress. The
level of coping strategy use is determined by summing the scores according to the specified criteria.
To strengthen coping strategies, we also utilized the BASIC Ph model as an additional measure of
resources for overcoming stressful situations and promoting a person’s internal stability. The framework
proposes six coping strategies or sources for overcoming stress: B for Belief, A for Affect, S for Social Sup-
port, I for Imagination, C for Cognitive, and Ph for Physiology (
Lahad, 2017
). The questionnaire presents
statements through which students should rate their coping strategies for stress, ranging from “I rarely use
this way to cope with a difficult situation” to “I always use this way to cope with a difficult situation” (on a
scale of 0 to 6). Kalamazh et al. (2024) show a direct connection between this framework and coping strat-
egies: “It’s important to acknowledge an individual’s preferred coping style in the BASIC Ph model, but all
the factors can be utilized during stressful situations to strengthen or develop coping mechanisms” (p. 99).
The BASIC Ph framework is also helpful because Ukrainian students studied during the war. Thus, their
psycho-emotional state affects both their participation in the performance and their learning outcomes.
The collected empirical data was processed using Microsoft Excel 2024 and IBM SPSS 21. We
www.ijcrsee.com
495
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
systematized and structured the data in Microsoft Excel 2024 before and after the experiment. In IBM
SPSS 21, we tested all descriptive statistics, statistical coefficients, and dependencies.
We summarized the obtained results to analyze the changes before and after the experiment with
performance (for this purpose, we standardized all results to a common level). Then, we used general
descriptive statistics to understand the main characteristics of the collected data, including the mean of
all the values obtained, the standard deviation, and the standard error of the mean. We used a chi-square
test (x
2
) to check for a statistically significant relationship between the two categorical variables (p ≤ .050).
Finally, we conducted a Pearson correlation analysis (r) on the data to determine if a pattern existed be-
tween the two continuous variables before and after the experiment (p ≤ .010).
Results and Discussions
We generalized the collected data before and after the experiment with performance according to
high, medium, and low levels in Table 1. The data enabled us to observe the nature of changes, correla-
tions, and statistical errors, which we summarized in the following tables and figures.
Table 1. The general results before and after the experiment
Study variables Experiment period
High level Intermediate level Low level
quantity % quantity % quantity %
The Reflective Problem-Solving Strategies (Savchenko and Makienko)
Deep Information Processing (DIP)
before 12 13,3 64 71,1 14 15,6
after 17 18,9 67 74,4 6 6,7
Criticality in Analyzing and Evaluating
Information
before 21 23,3 42 46,7 27 30,0
after 38 42,2 50 55,6 2 2,2
Making Decisions Based on Internal
Standards
before 9 10,0 32 35,6 49 54,5
after 24 26,7 52 57,8 14 15,6
Rational Approach to Problem-Solving
before 18 20,0 54 60,0 18 20,0
after 32 35,6 54 60,0 4 4,4
General Level
before 12 13,3 52 57,8 26 28,9
after 21 23,3 60 66,7 9 10,0
The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) (Endler and Parker)
Task-Oriented Coping
before 65 72,2 23 26,6 2 2,2
after 48 53,3 38 42,2 4 4,4
Emotion-Focused Coping
before 26 28,9 59 65,6 5 5,6
after 17 18,9 67 74,4 6 6,7
Avoidance Coping
before 22 24,4 66 73,3 2 2,2
after 19 21,1 54 60,0 17 18,9
Distraction Scale
before 7 7,8 79 87,8 4 4,4
after 46 51,1 34 37,8 10 11,1
Social Distraction Scale
before 49 54,4 39 43,3 2 2,2
after 65 72,2 20 22,2 5 5,6
The BASIC Ph Model of Coping and Resiliency (Lahad and Leykin)
Belief (B)
before 12 13,3 54 60,0 24 26,7
after 17 18,9 65 72,2 8 8,9
Аffect (A)
before 5 5,6 58 64,4 27 30,0
after 18 20,0 70 77,8 2 2,2
Social Support (S)
before 9 10,0 47 52,2 34 37,8
after 26 28,9 62 68,9 2 2,2
Imagination (I)
before 17 18,9 50 55,6 23 25,6
after 18 20,0 69 76,7 3 3,3
Cognition (C)
before 48 53,3 37 41,1 5 5,6
after 31 34,4 57 63,3 2 2,2
Physiology (Ph)
before 9 10,0 56 62,2 25 27,8
after 19 21,1 69 76,7 2 2,2
www.ijcrsee.com
496
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
The chi-square test (x
2
) results in Figure 2 showed that the differences before and after the experi-
ment are statistically significant. Hence, the actions during the experiment affect the improvement or dete-
rioration of the result. There is a discrepancy between most variables because the chi-square value is more
considerable. Among the reflective strategies, the strategy “Making Decisions Based on Internal Standards”
has a value=31.025, Distraction Subscale has a value=49.19, and Socialization (S) has a value=38.766.
