Teacher differences in promoting students' self-regulated learning: Exploring the role of student characteristics

Learning and Individual Differences 52 (2016) 88–96

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Teacher differences in promoting students' self-regulated learning: Exploring the role of student characteristics Jeltsen Peeters a,b,⁎, Free De Backer a, Ankelien Kindekens a, Karen Triquet a, Koen Lombaerts a a b

Department of Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium Research Foundation Flanders, Egmontstraat 5, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 25 June 2015 Received in revised form 5 September 2016 Accepted 15 October 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Self-regulated learning Primary education Student influences Teacher differences

a b s t r a c t Research has repeatedly illustrated the positive effects of self-regulated learning (SRL) on students' intrinsic motivation and academic performance. Teachers are crucial actors in providing all students with equal opportunities to develop SRL skills. However, various factors, such as student characteristics, may affect teachers' support of students' SRL. This study examined primary school teachers' (N = 127) perceptions regarding the role of student characteristics in their promotion of SRL. It was found that while teachers recounted experiencing the influence of multiple student characteristics, teachers differed in their instructional responses. Subsequently, the results suggested that teacher beliefs, knowledge of SRL, and attributional styles mediate the potential association of student characteristics alongside teachers' SRL support. The study concludes by acknowledging the role of student characteristics in understanding teachers' varying levels of SRL promotion. In addition, teachers' susceptibility and response to diverse student characteristics may overshadow actual student SRL needs, limiting student growth opportunities. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Eliminating the impact of student characteristics, such as the socioeconomic and ethnic background, on academic performance remains a major global challenge (Jacobs & Rea, 2011; OECD, 2010). Given the unambiguous relationship between students' self-regulated learning (SRL) and their academic motivation and performance (Cleary & Platten, 2013; Dignath & Büttner, 2008), at-risk students are therefore likely to benefit from increased levels of SRL skills. At-risk students often appear more disengaged from classroom activities, frequently displaying lower amounts of intrinsic motivation and capacity to self-regulate (Bembenutty, 2007; Desoete, 2009; Lapan, Kardash, & Turner, 2002; Major, Martinussen, & Wiener, 2013). Enabling children to develop SRL skills early through positive feedback loops stands to counteract negative feedback systems. The latter hamper children with limited self-regulatory capacities in improving their SRL skills, resulting not only in increases between students' SRL gaps but also in achievement disparity, which continues to grow year upon year (Blair & Diamond, 2008). Thus far, SRL-related research has focused on theoretical conceptualization (e.g., Zimmerman, 2002), SRL development in learners (e.g., Veenman & Spaans, 2005), and SRL instruction in teaching practice (e.g., Perry, Phillips, & Dowler, 2004). More recently, prominent ⁎ Corresponding at: Department of Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Peeters).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.014 1041-6080/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

researchers have called for empirical studies to explain differences in teachers' SRL promotion by identifying crucial contextual influences (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2006; Muijs et al., 2014). Influences on SRL promotion may descend from teacher, school, student, parent, and policy level (Hattie, 2009; Lau, 2013; Martinez-Pons, 2002). Derived from a necessity to provide all children with equal access to SRL development opportunities, the current study investigates teachers' personal beliefs about the role of student characteristics in their instructional decisions regarding SRL. Hence, the study examines teachers' so-called espoused theories, which reflect the theories people believe to underpin their behavior (Argyris & Schon, 1974). Gaining clarity on teachers' self-perceptions of classroom processes proves crucial to comprehending why and how teachers organize (SRL-oriented) instructional practice (McCardle & Hadwin, 2015; Nespor, 1987). 2. Conceptual framework The SRL framework can be perceived as an umbrella concept overarching multiple strategies that make learners more effective. Self-regulated learners “set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment” (Pintrich, 2000, p. 453). Amidst the research documenting teachers' role in fostering students' SRL (e.g., Dignath, Büttner, & Langfeldt, 2008; Dignath & Büttner, 2008; Ferreira, Simão, & da Silva, 2015), teachers' assessment skills prove critical in informing their SRL promotion, respective of

J. Peeters et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 52 (2016) 88–96

individual student needs (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). Nevertheless, teachers' subjective beliefs may interfere with their assessment (Friedrich, Jonkmann, Nagengast, Schmitz, & Trautwein, 2013; Malle & Pearce, 2001). Given the potential implications towards SRL development, it is relevant to explore teachers' beliefs in the influences of student characteristics on their SRL-promoting practices (Lau, 2013). Fig. 1 further illustrates this need while highlighting the current study's context, approach, and primary goal. The dashed box marks the current study's focus. Teacher differences and respective self-reported teacher insights on student characteristics may help explain differences in the way teachers approach, are disposed to, and ultimately stimulate SRL in the classroom (Karabenick & Zusho, 2015). 2.1. Teacher differences in SRL promotion Most researchers argue that teachers vary, prioritizing their focus and facilitation on particular SRL components or phases (Donker, de Boer, Kostons, Dignath van Ewijk, & van der Werf, 2014; Ferreira et al., 2015; Moos & Ringdal, 2012; Spruce & Bol, 2015). Moreover, while student-centered and constructivist classroom practices are increasing (OECD, 2009), direct instruction of effective SRL strategies remains scarce (Kistner et al., 2010; Spruce & Bol, 2015). Thus, although primary school teachers feel positive about developing SRL (Dignath-van Ewijk & van der Werf, 2012; Spruce & Bol, 2015; Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 2000), several obstacles towards realization can be observed within the literature (Lau, 2013; Lombaerts, Engels, & Van Braak, 2009). Research highlights that teacher beliefs, knowledge, and prior learning and teaching experiences are considered to influence SRL promoting practices (Lau, 2013; Lombaerts, Engels, & Vanderfaeillie, 2007; Moos & Ringdal, 2012; Spruce & Bol, 2015). Moreover, although gender was not found to explain differences in SRL promotion (e.g., Klug, Krause, Schober, Finsterwald, & Spiel, 2014; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2013), age effects have been questioned, with older teachers found less likely to support students' SRL (e.g., Klug et al., 2014; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2015). Conclusively, teacher dimensions and instructional behaviors may be considered contributing factors to student differences in the development and application of SRL strategies (Karabenick & Zusho, 2015).

