CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 177Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesStudent Assessment and Feedback

Self-Regulated Learning in the Classroom: A Literature Review on the Teacher’s Role

Open access
Moos, Daniel C., Ringdal, Alyssa·2012·Education Research International
DOI 10.1155/2012/423284
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Empirical research has supported the long held assumption that individual differences exist in how students learn. Recent methodological advancements have allowed educational research to examine not only what students learn, but also how they learn. Research has found that active involvement in learning, including setting meaningful goals, selecting appropriate and task-specific strategies, monitoring motivational levels, and adapting based on feedback are all positively related to learning outcomes. How can teachers support students’ development and use of these learning processes? The goal of this paper is to examine research that has used the Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) theory to consider this broad question. Methodological advancements recently used in this field of research, various SRL theoretical frameworks guiding this research, and studies that empirically examined self-regulation with both preservice and inservice teachers are discussed. The paper concludes with the theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of the reviewed studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2012/423284

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pintrich's model and the MSLQ based on it are still widely used in research.

    “but his model and the questionnaire based on it, the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich et al., 1993b), are still widely used in research (e.g., Moos and Ringdal, 2012).”

    From A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research (2017) · cites this paper as Moos and Ringdal, 2012

    Section 7.3, Methodological Implications, says a vast majority of the reviewed studies used self-report questionnaires, most notably the MSLQ. Section 2, Overview of SRL Theories, describes Pintrich’s model, but the paper does not say that the model itself is widely used in research; section 7.2 instead identifies Zimmerman’s theory as the most frequently cited in the studies reviewed. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • There is a misalignment between what SRL research says about its implementation at different educational levels and what teachers actually do in their classroom.

    “There is, therefore, a misalignment between what SRL research says about its implementation at different educational levels (Dignath and Büttner, 2008), and what teachers actually do in their classroom (Moos and Ringdal, 2012).”

    From A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research (2017) · cites this paper as Moos and Ringdal, 2012

  • Moos and Ringdal found that higher education teachers tend to focus on course content, providing limited opportunities for scaffolding SRL; secondary teachers offer more of those opportunities but do not formulate explicit instructions in terms of SRL; and primary teachers implement more SRL practices.

    “These authors found that: (a) higher education teachers tend to focus on the course content, providing limited opportunities for scaffolding SRL; (b) secondary teachers offer more of those opportunities but do not formulate explicit instructions in terms of SRL; and (c) primary teachers implement more SRL practices.”

    From A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research (2017) · cites this paper as Moos and Ringdal, 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. R. Azevedo, "The role of self-regulation in learning about sci- ence with hypermedia," in Recent Innovations in Educational Technology That Facilitate Student Learning, D. Robinson and G. Schraw, Eds., pp. 127-156, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, USA, 2008.
  2. R. Snow, L. Corno, and D. Jackson, "Individual differences in affective and cognitive functions," in Handbook of Educa- tional Psychology, D. Berliner and R. Calfee, Eds., pp. 243- 310, Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, 1996.
  3. P. H. Winne and A. F. Hadwin, "Studying self-regulated learning," in Metacognition in Educational Theory and Prac- tice, D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. Graesser, Eds., pp. 277- 304, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1998.
  4. T. Michalsky and B. Kramarski, "Developing self-regulated learning of pre-service teachers in computer mediated com- munication in relation to conceptions about teaching and learning," Megamot, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 765-798, 2008.
  5. Y. S. Hwang and K. Vrongistinos, "Elementary in-service teachers' self-regulated learning strategies related to their academic achievements," Journal of Instructional Psychology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 147-154, 2002.
  6. R. H. Brunning, G. J. Schraw, M. M. Norby, and R. R. Ronning, Cognitive Psychology and Instruction, Merril Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2004.
  7. K. A. Ericsson and H. A. Simon, Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports As Data, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2nd edition, 1994.
  8. M. J. Dreher and J. T. Guthrie, "Preface," Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 127-128, 1993.
  9. G. Deffner, "Interaction of thinking aloud, solution strategies and task characteristics? An experimental test of the Ericsson and Simon model," Spracher und Kognition, vol. 9, pp. 98- 111, 1989.
  10. M. Heydemann, "The relation between eye-moveness and think aloud for Raven matrices," Psychologische Beitrage, vol. 28, pp. 76-87, 1986.
  11. D. Rhenius and M. Heydemann, "Think aloud during the administration of Raven's matrices," Zeitschrift fur Experi- mentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, vol. 76, pp. 308-327, 1984.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moos, D. C., & Ringdal, A.
Affiliations
Gustavus Adolphus College (US)
Corresponding author
Moos, Daniel C.
ORCID
Venue
Education Research International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012
Volume
2012
Pages
1-15
ISSN
  • 2090-4002 (ISSN-L)
  • 2090-4010
DOI
10.1155/2012/423284
OpenAlex
W2109721546
Cited by
177
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6
FWCI
7.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Education Research International (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
student self-regulation, teacher role, individual differences in learning, goal setting, learning strategies, self-monitoring, feedback, pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, metacognition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review