24.4
27.1
31.0
12.8
6.9
2.5
13.3
49.2
9.7
9.9
30.0
38.8
18.4
9.2
24.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
DIP
Criticality
Making Decisions
Rational Approach
Task-Oriented Coping
Emotion-Focused Coping
Avoidance Coping
Distraction Scale
Social Distraction Scale
Belief
Affect
Social Support
Imagination
Cognition
Physical
Figure 2. The chi-square test (x
2
) results for the studied samples
The obtained results (Figure 3) showed variables in individual indicators, which indicates the im-
pact of performance on students’ cognitive activity. According to the given results, the strategies that
changed the most on the high levels were “Making Decisions Based on Internal Standards” (from 10,0%
to 26,7%), “Criticality in Analyzing and Evaluating Information” (from 23.3% to 42.2%), and “Rational Ap-
proach to Problem-Solving” (from 20,0% to 35,6%). Compared to these strategies, the strategy “Deep
Information Processing (DIP)” underwent the least changes, although it also showed positive dynamics.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
before after before after before after before after
DIP Criticality Making Decisions Rational
Approach
%
High level Intermediate level Low level
Figure 3. The general changes in the results of the Reflective Problem-Solving Strategies
The reflective strategy “Deep Information Processing (DIP)” has minor changes at all levels, indi-
cating a moderate impact on the performance of this strategy. Since this strategy reflects “the focus of
the subject’s internal activity on collecting and processing information in the process of problem-solving”
(
Savchenko, 2016, p. 193), the higher the results of this strategy, the more subjects are “aware of their be-
havioral resources” (Savchenko, 2016, p. 194). The change in the overall results gives reason to believe
that performance does not provide an opportunity for deep reflection and introspection because it requires
“going” beyond one’s experience and knowledge in search of external resources (
Myroshnyk, 2020; Ach-
diyah, 2023). Altogether, the small changes of high and average indicators prove that for students, it is still
www.ijcrsee.com
497
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
critical not only to solve the task but also to approach the search for a solution as “an important aspect of
self-determination and self-realization” (Savchenko, 2016, p. 195).
The growth of the reflective strategy “Criticality in Analyzing and Evaluating Information” indicates
a positive impact of performance on the level of students’ reflectivity as an integral feature of their person-
ality, which “ensures the correlation of their actions with the specifics of the situation, their coordination
by internal and external conditions” (Savchenko, 2016, p. 196). This difference indicates that students
quickly and effectively adjusted their starting points during the performance, were influenced by other
participants, and corrected and improved the solution to the problem. It proves that criticality effects
of thinking and behavior (Golden, 2023), and then it should “lead to practical action and real change”
(Indrašiene et al., 2023, p. 2). Such a strategy develops reflectivity and helps find more accurate solutions
to problems, albeit with more time and effort.
In contrast, the reflective strategy of “Making Decisions Based on Internal Standards” is focused
on considering subjective assessments and judgments while “ignoring certain external requirements”
(Savchenko, 2016, p. 196). The changes in this strategy after the experiment indicate that the students
began to pay more attention to social support in task-solving, where the teacher’s support plays a crucial
role (Indrašiene et al., 2023, p. 6). The low use of this strategy (its level has fallen the most, from 54.5%
to 15.6%) also contributes to an increase in the level of responsibility by increasing personal contribution
to the performative solution of the task. This fact proves the assumption that there is always a division of
responsibilities among the participants in performance. It is worth noting that the high use (from 10,0% to
26,7%) of this strategy reduces the ability to act independently. Therefore, it is essential for teachers also
to acknowledge the individual contributions of all participants (Karpovets and Pasichnyk, 2024), who may
often rely on the efforts of others (for example, more successful and proactive students).