89

2.2. Student differences in SRL Individual student characteristics may also affect teachers' response and use of SRL promotion strategies, which in turn has several implications for consequent SRL growth and opportunities. First, students' capacities to self-regulate develop over time; hence, teachers adapt accordingly by gradually integrating SRL in primary education (Lombaerts et al., 2007). Beyond age, gender difference findings are inconsistent (e.g., Schnell, Ringeisen, Raufelder, & Rohrmann, 2015; Veenman, Hesselink, Sleeuwaegen, Liem, & Van Haaren, 2014), with possible interaction of gender and age in relation to learners' development of metacognition (Veenman et al., 2014). Secondly, SRL differences have been detected regarding students' socio-economic and ethnic background. For example, although kindergarten and 2nd grade students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds showed comparable levels of motivation, they displayed more difficulties in regulating their task- and goal-oriented attention, in comparison to their more advantaged peers (Howse, Lange, Farran, & Boyles, 2003). Thirdly, gifted students are often found to have higher academic selfefficacy and to apply more high-level SRL strategies, such as reviewing notes and seeking peer assistance (Greene, Moos, Azevedo, & Winters, 2008; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). However, self-regulation skills promotion may help low-achieving students develop strategies to compensate for their lower cognitive abilities (Roebers, Krebs, & Roderer, 2014; Veenman, Wilhelm, & Beishuizen, 2004; Zuffianò et al., 2013), Metacognition, motivation, and self-regulation have consistently been found to contribute more towards academic achievement than does intelligence (Kriegbaum, Jansen, & Spinath, 2014; Steinmayr, Bipp, & Spinath, 2011; Veenman & Spaans, 2005). Fourthly, students with a learning disorder (LD) or displaying behavioral problems often lack effective SRL strategies. LD students regularly display low self-efficacy beliefs to self-regulate (Klassen, 2010; Lichtinger & Kaplan, 2015) and are more often performance goal-oriented than mastery goal-orientated (Baird, Scott, Dearing, & Hamill, 2009). Additionally, female students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder were shown more likely to display lack of confidence in SRL. Combined with a possible lack of academic skills, students' efforts to actually engage in SRL are limited, which in turn reinforces their academic disadvantage (Major et al., 2013).

Fig. 1. Conceptual background of the study.

90

J. Peeters et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 52 (2016) 88–96

3. Methodology 3.1. Purpose and research questions With the intention of explaining teacher differences in SRL support and consequent provision of equal opportunities to SRL development, this study examined teachers' own perceptions regarding the role student characteristics play in their SRL promotion with the following research questions: 1. How do teachers assess the role of student characteristics in their efforts to support their students' self-regulated learning? 2. Which underlying processes can explain differences in teacher beliefs and susceptibility to the role of student characteristics in the promotion of self-regulated learning? 3.2. Data collection Data collection consisted of a qualitative approach relying on semistructured interviews questioning the extent to which SRL was currently supported in primary education and identifying the main obstacles and stimulators at (1) the teacher level and (2) the school level. However, most respondents equally referred to the role of student characteristics for SRL. The current study analyzed these specific spontaneous references at student level. All respondents started from the same conception of SRL, which was presented as one coherent superordinate concept (Veenman, Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006) encompassing specific components, phases, and strategies based on Zimmerman's theoretical framework (Zimmerman, 2002). Teachers were not questioned about specific sub-components, to allow for a holistic view of teachers' SRL promotion. It was emphasized that there were no incorrect answers and noted that data would be anonymized. 3.3. Data analysis All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using the qualitative software package MAXQDA (MAXQDA, 2013). During pre-analysis, interviews were read, enabling familiarization. Subsequently, data analysis was performed in three steps. First, data were coded using Campbell, Quincy, Osserman, and Pedersen’s (2013) three-stage-coding approach. A coding scheme was developed based on a random sample of interviews. The number of student-related codes was limited, reducing the risk of errors resulting from cognitive overload (Hruschka et al., 2004). Subsequently, 10 interviews were separately coded by two investigators, then compared and discussed for possible discrepancies (Campbell et al., 2013), ultimately reaching a consensus favorable to maintaining the quality of data analysis. Lastly, once all significant discrepancies were accounted for, the principal investigator coded all interviews using the agreed coding procedure. Additionally, several strategies were employed to guarantee trustworthiness: designing a detailed codebook (with precise code definitions, rules, and examples), keeping a coding logbook, and collaborative coding progress discussions with learning experts (Gibbs, 2008; Saldana, 2013). Secondly, respondents were divided into two groups: those addressing a certain student characteristic as enhancing for SRL versus obstructing for SRL. This procedure was applied to all teacher-reported student characteristics of importance for SRL. Teachers were omitted from group assignment when no explicit statements concerning the student characteristic were made. This category (‘no grouping’) prevented coders from being forced to choose between either the ‘enhancing’ or the ‘obstructing’ groups, adding to the validity of our analysis (Boyatzis, 1998). Table 1 provides an example of the coding process applied to the teacher reported student characteristic: language problems.

