8 / 78

1. Self-regulated Learning

1.1. Introduction

Self-regulated learning skills involve different strategies students can use to reach their
educational goals. These strategies rank from cognitive and metacognitive ones, more related to the
content of the task and content-based strategies, to strategies to uplift or maintain their motivation
and positive emotions towards learning. The final purpose of self-regulated learning (SRL) is that
these strategies would allow students to effectively plan, monitor and evaluate their work.

Research evidence indicates overwhelmingly the importance of self-regulation during

learning with a positive impact on students’ cognitive and social competence, academic
achievement, motivation, well-being and engagement in lifelong learning (Zimmerman & Schunk,
2011). Due to its high relevance for success in and outside school, self-regulated learning skills are
identified as one of the key competences of contemporary education (e.g. Rethinking Education
Framework).

Therefore, creating more student-centered classroom practices and developing self-

regulated learners has been high on the European as well as many national policy agendas for
several years already (Dumont et al., 2010). However, different barriers at policy, teacher education,
and teacher level still impede accurate translation of policies into practice. For this reason, this
project aspires to develop and test an innovative tool that supports the implementation of this
specific educational reform and which, moreover, has the potential to support other types of
educational reform on a longer term basis.

1.2. What is self-regulated learning? Definitions and state of the art

Self-regulation is considered one of the most studied topics in the field of psychology and
can be defined as “the ability to monitor and modulate one's own cognition, behavior, and emotion
in order to achieve a goal or meet the demands of a situation” (Dent, 2013, p.4). The concept was

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 9 / 78
first introduced by the work of Albert Bandura in the 1970s who introduced the concept of human
agency postulating that people are agents of their own life rather than executors of their brain
mechanisms (Bandura, 1999). He first developed the Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1971), which
he renamed to Social Cognitive Theory in 1986 (Bandura, 1986). Closely following Bandura’s work,
researchers such as Zimmerman and Schunk started applying self-regulation to the academic field of
learning after which self-regulated learning became far more studied as compared to the concept it
originated from, namely self-regulation. Due to the suggested nested structure of both constructs,
some authors therefore describe SRL as a special case of self- regulation (Dinsmore, Alexander, &
Loughlin, 2008).

More specifically, the concept of self-regulated learning (SRL) refers to self-generated

thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal
goals (Zimmerman, 2000). Self-regulated learners are considered proactive agents who select and
apply specific strategies to attain self-set goals and adjust their approach based on various sources
of feedback. SRL skills involve all kinds of strategies students can use to uplift or maintain their
motivation and positive emotions towards learning, as well as strategies that enable students to
effectively plan, monitor, and evaluate their work (Pintrich, 2000). Most of the theoretical SRL
models therefore highlight the cyclical nature referring to a forethought, performance control, and
self-control phase (Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2014; Zimmerman, 1989).

As has been studied, SRL covers a wide range type of strategies: behavioral, cognitive,
metacognitive, emotional and motivational. The most wide spread SRL model is the Cyclical Phases
model by Zimmerman (2000; Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2014). As can be seen in Figure 1, SRL is
considered to be cyclical and to run through different phases (Zimmerman, 2002). First, in the
forethought phase, self-regulated students analyze the task by setting goals and planning
appropriate strategies to reach it. Moreover, students employ strategies that direct their self-
motivation. Motivational self- regulation implies the awareness and regulation of motivational and
affective beliefs such as having interest in the task or acknowledging its value and coping with
perceived task difficulty. It also includes self-awareness of students’ learning goal-orientation, which
can vary from learning for one’s own interest versus learning to meet others’ expectations or to
avoid failure. Learners can apply different strategies to adjust their motivation, such as engaging in
mastery self-talk, risk taking, self-consequating, and attempting to enhance personal relevance of
learning. Second, during the performance stage, self-regulated students control their performance

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 10 / 78
by, for instance, focusing their attention or engaging in self-instruction. Students can select and
apply different strategies, such as seeking help and regulating one’s efforts. Moreover, students
engage in self-observation and self-monitoring by tracking one’s performance. Third, in the self-
reflection phase students evaluate their performance to pre-set standards and attribute their
successes and failures to specific causes. Students can subsequently react in various affective, and
adaptive or defensive ways (Pintrich, 2000; Wolters, Pintrich, & Karabenick, 2003; Zimmerman,
2002).

The use of adequate self-regulatory learning strategies is fundamental for students to have
academic success in primary (Dignath, Büttner, & Langfeldt, 2008), secondary (Dignath & Büttner,
2008) and higher education (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). Due to this importance of self-regulation in
academic performance, it is crucial to explore which of the different self-regulatory theories is better
adapted to cover the pedagogic needs faced by students in classrooms (Dignath & Büttner, 2008;
Heikkiläa & Lonka, 2006). Therefore, SRL is probably the most comprehensive framework to

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 11 / 78
understand students’ learning. As we have presented above, it covers a very wide range of learning
strategies and processes that explain a large proportion of learning variables.

1.3. What is Socially Shared Regulated Learning and why is it important?

As stated by Panadero and Järvelä (2015, p. 190-191) in a recent review exploring what the main
conclusions of the empirical evidence on the field are:

Recently, the concept of socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL) has emerged, which
occurs when groups regulate together as a collective, such as when they construct shared
task perceptions or shared goals. When groups co-construct plans or align monitoring
perceptions to establish a shared evaluation of progress, they are engaged in shared
regulation (Järvelä, Järvenoja, Malmberg, & Hadwin, 2013). SSRL involves interdependent or
collectively shared regulatory processes, beliefs, and knowledge (e.g., strategies, monitoring,
evaluation, goal setting, motivation, metacognitive decision making) orchestrated in the
service of a co-constructed or shared outcome (Winne, Hadwin, & Perry, 2013; Järvelä &
Hadwin, 2013).