The “Rational Approach to Problem Solving” strategy further confirms the latter trend, determin-
ing the overall level of self-regulation. As we can see, a third of students at the high level (from 20.0%
to 35.6%) improved their ability to “form realistic, stable, and detailed plans” (Savchenko, 2016, p. 198)
through new social connections and contacts. We assume that they could not always plan their work ob-
jectively and rationally on their own, so group work, to some extent, corrected and honed their rationality.
The lack of changes at the middle level indicates that for many students, it is still critical to learn to critically
overcome situations with a high level of uncertainty and control their anxiety (Kalamazh et al., 2023). The
latter fact necessitates the search for coping strategies and resources to enhance students’ resilience.
We also observed changes in the CISS results before and after the experiment with performance
(Figure 4) to determine whether the students adjusted their coping strategies to achieve better learning
and performative outcomes. The Task-Oriented Coping (from 72.2% to 53.3%) and Distraction Scale
(from 7.8% to 51.1%) present a high level, the Distraction Scale (from 87.8% to 37.8%), the Social Dis-
traction Scale (from 43.3% to 22.2%) show a medium level, and the Avoidance Coping (from 2.2% to
18.9%) demonstrates a low level of coping strategies.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
before after before after before after before after before after
Task-Oriented
Coping
Emotion-
Focused
Coping
Avoidance
Coping
Distraction
Sc al e
Soc i al
Distraction
Sc al e
%
High level Intermediate level Low level
Figure 4. The general changes in the results of the CISS Strategies
www.ijcrsee.com
498
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
The results of the BASIC Ph method (Figure 5) showed that Cognition (C) had changed the most
at the high level (from 53.3% to 34.4%), Imagination (I) at the medium level (from 55.6% to 76.7%), and
Social Support (S) at the low level (from 37.8% to 2.2%). The obtained results are the consequence of
pedagogical performance, while other pedagogical techniques might have different meanings.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
before after before after before after before after before after before after
Belief Аffect Soc i al
Support
Imagination Cognition Physic al
%
High level Intermediate level Low level
Figure 5. The general changes in the results of the BASIC Ph model
In Table 2, the Pearson correlation analysis (r) showed how the relationships between reflective
strategies, coping strategies, and the BASIC Ph parameters have changed before and after the experi-
ment, where * indicates a weak positive correlation (r = 0.20-0.39) and ** indicates a medium positive
correlation (r = 0.39-0.59).
The positive correlations mainly dominate within the obtained data. However, none of the strategies
showed a strong positive or negative correlation with each other (in contrast to the correlations within each
strategy). Since we implemented the experiment in a short academic period (1 semester), there was not
enough time to establish a deeper correlation between the data. However, even for this brief period, there
is a noticeable tendency in the increase or decrease of correlations between the data, which indicates the
influence of performance on students’ reflective and coping strategies in their learning process.
The positive correlation between the reflective “Deep Information Processing” strategy and Task-
Oriented Coping after the experiment (r = 0.428) indicates that deep reflective work encourages students
to solve problems instead of avoiding them. We suggest that the reflective “Deep Information Process-
ing” strategy involves profound processing and understanding of the material, and, therefore, students
need to be critical of their cognitive experience. Accordingly, the more students “immerse” themselves in
the information, the more they are critical of it and set new tasks and goals for themselves, overcoming
doubts and uncertainty in such a way (Asikainen and Gijbels, 2017). From the perspective of educational
psychology, this relationship highlights how deeper levels of cognitive processing contribute to more pro-
active, purposeful responses to academic demands (Indrašiene at al., 2023).