Table 1 Example of coding process: comparative groups. Group

Example

SRL-Enhancing

There are many children who do not speak the instruction language at home and whose mother and father do not really understand our school letters. So, our children need to be self-reliant, also at home. Thus, we have been promoting it [SRL] for a while already. (Female, 38 years old, teaches 1st grade) SRL-Obstructing We have a big diversity between children. Also, lots of non-native speakers who do not yet know the language. They need a lot of in-front-of-class teaching. (Male, age unknown, teaches 1st grade) No Grouping When designing our assignments and instructions we need to adjust them really well to the language level of the children, because the children have little basic knowledge of the language. (Female, 53 years old, teaches 2nd grade)

In the final step of the analysis, Boeije's (2002) procedure was used for constant comparative analysis of groups of respondents. 3.4. Respondents Respondents consisted of 127 randomly selected and equally distributed primary school teachers from in and around the Brussels Capital Region (Belgium). Table 2 shows the respondents' demographic and professional background characteristics. 77.6% of teachers were women, reflective of the gender segmentation within the primary school teacher population. Teachers were equally spread over grades, with a slight overrepresentation of teachers teaching in grades 5 and 6. 4. Results 4.1. Role of student characteristics Almost all teachers referred to the role of student characteristics as influencing to some degree their disposition to SRL promotion. Table 3 presents an overview of the most reported student characteristics. 4.1.1. Cognitive and initial self-regulatory capacities Teachers (33.9%) considered students' cognitive abilities an important factor for adapting SRL promotion. When student capacities varied significantly, classroom practices enabling students to work independently offered teachers more opportunities to monitor learning progress. However, respondents revealed varying inequity strategies in promoting SRL respective of student groups. Several teachers considered SRL promotion to be a privilege afforded to stronger students, voicing the belief that others first needed to master the necessary learning content. It's only for those students who are advanced [two or three out of eighteen], the ones that I can really allow to work independently. (Female, 39 years old, teaches 2nd grade).

Table 2 Sample demographic data. Demographic Gender Female Male Age Total years taught Stage 1 (grades 1 and 2, ages 7–8) Stage 2 (grades 3 and 4, ages 9–10) Stage 3 (grades 5 and 6, ages 11–12) Number of students in class

M

SD

% 77.6 22.4

38 16

9.36 9.82 27.5 32.7 39.8

19

Note. Missing values were excluded from percentage calculations.

4.29

J. Peeters et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 52 (2016) 88–96 Table 3 Overview of student determinants and frequency of references (N = 127). Student characteristic

Frequency (%)⁎

Cognitive and self-regulatory capacities Language problems Socio-economic background Ethnicity Learning disorders

67 (52.8) 30 (23.6) 18 (14.2) 12 (9.4) 6 (4.7)

91

They need to move forward; they need to work on their own. They don't have parents who sit next to them and help them with everything. (Male, age and grade unknown). In contrast, several teachers expressed that students from higher socio-economic backgrounds might equally face disadvantages in their SRL development, possibly from too much parental guidance and limited freedom to self-regulate.

Note. ⁎Number of teachers referring to student characteristic.

While perceived stronger students were ‘kept busy’, some teachers reported using even more teacher-centered instruction for students performing below average. Some, however, claimed that this might further increase the gap between high and low achievers, especially concerning SRL development. A few teachers explained that high achievers might also be disadvantaged, given that students' cognitive abilities and SRL skills are not necessarily aligned. Therefore, high achievers equally needed to be challenged to address the need for self-regulating their learning. Moreover, several respondents cautioned against the pitfall of losing track of stronger students while supporting weaker students whose need for teacher assistance is perceived as being more urgent. Large variations in students' initial abilities to manage their learning processes required teachers to adjust SRL promotion reflective of individual needs. Once students were familiarized with SRL classroom practices, respondents experienced more opportunities to foster students' SRL development (34.6%). Some students require a lot of control and guidance, other students are very independent and are quickly able to self-regulate. This is really determinative. When most students are just waiting for instructions, you have a lot more work to do. (Female, 50 years old, teaches 4th grade). Furthermore, teachers voiced their conviction that some students lacked SRL strategies due to, for example, limited SRL support in earlier years of primary education. Respondents varied in their responses towards addressing this observed lack of SRL strategies. Some teachers felt it was their responsibility to guide those students towards self-regulation, while others reasoned that for some students, SRL strategy development would remain impossible. Finally, perceptions of students' self-regulating abilities appeared to be associated with student age and gender. A group of teachers (36.2%) believed that young children were not yet capable of self-regulation and that SRL could only be promoted from the 3rd or 4th grade onwards. Furthermore, five teachers (3.9%) discussed the role of gender but did not agree whether boys or girls prove inherently better at selfregulating. 4.1.2. Socio-economic background Students' socio-economic background was also reported to play a role in teachers' SRL promotion (14.2%). For some teachers, students' home situation impeded or strongly discouraged them from teaching SRL. According to these respondents, children from low socio-economic backgrounds often lacked the necessary parental support, and stimuli, for their SRL development at home. Conversely, for other teachers, their students' socio-economic background encouraged them to increase their SRL promotion activities. Confronted with their students' daily realities, they expressed an urge to guide these students towards more advanced SRL strategies. Some children live in an unacceptable and disgraceful situation. We want these children in particular to experience successes. For their future, they need a sense of duty and really need to manage self-regulated learning very well, or they will remain in the same situation.

