Frontline Learning Research Vol. 12 No. 4 (2024)
55 - 84
ISSN 2295-3159
1University of Bern, Switzerland
2Bern University of Teacher Education, Switzerland 3Zurich
University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
bAffiliation
Article received 15 October 2023 / Article revised 5 August 2024 / Accepted 8 November 2024 / Available online 29 November 2024
Self-regulated learning (SRL) has gained increasing attention in educational science over the past four decades. Especially within the context of the lifelong learning debate, regulatory strategies play a crucial role, as they are essential not only within schools and classrooms but also in lifelong learning contexts. Concurrently, the discussion on teaching quality holds an equally central position in educational science. However, these two lines of discourse have, so far, been treated largely independently of each other and lack an alignment. In our exploratory study, we applied the three basic dimensions of teaching quality to assess an SRL-promoting learning environment from the perspective of students. We conducted seven focus groups involving a total of N = 49 secondary school students, and the data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Our analyses demonstrate that these basic dimensions can contribute to analyze the quality of an SRL environment. However, further adaptation is required as the three dimensions seem still to be interwoven with a more traditional conceptualization of teaching.
Keywords: Self-Regulated Learning; Teaching Quality; Focus Groups; Qualitative Content Analysis; Instructional Development
School instruction, as a central pillar for the education of all children and adolescents, serves not only as a means for the systematic, intergenerational transfer of knowledge, skills, abilities, norms, and values but also for fostering individual and collective competence and personality development. In this context, both what students learn and how they learn it are equally relevant. The concept of self-regulated learning (SRL) is particularly significant, as it empowers children and adolescents to intentionally shape their competence and personality development (OECD, 2018). Consequently, exploring strategies to promote SRL lies at the heart of both research and educational practice, making it the central focus of this paper. We aim to contribute to a better understanding of the quality of SRL in classrooms and schools by analyzing an SRL-conducive learning environment through the lens of teaching quality. Drawing from a qualitative study involving 49 upper secondary school students, we employ focus groups to investigate which elements of a learning environment tailored to SRL significantly contribute to its effectiveness.
SRL is a fundamental educational principle for achieving successful student learning (OECD, 2019). The origins of SRL research in educational settings are diverse, with roots tracing back to the 1960s and 1970s. SRL draws from multiple theoretical frameworks and has been analyzed across various contexts, with key contributions from Vygotsky (1962), Flavell (1971), and Bandura (1986), among others. As Panadero (2017) demonstrates in his review article, contemporary SRL models are strongly characterized by either a (meta-)cognitive (Efklides, 2011; Winne & Hadwin, 1998), motivational (Pintrich, 2004; Zimmerman, 2000), or emotional (Boekaerts, 2011) perspective. SRL can be defined as the behavior exhibited by individuals who aim to enhance their knowledge and skills by actively monitoring and regulating their learning activities (Paris & Paris, 2001). Specifically, SRL is understood as a hierarchically organized, temporal, and adaptive process in which learners conduct a task analysis, develop goals, and create plans to solve the task. The achievement of these goals is facilitated using various learning strategies, with motivational and affective factors playing a critical role in initiating and sustaining goal attainment. Learners continuously monitor and reflect on their learning processes and goal achievement through metacognitive strategies. The effective use of self-regulatory strategies depends on the specific tasks and the contextual factors of the learning environment (Greene et al., 2021). Against this backdrop, it becomes clear how important it is to create suitable learning environments where students can actively shape their learning processes. Despite the valuable approaches described above, repeated criticism has lined out that models of SRL have not dedicated enough attention to the interplay between individual learners and their learning environments (Martin, 2007; McCaslin & Good, 1996; Perry & Rahim, 2011). Panadero (2017, p. 22) states that “...with the exception of Hadwin, Järvelä, and Miller’s work, not much research has been conducted by the others in exploring how significantly other contexts or the task context affect SRL.” Moreover, a systematic definition on the quality of SRL conducive learning environment remains open. This study aims to make an initial contribution toward addressing this gap. The novelty of our research lies not only in investigating how effectively learners perceive an SRL-supportive learning environment but also in systematically identifying and analyzing the quality of such an environment through the lens of teaching quality.
To address these questions, it is valuable to explore the distinction between direct strategy instruction and indirect activation of SRL (Dignath & Veenman, 2020). Promoting SRL involves distinguishing between direct and indirect methods (Dignath-van Ewijk et al., 2013). Direct support involves teachers explicitly teaching self-regulation strategies. Consequently, recent studies increasingly emphasize the teacher's role in promoting SRL in the classroom (e.g., Perry, 2013; Karlen et al., 2020; Veenman, 2017; Vosniadou et al., 2024). For instance, research by Perels and colleagues (Leidinger & Perels, 2012; Perels et al., 2009; Venitz & Perels, 2019) shows that teachers can significantly enhance students' SRL by using appropriate teaching materials. Moreover, directly training teachers to promote students' SRL has shown to be effective (e.g., Finsterwald et al., 2013; Kistner et al., 2010), with teacher beliefs and self-efficacy playing a crucial role (e.g., Heirweg et al., 2021; Karlen et al., 2020). In this context, the significance of integrating SRL promotion into teacher education programs at an early stage becomes particularly clear (Kramarski, 2018; Kramarski et al., 2013).
In this regard, strategy teaching can be further differentiated into explicit and implicit approaches, with direct strategy instruction classified according to its degree of explicitness (Dignath & Büttner, 2008). Brown and colleagues (1981) distinguish three levels of direct strategy instruction: blind, informed, and explicit self-control training. Research consistently highlights the effectiveness of direct strategy training (Donker et al., 2014). This effectiveness is evident both in the application of cognitive learning strategies (Hattie et al., 1996) and in the integration of cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Schuster et al., 2023; Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006). Although numerous studies demonstrate the effectiveness of direct strategy instruction, the role of the learning environment in fostering SRL skills is equally significant (Karlen & Hertel, 2024).
A prominent example is the CLIA model (Competence, Learning, Intervention, Assessment), a framework designed to create learning environments that promote sustained knowledge acquisition and the development of students as competent learners and critical thinkers. The CLIA model emphasizes the promotion of self-regulation as a fundamental component of learning (De Corte et al., 2004), with its effectiveness in enhancing various aspects of SRL demonstrated across diverse educational contexts. For example, this learning environment has been shown to enhance elementary school students' mathematical problem-solving skills, beliefs, and attitudes (De Corte et al., 2004), as well as their collaborative learning processes (De Corte, 2012). Furthermore, students have been observed to perform better and engage more intensively in metacognitive regulation strategies within SRL-conducive learning environments (De Corte, 2016; Masui & De Corte, 2005).
A similar proposal was developed by Perry (Perry, 2013; Perry et al., 2018; Perry et al., 2020) highlighting various aspects of a classroom environment that emphasize SRL. This framework categorizes classroom elements conducive to SRL into four main groups: Supportive Structures for SRL, Student Autonomy and Influence, Facilitating, Guiding, and Co-Regulating, and Functioning as a Community. These macro categories are further divided into several micro categories that reflect specific actions teachers take in the classroom. Teachers provide SRL-supportive structures (1) by offering various activities, routines, and participation structures that support both individual and collaborative learning while ensuring inclusivity for diverse student needs and abilities. These structures include tasks, instructions, familiar routines, as well as visual prompts. For example, task setting involves diverse, advanced learning objectives achieved through real-world, extended, and multifaceted tasks. These tasks foster deep cognitive engagement and metacognition while offering flexibility in learning approaches and representations. In this context, Perry et al. (2020) collaborated with teachers to create diverse tasks and evaluation methods that support SRL. Their findings show that SRL-focused instruction promotes deep learning, positive emotions, and enhanced student achievement. Student influence and autonomy (2) are fostered by acknowledging learners' perspectives and experiences, providing opportunities to take control of their learning. Various forms of self-assessment, along with involvement in decision-making, are crucial to this process. In autonomy-enhancing learning environments, students experience more positive emotions about their learning process. They exhibit increased autonomous motivation (De Naeghel et al., 2016), greater engagement, reduced amotivation (Cheon & Reeve, 2015), and a tendency to seek out more challenging tasks (Su & Reeve, 2011). Support, scaffolding, and co-regulation (3) describe how teachers and peers can act key as key learning supports for students. SRL-conducive learning environments feature metacognitive and motivational dialogue, modeling, demonstrations, and differentiated, reciprocal feedback. The importance of the social context has been demonstrated several times, for example, regarding scaffolding through teachers and peers (van Leeuwen & Janssen, 2019; Molenaar et al., 2014; Salonen et al., 2005) or collaborative learning (Hadwin et al., 2018; Järvenoja et al., 2018; McCaslin & Vriesema, 2018; Panadero et al., 2015; Vriesema & McCaslin, 2020). Creating a community of learners (4) refers to fostering a sense of belonging and group cohesion through participation structures. When a classroom cultivates a positive climate marked by recognition of individuality, mutual support, shared knowledge, and respectful communication, it effectively operates as a community. Research indicates that fostering a learning community benefits SRL by encouraging students to actively seek help and peer support (Perry & Drummond, 2002).