www.ijcrsee.com
499
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
Table 2. The correlation between data before and after the experiment
Study variables
Experiment
Period
The Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r)
Deep
Information
Processing
Criticality in Analyzing
and Evaluating
Information
Making Decisions
Based on Internal
Standards
Rational
Approach to
Problem Solving
General
Level
Task-Oriented
Coping
before 0,295* 0,144 -0,022 0,093 0,212
after 0,428** 0,081 0,241* 0,362* 0,401*
Emotion-Focused
Coping
before 0,019 -0,051 0,1 -0,311* -0,083
after 0,102 0,112 0,362* 0,092 0,286*
Avoidance Coping
before 0,352* 0,319* -0,058 0,224* 0,296*
after 0,042 0,149 -0,168 -0,106 0,082
Distraction Scale
before 0,202* 0,301* -0,148 0,297* 0,252*
after 0,052 0,074 -0,118 0,082 0,063
Social Distraction
Scale
before 0,146 0,195 -0,003 0,136 0,193
after 0,327* 0,352* 0,303* 0,286* 0,332*
Вelief
before 0,048 0,126 0,065 0,036 0,107
after -0,037 0,142 0,016 0,112 0,03
Affect
before 0,042 0,027 -0,032 -0,149 -0,073
after 0,144 0,413** 0,182 0,041 0,301*
Social Support
before -0,006 0,202* -0,082 0,052 0,104
after 0,199 0,384* 0,359* 0,287* 0,361*
Imagination
before -0,13 -0,033 0,089 -0,134 -0,09
after -0,147 -0,065 -0,043 -0,011 -0,222*
Cognition
before 0,109 0,138 0,001 0,196 0,177
after 0,09 0,291* 0,164 0,427** 0,313*
Physical
before 0,125 -0,127 -0,032 -0,02 0,007
after 0,177 0,158 0,297* 0,202* 0,267*
According to Table 2, the Avoidance Coping has decreased from r = 0.352 to r = 0.042, and the
Distraction Scale has decreased from r = 0.202 to r = 0.052. We noticed that interactive exercises, partici-
pation in discussions, or group work help to assimilate the material more effectively, which confirms the
positive effect of performance on these two strategies. Moreover, the positive correlation with the Social
Distraction Scale (from r = 0.146 to r = 0.327) indicates that internal resources are insufficient to process
information effectively, and therefore group cooperation is an important addition to achieving student
success and emotional sustainability (
Slavin, 2014; Asikaine et al., 2020). The current correlation proves
that in performance, students form attachments through a sense of belonging and social connection as
they jointly complete tasks and present their work publicly (Nysveen et al., 2022). Thus, students use the
Social Distraction Scale to coordinate their thoughts and actions with other participants, positively affect-
ing cognitive engagement in such a way. Yet some researchers are less optimistic about engagement in
performance (Macfarlane and Tomlinson, 2017), so it is important not to idealize this approach and always
consider the presence of students with different levels of motivation and engagement.
The “Criticality in Analyzing and Evaluating Information” strategy reflects the same trend, as students
are less likely to avoid problems in their activities and more likely to perform learning tasks responsibly
with their classmates. Before the experiment, the Avoidance Coping r = 0.319 and the Distraction Scale r =
0.301 demonstrated an average positive correlation. Altogether, the correlation with the Social Distraction
Scale has increased from r = 0.195 to r = 0.352, while the relationship with Social Support (S) has changed
from r = 0.202 to r = 0.384. Although this value did not increase significantly, it still demonstrated positive
dynamics in seeking social support when students faced difficulties (such as a challenging task or needing
to interact in a group) during performance (
Alipio, 2020; Achdiyah, Latipun and Yuniardi, 2023).
Simultaneously, the most unexpected finding was the increase in positive correlation with Affect (A)
www.ijcrsee.com
500
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
from the BASIC Ph model (from r = 0.027 to r = 0.413). For critical evaluation of information and effective
task-solving with partners in performance, it is necessary to establish an emotional connection (vital for
psychologists, who represented most of this sample). Emotion research in education suggests that the
connection between affect and cognition is more than obvious, going beyond anxiety and stress
Kalamazh
et al., 2023). Zulvi and Abidin (2025) demonstrate that students engage in emotion-oriented coping strate-
gies when adapting to stressors, achieving better learning outcomes (p. 36). We also suggest that these
coping strategies are one of the adaptive ways to manage uncertain conditions in performance. Hence,
such a correlation indicates both the importance of mastering stressful emotions and, at the same time,
reveals a broader spectrum of affect (D’Mello and Graesser, 2012; Ruitenberg, 2015), which contributes
to better interaction during learning.