Why is then SSRL important? First, evidence demonstrates that collaborative learning among
students not only improves student engagement and achievement, but also facilitates the
development of students’ self- and co-regulated learning strategies. Self-regulated learning does not
equal independent learning. Rather, it is embedded in students’ social context and environment.
When approaching self-regulated learning through collaborative student work, we touch upon the
concept of socially shared regulation of learning (Panadero & Järvelä, 2015). Socially shared
regulation of learning refers to students’ shared efforts to regulate their (learning and collaborative)
behaviour, metacognition, motivation and emotions in order to develop a shared or co-constructed
outcome. Whereas these learning strategies help students become effective collaborative learners,
the collaborative learning climate is especially suitable to guide students’ self-regulated learning
strategies as it is a more scaffold situation and students in collaboration can model each other.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 12 / 78
Hence, when teachers want to support their students in developing effective learning strategies, the
facilitation and monitoring of student collaborative work will be a crucial element. Therefore, the
teacher-training course will incorporate instructions, good practices, and monitoring instruments to
foster effective learning strategies through student collaboration. The creation of cooperative
learning environments depends largely on the motivation and engagement of teachers and their
colleagues. Teachers need the knowledge, skills, and tools to create collaboration among learners;
the project provides tools to enhance teachers’ competences to foster meaningful and effective
student collaboration.

1.4. How are self- and socially shared regulation measured?

A recent publication has revised what is the current approach to SRL and SSRL
measurement. According to Panadero, Klug and Järvelä (2015) there have been three waves of SRL
measurement.

“The first wave of SRL measurement is characterized by a more static conceptualization of

SRL assessment. Emphasis is placed on the use of self-reporting (questionnaires, surveys,
and interviews), relying heavily on students’ perspectives and beliefs. Well-known
representatives of this phase are questionnaires such as the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & Mckeachie, 1993) or the Learning
And Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer, 1987).” (Panadero et
al., 2015 p. 2).

“Second wave: the irruption of online measures

At the end of the 1990s, and especially with the publication of the 2000 SRL Handbook
(Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000), there was a switch in the conceptualization of SRL to
a dynamic series of behavioral, cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and emotional
events, a change that was led by some of the previously mentioned authors through the

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 13 / 78
introduction of more advanced and complete versions of their proposed models (Pintrich,
2000; Zimmerman, 2000). Changing the definition of SRL from a trait-based to a process-
based perspective affected the types of measurements required: to capture the
phenomenon from a process perspective, measures that go along with the process itself
(online measures) were needed (Winne & Perry, 2000). This switch in measurement in order
to capture processes is what we call the “second wave” of SRL measurement.” (Panadero et
al., 2015 p. 2).

According to Panadero and colleagues (2015) we are currently in the third wave which is
basically the combination of tools that intervene (promoting SRL in the participants) while at the
same time collecting data for the researchers to analyze the SRL traces. A good example of this is the
current trend in the use of learning diaries. Additionally, the field of SSRL has been leading the
research in the third wave, especially by the work of Sanna Järvelä’s work.

This type of measurement tools are based on the reactivity effect defined as changes that
occur in an individual when s/he is aware of particular aspects of her/his behavior due to
metacognitive monitoring (Panadero et al., 2014 p. 3). Many SRL interventions are based on tools
that enhance students’ awareness of their own actions (metacognitive monitoring) as this is a crucial
step towards SRL. What is innovative in this third wave is that the measurement tools do not longer
claim to be “objective” measures but rather the researchers assume that they impact in the
students’ SRL, hence in the object of measurement.

This current measurement wave has implications for forthcoming SRL interventions. If we
want to intervene to enhance SRL through the use of mobile learning technology, it would be crucial
to consider the recommendations included in Panadero and colleagues (2015). See table below.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 14 / 78

Extracted from Panadero et al. (2015 p. 7).

1.5. Development of self-regulated learning skills

Zimmerman described a multilevel sequence of self-regulatory development, which

describes four different stages through which SRL develops in learners. Whereas the first two stages
focus on the role of social support, the latter two stages rely more on individuals’ internal processes
(Zimmerman, 2000, 2013). Alongside the four stages of SRL development, Zimmerman (2013)
formulates instructional guidelines for supporting students’ SRL. First, students are introduced to an
SRL skill through observation of a model’s behavior and associated descriptions. Consequently,
modeling SRL skills is an important instructional strategy for introducing SRL. Second, during the
emulation level, learners copy the essence of the modeled behavior and can improve their SRL
experiments with support, feedback, and social reinforcement of the model. Third, in the self-

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 15 / 78
controlled stage learners exercise the SRL skills in structured settings without the direct presence of
the model. Learners learn to master and self- observe their performance, which can be enhanced by
comparing their performance to internalized standards. Fourth, the SRL skills become truly
internalized in the self-regulation stage where learners become able to adjust their performance and
strategy use to the changing conditions and outcomes. The SRL skills are used in naturalistic rather
than practice settings. Importantly, whereas stage four self-regulated learners are capable of SRL,
they may still choose not to self-regulate because of both motivational and affective conditions
(Zimmerman, 2013).

1.6. How to teach and promote self-regulated learning in our students?

SRL in primary schools can be promoted in several ways. First, teachers can indirectly
facilitate students’ SRL development by manipulating contextual conditions that pupils encounter
during their learning process. Deliberate manipulation of classroom practices, learning contents,
tasks, and teaching methods in favor of students’ SRL skills development allows teachers to create
strong SRL environments (Kistner et al., 2010). Second, teachers can foster pupils’ SRL development
through the direct instruction of self-regulation strategies in both implicit and explicit ways (Kistner
et al., 2010; Paris & Paris, 2001). Implicitly, teachers can support SRL strategies by modeling,
prompts, suggestions and encouragement (Lapan, Kardash, & Turner, 2002; Paris & Newman, 1990).
Explicit direct instruction, on the contrary, includes elaboration on and verbalization of the
conditions and significance of specific SRL strategies for student performance (Kistner et al., 2010;
Peeters, 2015).