From the perspective of school and instructional development, a central question is how schools and teachers can foster students' SRL. Building on previous research into the indirect activation of SRL, it is crucial to examine which aspects of instruction students find effective and how they perceive specific design features of the learning environment as conducive to SRL. While De Corte and Perry have contributed to conceptualizing learning environments conducive to SRL, a systematic evaluation of their quality remains outstanding (Dignath & Veenman, 2020; Muijs et al., 2014).
Research on teaching's impact on student learning, often termed “teaching quality” or “teaching effectiveness” (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007), has a longstanding tradition. Research on effective teaching encompasses two fundamental objectives. First, it seeks to deconstruct complex teaching processes to identify core instructional characteristics. Second, these characteristics are designed to encapsulate the essential elements of teaching that enable students to achieve their learning objectives (Praetorius et al., 2020). This approach is further informed by two fundamental dimensions of instructional design: the “deep” structure and the “surface” structure (Klieme et al., 2009). Surface structures include organizational forms, social formats, and teaching methods (e.g., class groups, project work, group work, etc.). Deep structures refer to teaching-learning processes, encompassing learning content examination, teacher-student interaction, and the overall professionalism of teaching and learning (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). Effective teaching is primarily identified through analyzing deep structures that underlie the different methods and formats teachers use (Oser & Baeriswyl, 2001). Studies have identified criteria for teaching quality, such as a supportive classroom climate, meaningful discourse, effective task engagement scaffolding, explicit strategy instruction, and clear achievement expectations. These criteria were initially outlined by Brophy and Good (1986) and later expanded upon by Brophy (2010), grouping them into primary categories within models such as the QUAIT-model by Slavin (1994) and the CLASS-model by Pianta and colleagues (2008). Given that teaching serves multiple objectives, such as student knowledge acquisition, fostering student interest, and enhancing student social skills (Brophy, 1999), a diverse range of models for evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness exists (e.g., Ferguson & Danielson, 2014; Klieme et al., 2009; Slavin, 1987, 1994). Despite differences in focus, abstraction, and domain specificity, models generally agree on core characteristics of teaching quality, such as time on task or classroom management (Praetorius et al., 2018).
In the German-speaking academic context, the model of the three basic dimensions of teaching quality, as proposed by Klieme and colleagues (2009), has gained prominence. This model consists of three core dimensions: (1) classroom management, (2) cognitive activation, and (3) student support. The model distinguishes between characteristics that enhance motivation and those that improve academic performance. An optimal classroom environment that fosters both motivation and performance seamlessly integrates all three dimensions. Classroom management, as defined by Praetorius et al. (2018), involves effective handling and prevention of disruptions, efficient use of time, monitoring, teacher presence, clear rules, and established routines. Cognitive activation involves engaging students with challenging tasks, connecting to prior knowledge, and encouraging diverse problem-solving strategies. It also emphasizes moving away from uni-directional, teacher-focused instruction toward interactive, co-constructive learning, incorporating Socratic methods, and fostering students' metacognitive processes. The supportive class climate dimension centers on students' perceptions of competence, autonomy, and social inclusion. Extensive empirical research has been conducted on the basic dimensions of teaching quality. Research shows that cognitive activation improves academic performance, while student support significantly boosts students' interest in the subject matter (e.g., Klieme & Rakoczy, 2003). Classroom management has the most significant impact on student learning across all subjects (e.g., Praetorius et al., 2014). This is likely because effective classroom management maximizes students' learning time (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007).
In summary, teaching quality refers to the set of measurable teaching attributes that directly correlate with students' progress toward achieving educational objectives (Klieme, 2019). The three basic dimensions are conceptualized as generic factors of teaching quality that apply across disciplines, making them independent of subject-specific content. It is reasonable to assume that these criteria also provide a framework for analyzing successful SRL. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate how students perceive the quality of learning environments designed to foster SRL and which instructional features they regard as relevant and effective in this context.
Research on successful SRL has revealed the high importance of both the individual development of the students and the development of the learning environment for successful teaching. Moreover, their interaction is of particular interest (Dignath-van Ewijk et al., 2013). As Dignath and Veenman (2020, p. 523) pointed out, “…researchers investigating teachers’ SRL practice should consider results from generic teaching effectiveness research” and aim to clarify the extent to which specific instructional dimensions contribute to an understanding of effective SRL. Therefore, we suggest a systematic quality analysis of an SRL-enhancing learning environment in using the three basic dimensions of teaching quality common in research on learning and instruction. This approach is innovative, as studies on teaching quality typically do not specifically target a particular teaching concept, such as SRL, while research on SRL only indirectly addresses the basic dimensions of effective teaching, if at all. By linking these dimensions to SRL, there is potential for expanding our understanding of effective instruction. Addressing these questions could make a lasting contribution to the development and evaluation of SRL-promoting learning environments, while also enhancing overall teaching quality.
The importance of SRL at the upper secondary school level of education is particularly evident due to its crucial role in the sustained acquisition of knowledge and skills. Moreover, it holds significant relevance for postsecondary education (Vosniadou, 2020), as students need to be prepared for successful higher education completion, which necessitates the mastery of appropriate self-regulatory strategies (Jansen et al., 2019; Kitsantas et al., 2008; Nandagopal & Ericsson, 2012; Peverly et al., 2003). Teachers lay the foundation for learners to control, shape, and develop their own learning by intentionally designing SRL-conducive learning environments (De Corte, 2004; Perry, 2013). However, despite SRL being a central focus of classroom research for the past four decades (Panadero, 2017), questions about the specific qualities of SRL-conducive learning environments remain open (Dignath & Veenman, 2020; Muijs et al., 2014). Thus, there is a clear need for a systematic definition of the quality aspects of an SRL-conducive learning environment. This paper aims to address this gap by exploring the following question:
What aspects of the three basic dimensions do upper secondary school students describe in a learning environment conducive to self-regulated learning?
In addressing this broad question, our study is exploratory in nature and aims to identify the potential benefits of analyzing the quality of SRL-enhancing learning environments through the lens of the three basic dimensions of teaching quality. Thus, we align two important yet distinct discourses in educational research as, to date, there has been little systematic effort to describe the quality characteristics of learning environments that promote SRL.
This study was conducted in Switzerland, focusing on students in upper secondary school. In Switzerland, upper secondary school typically spans three to five years, catering to students aged 14 to 19, similar to other European upper secondary systems. Our research involved examining one class each at the beginning, middle, and end of this educational phase. However, this was not a longitudinal study; instead, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of different cohorts at various points in their upper secondary education.
Our partner school, Gymnasium Hofwil, initiated discussions about fostering SRL during an internal teacher workshop involving all staff members. The discussions arose from the school’s dissatisfaction with its current narrow structure and students’ learning outcomes, alongside debates among teaching staff about the need for self-regulation and the prerequisites for successful learning in upper secondary education. The school drew inspiration from a comparable institution that had successfully implemented SRL as part of its school development process.
The sounding board within the school, comprising teachers, students, and school leaders, recognized the need for a more objective and multi-informant evaluation. After several rounds of internal feedback and evaluation, the school principal contacted one of the researchers to request an external, formative evaluation of the newly implemented teaching structure. This initiated a collaboration between the school and researchers from the University of Bern. Using the macro and micro categories of SRL-conducive learning environments developed by Perry and colleagues (Perry et al., 2018), the upper secondary school and the researchers collaboratively evaluated and refined the teaching structure in a participatory manner (Perry et al., 2020). To accomplish this, we applied three fundamental principles—separation of learning phases and assessment phases, fewer subjects per learning phase, and individual learning time—to Perry’s framework (Table 1).