4.1.3. Ethnicity and language As with socio-economic background, teachers (9.4%) referred to students' ethnic background as both stimulating and hindering their SRLsupporting strategies. Teachers' personal beliefs – or presumptions – about ethnic minority groups appeared decisive in promoting SRL. Ethnic minority children often face more difficulties in perseverance (…). So, some children really need you to hold their hand to be able to continue and will not make it on their own. (Female, 54 years old, teaches 3rd grade). Conversely, another group of teachers observed that ethnic minority students were more quickly assigned responsibility for their individual and their siblings' learning, thus exposing them to more self-regulating opportunities. Still, teaching SRL to ethnic minority students was reported to be a complex undertaking due to language barriers. Students unable to understand the learning task or to consult informative resources proved to seriously complicate SRL promotion strategies. However, similar language problems were reported in more traditionally oriented teaching practices, as non-native speakers risked not understanding direct instructions. While teaching the entire group of students, teachers reported having fewer opportunities to detect students who lagged behind or were disengaged. Several teachers, therefore, explained how they nurtured SRL-promoting environments to better involve, monitor, and activate non-native speakers. 4.1.4. Learning disorders Teachers (4.7%) reported that fostering SRL development with students facing certain learning problems required greater effort and time. Moreover, teachers questioned whether these students could engage in and benefit from independent SRL processes. When allowing students to self-regulate, teachers voiced their fears of not attaining the necessary teaching goals. 4.2. Teacher differences Teachers varied considerably in how they adjusted their SRL promotion to reported student characteristics. Interestingly, teachers did not consistently experience all student characteristics to be either stimulating or obstructing. They reported that reactions depended on studentspecific characteristics. As presented in Table 4, in most cases teachers were more strongly associated with the ‘obstructing group’ than the ‘enhancing group’. Teachers in the latter group did not necessarily deny that those same student characteristics also complicated and affected the way they had to organize their SRL support. In subsequent analyses, teacher responses in the SRL-enhancing and SRL-obstructing groups were compared per student characteristic. This led to the identification of several dissimilarities between groups that may potentially help shed light on the variety of teacher reactions towards SRL promotion. 4.2.1. Knowledge of SRL The SRL-obstructing and SRL-enhancing groups diverged in their general understanding of the role of SRL in primary education. Teachers in the SRL-enhancing group displayed fewer misconceptions about SRL and were more effective in describing ways in which SRL could be

92

J. Peeters et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 52 (2016) 88–96

Table 4 Description and size of groups representing different views on the impact of student characteristics. Student characteristic

SRL enhancing

SRL obstructing

Description

Cognitive and self-regulatory capacities Socio-economic background Ethnic diversity

17

27

5

15

6

3

Language problems

12

17

Learning disorders

1

3

Teachers feeling encouraged to promote SRL with students with lower abilities versus teachers feeling restricted in promoting SRL with students with lower abilities Teachers feeling encouraged to promote SRL with students from lower socio-economic backgrounds versus teachers feeling restricted in promoting SRL with students from lower socio-economic backgrounds Teachers feeling encouraged to promote SRL with students from different ethnic backgrounds versus teachers feeling restricted in promoting SRL with students from different ethnic backgrounds Teachers feeling encouraged to promote SRL with non-native speaking students versus teachers feeling restricted in promoting SRL with non-native speaking students Teachers feeling encouraged to promote SRL with students with learning problems versus teachers feeling restricted in promoting SRL with students with learning problems

incorporated. They understood the need for the gradual integration of SRL across primary education, cross-cutting across and within subjects rather than instructing in isolation. Furthermore, they described in greater detail how they fostered, monitored, and adjusted their students' SRL development. They voiced actions towards effectively scaffolding instruction, while simultaneously acknowledging individual student needs. 4.2.2. Attributions In addition, the SRL-enhancing and -obstructing groups differed in their attributions towards struggling students. Teachers of the SRLobstructing group were found more likely to attribute failure to effectively instruct SRL to students who appeared incapable of self-regulation. On the contrary, teachers from the SRL-enhancing group (like the following teacher) were more inclined to search for the reasons behind students' SRL difficulties in the selected instructional approach. It [SRL] does not depend on children's attitude. It depends on my attitude as a teacher: how am I doing as a teacher? If you're in front of the chalkboard teaching in a very directive way, then you don't give children the opportunities to gather information, or create their own learning trajectory. If teachers don't provide the space, children won't learn to self-regulate. (Male, 53 years old, teaches 4th grade; enhancing group).

4.2.3. Beliefs about SRL Another aspect differentiating the groups was the extent to which teachers believed in the benefits of SRL development for students. Table 5 highlights the relationship between teachers from the SRL-enhancing (+) and SRL-obstructing (−) groups per student characteristic, and teachers' beliefs about the value of SRL. The codes represent (1) quotes expressing teacher-felt need and responsibility to foster

particular students' SRL (Felt necessity), and (2) references to the overall value of SRL for primary school students (Overall utility), subdivided in sub-codes representing specific perceived student advantages. This table should be interpreted for each student characteristic separately. For example, 40% of teachers who were stimulated by non-native speakers (column: Language problems) to promote SRL in the classroom explicitly reported feeling the necessity to support non-native speakers' SRL, versus 26.7% of teachers who perceived non-native speakers as hindering their SRL promotion. Overall, teachers in the SRL-enhancing groups expressed more often how they believed SRL was advantageous. In general, in 54.5% of the cases, teachers from the SRL-enhancing group were found to spontaneously refer to SRL benefits for primary school students. This was expressed either in general terms or while referencing specific benefits (sub-codes). In contrast to the SRL-enhancing group, teachers in the SRL-obstructing group were found to more frequently report beliefs in the value of SRL in only 23.6% of the cases. 5. Discussion Fig. 2 summarizes the study results. Research question 1 explored teachers' espoused theories on how they think particular student characteristics influence their SRL promotion efforts (Section 5.1). Research question 2 was intended to scan for mechanisms that could explain why student characteristics generated differences in teacher responses. This analysis revealed the role of several teacher mechanisms that may mediate the influences of student characteristics on teachers' SRL promotion (Section 5.2). 5.1. The role of student characteristics The first study objective aimed to assess the role that primary school teachers place on student characteristics in their efforts to support SRL

Table 5 Crosstab: relationship between utility beliefs and enhancing and obstructing groups (%). Codes

Felt necessity Overall utility Learning process Independence Later life Wellbeing Self-development Academic achievement Motivation Lifelong learning Secondary education N (Documents)