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 16 / 78
2. Implementing self-regulated learning: main barriers and stimuli

2.1. Teacher determinants

A recent PhD thesis investigated the association of different teacher level factors with
primary school teachers’ promotion of pupils’ self-regulated learning (Peeters, 2015). Throughout a
series of studies, different teacher level factors were discussed in relation to teachers’ self-perceived
SRL promotion, i.e. educational beliefs, teaching experiences, SRL knowledge, self-efficacy,
motivation and affect, and teacher self-regulation.

First, in line with previous research that demonstrated how teacher beliefs drive
instructional preferences and behavior (Errington, 2004; Ertmer, 2005; Sosu & Gray, 2012), multiple
studies reported teachers’ beliefs concerning the value of SRL for primary education as a potential
associate of SRL promotion. Two studies revealed that two types of beliefs were positively related
with teachers’ self-perceived SRL promotion: teachers’ more general constructivist beliefs about
primary education, and teachers’ specific beliefs concerning the role of SRL in primary education
(Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2013; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet
& Lombaerts, 2015). Moreover, it was found that teachers’ constructivist beliefs were most decisive.
The findings contradict an earlier study of Dignath-van Ewijk and van der Werf (2012) who only
found teachers’ SRL beliefs to be related with SRL promotion. It is worth taking note in comparing
nevertheless, that the Dignath-van Ewijk and van der Werf’s sample was considerably smaller and,
contrary to the current study, only volunteering teachers participated in the study. Furthermore, the
observation that the association of SRL beliefs was found significant even when accounting for
constructivist beliefs might be explained by interpreting teachers’ beliefs about SRL as task value
beliefs, which are a person’s beliefs about the usefulness of a particular task (Eccles & Wigfield,
2002). Recognizing the value of a task, in this case supporting students’ SRL, is relevant as it may
subsequently facilitate changes in conceptual knowledge and activate teachers’ prior knowledge
(Johnson & Sinatra, 2013). Fortunately, other studies disclose that teachers recognize and voice the
benefits of SRL for students, confirming that most primary school teachers do acknowledge the
value of SRL for primary education (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel &

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 17 / 78
Lombaerts, 2013; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, & Lombaerts, 2013). In sum, the
thesis’ results imply that in order to increase teachers’ SRL promotion efforts, teachers need to
display general constructivist beliefs as well as acknowledge the value of SRL for primary education.

Second, also the role of teachers’ previous experiences with learning through self-regulation
and with teaching practices that stimulate students’ SRL was investigated. Personally experiencing
and acknowledging the potential benefits of SRL for students appeared to be an important indicator
for increased levels of teacher attention to students’ SRL (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet, &
Lombaerts, 2013; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013).
Perception of positive impact on pupils’ performance and well-being appeared to enhance teachers’
motivation to further help their pupils to self-regulate.

Third, primary school teachers described a lack of knowledge about SRL and a shortage of
competencies to promote it as an important reason for low levels of SRL promotion (Peeters, De
Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet
& Lombaerts, 2015). Respondents referred to all three sorts of metacognitive awareness (Wilson &
Bai, 2010) as they expressed their need for more declarative knowledge (knowledge about SRL
development), procedural knowledge (knowledge about how to promote SRL), and conditional
knowledge (knowing why and when to promote SRL with specific pupils or in specific situations).
Hence, when supporting teachers to increase their SRL promotion efforts, attention should be paid
to their (metacognitive) knowledge of SRL.

Fourth, the role of teacher self-efficacy for constructivist teaching was explored and showed
a positive association with teachers’ self-reported SRL promotion (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens,
Jacquet & Lombaerts, 2015). The study, however, recommended a careful examination of the role of
the different sub-facets of self-efficacy (i.e. classroom instruction, classroom management, and
student engagement), because they each appeared to be related differently to SRL promotion. Both
the study’s empirical findings and literature suggest that instructional scenario’s facilitating student
autonomy and self-regulation require stronger classroom management skills as compared to more
traditional classroom settings (Grant, 2003; Rimm-Kaufman, Storm, Sawyer, Pianta, & LaParo, 2006).
The same observation was reported by teachers in another study with quite some teachers voicing
to struggle with classroom management when allowing more student input (Peeters, De Backer,
Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013). It might be that teachers who believe in the

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 18 / 78
value of constructivist and SRL learning environments and who experience the support of school
policy may find it easier to teach the classroom. However, it may not necessarily help them to
engage their students and, especially, to manage their classrooms. Further research remains
mandatory.

Fifth, also teachers’ affective and motivational states were described. Teachers for example
stressed affective states such as the need to feel good and secure in experimenting with SRL
promotion (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013). Moreover, in
line with Lewis (1999), teachers felt concerned about classroom management and loss of control
when introducing SRL classroom practices. Carefully monitoring affective states of teachers’ starting
to promote SRL is highly advocated as this group of teachers is more likely to display more defective
coping mechanisms resulting in increased levels of stress (Lewis, 1999). Many large-scale reform
initiatives are in conflict with teachers’ identity, even when teachers are eager supporters of the
reform initiatives (Van Veen, Sleegers, & van de Ven, 2005). Hence, it is critical to apply an affective
and motivational approach with teachers showing low as well as high levels of SRL beliefs in order to
engage all teachers in successful educational change (Van Veen et al., 2005), such as the
implementation of SRL promotion. Teachers can and do apply different strategies to self-regulate
their motivational conditions during their professional career (Peeters, De Backer, Romero Reina,
Kindekens, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2014).

Sixth, different studies suggested looking at the role of teacher self-regulation in supporting
students’ SRL. One study specifically focused on the role of teacher self-regulation by means of
asking teachers for their own perspective (Peeters, De Backer, Romero Reina, Kindekens, Buffel &
Lombaerts, 2014). Furthermore, teacher self-regulation was questioned in relation to both teaching
practice in general, and supporting SRL strategies in specific.