Table 1
Assignment of macro and micro categories of SRL conducive learning environment according to Perry et al. (2018)
Firstly, the school year was divided into learning and assessment phases, and the framework timetable was transformed into an annual schedule. To establish an SRL-supportive learning environment, learning objectives and assignments were presented to students at the beginning of each phase. This ensured that students clearly understood what was expected of them and how to organize and plan their learning. To promote students' autonomy and influence, also a routine was established within the phases. After every five weeks of learning, an assessment phase was held, allowing students to demonstrate what they had learned and engage in self-assessment of their progress. This approach enabled learners to develop consistent learning routines and effective strategies for achieving learning objectives. Accordingly, there were no assessments during the learning phases; students focused solely on learning subject content during joint lessons and working independently on assignments during individual learning. In the assessment phase, which lasted one week, summative examinations were conducted to assess the students' level of knowledge and development.
Secondly, only 3-4 subjects were taught simultaneously in each learning phase (fewer subjects per phase). Traditionally, the weekly timetable remains the same every week. This structure was modified so that subjects were scheduled at specific times with greater intensity, ensuring that all subjects (e.g., languages, science, math) were still covered but with more hours per subject during each phase. Although this changed the distribution of lessons throughout the school year, the school's educational administration requirements were still met. The adapted learning environment was designed to facilitate deeper immersion in subjects while heavily supporting, guiding, and co-regulating in the classroom. With fewer subjects per phase, teachers met students more often, allowing them to use various forms of feedback (formative, summative, prognostic) during the learning phase, which supported the students in their learning in a more targeted way. At the same time, teachers used metacognitive language and supported students by setting learning goals at the beginning of each learning phase and by teaching specific metacognitive strategies. To further promote metacognitive strategies, students were encouraged to maintain learning journals. Teachers acted as role models by using strategies such as mind mapping or in-class discussions to address task challenges together, creating SRL-supportive structures.
Thirdly, 30% of instructional time was allocated to individual learning time to establish supportive structures for SRL and increase student autonomy and influence (individual learning time). This allowed students to plan and decide independently when, with which tools, and in which social context they would complete their tasks, enhancing their involvement in decision-making. This approach aimed to enhance students' engagement with the subject matter and foster explicit self-regulation through the completion of more complex tasks. Students could delve deeper into subjects at their own pace and according to their needs, promoting a classroom community where individual differences were valued. Knowledge was co-constructed as teachers acted as learning coaches, guiding students through their learning processes. In case of challenges or questions, students were encouraged to contact the teachers but had to decide for themselves when and in what respect they needed support. The sense of community was further enhanced by offering various types of learning spaces. Some spaces were designated for quiet, individual work, while others were intended for discussions and collaborative group work. This arrangement fostered lively discussions, shared learning experiences, and mutual support. Students had opportunities to share insights and questions, give positive feedback, and offer mutual explanations. Since some students excelled in certain subjects while others excelled in different areas, they could assist each other during individual learning time.
The dataset comprises a total of seven group discussions. The sample includes 49 students, consisting of 29 females and 20 males, from three different school classes (9th, 11th, and 13th Grades) where the SRL-supportive learning environment was implemented. Accordingly, students aged 14 to 19 were interviewed. To address our research question, we intentionally selected student group discussions as our primary method, as learners are central to educational and instructional efforts (Scherer et al., 2016; Wisniewski et al., 2020). To gain a comprehensive understanding of the learning environment across all grade levels, students with varying levels of experience were purposefully selected according to a predetermined qualitative sampling plan (Patton, 2015). This involved examining one class at the beginning, middle, and end of upper secondary school. The participant selection was exhaustive and homogeneous within school classes, encompassing potentially all students within a class. However, between school classes, the selection was heuristic and heterogeneous, intentionally including specific classes in the sample. To facilitate year-specific analyses, group discussions were conducted within individual classes (Lamnek, 2005).
The seven group discussions followed a semi-structured guide and were conducted in a conversational setting to replicate an everyday school environment as closely as possible (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). Each discussion involved five to nine participants. Before the group discussions, participants were informed about the study and provided their consent for participation and data usage. The discussions were recorded and lasted between 55 and 80 minutes (mean duration = 70 minutes). The audio recordings were transcribed using F4/F5 software, following established guidelines (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019). Verbatim transcription was employed, with minor language and punctuation corrections for readability. To maintain student anonymity, each participant was assigned a unique code. These codes prevented the identification of individual participants in the discussions but allowed for individual attribution (e.g., S1).
The collected data were analyzed using a structured qualitative content analysis approach with MAXQDA 20. Initially, a category system was deductively developed from existing theory. This category system was then inductively tested and expanded using the collected data (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019). The categories were based on the category system of Praetorius et al. (2018) and were slightly modified through translation into German. The category system was organized into three main categories: class management, cognitive activation, and student support, mirroring the three basic dimensions of teaching quality (Klieme et al., 2009). Table 2 provides an example of the category system, describing one sub-category along with its definition and an anchor example. Sense units were defined as coding units, allowing not only single sentences but also entire paragraphs to be assigned to the same code. To ensure inter-subjective comprehensibility, the codings were collectively discussed and compared using an interview as an illustrative example (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019; Mayring, 2015). Furthermore, interrater reliability was calculated, demonstrating an acceptable level of agreement, with a Cohen's Kappa value of 0.67 (McDonald et al., 2019).
Table 2
Excerpt from the Category System
A total of 503 codes were assigned to the three main categories: classroom management (n=160), cognitive activation (n=168), and student support (n=175), which were somewhat evenly distributed among the basic dimensions of teaching quality. The findings are presented and interpreted in relation to the three core characteristics of the studied learning environment: “Separation of learning and assessment phase”, “Fewer subjects per learning phase”, and “Individual learning time”.
The categorization and analysis of the interview material were conducted within the context of the three basic dimensions. When categorizing students' statements into these dimensions, the unique aspects of the SRL-conducive learning environment were explicitly considered, leading to adjustments in the subcategories. The results are further explored with respect to each class level only when differences between the class levels were identified; otherwise, they represent an overall perspective based on the statements of all learners. For readability, student quotes were edited to remove repetition, pauses, or filler words.
Table 3 summarizes the results regarding the separation of the learning and assessment phases. The following sections present the results for the three main categories in more detail, clarified through concise interview statements.
Table 3
Summary of results on separation of learning and assessment phase
In the context of separating the learning and assessment phases, it becomes clear that the organization of lessons plays a crucial role in classroom management across all grades, which in turn supports students' SRL. Simultaneously, the two primary categories of classroom management and SRL demonstrate significant interdependencies in this context. The learning environment encourages students to independently organize their learning processes as much as possible, necessitating appropriate rules and structures. The idea that students have to attend fewer classes is generally viewed positively, but concerns arise regarding the organization of lessons. For example, students' questions about upcoming exams may sometimes go unanswered immediately by their teachers.
“I've noticed that, especially during these more intensive learning weeks, questions often arise. In such cases, it's quite practical to be able to approach a teacher for clarification. If you've already prepared a summary the week before, that's not a problem. However, during the exam week itself, you have to rely on organizing solutions among yourselves.” (Student_13_2_3)
This demonstrates that students were not only tasked with planning their learning processes over an extended period due to the altered lesson structure, but they also needed to motivate and regulate themselves. Challenges arose when students were assigned an excessive number of diverse tasks.
In the context of cognitive activation, the SRL-conducive learning environment effectively stimulates students' cognitive and metacognitive processes. The separation of school and exam weeks, for instance, is mostly positively evaluated, as it enables students to manage their time more effectively, handle learning materials, and focus on exam preparations and studying. The introduction of block schedules provides structural support for SRL processes, allowing more time for reviewing the learning materials before exams.
From the students' perspective, the assessment of the impact on student support depended on the amount of subject matter covered. In particular, the pace of lessons played a crucial role: too much demand quickly led to overwhelm, while too little learning material caused boredom and reduced motivation. This situation was further complicated by variations in how teachers conducted their lessons. However, the pressure to perform was significantly alleviated in this teaching environment as students could engage with different learning materials in a more focused and in-depth manner. Consequently, this reduction in stress appeared to enhance overall performance across various subjects.
“Yes, it's just more manageable in a way when you can concentrate on one week, and, of course, it leads to much less stress.” (Student_13_2_6)
This means that students were primarily empowered to make individual choices, as they could independently organize their learning and working time for the most part. This flexible structure strengthened their SRL and allowed them to experience a greater sense of autonomy over extended periods.
Table 4 summarizes the results regarding fewer subjects per learning phase. The following sections present the results for the three main categories in more detail, clarified through concise interview statements.