SES

Ethnicity

Language problems

Cognitive problems

Learning disorders

+

−

+

−

+

−

+

−

+

−

0.0⁎

23.1 84.6 15.4 0.0 15.4 38.5 7.7 7.7 30.8 7.7 38.5 13

83.3 83.3⁎ 50.0 16.7 50.0 66.7 16.7 16.7 33.3 33.3 33.3 6

0.0 100.0 33.3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 3

40.0 80.0⁎ 20.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 10.0⁎ 0.0⁎

26.7 86.7 20.0 0.0 33.3 40.0 13.3 6.7 20.0 13.3 26.7 15

36.4 100.0 27.3 27.3 27.3 72.7 27.3 9.1 18.2 18.2 36.4⁎

18.2 86.4 13.6 0.0 27.3 40.9 9.1 0.0 9.1 4.6 50.0 22

100.0 100.0 0.0⁎ 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 1

0.0 100.0 66.7 0.0 33.4 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 3

100.0 0.0⁎ 0.0 33.3 0.0⁎ 0.0⁎ 0.0⁎ 33.3 0.0⁎ 33.3⁎ 3

30.0 20.0 50.0 10

11

Note. ⁎Percentage of reported beliefs about the utility of SRL was lower for the SRL-enhancing group than for the SRL-obstructing group.

J. Peeters et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 52 (2016) 88–96

93

Fig. 2. Summary of results.

skill promotion. Almost all respondents spontaneously voiced the influence of student factors on their SRL-promoting decisions. First, teachers reported providing varying degrees of SRL opportunities, dependent on their student-perceived cognitive and self-regulatory abilities. Considering the effects of SRL strategies on academic performance and motivation (Cleary & Platten, 2013; Dignath & Büttner, 2008), low-achieving students face a double disadvantage. They already experience challenges due to lower cognitive and self-regulatory abilities, and teachers also appeared to provide them with fewer opportunities to effectively develop SRL strategies. The study equally highlighted that teachers may be unaware of high-achieving students' actual SRL capacities. SRL and cognitive capacities are not the same, and even strongly performing students can display ineffective strategy use (Housand & Reis, 2008). Therefore, it is advised to consider and support SRL for all students, regardless of their initial cognitive and self-regulatory abilities. Accurate knowledge of students' SRL ability (rather than cognitive abilities) would help teachers understand why students may not self-regulate. Students with a limited repertoire of SRL strategies may demand greater direct instruction about effective SRL strategies, whereas students who simply forget or choose not to self-regulate may become demotivated by direct instruction of strategies they have already mastered (Ee, Moore, & Atputhasamy, 2003; Veenman, Kerseboom, & Imthorn, 2000). Secondly, regarding students' socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds, teachers mostly voiced a lack of parental support for SRL development. Parenting behaviors, such as metacognitive talk and emotional responsiveness, have been found to enhance children's SRL (PinoPasternak & Whitebread, 2010). Nevertheless, some teachers recognized that students who lack parental support for learning may demonstrate capacities to self-regulate in non-academic settings, responding to family demands, for instance. Whereas Ben-Eliyahu and Bernacki (2015) suggest that this non-academic energy complicates self-regulation of academic work, due to SRL resource depletion, teachers acknowledged the potential self-regulatory strength of these children, perceiving advantages rather than hindrances. Thirdly, language challenges appeared to complicate SRL promotion for teachers. Reflecting past research, some teachers reported targeting student SRL development to counteract non-native challenges and enhance language learning (Ferreira et al., 2015). Several studies have revealed that verbal skills might in turn assist students to increased self-regulation, with language providing an early scaffold of self-regulation (Diaz, Neal, & Amaya-Williams, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). Lastly, teachers questioned the advantages of SRL for students displaying learning disabilities. These hesitations might hinder teachers in providing opportunities for SRL (Spruce & Bol, 2015). Empirical evidence nonetheless clearly shows how students' self-regulatory abilities can help compensate for problems experienced due to learning

disorders (Desoete, 2014; Harris, Reid, & Graham, 2012) or for other developmental problems (Wehmeyer et al., 2000).

5.2. Explaining differences in teacher responses While some teachers were motivated to instruct SRL due to certain student characteristics, others felt demotivated. Aligned with previous research (Schleicher, 2015), the role of student characteristics in teachers' SRL promotion seemed to be at least partly determined by teacher level factors. The second study objective, therefore, intended to compare teachers' espoused theories in their search for potential explanatory mechanisms as to why student characteristics generated differences in teacher responses. First, teachers' SRL knowledge was found to explain differences in instructional decisions regarding SRL support. Teachers' SRL knowledge is often closely linked to their classroom practice (e.g., Dignath-van Ewijk & van der Werf, 2012; Spruce & Bol, 2015). Awareness of both one's knowledge and limitations is crucial in deliberately instructing SRL and learning from ones failures (Loibl & Rummel, 2014; Zohar, 1999). Additionally, teachers need to know how to promote SRL and how to adjust instructional strategies reflective of situational demands. Secondly, teachers' attributional style helped explain teachers' differential responses to student characteristics. Indeed, adaptive attributions help people adjust their approach by investing more effort or choosing more effective strategies. On the other hand, attributing failure to external forces (such as students' abilities) undermines successful adaptation, leads to procrastination, and increases feelings of helplessness and apathy (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2005). Similarly, teachers who voiced being impeded by particular student characteristics were found to formulate excuses for potential failure even before attempting to support their students' SRL development. Proactively arranging and voicing circumstances that may explain failure is known as selfhandicapping. This motivational strategy is found to be ineffective and results in decreased levels of effort (Higgins, Snyder, & Berglas, 1990). Thirdly, teachers expressing strong beliefs in the value of SRL for primary education were found more motivated to support students displaying potentially challenging characteristics. Being able to describe specific rather than general advantages of SRL for students motivated teachers to promote SRL with specific student groups. These teachers displayed stronger socalled ‘task value beliefs’ concerning SRL, that is, an increased acknowledgement of the relevance, utility, and importance of SRL for students (Pintrich, 2000). Strong task value beliefs may stimulate teachers to change their SRLpromotion knowledge and to engage in SRL promotion (Johnson & Sinatra, 2013; Wigfield, 1994). Moreover, some teachers explicitly described feeling responsible for actively supporting SRL, rather than merely believing in its usefulness. High responsibility feelings assist in enhancing teacher efforts,