First, the majority of respondents referred to the value of self-regulation strategies for the
teaching profession. The teaching profession was experienced as conducive to teacher self-
regulation. The following characteristics of the teaching profession were reported to require
or motivate teachers to self-regulate their teaching: the (yearly) repetitive character of
education, the multiple changes education endures, and high levels of job autonomy.
However, a small group of teachers equally voiced not being able or stimulated to self-

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 19 / 78
regulate due to contextual difficulties such as time constraints, or because they simply chose
not to self-regulate. Furthermore, due to the dynamic educational landscape and changing
challenges, teachers were required to continue and self-regulate professional learning.
Additionally, teachers also feel the need to self-regulate their motivation during their
professional career. Teachers, for example, indicated to self-direct their motivation to teach
by, for instance, choosing strategies to increase their interest in teaching once they feel it
fading away. Through means of interest activation, defined as an important motivational SR
strategy (Pintrich, 2000; Wolters, Pintrich, & Karabenick, 2003), teachers succeeded in
uplifting their motivation and staying engaged in teaching practice.

Second, teachers illustrated the value of their personal self-regulation when supporting their
students’ SRL. Firstly, personal self-regulation skills were deemed necessary to model and
verbally explain the use of SR strategies. Students indeed learn SRL from observing teachers’
strategies (Zimmerman, 2002), and teachers need the necessary knowledge to make SRL
more visible for students, and to explain the use and value of the strategies being modeled
(Paris & Winograd, 2003). However, despite the importance of metacognitive discussions,
elucidating strategy use, in addition to mere modeling (Dignath, Büttner, & Langfeldt, 2008;
Dignath & Büttner, 2008), only a limited amount of respondents spontaneously reported the
necessity of such explicit explanation of SR strategies. Secondly, respondents reported to
teach students SRL strategies teachers had past successful experiences with, which is in line
with previous research (Dembo, 2001; Gordon et al., 2007). Thirdly, teachers reported that
in comparison with transmission oriented teaching, the stimulation of their pupils’ SRL
required them to increase the application of their own SR strategies. Examples put forward
were the use of advanced planning strategies, increased monitoring, careful direction of
teaching time and place, and increased risk taking.

2.2. School determinants

The aforementioned thesis (Peeters, 2015) equally sheds light on the role of several specific
school level mechanisms in understanding teachers’ different levels of SRL promotion.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 20 / 78
First, the presence of a school policy concerning SRL promotion, which includes a shared
school vision and teacher support for implementation, was studied. By means of multilevel
modelling, the presence of SRL school policy appeared to be the only school level mechanism that
was significantly associated with the successful introduction of SRL in primary school classrooms
(Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2013). The direct association of SRL school
policy with self-perceived SRL promotion was tested again by means of structural equation modeling
and again showed the significance of SRL school policy in understanding differences in teachers’ level
of SRL promotion (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2013). However, the direct
association of SRL school policy turned insignificant when checking for two indirect associations of
SRL school policy with SRL promotion. In addition, qualitative analyses also described a shared and
clear school vision as indispensible to SRL promotion, since it was considered a precondition of a
pre-set vertical policy plan that gradually introduces SRL in primary education (Peeters, De Backer,
Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013). However, data equally showed that policy
could become counterproductive when too many strict procedures decrease teacher flexibility.
Indeed, reform policy regularly stimulates one approach of teaching only, hereby limiting teachers’
options (Van Veen & Sleegers, 2009). Whereas in SRL frameworks, it is considered important to
provide sufficient space for teachers to co- and self-regulate their way to implement SRL classroom
practices and find strategies that fit within their personal preferences and expertise.

Second, teacher collaboration was indicated as a powerful support system (Peeters, De

Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013). Peers were considered valuable
sources of knowledge. Especially hesitant teachers expressed that peers could support and assist
them to promote SRL, and could encourage them to question and possibly adjust their own SRL
related convictions. Schunk (2012), indeed, explains how learning through peer observations
provides instructional information and enhances motivation as the discovery of similarities enables
teachers to apply the newly acquired information to their own classroom practice. In the context of
ICT integration, for example, peer socialization seemed to be more effective as compared to
professional development (Ertmer, 2005). As a consequence, Ertmer (2005) recommends providing
sufficient time for teacher collaboration.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 21 / 78
Third, teachers necessitated the involvement of the school principal as the main person
responsible for introducing, monitoring, and evaluating SRL classroom practice (Peeters, De Backer,
Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013). Furthermore, the school principal was
expected to create supportive school mechanisms (e.g., flexible schedules, teacher collaboration,
and professional development). Although principals can merely create conditions for cultural
change, research confirms the important role of school principals in establishing successful schools
(Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, Lapointe, & Orr, 2010; Moolenaar, Daly, & Sleegers, 2010). Including
promoters of professional change, such as school principals, in steering and guiding innovation
processes is therefore highly recommended (e.g., Butler & Schnellert, 2012; Fullan, 2007; Lapan,
Kardash, & Turner, 2002; Nielsen, Barry, & Staab, 2008).

Fourth, quantitative analyses showed no significant associations of task and performance

oriented leadership, participative decision- making, and innovative school climate with self-reported
SRL promotion (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2013). Different explanations
were presented, such as the small amount of school level variance to be explained, the potential
more indirect relationship with SRL promotion, and the differences between quantitative and
qualitative studies when investigating school context. Nevertheless, qualitative analyses suggested
the above school level mechanisms to play a role (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina,
Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013). For example, teachers reported the need for clear guidelines and
principals taking the responsibility for tasks and performance, in this case SRL promotion.

Fifth, teacher reports listed several organizational and more structural school factors, such
as time pressure, curriculum load, teaching material, and infrastructure (Peeters, De Backer,
Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013). It is important to note, however, that removal
of infrastructural barriers does not automatically result in changes in teachers’ pedagogical approach
(Ertmer, 2005).

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 22 / 78
2.3. The role of background variables

Finally, the dissertation looked at and controlled for the role of so called ‘background
variables’ in relation to teachers’ SRL promotion (Peeters, 2015).