Table 4
Summary of results on fewer subjects per learning phase
Given the significance of reducing the number of subjects per learning phase as a key element in creating a lesson structure conducive to SRL, alongside the continued importance of teacher instruction, it can be concluded that well-organized lessons support SRL in classroom management. Minimizing interruptions during lessons is highly valued – fewer interruptions and subject changes promote greater concentration and offer more opportunities to delve deeper into subject content. Teaching longer blocks of the same subject allows students to explore individual topics in greater depth, allowing them to build on existing knowledge. However, the reduction of subjects per learning phase should depend on subject-specific content, recognizing that students have varying prerequisites and interests. A more flexible teaching structure has the potential to enhance students' learning motivation.
In terms of cognitive activation, as previously mentioned, students were able to engage with the learning content more intensively due to the reduction in subjects, allowing for a longer learning duration per subject. However, the success of students' SRL was largely dependent on the subject matter itself. The effectiveness of SRL varied based on both the specific subject and the students' familiarity with it. Specifically, students' statements regarding different subjects revealed the following: In German, they found it easier to connect with their prior knowledge or reactivate it. This ease was attributed to German being their native language. However, perceptions of lesson structure varied when it came to mathematics. Learners highlighted that the possibilities for SRL were influenced by their performance in the subject.
“It might vary on an individual basis. For instance, I was never strong in math, so I can't pinpoint whether it was due to the interruptions or simply the subject itself, but, in any case, it made my learning a bit more challenging.” (Student_13_2_2)
In mathematics, establishing connections between the different learning phases posed a significant challenge for students. Short repetition periods were evidently insufficient to reactivate previously acquired knowledge. This issue was particularly noticeable in the upper grades for foreign languages, where the condensed nature of lessons seemed to reduce their relevance for students. The learning environment designed to promote SRL encouraged more in-depth learning, with less emphasis on memorization, by assigning demanding tasks such as reading and engaging with books. This, in turn, appeared to help learners better manage interruptions better during the individual learning phases. It is evident that, while promoting SRL is the intended goal of the developed learning environment, students must already possess the ability to apply self-regulatory strategies to effectively learn in this instructional setting.
Regarding student support, students noted that the pace of the lessons was adjusted through the reduction of subjects allowing SRL to take place. However, an ambivalent picture emerged among the learners regarding the pressure to perform.
“In all honesty, I somewhat miss the competitiveness and performance pressure due to having only four subjects.” (Student_9_1_8)
This quote clearly illustrates that some students associated the reduction in subjects with reduced performance pressure, which lead to a sense of underchallenge. Conversely, other students viewed the reduction of subjects as a relief, as it provided a moderately positive level of performance pressure.
“I believe it's somewhat related to how each person handles performance pressure. When you receive everything at the beginning of a phase, like two German books, two English books, all the math and biology materials, and the learning objectives, you start thinking, “Okay...” — you feel like you should be able to handle at least three-quarters of it. So, it does stress me out a bit at times, but in a positive way” (Student_9_1_6)
Collaboration with high-achieving classmates was perceived as beneficial for SRL, as it helped learners grasp connections within specific subjects. Studying together had a motivating impact. Through interactive discussions and mutual explanations, learning material was more thoroughly internalized and interconnected.
Table 5 summarizes the results regarding individual learning time (IL). The following sections present the results for the three main categories in more detail, clarified through concise interview statements.
Table 5
In the realm of classroom management, the clarity of rules and routines is a pivotal factor for IL, during which students are expected to engage in independent learning during class hours. Varying interpretations of these rules by different teachers were seen as highly detrimental, as students could only benefit from IL sessions for their SRL if they were appropriately structured by the teachers.
“I would also question how specific these implementation rules are because teachers approach it so differently. Some teachers assign new tasks every week, expecting them to be completed by a particular lesson and then discussed in class. On the other hand, there are teachers who provide assignments for the entire phase, requiring students to work on them alongside regular lessons.” (Student_11_2_5)
Teachers interpreted the timeframes and content of IL differently, prompting students to continually adjust their learning approaches based to each teacher's specifications. Through the lens of IL, notable distinctions between the three classes became evident. The gradual reduction in the structuring of IL was accompanied by a more pronounced organization of learning processes by the students. This instructional approach required clear initial guidance in the form of well-defined assignments. IL received mixed feedback from younger students, with the primary criticism revolving around its perceived inflexible structure, which did not align with their preferred learning context. They also expressed concern that, without teacher oversight and monitoring, they felt insufficiently supported, leading to reduced motivation to complete their assignments.
“I believe you need a lot of self-discipline to ensure you actually accomplish tasks during IL.” (Student_9_1_5)
Conversely, older learners valued the increased autonomy they had during IL, which provided them new opportunities to structure their learning process and prepare more flexibly for graduation. However, an ambivalent evaluation by the students remains evident, though the criticism takes on a different tone compared to younger learners. Effective time management appears to occur only when upper secondary students are not overly controlled and are given ample freedom to independently select their learning time and environment. This is further emphasized by students' growing recognition of the importance of IL over time and their increasing ability to use it more efficiently.
“Well, I also believe that everyone has different learning paces. Some need more time than six lessons per week, while others require less. You can't compel someone to study for six lessons or any specific duration. Additionally, when it comes to group assignments, like the geography one you mentioned earlier, students might voluntarily gather at school. It's convenient to meet after school since everyone is already here. I don't think it necessarily requires an official, mandatory lesson to facilitate such discussions. Students can organize it themselves. Moreover, if you have something to study and need to ask a teacher a question, you might willingly stay at school.” (Student_13_1_1)
Regarding cognitive activation, the analyses indicate a lesson structure that does not fully explore students' thought processes. This is reflected in the learners' perceptions of examinations for example, where they often felt the solution path was unclear, particularly when teachers failed to recognize their struggle to grasp the lesson content. However, overall, the tasks assigned during IL were deemed balanced by the students. For simpler tasks, students could use their remaining time to complete additional assignments or seek assistance from classmates, especially in younger grades. The lesson structure encouraged older students to engage in reflective processes about the level of task difficulty, especially in preparation for graduation exams. Furthermore, co-constructive learning among upper secondary students was fostered, particularly when IL was used for collaborative group work. Learning in groups provided students with opportunities to develop SRL by learning from one another.
“Well, not getting help directly, but you observe what other classmates are doing, sit down with them, compare notes, discuss tasks together, and solve them collectively, which in itself is a form of support.” (Student_9_2_3)
Many students, regardless of their grade level, reported a strong sense of social connectedness through group learning. However, challenges arose in specific situations, particularly when distractions diverted their attention from the intended tasks and objectives. In such cases, group work was more likely to be perceived as time-consuming and stressful. IL was viewed as supportive of metacognitive processes by the learners, particularly when they engaged reflectively with the learning content or when the roles of the coaches were clarified and deemed helpful. For IL to be effective, it was crucial for students to possess a repertoire of self-regulation strategies and have knowledge about SRL.
In terms of student support, students had the opportunity to engage in group learning through reciprocal interactions, gradually learning how to actively utilize this approach. However, when IL was perceived as coercive, it occasionally conflicted with other student needs.
“In the beginning, it was more common for us to sit together in groups. We had a designated area for that, like an island where we would learn together. However, over time, it evolved to the point where if you wanted to study together, you could, but you could also study effectively on your own. Additionally, we were permitted to use other rooms, which I found beneficial if you preferred studying alone.” (Student_13_2_5)
Primarily, students in higher grades mentioned that, with the freedom to work independently in groups, they organized themselves accordingly and had a positive experience with collaborative learning. This led to learning alongside each other and active co-regulation over time. Consequently, students had the opportunity to shape their learning processes individually. This suggests that learners were given the option to self-organize for group work when necessary. Furthermore, students sought cooperation with classmates, especially when they needed help in a particular subject, highlighting the importance of group work within a subject context. From the students' perspective, structured interactions between teachers and students were particularly helpful when addressing content-related questions. Subject-related support was considered more essential for individual learning, whereas process-oriented support (such as extracurricular issues, talent area organization, or school and leisure time) provided by assigned coaches was highly welcomed.
“It might be better to have a subject teacher available for each subject once or twice a week, allowing students to work independently, and if they have questions, they can simply ask the teacher in person.” (Student_9_2_1 )
Students' dependence on a differentiated lesson structure and adaptive teacher support became evident in instances where unclear assignments resulted in overwhelming demands. Similarly, the SRL environment had a demotivating impact when students' choices were restricted. This limitation affected both assignment selection and completion, as well as participation in IL, especially during marginal or intermediate hours. Students expressed mixed views regarding the connection between IL and lessons. In some instances, lessons provided opportunities for constructive feedback on tasks students had completed during IL. However, in cases where feedback was absent or insufficient, the content of the various teaching settings appeared related in terms of subject matter but lacked alignment in their didactical approaches.