94

J. Peeters et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 52 (2016) 88–96

and in addressing scholastic, motivational as well as developmental needs of students (Lauermann, 2014). In conclusion, the identified teacher characteristics explaining differences in the way teachers cope with the influence of student characteristics are highly related to teachers' self-regulatory competencies. Similar to the role of student self-regulation in predicting student success, self-regulation may prove to be a crucial teacher attribute in explaining differences in teacher effectiveness, and – ultimately – innovation adoption. Future research might examine whether teacher selfregulation skills could also downplay other types of influences on SRL promotion, such as policy, school, and parent influences. In other words, the study results suggest looking into the hypothesized role of teacher self-regulation in explaining teacher effectiveness and successful educational innovation [see the request of Creemers and Kyriakides (2006), and Muijs et al. (2014)]. 6. Limitations and future research The present study had several limitations, by turns impacting the types of conclusions made and highlighting potentially fruitful avenues for future research. First, given the interview scheme did not include direct questions with regards to the potential role of student characteristics in teachers' SRL support, the data can be considered secondary data. A common downside of secondary data analysis is the difficulty in collecting all desired information (Boslaugh, 2007). Therefore, reported frequencies should be interpreted as spontaneous references to student characteristics while actually being asked about teacher- and school-level factors influencing teachers' self-reported SRL promotion. The use of secondary data in this study was deemed relevant because it reduced the risk of biases due to social desirability. Nevertheless, future studies might consider directly questioning teachers about the role of student characteristics when supporting SRL. Complementing direct and indirect questioning techniques could provide further insights into teachers' explicit and implicit beliefs. Second, although self-reports proved necessary in gaining teachers' SRL insights (McCardle & Hadwin, 2015), relying on these presents several interpretation consequences. For example, although teachers reported examples of SRL support, we cannot determine whether it is lack of knowledge or self-efficacy that may have affected reported support. Both concepts are highly intertwined, given that knowledge is recognized as a resource in building teacher self-efficacy (Usher & Pajares, 2007). Therefore, future studies should consider alternative research methods, such as scenario-based tests, to assess actual teacher knowledge (Händel, Lockl, Heydrich, Weinert, & Artelt, 2014), and observations and learning diaries to further assess SRL promotion efforts in relation to student characteristics (Perry, 2015; Schmitz & Wiese, 2006). Such methods may help reveal teachers' theory-in-use, which can be understood as those theories revealed in behaviors that actually steer teachers' actions (Savaya & Gardner, 2012). 7. Practical implications Educational inequity remains a tenacious challenge and achievement gaps remain (OECD, 2012). School failure affects children's future lives, with higher risks of low salaries, unemployment, decreased motivation, and fewer opportunities to engage in lifelong learning (OECD, 2012). As an attempt to manage these challenges, educational policy aims at turning classrooms and schools into personalized student-centered learning environments (Deed, Lesko, & Lovejoy, 2014). The main challenge, however, is to mainstream existing good practices – such as SRL classroom practices – into a diversity of education settings (OECD, 2014). Against this background, the current study investigated how SRL classroom practices could be further disseminated across primary education.

This study offers a unique perspective into the research field of SRL by responding to an emerging need calling for a new category of studies focusing in greater detail on the mechanisms explaining SRL-promoting differences (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2006; Muijs et al., 2014). Encouraging more teachers to support students' SRL skills, irrespective of individual student characteristics, may ultimately limit disadvantages in SRL opportunities offered to students. Findings suggest a need to design interventions that manipulate those teacher level processes found to mediate the impact of student characteristics on SRL promotion. Although challenging, teacher characteristics (e.g., beliefs and knowledge) may prove more responsive than student characteristics (e.g., socio-economic background). Empirical evidence supports this recommendation, given teacher knowledge, task value beliefs, and responsibility feelings can indeed be improved through targeted interventions (Johnson & Sinatra, 2013; Lauermann, 2014; Pintrich, 2000; Timperley & Phillips, 2003). For example, professional development trajectories could provide greater SRL knowledge and also explain how teaching SRL could, for instance, help tackle other classroom challenges, such as student demotivation (Donker et al., 2014; Spruce & Bol, 2015), learning disorders (Desoete, 2014), or language problems (Ferreira et al., 2015). Increasing teachers' metacognitive knowledge about why, when, and how to support students' SRL is especially crucial from a social justice perspective. Increased levels of knowledge may positively impact teachers' selfefficacy in supporting SRL with diverse students (Usher & Pajares, 2007). Finally, results suggest that teachers adjusted their extent of SRL promotion according to students' context and capabilities. While student needs adaptation should be encouraged, teacher expectations, as well as instructional decisions, should be based on assessment of actual student progress (Förster & Souvignier, 2014; Lau, 2013; Nielsen, Barry, & Staab, 2008). Currently, respective student expectations may interfere with an accurate assessment of SRL capacity, an important pre-condition (Friedrich et al., 2013; Malle & Pearce, 2001), and in turn affect effective SRL instruction (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). Therefore, it is relevant to consider the implications of teacher expectancies in analytic capacities (Hattie, 2009). Individuals are more likely to base expectations on stereotypes associated with group membership, e.g., students with learning disabilities or from ethnic minority groups (TschannenMoran & Hoy, 2000). Hence, the present study provides strong indications for policy makers and teacher educators to equip teachers with the necessary tools to effectively monitor individual student SRL progress. Acknowledgement The authors are especially grateful to Research Foundation Flanders (grant number 11I9712N) for the financial support which enabled the research found in the present paper. References Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baird, G. L., Scott, W. D., Dearing, E., & Hamill, S. K. (2009). Cognitive self-regulation in youth with and without learning disabilities: Academic self-efficacy, theories of intelligence, learning vs. performance goal preferences, and effort attributions. Academic Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(7), 881–908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/ jscp.2009.28.7.881. Bembenutty, H. (2007). Self-regulation, gender, and ethnicity. Academic Exchange Quarterly (Retrieved June 20, 2015, from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Selfregulation, gender, and ethnicity.-a0172686682). Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Bernacki, M. L. (2015). Addressing complexities in self-regulated learning: A focus on contextual factors, contingencies, and dynamic relations. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9134-6. Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Development and Psychopathology, 20(3), 899–911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0954579408000436.