First, although respondents in a qualitative study did described how the number of pupils
affected the extent to which they supported students’ SRL (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Romero
Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013), quantitative analyses did not find a correlation of class size with
teachers’ self- perceived SRL promotion (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts,
2013). Whereas class size may facilitate certain conditions for SRL, such as easier classroom
management or student monitoring, reduction in class size does not automatically lead to changes in
teachers’ pedagogical approach (Harfitt, 2012).

Second, higher school grades were consistently found positively related with teachers’ SRL
promotion (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2013; Peeters, De Backer,
Kindekens, Jacquet & Lombaerts, 2015), which is in line with previous research (Lombaerts, Engels, &
Vanderfaeillie, 2007). Qualitative results provide some more in-depth information: these results, for
example, indicated to especially support SRL when teaching 11 and 12 year olds, since they feel the
urge to promote SRL in order to prepare pupils for the transfer to secondary education (Peeters, De
Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013), Consequently, many teachers report
that SRL in their school is promoted mostly in the final years of primary education. Furthermore,
teachers were found to vary in their opinion on the most appropriate student age to start initiating
students’ SRL (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, & Lombaerts, 2013). Whereas some
teachers strongly advocated starting in kindergarten already, others stated SRL could only be
stimulated from 3rd or 4th grade onwards since 1st and 2nd grade children were believed to have
too little self-regulation capabilities. Spruce and Bol (2014), equally found teachers doubting the SRL
capacities of primary school children, irrespective of teachers’ general favorability towards SRL.
Evidence, however, demonstrates that SRL can and should be supported in kindergarten (Bryce &
Whitebread, 2012; Perels, Merget-Kullmann, Wende, Schmitz, & Buchbinder, 2009). Teachers
acknowledging this need in chapter 3 therefore observed and criticized the trend that SRL promotion
decreases as students move from pre-school over primary school to secondary education.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 23 / 78
Consequently, many of the teachers stressed the need for a school-wide SRL policy plan with
concrete guidelines and clear expectations for each stage of primary education.

Third, it was shown how the support for SRL in primary school grew as the number of pupils
from ethnic minority and lower socio-economic background increased (Peeters, De Backer,
Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2013; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet & Lombaerts, 2015).
Although remarkable at first sight, the results corroborate previous findings (OECD, 2009) and may
be explained by teachers’ efforts to especially engage these students being raised in non-academic
environments (Vieluf, Kaplan, Klieme, & Bayer, 2012). SRL promotion may be considered one way of
doing so. In addition to ethnicity and socio-economic status, chapter 2 also examined the role of the
degree of urbanization of the school’s location. Teachers from schools located in urban areas were
found more likely to promote their students’ SRL development. Although differences in ethnic and
socio-economic student population background could explain this finding, the association of
urbanization with SRL promotion remained significant after controlling for the socio-economic and
ethnic school profile. Future research studying in more depth this particular finding was suggested.
Finally, also teachers in a qualitative study reported students’ ethnic and socio-economic
background as well as students’ shortage of skills in the language of instruction as influential for the
extent to which they instruct SRL (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, & Lombaerts,
2013). These qualitative findings, however, presented a more nuanced picture. One group of
teachers was particularly stimulated to support these students’ SRL. However, another group of
teachers felt especially demotivated for various reasons. Consequently, it was hypothesized that the
association of student and school characteristics with self-reported levels of SRL promotion might be
mediated by teacher level characteristics.

Fourth, the dissertation shed light on the association of teacher age and gender with self-
perceived SRL promotion. Whereas no evidence was found for gender differences in SRL promotion,
studies did reveal a statistically significant relationship of teacher age with teachers’ beliefs about
the value of SRL for primary education, and their self-reported SRL promotion (Peeters, De Backer,
Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2013; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet & Lombaerts, 2015).
However, older teachers did show higher rates of self-efficacy for teaching, which was found
positively related to SRL promotion (Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet & Lombaerts,
2015)..Literature especially suggests the interaction of teacher age with their skills and self-efficacy
to manage the classroom when introducing more student- centered teaching (Grant, 2003; Yeo, Ang,

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 24 / 78
Chong, Huan, & Quek, 2008). Qualitative results again offer a more nuanced view (Peeters, De
Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013). Although many respondents described
age-related differences in SRL promotion, opinions on this matter were diverse. Respondents did not
seem to agree whether an increase in teacher age affects SRL promotion positively or negatively.
Older teachers need to remain up to date and may face more difficulties in changing their existing
practice. Younger teachers may lack the necessary management skills, not yet master the learning
content, and know the school guidelines regarding SRL, and may be more subject to the influence of
parents who may prefer more traditional forms of education. The diversity of respondents’ opinions
on the relationship of teacher age and SRL promotion, suggested that, rather than teacher age,
underlying mechanisms were at stake. In sum, these teacher age related observations are important
for educational practice and teacher education programs, and are often explained by younger
teachers having followed different initial education and having learned a larger variety of
instructional methods (Vieluf et al., 2012). Such information should be reckoned with when tailoring
teacher support programs to the specific needs of younger and older teachers, and when aiming to
design effective strategies to also engage older teachers in the implementation of SRL classroom
practice.

2.4. What are the most successful SRL interventions?

Dignath, Büttner and Langfeldt (2008) conducted a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of

self-regulated learning interventions on primary school students’ academic performance, strategy
use, and motivation.

An overview of the most effective training characteristics:

● Type of strategies: A training programme should be based on social-cognitive theories.