“I believe it's important for self-assessment to integrate Individual Learning Time (IL) into the lessons to some extent. Not necessarily discussing it directly, but laying a foundation in IL, for instance, and then revisiting it after some time has passed. This way, you can build upon it in class and have a discussion to ensure that you've learned the material correctly and that your focus during IL was on the right topics.” (Student_9_2_5)
Despite SRL being a central focus of classroom research for the past four decades (Panadero, 2017) and the significant emphasis placed on the learning context, a lack of systematic alignment between research on SRL and teaching quality exists, both from theoretical and empirical perspectives (Dignath & Veenman, 2020; Dignath-van Ewijk et al., 2013). Questions regarding the specific qualities of SRL-conducive learning environments remain unanswered (Muijs et al., 2014; Dignath & Veenman, 2020). In the presented study, we investigated a learning environment conducive to SRL at the upper secondary level. The objective of this instructional setting was to empower students to engage in more SRL by implementing a distinct separation between learning phases and assessment phases, reducing the number of subjects per learning phase, and allowing for individualized learning time (Perry et al., 2004, 2018, 2020). Our study is unique to date as it represents the first systematic attempt to analyze an SRL-conducive learning environment through the lens of the three basic dimensions of teaching quality. Our analysis revealed that these three dimensions–classroom management, cognitive activation and student support– are also relevant for a learning environment intentionally designed to foster SRL, even if they require partial reinterpretation.
The results suggest SRL-supportive learning environments can largely be assessed based on the three basic dimensions. However, further specification of the generic nature of these dimensions for SRL-supportive instruction is necessary. Our analyses showed that almost all categories of Perry's framework model could be reconstructed, indicating that the three basic dimensions could be effectively mapped within the SRL-promoting learning environment of our study.
Traditionally, the focus of classroom management has been on identifying and reinforcing desirable behavior and preventing undesirable behavior through clear rules and the establishment of routines (Hattie, 2009; Hochweber et al., 2014; Praetorius et al., 2018; Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). Notably, classroom management is primarily embedded within the supportive structures for SRL, as familiar routines, participation structures, expectations, instructions, and tasks play a central role in all three elements of the learning environment. Although classroom management is considered generic for teaching (Charalambous & Praetorius, 2020), our study reveals that some generic aspects must be specified in terms of content to meet the requirements of an effective SRL-promoting learning environment. For example, the results indicate that the focus in SRL-promoting learning environments shifts toward supporting learners in managing their learning processes (De Corte et al., 2004; Perry, 2013). In this context, the effective handling and prevention of interruptions remain relevant (Praetorius et al., 2018), although the definition of a disruption in the classroom needs reinterpretation. Activities perceived as disruptive in traditional learning environments (e.g., a spontaneous exchange with a peer) can be seen as productive learning processes in SRL learning environments, requiring flexible time management by teachers to allow students to work and reflect independently (Dignath & Veenman, 2020; Dignath-van Ewijk et al., 2013).
Cognitive activation plays an important role in a learning environment conducive to SRL and is distributed across all three macro-categories (Perry et al., 2018). For students to be cognitively engaged in an SRL-promoting environment, it is essential not only to provide challenging tasks (Künsting et al., 2016; Praetorius et al., 2014) and activate prior knowledge (Decristan et al., 2015), but also to create opportunities for in-depth exploration of the subject matter. Our results indicate that cognitive activation in SRL-promoting learning environments must be expanded to allow students to engage with a subject over an extended period, enabling them to grasp the content more thoroughly (Veenman, 2013, 2017). The school’s practice of the separation of learning and assessment phases also proves to be beneficial. It encourages learners to apply relevant SRL skills during learning, as highlighted in other studies (Bernacki, 2017; Järvelä & Bannert, 2021; McCardle & Hadwin, 2015; Moos & Azevedo, 2008; Winne, 2019).
Equally important is the support of students in their learning processes as a basic dimension of effective teaching. This includes critical elements such as lesson pacing (Baumert et al., 2010; Kunter et al., 2005; Praetorius et al., 2012), subject content (Charalambous & Kyriakides, 2017; Klette & Blikstad-Balas, 2018; Praetorius et al., 2020), and feedback (Lipowsky et al., 2009; Praetorius et al., 2014). However, a closer look at our results reveals some differences. For example, students confirmed the specific role of co-regulated learning in SRL-promoting learning environments (Hadwin et al., 2018; Järvenoja et al., 2018; McCaslin & Vriesema, 2018; Panadero et al., 2015; Vriesema & McCaslin, 2020) when they reported that collaboration with high-performing classmates and structured interactions with teachers were crucial for their learning progress. This finding highlights the importance of understanding a class as a community in an SRL-promoting learning environment (Perry et al., 2020). Learners were able to rely on their classmates as a social resource when faced with incomprehensible tasks or inadequate feedback, while also practicing help-seeking as an important SRL strategy (Karabenick & Gonida, 2017).
Another key finding of our study is the limitation of analyzing an SRL-supportive learning environment through the lens of the three basic dimensions, particularly when examining students' specific learning behaviors. These limitations become evident when relationships between SRL and the basic dimensions are observed, as this approach identifies critical elements within the learning environment. For example, students often emphasize the organizational aspects of the learning environment over their individual learning experiences. This observation underscores a shortcoming in the three basic dimensions, as it does not explicitly account for motivational and emotional aspects of SRL, lacking categories to address these factors. But, even indications of emotional and motivational aspects of students' SRL were minimal and rarely emerged during the interviews. This finding aligns with earlier studies, which have consistently noted the subordinate role of motivational and emotional factors in the context of SRL (Azevedo & Feyzi-Behnagh, 2011; Azevedo et al., 2017; Gurtner et al., 2012; Peetsma et al., 2017).
While students appreciate the open spaces for learning, these open spaces also present substantial challenges. Students either lack the appropriate self-regulatory strategies to effectively utilize the provided freedom, or the organization of the learning environment exhibits deficiencies. In the first scenario, it becomes evident that the promotion of SRL can only be sustainably effective when direct and indirect forms of support complement each other (Dignath & Veenman, 2020; Schuster et al., 2023; Vosniadou et al., 2024). In the second scenario, it underscores the critical role teachers play in instructional design (Heirweg et al., 2021; Perels et al., 2009; Perry, 2013; Veenman, 2017). The learning environment is perceived as problematic when it is inflexible and unsuitable for students, leading to high levels of external regulation, which corresponds to the concept of the autonomy antinomy (Helsper, 2002): Students desire more creative freedom to engage in SRL. Initially, the simultaneous demand for more teacher support may seem contradictory, but upon closer examination, it highlights the context- and subject-specific nature of SRL and its dependence on external regulation by teachers and peers to facilitate learning.
Our study is pioneering in drawing clear parallels between the discussion on the quality of teaching and the promotion of SRL. Similar to the debate on the distinction between generic and subject-specific teaching quality (e.g., Praetorius et al., 2018; Charalambous & Praetorius, 2020), research on the promotion of SRL also distinguishes between SRL as a stable personality (trait) and as context-dependent, task-related behavior (state) of learners (e.g., Matthews et al., 2000; Winne & Perry, 2000).
Differences between grade levels become apparent, particularly concerning individual learning time. For instance, students in Grade 13 demonstrate a greater ability to adapt their SRL to the lesson structure over time, resulting in more effective learning. In contrast, 9th-Grade students express a desire for greater autonomy in shaping their SRL. Comparing these findings reveals that the gradual reduction of external regulation by teachers is positively perceived by students, as it allows them to take on greater responsibility for their own learning (Corno, 2008; Karlen et al., 2023). With an increasing number of choices available to individuals, new SRL opportunities emerge, and students assume greater responsibility for their learning. Consequently, the learning environment initially causes learners to experience a certain level of overload, but over time, they learn to navigate the open spaces and the altered lesson structure effectively. This development is characterized by a shift toward more effective learning in terms of planning and organization, and these changes are observable within a learning environment explicitly designed to support SRL.
The findings from this study can have significant implications for both theory and practice in the realm of SRL and teaching quality.