The positive correlation between the strategy “Making Decisions Based on Internal Standards” and
the social scales also confirms the importance of collective support and cooperation in solving tasks. This
correlation suggests that individual activity does not conflict with the collective dynamics of performance,
complementing it through developed internal standards for decision-making. At the same time, we have
the opposite effect, when students build their internal standards and values through meaningful interaction
within the social learning environment. The correlation shifts with Social Support (S) (from r = -0.082 to r =
0.359) and the Social Distraction Scale (from r = -0.003 to r = 0.303) illustrates the following tendency: the
more students need to make decisions based on internal standards, the more they turn to social interac-
tion (Indrašiene et al., 2023). In an academic environment, such students contribute to group activity not
by passively conforming, but by enriching the dialogue with well-formed ideas, which strengthens social
ties and mutual respect. This correlation can be interpreted through the prism of dialogical constructivism,
when internal standards and guidelines are formed in context through a series of repetitive, even ritualistic
actions, which is what provides performance. This practice requires emotional resources, as indicated
by a moderate increase in the correlation with Emotion-Focused Coping (from r = 0.100 to r = 0.363).
Also noticeable is the tendency to change the correlations with Task-Oriented Coping (from r = -0.022 to
r = 0.241), which underscores the importance of combining a “systematic approach to problem-solving”
(Savchenko, 2016, p. 197) with analysis, task distribution, and decision-making in performative learning.
Finally, the Pearson correlation analysis showed that there was a moderate positive relationship
between the reflective strategy “Rational Approach to Problem-Solving” with Task-Oriented Coping (r =
-0.093 to r = 0.362), Social Distraction Scale (r = -0.136 to r = 0.286), Social Support (S) (r = -0.052 to r =
0.286), and Cognition (C) (r = -0.196 to r = 0.427). The current correlations indicate that after the perfor-
mance, students began to combine a rational approach with direct task-solving and social support (both
coping strategies confirmed this). Suppose students previously avoided solutions in complex task-solving.
In that case, they have now started to do so less, as indicated by the tendency towards a negative correla-
tion with Avoidance Coping (from r = 0.224 to r = -0.106) and the Distraction Scale (from r = 0.297 to r =
-0.082). We can also note a slight tendency towards a stronger correlation with Physiology (Ph) (from r =
-0.020 to r = -0.202), which indicates the importance of engaging in this coping to control one’s cognitive
and emotional states (Achdiyah et al., 2023; Li, 2023).
The reflective strategies interacted the least with Belief (B) and Imagination (I) strategies, which
proved a low or very low correlation before and after the experiment. We state that belief (B) requires
personal (spiritual) and internal resources, while performance is more oriented towards external factors
(Denzin, 2009; Arjomandi et al., 2023). Hence, the implementation of interactive and group tasks does
not suggest this coping. Imagination (I) may be a way to avoid deep reflection (not because of weakness,
but as a more emotionally safer strategy). However, as previous correlations have shown, students still
solve and experience tasks more directly in performance, relying on each other’s help. Altogether, the cor-
relation with the general level of Reflective Problem-Solving Strategies increases students’ social activity,
utilizing cognitive, emotional, and physical capabilities to solve problems (
Russell, 2017). This research
supports the notion that coping strategies enable students to navigate academic pressures, and these
strategies may vary, resulting in multiple approaches (Karyotaki et al., 2020). The results obtained may
change with the use of other performative techniques; therefore, it is possible to conduct a longer experi-
ment in the future to see how correlations will change.