J. Peeters et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 52 (2016) 88–96 Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36, 391–409. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1023/A:1020909529486. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2005). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press. Boslaugh, S. (2007). An introduction to secondary data analysis. In S. Boslaugh (Ed.), Secondary data sources for public health: A practical guide (pp. 1–10). New York: Cambridge University Press. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/0049124113500475. Cleary, T. J., & Platten, P. (2013). Examining the correspondence between self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A case study analysis. Education Research International, 2013, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/272560. Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A schoolbased program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 537–550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.10177. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2006). Critical analysis of the current approaches to modelling educational effectiveness: The importance of establishing a dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(3), 347–366. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/09243450600697242. Deed, C., Lesko, T. M., & Lovejoy, V. (2014). Teacher adaptation to personalized learning spaces. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers' Professional Development, 18(3), 369–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2014.919345. Desoete, A. (2009). The enigma of mathematical learning disabilities: Metacognition or STICORDI, that's the question. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. The educational psychology series (pp. 206–218). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Desoete, A. (2014). Sense and nonsense of metacognition in relation to specific learning disorders. Paper presented at the SIG Metacognition conference of the European Association of Research in Learning and Instruction, Istanbul. Diaz, R. M., Neal, C. J., & Amaya-Williams, M. (1990). The social origins of self- regulation. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 127–154). New York: Camebridge University Press. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev. 2008.02.003. Dignath, C., Büttner, G., & Langfeldt, H. P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101–129. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003. Dignath-van Ewijk, C., & van der Werf, G. (2012). What teachers think about self-regulated learning: Investigating teacher beliefs and teacher behavior of enhancing students' self-regulation. Education Research International, 2012, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1155/2012/741713. Donker, A. S., de Boer, H., Kostons, D., Dignath van Ewijk, C. C., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 11, 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. edurev.2013.11.002. Ee, J., Moore, P. J., & Atputhasamy, L. (2003). High-achieving students: Their motivational goals, self-regulation and achievement and relationships to their teachers' goals and strategy-based instruction. High Ability Studies, 14(1), 23–39. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002. Ferreira, P. C., Simão, a. M. V., & da Silva, a. L. (2015). Does training in how to regulate one's learning affect how students report self-regulated learning in diary tasks? Metacognition and Learning, 10, 199–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9121-3. Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2014). Learning progress assessment and goal setting: Effects on reading achievement, reading motivation and reading self-concept. Learning and Instruction, 32, 91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.02.002. Friedrich, A., Jonkmann, K., Nagengast, B., Schmitz, B., & Trautwein, U. (2013). Teachers' and students' perceptions of self-regulated learning and math competence: Differentiation and agreement. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 26–34. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.005. Gibbs, G. (2008). Analysing qualitative data. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Greene, J. a., Moos, D. C., Azevedo, R., & Winters, F. I. (2008). Exploring differences between gifted and grade-level students' use of self-regulatory learning processes with hypermedia. Computers & Education, 50(3), 1069–1083. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.compedu.2006.10.004. Händel, M., Lockl, K., Heydrich, J., Weinert, S., & Artelt, C. (2014). Assessment of metacognitive knowledge in students with special educational needs. Metacognition and Learning, 9(3), 333–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9119-x. Harris, K. R., Reid, R. R., & Graham, S. (2012). Self-regulation among students with learning disorder and ADHD. In B. Wong, & D. L. Butler (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 141–162) (4th ed.). Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-012-388409-1.00005-9. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11159-011-9198-8. Higgins, R. L., Snyder, C. R., & Berglas, S. (1990). Self-handicapping: The paradox that isn't. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. Housand, A., & Reis, S. (2008). Self-regulated learning in reading: Gifted pedagogy and instructional settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 108–136. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4219/jaa-2008-865.