Our findings underscore the necessity of refining SRL theory to integrate the specific nuances of the three basic dimensions in SRL-promoting environments. This contributes to the theoretical landscape by expanding existing SRL models to include these critical factors, addressing gaps identified by previous research (Dignath & Veenman, 2020; Dignath-van Ewijk et al., 2013). Our study contributes to the ongoing discourse on teaching quality by highlighting the distinction between generic and SRL-specific teaching practices (Praetorius et al., 2018). Our research underscores that promoting SRL requires tailored instructional strategies, thereby advancing the debate on effective teaching.
Our study also affirms the essential role of co-regulated learning, emphasizing the importance of social interactions and structured peer collaboration for SRL (Hadwin et al., 2018; Järvenoja et al., 2018). This finding enhances SRL theory by integrating social dimensions more explicitly, aligning with Perry et al.'s (2020) concept of the classroom as a community.
Additionally, our results call for a theoretical refinement to include motivational and emotional factors when constructing an SRL-supportive learning environment (Azevedo et al., 2017). This holistic approach is crucial, as it captures the full spectrum of influences on learners' SRL. Consequently, future research should give more attention to motivational and emotional factors and their role in the design of SRL-promoting learning environments.
Practically, our study highlights the urgent need for enhanced teacher training and professional development to foster SRL (Kramarski, 2018; Kramarski et al., 2013). Teachers should be equipped to design and manage SRL-promoting environments effectively, balancing autonomy with support, and redefining classroom disruptions to recognize productive learning processes. In this regard, curriculum design should incorporate structures that facilitate distinct learning and assessment phases, promoting deeper engagement with content and the more effective application of SRL skills (Perry et al., 2018).
Simultaneously, our study also contributes to a nuanced understanding of the promotion of SRL, which has practical consequences. For the sustainable promotion of SRL, SRL learning environments should include the direct teaching of SRL strategies by teachers (Karlen et al., 2020; Vosniadou et al., 2024), as students can quickly become overwhelmed if they lack SRL skills.
Regarding classroom management, our findings indicate that establishing clear routines and expectations while maintaining flexibility is crucial for creating an SRL-supportive learning environment (Hochweber et al., 2014; Praetorius et al., 2018). Moreover, revising assessment methods to align with SRL principles is another key implication. Our results demonstrate that separating learning and assessment phases combined with continuous, formative feedback are essential steps to support SRL development (Bernacki, 2017; Järvelä & Bannert, 2021). Finally, acknowledging and addressing the diverse SRL needs of students at different grade levels is essential. Teachers should progressively reduce external regulation and grant more autonomy as students become increasingly capable of managing their own learning.
In our study, all three basic dimensions were successfully identified, although not all of their subcategories were specifically categorized. However, our study has certain limitations. The first limitation concerns our focus on students as the primary unit of study. While it was a deliberate choice to analyze the students' perspective to address the question at hand (Scherer et al., 2016; Wisniewski et al., 2020), it is important to acknowledge that our assessment of the didactic setting's design is presented exclusively from this perspective. This highlights a key insight in the context of systematically linking SRL and teaching quality: while discussions on teaching quality often originate from the teacher's standpoint, research on SRL predominantly adopts the students' viewpoint.
A second limitation arises from our somewhat narrow definition of successful teaching in this study. Berliner (2005) combines two approaches to “good teaching” (normative standards and professional action) and “effective teaching” (achievement of learning goals in terms of students' skills, abilities, and knowledge) into a comprehensive perspective of “quality teaching”. In this context, we have assumed three basic dimensions of quality teaching, whereas elsewhere, five basic dimensions are defined, with motivation, for instance, explicitly recognized as one of them (Wisniewski & Zierer, 2020). A more expansive perspective, such as the MAIN-TEACH model (Charalambous & Praetorius, 2020), would be valuable for future analyses.
In summary, it is evident from students' responses how crucial it is for teachers to skillfully design and guide their students. In the case under examination, the weaknesses of this learning environment, as perceived by students, became apparent whenever there was a disconnect between its interpretation and implementation by teachers. From this perspective, the question of implementation quality and, consequently, the quality of the school itself becomes relevant when assessing teaching quality (Muijs et al., 2014). Furthermore, this study emphasizes the importance of considering SRL from two interconnected perspectives: how students learn and how teachers teach, including how they learn to teach SRL. This dual viewpoint underscores the relationship between teaching practices and the school context, highlighting the need to dismantle existing structures and the significance of an ongoing commitment to school development. A deeper understanding of these dynamics can cultivate environments where both students and teachers continuously grow and improve.
We sincerely thank Gymnasium Hofwil for the productive collaboration. Special thanks go to the principal, Peter Stalder, whose support and commitment have been greatly appreciated.
Azevedo, R., & Feyzi-Behnagh, R. (2011). Dysregulated Learning
with Advanced Learning Technologies. Invited Papers, 7(2).
Azevedo, R., Taub, M., & Mudrick, N. V. (2017). Understanding
and Reasoning about Real-Time Cognitive, Affective, and
Metacognitive Processes to Foster Self-Regulation with Advanced
Learning Technologies. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.),
Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance
(2nd ed., pp. 254–270). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-17
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall.
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan,
A., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge,
cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress.
American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133–180.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157
Berliner, D. C. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for
teacher quality. Journal of teacher education, 56(3),
205–213.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105275904
Bernacki, M. L. (2017). Examining the cyclical, loosely sequenced,
and contingent features of self-regulated learning: Trace data and
their analysis. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance
(pp. 370–387). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-24
Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, emotion regulation, and
self-regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and
performance (pp. 408–425). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010-34
Brophy, J. (1999). Teaching (Educational Practices Series, Vol.
1). International Bureau of Education.
Brophy, J. (2010). Teacher Effects Research and Teacher Quality.
The Journal of Classroom Interaction , 45(1),
32–40.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student
achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (pp. 328–375). Macmillan.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning
to Learn: On Training Students to Learn from Texts.
Educational Researcher, 10 (2), 14–21.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X010002014
Charalambous, C. Y., & Kyriakides, E. (2017). Working at the
nexus of generic and content-specific teaching practices: An
exploratory study based on TIMSS secondary analyses. The
Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 423–454.
https://doi.org/10.1086/690221
Charalambous, C. Y., & Praetorius, A.-K. (2020). Creating a
forum for researching teaching and its quality more
synergistically. Studies in Educational Evaluation ,
67, 100894.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100894
Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based
intervention to help teachers decrease students’ amotivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology , 40,
99–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004
Corno, L. (2008). On Teaching Adaptively. Educational
Psychologist, 43(3), 161–173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802178466
De Corte, E. (2012). Constructive, self-regulated, situated, and
collaborative learning: An approach for the acquisition of
adaptive competence. Journal of Education, 192(2-3),
33-47.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057412192002-307
De Corte, E. (2016). Improving higher education students’ learning
proficiency by fostering their self-regulation skills.
European Review, 24 (2), 264-276. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1062798715000617
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Masui, C. (2004). The
CLIA-model: A framework for designing powerful learning
environments for thinking and problem solving. European
journal of psychology of education, 19(4), 365–384.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173216
De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L.,
& Aelterman, N. (2016). Promoting elementary school students’
autonomous reading motivation: Effects of a teacher professional
development workshop. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(3),
232–252.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.942032
Decristan, J., Klieme, E., Kunter, M., Hochweber, J., Büttner, G.,
Fauth, B., ... & Hardy, I. (2015). Embedded formative
assessment and classroom process quality: How do they interact in
promoting science understanding? American Educational
Research Journal, 52(6), 1133-1159. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0002831215596412
Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering
self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on
intervention studies at primary and secondary school level.
Metacognition and Learning, 3 (3), 231–264.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x
Dignath, C., & Veenman, M. V. (2020). The role of direct
strategy instruction and indirect activation of self-regulated
learning - Evidence from classroom observation studies.
Educational Psychology Review, 33 (2), 489–533.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09534-0
Dignath-van Ewijk, C., Dickhäuser, O., & Büttner, G. (2013).
Assessing how teachers enhance self-regulated learning: A
multiperspective approach. Journal of Cognitive Education and
Psychology, 12(3), 338–358.
https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.338
Donker, A. S., De Boer, H., Kostons, D., Van Ewijk, C. D., &
van der Werf, M. P. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy
instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis.
Educational Research Review, 11 , 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002
Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation
and affect in self-regulated learn-ing: The MASRL Model.