The obtained results may be helpful for university educators who are evaluating their teaching
performance and seeking optimal coping strategies. First, the use of performance allows students to de-
velop reflexivity as an integral feature of their personality, critical perception of information, and a rational
www.ijcrsee.com
501
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
approach to the subject. The cooperative nature of performance enhances reflexivity through joint discus-
sion, critical thinking, and metacognition, thereby increasing learning outcomes. Secondly, performance
may also strengthen social avoidance coping, which is essential for further adaptation. In other words,
educators can use performative collaboration not only as a didactic strategy but also as a necessary re-
source for strengthening resilience to stress.
Conclusions
This study aimed to investigate the impact of performance on the use of reflective and coping strat-
egies for academic tasks. We found that performance had a significantly positive effect on the average
level of students’ reflective skills, the increase of which was attributed to group interaction, collaboration,
and critical reflection. We confirmed our hypothesis because students most developed strategies such as
“Criticality in Analyzing and Evaluating Information” and “Making Decisions Based on Internal Standards”
after the performance, which involved applying their reflective abilities to the specifics of the situation
and finding social support in task-solving. The students’ use of cognitive coping strategies, namely Task-
Oriented Coping and Cognition (C), corresponds to the specifics of the academic environment, where
students directly solve problems (tasks) that cause stress and anxiety to achieve success and improve
their learning performance.
The most notable correlation was between reflective strategies and coping strategies, specifically
social distraction (Endler and Parker) and Social Support (S) (Lahad and Leykin). The positive correlation
indicates that the nature of performative tasks involves the formation of social connections, distributing
roles and responsibilities, decision-making, and forming responsibility as a condition for developing stu-
dents’ reflectivity. Therefore, the Avoidance Coping and the Distraction Scale scores have decreased,
indicating an increase in students’ desire to solve the problem directly rather than look for ways to avoid it.
Also, an essential result of this study was that the condition for establishing social connections in perfor-
mance is emotional connection (Emotion-Focused Coping and Affect (A), which involves trust, empathy,
and control of one’s emotions. Therefore, performance creates the conditions for collective, more thorough,
and precise problem-solving, as well as the emotional support that participants provide to one another.
Based on our findings, further research should focus on an in-depth examination of the interaction
between reflective strategies and emotional intelligence in performance. This study aims to strengthen or
refute our observations regarding the importance of the emotional component in achieving academic suc-
cess. We also suggest implementing longitudinal studies to increase the time frame from one semester to
a year of study. It may allow for the demonstration of more fundamental changes in the reflective activity
of higher education students.
Acknowledgements
We want to thank all the students who participated in the research. Without their participation, we
would not have achieved the findings and results that lay the foundation for further study.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.K. and I.P.; Methodology, M.K. and I.P.; Software, O.N.; Investigation, M.K.
and O.N.; Formal Analysis, V.B. and O.N.; Validation, V.B. and O.N.; Writing (original draft preparation),
M.K. and O.N.; Writing (review and editing), I.P. and V.B. All authors have read and agreed to the pub-
lished version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
www.ijcrsee.com
502
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
References
Achdiyah, H. N., Latipun, L., & Yuniardi, M. S. (2023). The inuence of social support on academic performance: The mediating
role of cognitive engagement. Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi Terapan, 11(2), 85–90.
https://doi.org/10.22219/jipt.v11i2.22651
Anderson, J. R. (2013). The architecture of cognition. Psychology Press.
Arjomandi, A., Paloyo, A., & Suardi, S. (2023). Active learning and academic performance: The case of real-time interactive
student polling. Statistics Education Research Journal, 22(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v22i1.122
Asikainen, H., & Gijbels, D. (2017). Do students develop towards more deep approaches to learning during studies? A system-
atic review on the development of students’ deep and surface approaches to learning in higher education. Educational
Psychology Review, 29(2), 205–34.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44956375.