95

Howse, R. B., Lange, G., Farran, D. C., & Boyles, C. D. (2003). Motivation and self-regulation as predictors of achievement in economically disadvantaged young children. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 151–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00220970309602061. Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St.John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16(3), 307–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1525822X04266540. Jacobs, D., & Rea, A. (2011). Verspild talent. De prestatiekloof in het secundair onderwijs tussen allochtone en andere leerlingen volgens het PISA-onderzoek 2009 [Wasted talent. The achievement gap between children from immigrant and other students in secondary education according to the PISA study 2009]. Brussels: Koning Bouwdewijnstichting. Johnson, M. L., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Use of task-value instructional inductions for facilitating engagement and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(1), 51–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.09.003. Karabenick, S. a., & Zusho, A. (2015). Examining approaches to research on self-regulated learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 151–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9137-3. Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath-van Ewijk, C., Büttner, G., & Klieme, E. (2010). Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: Investigating frequency, quality, and consequences for student performance. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 157–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9055-3. Klassen, R. M. (2010). Confidence to manage learning: The self-efficacy for self-regulated learning beliefs of early adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 19–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10534512070430020501. Klug, J., Krause, N., Schober, B., Finsterwald, M., & Spiel, C. (2014). How do teachers promote their students' lifelong learning in class? Development and first application of the LLL Interview. Kriegbaum, K., Jansen, M., & Spinath, B. (2014). Motivation: A predictor of PISA's mathematical competence beyond intelligence and prior test achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 140–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.026. Lapan, R. T., Kardash, C. M., & Turner, S. (2002). Empowering students to become self-regulated learners. Professional School Counseling, 5(4), 257–265 Retrieved from http:// psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2002-12894-004 Lau, K. L. (2013). Chinese language teachers' perception and implementation of self-regulated learning-based instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 31, 56–66. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.12.001. Lauermann, F. (2014). Teacher responsibility from the teacher's perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 65, 75–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.12. 001. Lichtinger, E., & Kaplan, A. (2015). Employing a case study approach to capture motivation and self-regulation of young students with learning disabilities in authentic educational contexts. Metacognition and Learning, 10(1), 119–149. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/s11409-014-9131-1. Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). Knowing what you don't know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08. 004. Lombaerts, K., Engels, N., & Vanderfaeillie, J. (2007). Exploring teachers' actions to promote self-regulated learning practices in primary school. Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 24(1), 4–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/joer.102.3.163174. Lombaerts, K., Engels, N., & Van Braak, J. (2009). Determinants of teachers' recognitions of self-regulated learning practices in elementary education. Journal of Educational Research, 102(3), 163–173. Major, A., Martinussen, R., & Wiener, J. (2013). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in adolescents with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 149–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif. 2013.06.009. Malle, B. F., & Pearce, G. E. (2001). Attention to behavioral events during interaction: Two actor-observer gaps and three attempts to close them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 278–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.278. Martinez-pons, M. (2002). Parental influences on children's academic self-regulatory development. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 126–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15430421tip4102_9. MAXQDA (2013). Software for qualitative data analysis, 1989-2016. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software - Consult - Sozialforschung GmbH. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9132-0. Moos, D. C., & Ringdal, A. (2012). Self-regulated learning in the classroom: A literature review on the teacher's role. Education Research International, 2012, 1–15. http://dx.doi. org/10.1155/2012/423284. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 09243453.2014.885451. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022027870190403. Nielsen, D. C., Barry, A. L., & Staab, P. T. (2008). Teachers' reflections of professional change during a literacy-reform initiative. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1288–1303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.015. OECD (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264068780-en. OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background. Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes. Vol. II.Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264091504-en.

96

J. Peeters et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 52 (2016) 88–96

OECD (2012). Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en. OECD (2014). Measuring innovation in education: A new perspective (Educationa.). OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en. Peeters, J., De Backer, F., Kindekens, A., Jacquet, W., & Lombaerts, K. (2013). The impact of teacher and school determinants on self-regulated learning practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American educational research Association, San Francisco. Peeters, J., De Backer, F., Kindekens, A., Jacquet, W., & Lombaerts, K. (2015). Mechanisms underlying primary school teachers' promotion of self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Perry, N. E. (2015). Using observations to understand how children's self-regulated learning is supported in classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Perry, N. E., Phillips, L., & Dowler, J. (2004). Examining features of tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. Teacher College Record, 106(9), 1854–1878. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00408.x. Pino-Pasternak, D., & Whitebread, D. (2010). The role of parenting in children's self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 220–242. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.edurev.2010.07.001. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978012109890-2/50043-3. Roebers, C. M., Krebs, S. S., & Roderer, T. (2014). Metacognitive monitoring and control in elementary school children: Their interrelations and their role for test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 141–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif. 2012.12.003. Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Savaya, R., & Gardner, F. (2012). Critical reflection to identify gaps between espoused theory and theory-in-use. National Association of Social Workers, 57(2), 145–154. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/SW/SWS037. Schleicher, A. (2015). Schools for 21st-century learners: Strong leaders, confident teachers, innovative approaches. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264231191-en. Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. S. (2006). New perspectives for the evaluation of training sessions in self-regulated learning: Time-series analyses of diary data. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 64–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.02. 002. Schnell, K., Ringeisen, T., Raufelder, D., & Rohrmann, S. (2015). The impact of adolescents' self-efficacy and self-regulated goal attainment processes on school performance: Do gender and test anxiety matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 90–98. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.008. Spruce, R., & Bol, L. (2015). Teacher beliefs, knowledge, and practice of self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10(2), 245–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11409-014-9124-0.

Steinmayr, R., Bipp, T., & Spinath, B. (2011). Goal orientations predict academic performance beyond intelligence and personality. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2), 196–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.026. Timperley, H. S., & Phillips, G. (2003). Changing and sustaining teachers' expectations through professional development in literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 627–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00058-1. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547–593. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004547. Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2007). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 443–463. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0013164407308475. Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. a. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(2), 159–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2004.12.001. Veenman, M. V. J., Kerseboom, L., & Imthorn, C. (2000). Test anxiety and metacognitive skillfulness: Availability versus production deficiencies. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 13(4), 391–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10615800008248343. Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14, 89–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-004-2274-8. Veenman, M. V. J., Hout-Wolters, B. H. a. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0. Veenman, M. V. J., Hesselink, R. D., Sleeuwaegen, S., Liem, S. I. E., & Van Haaren, M. G. P. (2014). Assessing developmental differences in metacognitive skills with computer logfiles: Gender by age interactions. Psychological Topics, 23, 99–113. Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey of teachers' promotion of self-determination and student-directed learning. Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 58–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002246690003400201. Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/bf02209024. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.82.1.51. Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers' metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(4), 413–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0742-051X(98)00063-8. Zuffianò, A., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., Luengo Kanacri, B. P., Di Giunta, L., Milioni, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2013). Academic achievement: The unique contribution of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning beyond intelligence, personality traits, and selfesteem. Learning and Individual Differences, 23(1), 158–162. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.lindif.2012.07.01.