Educational Psychologist, 46 (1), 6–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645
Ferguson, R. F., & Danielson, C. (2014). How Framework for
Teaching and Tripod 7Cs Evidence Distinguish Key Components of
Effective Teaching. In T. J. Kane, K. A. Kerr, & R. C. Pianta
(Eds.), Designing Teacher Evaluation Systems (1st
ed., pp. 98–143). Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119210856.ch4
Finsterwald, M., Wagner, P., Schober, B., Lüftenegger, M., &
Spiel, C. (2013). Fostering lifelong learning. Evaluation of a
teacher education program for professional teachers.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 29 , 144–155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.009
Flavell, J. H. (1971). First discussant's comments: What is memory
development the development of? Human Development, 14(4),
272–278.
Greene, J. A., Plumley, R. D., Urban, C. J., Bernacki, M. L.,
Gates, K. M., Hogan, K. A., Demetriou, C., & Panter, A. T.
(2021). Modeling temporal self-regulatory processing in a higher
education biology course. Learning and Instruction, 72,
101201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.04.002
Gurtner, J.-L., Gulfi, A., Genoud, P. A., De Rocha Trindade, B.,
& Schumacher, J. (2012). Learning in multiple contexts: Are
there intra-, cross- and transcontextual effects on the learner’s
motivation and help seeking? European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 27(2), 213–225.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0083-4
Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Self-regulation,
co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning
environments. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance
(2nd ed., pp. 83–106). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-6
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible teaching – visible learning: A
synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement .
Routledge.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of
learning skills interventions on student learning: A
meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 66
(2), 99–136.
Heirweg, S., De Smul, M., Merchie, E., Devos, G., & Van Keer,
H. (2021). Do you reap what you sow? The relationship between
primary school students’ self-regulated learning and student,
teacher, and school determinants. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 32 (1), 118–140.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1797829
Helsper, W. (2002). Lehrerprofessionalität als antinomische
Handlungsstruktur [Teacher Professionalism as an Antinomian
Structure of Action]. In M. Kraul, W. Marotzki, & C. Schweppe
(Hrsg.), Biographie und Profession (S. 64–102).
Julius Klinkhardt.
Hochweber, J., Hosenfeld, I., & Klieme, E. (2014). Classroom
composition, classroom management, and the relationship between
student attributes and grades. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 106(1), 289–300.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033829
Jansen, R. S., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Jak, S., &
Kester, L. (2019). Self-regulated learning partially mediates the
effect of self-regulated learning interventions on achievement in
higher education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research
Review, 28, 100292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100292
Järvelä, S., & Bannert, M. (2021). Temporal and adaptive
processes of regulated learning—What can multimodaldata tell?
Learning and Instruction, 72 , 101268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101268 .
Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., Törmänen, T., Näykki, P., Malmberg,
J., Kurki, K., Mykkänen, A., & Isohätälä, J. (2018). Capturing
motivation and emotion regulation during a learning process.
Frontline Learning Research, 6 (3), 85–104.
https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i3.369310
Karabenick, S. A., & Gonida, E. N. (2017). Academic help
seeking as a self-regulated learning strategy: Current issues,
future directions. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance
(pp. 421-433). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-27
Karlen, Y., & Hertel, S. (2024). Inspiring self-regulated
learning in everyday classrooms: Teachers’ professional
competences and promotion of self-regulated learning. Unterrichtswissenschaft,
52(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-024-00196-3
Karlen, Y., Hertel, S., & Hirt, C. N. (2020). Teachers’
Professional Competences in Self-Regulated Learning: An Approach
to Integrate Teachers’ Competences as Self-Regulated Learners and
as Agents of Self-Regulated Learning in a Holistic Manner. Frontiers
in Education, 5, Article 159.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00159
Karlen, Y., Hirt, C. N., Jud, J., Rosenthal, A., & Eberli, T.
D. (2023). Teachers as learners and agents of self-regulated
learning: The importance of different teachers competence aspects
for promoting metacognition. Teaching and Teacher Education,
125, 104055.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104055
Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath-van Ewijk, C.,
Büttner, G., & Klieme, E. (2010). Promotion of self-regulated
learning in the classrooms: Investigating frequency, quality, and
consequences for student performance. Metacognition and
Learning, 5(2), 157–171.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9055-3
Kitsantas, A., Winsler, A., & Huie, F. (2008). Self-regulation
and ability predictors of academic success during college: A
predictive validity study. Journal of advanced academics, 20(1),
42-68.
https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-867
Klette, K., & Blikstad-Balas, M. (2018). Observation manuals
as lenses to classroom teaching: Pitfalls and possibilities.
European Educational Research Journal, 17 (1), 129–146.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117703228
Klieme, E. (2019). Unterrichtsqualität [Teaching Quality]. In M.
Harring, C. Rohlfs & M. Gläser-Zikuda (Hrsg.), Handbuch
Schulpädagogik (S. 393–408). Waxmann.
Klieme, E., & Rakoczy, K. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität aus
Schülerperspektive: Kulturspezifische Profile, regionale
Unterschiede und Zusammenhänge mit Effekten von Unterricht
[Teaching quality from a student perspective: culture-specific
profiles, regional differences, and correlations with effects of
teaching]. In PISA 2000— Ein differenzierter Blick auf die
Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (S. 333–359).
Wiesbaden.
Klieme, E., Pauli, C. & Reusser, K. (2009). The
Pythagoras Study. Investigating effects of teaching
and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms.
In: T. Janik (Ed.), The power of video studies in
investigating teaching and learning in the classroom .
(pp. 137-160). Waxmann.
Kramarski, B. (2018). Teachers as agents in promoting students'
SRL and performance: Applications for Teachers’ Dual-Role Training
Program. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook
of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance 2nd Ed.
(pp. 223-239). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-15
Kramarski, B., Desoete, A., Bannert, M., Narciss, S., & Perry,
N. (2013). New perspectives on integrating self-regulated learning
at school. Education Research International, 2013,
498214.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/498214
Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing
Qualitative Data with MAXQDA: Text, Audio, and Video .
Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8
Künsting, J., Neuber, V., & Lipowsky, F. (2016). Teacher
self-efficacy as a long-term predictor of instructional quality in
the classroom. European Journal Psychology of Education, 31
, 299–322. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0272-7
Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, S., Richter, D., Voss, T.,
& Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers:
Effects on instructional quality and student development.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (3), 805–820.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583
Lamnek, S. (2005). Gruppendiskussion – Theorie und Praxis
[Focus Group - Theory and Practice] . Beltz.
Leidinger, M., & Perels, F. (2012). Training self-regulated
learning in the classroom: Development and evaluation of learning
materials to train self-regulated learning during regular
mathematics lessons at primary school. Education Research
International, 2012, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/735790
Leutwyler, B., & Maag Merki, K. (2009). School effects on
students’ self-regulated learning. A multivariate analysis of the
relationship between individual perceptions of school processes
and cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational dimensions of
self-regulated learning. Journal for Educational Research
Online, 1(1), 197–223.
https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-29038
Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B.,
Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2009). Quality of geometry
instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding
of the Pythagorean Theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19
, 527–537.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.001
Martin, J. (2007). The selves of educational psychology:
Conceptions, contexts, and critical considerations. Educational
Psychologist, 42, 79–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263244
Masui, C., & De Corte, E. (2005). Learning to reflect and to
attribute constructively as basic components of self-regulated
learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75
(3), 351–372.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709905X25030
Matthews, G., Schwean, V. L., Campbell, S. E., Saklofske, D. H.,
& Mohamed, A. A. R. (2000). Personality, self-regulation, and
adaptation: A cognitive-social framework. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of
self-regulation (pp. 171–207). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50035-4
Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse [Qualitative
Content Analysis]. Beltz.
McCardle, L., & Hadwin, A. F. (2015). Using multiple,
contextualized data sources to measure learners’ perceptions of
their self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10,
43-75.
McCaslin, M. & Good, T. L. (1996). The informal curriculum. In
D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 622–670). Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
McCaslin, M., & Vriesema, C. C. (2018). Co-regulation: A model
for classroom research in a. Vygotskian perspective. In G. A. D.
Liem & D. M. McInerey (Eds.), Big theories revised 2:
Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning
(pp. 319–352). Information Age Publishing.
McDonald, N., Schoenebeck, S., & Forte, A. (2019). Reliability
and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and
Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice. Proceedings of the ACM
on Human-Computer Interaction , 3(CSCW), 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174
Michalsky, T. (2021). Preservice and Inservice Teachers’ Noticing
of Explicit Instruction for Self-Regulated Learning Strategies.