Asikainen, H., Salmela-Aro, K., Parpala, A., & Katajavuori, N. (2020). Learning proles and their relation to study-related
burnout and academic achievement among university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 78.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101781
Baars, S., Schellings, G. L. M., Krishnamurthy, S., Joore, J. P., den Brok, P. J., & van Wesemael, P. J. V. (2020). A framework
for exploration of relationship between the psychosocial and physical learning environment. Learning Environments
Research, 24, 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09317-y
Balashov, E. (2022). Psychological well-being as cognitive-emotional component of student self-regulated learning. Interna-
tional Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(2), 101–109.
https://doi.
org/10.23947/2334-8496-2022-10-2-101-109
Bokolo, A. Jnr. (2024). Examining blended learning adoption towards improving learning performance in institutions of higher
education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29, 1401–1435.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09712-3
Bucklin, B. A., Asdigian, N. L., Hawkins, J. L., & Klein, U. (2021). Making it stick: Use of active learning strategies in continuing
medical education. BMC Medical Education, 21.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02447-0
Carlomagno, N. (2021). Performative didactics: The declination of simplexity in the performing arts. Nuova secondaria, 10, 419–428.
Caron, E. E., Hicks, L. J., Browne, D. T., Smilek, D., & Forrin, N. D. (2021). Performance anticipation diminishes memory:
Evidence from a simulated classroom. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(3), 479–489. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.01.006
Chapman, A. (2021). Introduction: Historical knowing and the ‘knowledge turn’. In A. Chapman (Ed.), Knowing history in
schools. Powerful knowledge and the powers of knowledge, 1–32. UCL Press.
Cvejić, B. (2015). Notes for a society of performance: On dance, sports, museums, and their users. In F. Ribeiro (Ed.), AdF.14
(Atos de Fala), 70–81.
https://www.atosdefala.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/AdF14_Notes_for_a_society_of_
performance_Bojana_Cvejic.pdf
Denzin, N. K. (2009). Forward: Performance, pedagogy, and emotionality. In P. A. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in
teacher emotion research: The Impact on teachers’ lives (pp. v–vii). Springer.
D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2),
145–157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.001
Egozi-Farkash, H., Lahad, M., & Aharonson-Daniel, L. (2025). Bonds of resilience – a longitudinal perspective on distress,
resilience and attachment orientations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11205-025-03646-2
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58(5), 844–854. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.844
Golden, B. (2023). Enabling critical thinking development in higher education through the use of a structured planning tool. Irish
Educational Studies, 42(4), 949–969. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2023.2258497
Grieve, R., Woodley, J., Hunt, S. E., & McKay, A. (2021). Student fears of oral presentations and public speaking in higher
education: a qualitative survey. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(9), 1281–1293. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
309877X.2021.1948509
Gustems-Carnicer, J., Calderón, C., & Calderón-Garrido, D. (2019). Stress, coping strategies and academic achievement in
teacher education students. European Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1576629
Hu, J. (2024). The challenge of traditional teaching approach: A study on the path to improve classroom teaching effectiveness
based on secondary school students’ psychology. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 50(1),
213-219. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/50/20240945
Indrašiene V., Jegeleviciene, V., Merfeldaite, O., Penkauskiene, D., Pivoriene, J., Railiene, A., & Sadauskas, J. (2023).
Critical reection in students’ critical thinking teaching and learning experiences. Sustainability, 15, 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su151813500
Kalamazh, R., Voloshyna-Narozhna, V., Tymoshchuk, Y., & Balashov, E. (2024). Coping styles and self-regulation abilities as
predictors of anxiety. Insight: The Psychological Dimensions of Society, 12, 96–114. https://doi.org/10.32999/2663-
970X/2024-12-3
www.ijcrsee.com
503
Karpovets, M. et al. (2025). The Impact of Performance on Students’ Reflective and Coping Strategies in Higher Education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 491-503.
Karpovets M., & Pasichnyk I. (2024). Performative activity and decision-making as forms of cognitive regulation in higher edu-
cation. Youth Voice Journal, 14(3), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21529.84320
Karyotaki, E., Cuijpers, P., Alborm, Y., Alonso, J., Auerbach, R. P., Bantjes, J., Bruffaerts, R., Ebert, D. D., Hasking, P., Kiek-
ens, G., Lee, S., McLafferty, M., Mak, A., Mortier, P., Sampson, N. A., Stein, D. J., Vilagut, G., & Kessler, R. C. (2020).