Primary education students benefit most from socio-cognitive interventions because these
are more comprehensive and include different aspects of learning: cognitive (elaboration
and problem solving skills), metacognitive (e.g. planning strategies), and motivational
aspects (which are crucial at that developmental age and educational level). Additionally,
this strengthens our decision of anchoring this project to Zimmerman’s model as it is a

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 25 / 78
socio-cognitive one, which advocates the consideration of cognitive, metacognitive and
motivational factors when investigating self-regulated learning.
● Type of metacognitive reflection. Next to the instruction of metacognitive strategies,
students should be provided with knowledge about strategy application and its benefits for
their learning. Students need the skill and the will to engage in self-regulated learning.
● Type of motivational strategies. Most effective training programmes provided students
with feedback about their (strategic) learning.
● Group work. Primary school students still need instructions about cooperation. It is not
enough to let students sit around a table in small groups without providing them with any
systematic instruction.
● School subject. The highest effects on academic performance could be gained by
interventions in the context of mathematics, followed by reading/writing and lastly by those
conducted within the scope of other school subjects (similar findings regarding motivational
outcomes, no differences between school subjects concerning the effects of strategy use).
The results indicate that promoting self-regulated learning raises academic performance
more in a well-structured subject than in a rather open field.
● Duration of intervention. The length of interventions did not reveal significant differences
in effectiveness of interventions.
● Implementation of the programme. Students benefit more if researchers introduce
strategies instead of their regular teachers.
● Age of students. Although even at primary school age, students can profit from self-
regulation intervention, there are differences in the way the intervention effects arise:
younger students show greater effects in motivational aspects (younger children are more
motivated to learn), they also achieve greater effects concerning the use of strategies than
students in the upper grades of primary school. Older students already command a strategy
repertoire, which is harder to change, while young students are more open to acquiring new
strategies. However, these findings did not have an impact on the effects of the
interventions regarding the academic performance of students.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 26 / 78
2.5. Teacher training on SRL
Training teachers to promote self-regulated learning should be a practice consistent with the
ideas we have explained so far. SRL entails a wide range of complex strategies by which students
plan, monitor and evaluate their own work. Consequently, teacher training in SRL should include
content about all the SRL skills within a training framework that promotes a strategic and
constructive learning environment.

Beginning with the content, the evolution of the concept of SRL shows itself how important
is to pay attention not only to the cognitive and metacognitive elements of learning but also to the
emotional and motivational aspects. In accordance with this evolution, it is necessary to ensure that
all the components of self-regulated learning are covered in the training (Michalsky, 2012).

Research on the topic of teachers’ SRL training has found that teachers tend to relate SRL to
constructive learning environments, but they rarely consider the link between SRL and explicit
strategy instruction (Dignath-van Ewijk & van der Werf, 2012). On the contrary, they do connect the
ideas of strategy instruction when they think about lifelong learning and learning to learn (Dignath-
van Ewijk & van der Werf, 2012). For this reason, it is important to highlight contents about strategy
instruction for SRL and to provide materials for this aim (Dignath-van Ewijk, Dichhäuser & Büttner,
2013).

In addition to the content that should be trained, it is crucial to think about the instructional
design of training programmes to encourage teachers to promote SRL in their classrooms. Next, two
general principles for training design will be presented along with an explanation about specific
strategies to achieve each of them.

First, a growing body of research and policy on teacher training in different issues argues
that teacher professional development should be based on collaboration and networking (see
European Commission, 2015, chapter 4). By using collaboration it is more likely that teacher training
and professional development become stable activities maintained over long periods of time and,
therefore, produce higher impact and innovation in the schools (Dignath-van Ewijk, Dickhaüer &
Büttner, 2013). Besides, a collaborative model can help to fight time constraints by promoting long-
term networks and coalitions to co-design and share materials (Peeters, 2015). In order to promote
collaborative work among teachers it is useful to recruit groups of teachers (e.g., a critical mass of
teachers from the same school) to participate in the training courses (Finsterwald et al., 2013), and

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 27 / 78
to foster meetings and teacher groups for mutual support (Dignath-van Ewijk, Dickhaüer & Büttner,
2013). This type of collaboration will be additionally making use of the socially shared regulated
learning concept that was explained earlier in this theoretical framework.

Second, most SRL researchers agree with the fact that teacher training in SRL should indeed
be based in the principles of self-regulated learning (e.g., Butler et al., 2004; Kramarski & Michalsky,
2009; Peeters, 2015). As a result, teacher training in SRL has to encourage teachers to develop a
personal approach, to avoid the transmission of fixed procedures (Butler et al., 2013; Michalsky,
2012) and to help them to become aware of their own learning processes (Kramarski & Michalsky,
2009). If teachers interact with the content in ways that they expect their students will do, it is more
likely that they will engage in those practices (Finsterwald et al., 2013). In a similar fashion, Butler et
al. (2004) suggested to frame teacher training in SRL as an action to help teachers to work on new
decision making criteria. Teachers should be encouraged to develop a reflective inquiry, to think and
to experiment with ideas and teaching skills (Vrieling, Bastiaens & Stijnen, 2010). Keeping this
general ideas on mind, we present three specific strategies to organize teacher training using SRL
based on the ideas extracted from the desk research:

First, Michalsky & Schecter (2013) suggests that it is beneficial that teacher training
includes both successful and problematic experiences. Compared to a group of teachers
that focused solely in the reflection about problematic experiences, teachers that were
shown both kind of situations obtained greater improvement on pedagogical content and
self-efficacy measures.

Second, several scaffolding strategies can be used to gradually move from teachers’ trainer
control to teacher control. These strategies are: modelling metacognitive skills, ask process
and metacognitive questions, to include self-assessment strategies and to present lesson
feedback in terms of SRL (Perry, Hutchinson & Thauberger, 2008; Vrieling, Bastiaens &
Stijnen, 2010). Additionally, the use of reflective prompts about pedagogical contents is
also very useful during teachers training and with pre-service teachers, as the work by
Bracha Kramarski and colleagues has shown (e.g. Kramarski & Revach, 2009). This type of
metacognitive prompts are questions that teachers need to ask to themselves as, by
answering to them, their awareness and use of strategies it is enhanced.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 28 / 78
Finally, following Vrieling, Bastiaens & Stijnen (2010), there are other 3 SRL skills that
should be applied to teachers training in SRL. (a) By providing attributional feedback, it is
possible to stress factors under teacher’s control. (b) Making schedules for time
management and (c) emphasizing task value are also valuable strategies that teachers
could learn and then implement with their students.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 63 / 78
8. References

Arrigo, M., Fulantelli, G., & Taibi, D. (2015). Challenges of Using Learning Analytics
Techniques to Support Mobile Learning. International Association for Development of the
Information Society.