Frontiers in Psychology , 12, 630197.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.630197
Molenaar, I., Sleegers, P., & van Boxtel, C. (2014).
Metacognitive scaffolding during collaborative learning: A
promising combination. Metacognition & Learning ,
9, 309–332.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9118-y
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning
with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33 (2), 270–298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.001
Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B.,
Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art – teacher
effectiveness and professional learning. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25 (2), 231–256.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451
Nandagopal, K., & Ericsson, K. A. (2012). An expert
performance approach to the study of individual differences in
self-regulated learning activities in upper-level college
students. Learning and Individual Differences , 22(5),
597-609.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.018
OECD, (2018). The future of education and skills: Education
2030, The future we want.
https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).
OECD, (2019). OECD Skills Outlook 2019: Thriving in a
Digital World.
https://doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran,
A. G. (2009). A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing
Data in Focus Group Research. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800301
Oser, F. K., & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of
teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. Handbook of
research on teaching , 4, 1031-1065.
Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six
Models and Four Directions for Research. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8(422), 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Panadero, E., Kirschner, P. A., Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., &
Järvenoja, H. (2015). How Individual Self-Regulation Affects Group
Regulation and Performance: A Shared Regulation Intervention. Small
Group Research , 46(4), 431–454.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415591219
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of
research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist,
36(2), 89–101.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation
methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.
Peetsma, T., Van der Veen, I., & Schuitema, J. (2017).
Use of TIME: Time perspective intervention of motivation
enhancement. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60191-9_10
Perels, F., Dignath, C., & Schmitz, B. (2009). Is it possible
to improve mathematical achievement by means of self-regulation
strategies? Evaluation of an intervention in regular math classes.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24 (1),
17–31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173472
Perry, N. E. & Rahim, A. (2011). Studying self-regulated
learning in classrooms. In Zimmerman, B. & Schunk, D. (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance
(pp. 122–136). Routledge.
Perry, N. E. (2013). Understanding classroom processes that
support children’s self-regulation of learning. In N. E. Perry
(Ed.), Self-regulation and dialogue in primary classrooms
(pp. 45–68). The British Psychological Society.
Perry, N. E., & Drummond, L. (2002). Helping young students
become self-regulated researchers and writers. The Reading
Teacher, 56(3), 298–310.
Perry, N. E., Lisaingo, S., Yee, N., Parent, N., Wan, X., &
Muis, K. (2020). Collaborating with teachers to design and
implement assessments for self-regulated learning in the context
of authentic classroom writing tasks. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(4),
416–443.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1801576
Perry, N. E., Mazabel, S., Dantzer, B., & Winne, P. (2018).
Supporting self-regulation and self-determination in the context
of music education. In G. A. D. Liem & D. M. McInerney (Eds.),
Big theories revisited 2: A volume of research on sociocultural
influences on motivation and learning (pp. 295–318). Information
Age Press.
Perry, N.E., Phillips, L., & Dowler, J. (2004). Examining
Features of Tasks and Their Potential to Promote Self-Regulated
Learning. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship
in Education , 106(9), 1854–1878.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00408.x
Peverly, S. T., Brobst, K. E., Graham, M., & Shaw, R. (2003).
College adults are not good at self-regulation: A study on the
relationship of self-regulation, note taking, and test taking.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (2), 335–346.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.335
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B. K. (2008).
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) . Paul H.
Brookes.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students.
Educational Psychology Review , 16(4), 385–407.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
Praetorius, A. K., Herrmann, C., Gerlach, E., Zülsdorf-Kersting,
M., Heinitz, B., & Nehring, A. (2020). Unterrichtsqualität in
den Fachdidaktiken im deutschsprachigen Raum–zwischen Generik und
Fachspezifik [Teaching quality in subject didactics in
German-speaking countries - between generics and subject
specifics]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 48 (3), 409–446.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-020-00082-8
Praetorius, A. K., Klieme, E., Herbert, B., & Pinger, P.
(2018). Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German
framework of three basic dimensions. ZDM, 50(3),
407–426.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4
Praetorius, A. K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., &
Klieme, E. (2014). One lesson is all you need? Stability of
instructional quality across lessons. Learning and
Instruction, 31, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.002
Praetorius, A., Lenske, G., & Helmke, A. (2012). Observer
ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill what they
promise? Learning and Instruction, 22 , 387–400.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.002
Praetorius, A.-K., Klieme, E., Kleickmann, T., Brunner, E.,
Lindmeier, A., Taut, S. & Charalambous, C. Y. (2020). Towards
developing a theory of generic teaching quality: Origin, current
status, and necessary next steps regarding the three Basic
Dimensions model. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 66 ,
15–36.
https://doi.org/10.25656/01:25861
Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social
Interaction—What Can It Tell Us about Metacognition and
Coregulation in Learning? European Psychologist , 10(3),
199–208.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.10.3.199
Scherer, R., Nilsen, T., & Jansen, M. (2016). Evaluating
Individual Students’ Perceptions of Instructional Quality: An
Investigation of their Factor Structure, Measurement Invariance,
and Relations to Educational Outcomes. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00110
Schreier, M. (2017). Sampling and generalization. In U. Flick
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods for data
collection (S. 84–98). SAGE.
Schuster, C., Stebner, F., Geukes, S., Jansen, M., Leutner, D.,
& Wirth, J. (2023). The effects of direct and indirect
training in metacognitive learning strategies on near and far
transfer in self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction,
83, 101708.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101708
Seidel, T. & Shavelson, R. (2007). Teaching effectiveness
research in the past decade. Review of Educational Research,
77, 454–499.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317
Slavin, R. E. (1987). A theory of school and classroom
organization. Educational Psychologist , 22, 89-108.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2202_1
Slavin, R. E. (1994). Quality, appropriateness, incentive, and
time: A model of instructional effectiveness. International
Journal of Educational Research , 21(2),
141–157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(94)90029-9
Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using
self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy
instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and
instruction, 16(1), 57–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.006
Su, Y.-L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A Meta-analysis of the
Effectiveness of Intervention Programs Designed to Support
Autonomy. Educational Psychology Review , 23(1),
159–188.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7
van Leeuwen, A., & Janssen, J. (2019). A systematic review of
teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and
secondary education. Educational Research Review, 27,
71–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.001
Veenman, M. V. J. (2013). Training metacognitive skills in
students with availability and production deficiencies. In H.
Bembenutty, T. Cleary & A. Kitsantas (Eds.),
Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse
disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp.
299–324). Information Age Publishing.
Veenman, M. V. J. (2017). Learning to self-monitor and
self-regulate. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd
ed., pp. 233–257). Routledge.
Venitz, L., & Perels, F. (2019). The promotion of
self-regulated learning by kindergarten teachers: Differential
effects of an indirect intervention. International
Electronic Journal of Elementary Education , 11(5),
437-448.
https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2019553340
Vosniadou, S. (2020). Bridging secondary and higher education. The
importance of self-regulated learning. European Review, 28(S1),
94–103.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798720000939
Vosniadou, S., Bodner, E., Stephenson, H., Jeffries, D., Lawson,
M. J., Darmawan, Ig. N., Kang, S., Graham, L., & Dignath, C.
(2024). The promotion of self-regulated learning in the classroom:
A theoretical framework and an observation study. Metacognition
and Learning, 19(1), 381–419.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09374-1
Vriesema, C. C., & McCaslin, M. (2020). Experience and Meaning
in Small-Group Contexts. Frontline Learning Research, 8(3),
126–139.
https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i3.493
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Winne, P. H. (2019). Paradigmatic dimensions of instrumentation
and analytic methods in research on self-regulated learning.
Computers in Human Behavior, 96 , 285-289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.026
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as
self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C.
Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice
(pp. 277–304). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated
learning. In In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566).
Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50045-7
Wisniewski, B., & Zierer, K. (2020). Entwicklung eines
Online-Fragebogens zur Erhebung von Unterrichtsqualität durch
Lernendenfeedback und erste Validierungsschritte [Development of
an Online Questionnaire to Survey Teaching Quality through Learner
Feedback and Initial Validation Steps.]. Psychologie in
Erziehung und Unterricht, 67 (2), 138–155.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2378/peu2020.art10d
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., Dresel, M., & Daumiller, M.
(2020). Obtaining secondary students’ perceptions of instructional
quality: Two-level structure and measurement invariance.
Learning and Instruction , 66, 101303.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101303
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social
cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M.
Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
13–39). Academic Press.