Sources of stress and their associations with mental disorders among college students: Results of the World Health
Organization World Mental Health Surveys International College Student Initiative. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article
1759.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01759
Kulkarni, T., Sullivan, A. L., & Kim, J. (2020). Externalizing behavior problems and low academic achievement: Does a causal
relation exist? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09582-6
Lahad, M. (2017), From victim to victor: The development of the BASIC Ph model of coping and resiliency. Traumatology, 23(1),
27–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000105
Li, W. (2023). On the role of creativity in the application-oriented university students’ engagement and success. Heliyon, 9(6).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17374
Macfarlane, B. (2014). Student performativity in higher education: converting learning as a private space into a public perfor-
mance. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(2), 338–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.956697
Macfarlane, B., & Tomlinson, M. (2017). Editorial. Critical and alternative perspectives on student engagement. Higher Educa-
tion Policy, 30, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0026-4
Marchenko, N., Slipchuk V., & Yuzkiv, H. (2023). Interactive learning methods in higher education institutions. The Modern High-
er Education Review, 8. http://ir.librarynmu.com/bitstream/123456789/10280/1/Interactive%20learning%20methods.pdf
Myroshnyk, O. (2020). Reeksyvnist ta rehuliatornyi potentsial osobystosti [Reexivity and regulatory potential of the indi-
vidual]. Psykholohiia i osobystist [Psychology and personality], 2, 234–246.
Nicolaides, A. (2022). Generative knowing: Principles, methods, and dispositions of an emerging adult learning theory. Myers
Education Press.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Oklevik, O. (2022). Exploring the relationship between active learning, student well-being, and stu-
dent performance satisfaction: A student engagement perspective. Beta, 36(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.18261/beta.36.1.7
Østern, T. P., Jusslin, S., Nødtvedt Knudsen, K., Maapalo, P., & Bjørkøy, I. (2023). A performative paradigm for post-qualitative
inquiry. Qualitative Research, 23(2), 272–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211027444
Qureshi, M. A., Khaskheli, A., Qureshi, J. A., Raza, S. A., & Yousu, S. Q. (2021). Factors affecting students’ learning perfor-
mance through collaborative learning and engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4), 2371–2391. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1884886
Padilla Petry, P., Pérez-Hernando, S., Rodríguez Rodríguez, J., & Vidal Martí, C. (2022). Comparing teachers’ and students’
perspectives of student engagement in higher education: Between performativity and invisibility. International Educa-
tion Studies, 15(6), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v15n6p84
Ruitenberg, C. W. (2015). Performativity and affect in education. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 23(1), 38-52. https://doi.
org/10.7202/1070364ar
Russell, T. A. (2018). Teacher educator’s lessons learned from reective practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41,
4–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1395852
Sahito, Z. H., Khoso, F. J., & Phulpoto, J. (2025). The effectiveness of active learning strategies in enhancing student engagement
and academic performance. Journal of Social Sciences Review, 5(1), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.62843/jssr.v5i1.471
Savchenko, O. (2016). Reeksyvna kompetentnist: Metody ta protsedury diahnostyky [Reective competence: Diagnostic
methods and procedures]. PP Vyshemyrskyi VS.
Schechner, R. (2020). Performance studies: An introduction. Routledge.
Shin, A. (2023). Exploring the role of interaction in engagement and satisfaction within virtual learning environments. Journal
of Student Research 12(3), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v12i3.5014
Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork work? Anales de psicología,
30(3), 785–791. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201201
Väisänen, S., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., & Soini, T. (2018). Student teachers’ proactive strategies for avoiding study-
related burnout during teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 301–317.
https://doi.org/10.
1080/02619768.2018.1448777
Waterhouse, P., & Samra, R. (2025). University students’ coping strategies to manage stress: A scoping review. Educational
Review, 1–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2024.2438888
Zaharani, U. D., & Siregar, E. S. (2020). Will an individual’s performance be affected by audience expectations? Advances
in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 494, 559–569. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201125.047
Zulvi, J.D., & Abidin, Z. (2025). Coping strategies of high-achieving students in boarding excellence high schools: A case study.
International Journal of Science and Society, 7(1), 31–41.
https://doi.org/10.54783/ijsoc.v7i1.1357