Ashton, J., & Newman, L. (2006). An unfinished symphony: 21st century teacher education
using knowledge creating heutagogies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 825–840.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00662.x

Aubusson, P., Ewing, R., & Hoban, G. (2009). Action learning in schools : reframing teachers’
professional learning and development. New York: Routledge.

Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., & Burden, K. (2009). Mobile learning for teacher professional
learning: benefits, obstacles and issues, ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology Vol. 17, No. 3, 233–
247.

Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centered learning
environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their
effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260.

Bakhtin M. M. (1981): The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Bakhtin Perspectives on

language, literacy and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 2(1), 21–41.

Berinato, S. (2016). Visualizations that really work. Harvard business review, 94(6), 18.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego:
Academic Press.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 64 / 78
Bordes, A., Bottou, L., Collobert, R., Roth, D., Weston, J., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2014).
Introduction to the special issue on learning semantics. Machine Learning, 94(2), 127.

Bore A., & Wright N. (2009): The wicked and complex in education: developing a
transdisciplinary perspective for policy formulation, implementation and professional practice.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(3), 241-256.

Borko H. Whitcomb J., & Liston D. (2009): Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of
technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 3-7. doi:
10.1177/0022487108328488.

Burden K. (2012): Crossing the Transformation Horizon: Conceptualising Teachers’ Learning

and Transformations with the Affordances of Web 2.0. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Hull.

Burden K. (2010): Conceptualizing teachers’ professional learning with Web 2.0. Campus-
Wide Information Systems, 27(3), 148-161. doi:10.1108/106507411011054456.

Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. (2012) Collaborative inquiry in teacher professional

development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1206–1220.

Bruce B. C., & Hogan M. (1998): The disappearance of technology: toward an ecological
model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. C. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy
and technology. Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269-281). Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Bryce, D., & Whitebread, D. (2012) The development of metacognitive skills: evidence from
observational analysis of young children’s behavior during problem-solving. Metacognition and
Learning, 7(3), 197–217.

Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and
self-regulation in teachers' professional development. Teaching & Teacher Education: An
International Journal of Research and Studies, 20(5), 435-455.

Casilli, C. (2010). Information Visualization: an Overlooked Field; submitted as MA Media

Psychology Capstone at Fielding Graduate University; unpublished.

Cook J., Pachler N., & Bradley C. (2008): Bridging the gap? Mobile phones at the interface
between informal and formal learning. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology
(RCET), 4(1), Spring 2008.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 65 / 78
Cooper, A. (2014). Learning Analytics Interoperability - The Big Picture In Brief. Learning
Analytics Community Exchange. Available at: http://laceproject.eu/publications/briefing-01.pdf

Day, C. (2006). Variations in the work and lives of teachers: relative and relational
effectiveness. Teachers & Teaching, 12(2), 169–192. doi:10.1080/13450600500467381

Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., Lapointe, M., & Orr, M. T. (2010). Preparing principals
for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Dembo, M. H. (2001). Learning to teach is not enough: future teachers also need to learn
how to learn. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 23–35.

Dent, A. L. (2013). The relation between self-regulation and academic achievement: A meta-
analysis exploring variation in the way constructs are labeled, defined, and measured. [Dissertation,
Duke University, 2013]. Durham: Duke University.

De Corte, E., & Masui, C. (2004). The CLIA-model : A framework for designing powerful
learning environments for thinking and problem solving. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 14(4), 365–384.

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.

Dignath, C., Büttner, G., & Langfeldt, H. (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. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003

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. doi: 10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.338

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(Article ID 741713).

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 66 / 78
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on
metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4),
391-409. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6

Drachsler, H., & Greller, W. (2012). The pulse of learning analytics understandings and
expectations from the stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning
analytics and knowledge (pp. 120-129). ACM.

Drachsler, H., & Greller, W. (2016). Privacy and analytics: it's a DELICATE issue a checklist for
trusted learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics
& Knowledge (pp. 89-98). ACM.

Dumont, H., Istance, D., & Benavides, F. (eds.) (2010). The Nature of Learning: Using
Research to Inspire Practice. Paris: OECD Publishing, Educational Research and Innovation.
doi:10.1787/9789264086487-en

Duval, E. (2011). Attention please!: learning analytics for visualization and recommendation.
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 9-17).
ACM.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132.

Engelfriet, E., Jeunink, E., Maderveld, J. (2015). Handreiking Learning analytics onder de Wet
bescherming persoonsgegevens. SURF report. https://www.surf.nl/kennisbank/2015/learning-
analytics-onder-de-wet-bescherming-persoonsgegevens.html

Errington, E. (2004) The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: some
practices and possibilities for academic developers. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 41(1), 39–47.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for
technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

Eshel, Y., & Kohavi, R. (2003). Perceived classroom control, self-regulated learning strategies,
and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 249–260.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 67 / 78
European Commission (2015). Shaping career-long perspectives on teaching. A guide on
policies to improve initial teacher education. Luxemburg: Publications office of the European Union.

Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges. International

Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5-6), 304-317.

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.

Fisher, T., Higgins, C., & Loveless, A. (2006). Teachers learning with digital technologies ( No.
14). Bristol: Futurelab. Retrieved 3rd June 2008 from
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/literature-reviews/Literature-
Review129

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). Teacher development and educational change. London:
Falmer Press.

Gibson J. J. (1979): The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, Mass: Houghton
Mifflin.

Gordon, S. C., Dembo, M. H., & Hocevar, D. (2007). Do teachers’ own learning behaviors
influence their classroom goal orientation and control ideology? Teaching and Teacher Education,
23(1), 36–46.

Govaerts, S., Verbert, K., Klerkx, J., & Duval, E. (2010). Visualizing activities for self-reflection
and awareness. In International Conference on Web-Based Learning (pp. 91-100). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.

Grant, M. M. (2003). Finding your place in a student-centered classroom as a teacher

facilitator? The Agricultural Education Magazine, 76(2), 18–20.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 68 / 78
Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating Learning into Numbers: A Generic Framework
for Learning Analytics. Educational technology & society, 15(3), 42-57.

Grundy, S., & Robinson, J. (2004). Teacher professional development: themes and trends in
the recent Australian experience. In C Day & J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on continuing
professional development of teachers (pp. 146–66). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Harfitt, G. J. (2012). An examination of teachers’ perceptions and practice when teaching

large and reduced-size classes: Do teachers really teach them in the same way? Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(1), 132–140.

Heikkiläa, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: Students' approaches to
learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 99-117.
doi:10.1080/03075070500392433

Hernández-García, Á., González-González, I., Jiménez-Zarco, A. I., & Chaparro-Peláez, J.

(2016). Visualizations of Online Course Interactions for Social Network Learning Analytics.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 11(07), 6-15.

Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach.
Open University Press.

Hoel, T. & Chen, W. (2015). Privacy in Learning Analytics – Implications for System
Architecture. In: Watanabe, T. and Seta, K. (Eds.) (2015). Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Knowledge Management.

Jacobson M., & Archodidou A. (2000): The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering
conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. Journal of Learning Science, 9, 145-
199.

Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). Exploring socially-shared
regulation in the context of collaboration. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(3), 267-
286. doi:10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.267

Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational
Psychologist, 48(1), 25-39. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.748006

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 69 / 78
Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of pre-service English
as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 439–452.

Johnson, L., Adams, S. and Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher
Education Edition, The New Media Consortium, Austin, Texas. Available at:
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2012-horizon-report-HE.pdf

Kearney, M., Aubusson, P., and Schuck, S. & Burden, K. (2012) Viewing Mobile Learning from
a Pedagogical Perspective. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology. Vol 20

Kearney, M., & Maher, D. (2013). Mobile learning in math teacher education: Using iPads to
support pre-service teachers’ professional development. Australian Educational Computing, 27(3),
76-84.

Keim, D. A. (2002). Information visualization and visual data mining. IEEE transactions on
Visualization and Computer Graphics, 8(1), 1-8.

Kennewell, S., Parkinson, J., & Tanner, H. (2000). Developing the ICT capable school. London:
RouteledgeFalmer.

Kevan, J. M., & Ryan, P. R. (2016). Experience API: Flexible, decentralized and activity-centric
data collection. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(1), 143-149.

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.

Kitto, K., Cross, S., Waters, Z., & Lupton, M. (2015). Learning analytics beyond the LMS: the
connected learning analytics toolkit. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning
Analytics And Knowledge (pp. 11-15). ACM.

Kouzma R. (2005): National policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economic
and social development. An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 1(2), 117-156.

Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2009). Investigating preservice teachers' professional growth
in self-regulated learning environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 161-175.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 70 / 78
Kump, B., Seifert, C., Beham, G., Lindstaedt, S. N., & Ley, T. (2012). Seeing what the system
thinks you know: visualizing evidence in an open learner model. In Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 153-157). ACM.

Land, S. (2000): Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environment.
ETR&D, 48(3), 61-78.

Lapan, R. T., Kardash, C. M., & Turner, S. (2002). Empowering students to become self-
regulated learners. Professional School Counseling, 5(4), 257 – 265.

Leony, D., Pardo, A., de la Fuente Valentín, L., de Castro, D. S., & Kloos, C. D. (2012). GLASS: a
learning analytics visualization tool. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning
analytics and knowledge (pp. 162-163). ACM.

Lewis, R. (1999). Teachers coping with the stress of classroom discipline. Social Psychology of
Education, 3, 155–171.

Ley, K., & Young, D. B. (2001). Instructional principles for self-regulation. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 93–103.

Lombaerts, K., Engels, N., & Vanderfaeillie, J. (2007). Exploring teachers’ actions to promote
self-regulated learning practices in primary school. The Australian Educational and Developmental
Psychologist, 24(1), 4–24.

Michalsky, T. (2012). Shaping self-regulation in science teachers' professional growth:

Inquiry skills. Science Education, 96(6), 1106-1133. doi: 10.1002/sce.21029

Michalsky, T., & Schechter, C. (2013). Preservice teachers' capacity to teach self-regulated
learning: Integrating learning from problems and learning from successes. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 30, 60-73. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.009.

Mishra P., & Koehler M. J. (2009): Technology pedagogical content knowledge: a framework
for teacher knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 91(6), 60-70.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00600684.x.

Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, a. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position:
Examining relationships between transformational Leadership, social network position, and

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 71 / 78
sSchools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623–670.
doi:10.1177/0013161X10378689

Moos, D.C. (2009). Note-taking while learning hypermedia: Cognitive and motivational
considerations. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1120-1128

Mykkänen, A., Perry, N., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Finnish students’ reasons for their achievement
in classroom activities: Focus on features that support self-regulated learning. Education 3-13:
International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 1–16.

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.

Ochoa, X., & Duval, E. (2006). Use of contextualized attention metadata for ranking and
recommending learning objects. In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on Contextualized
attention metadata: collecting, managing and exploiting of rich usage information (pp. 9-16). ACM.

OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from
TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Open University UK (2014). Policy on Ethical use of Student Data for Learning Analytics.
Available:
http://www.open.ac.uk/students/charter/sites/www.open.ac.uk.students.charter/files/files/ecms/w
eb-content/ethical-use-of-student-data-policy.pdf

Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). How do students self-regulate? Review of

Zimmerman’s cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Anales De Psicologia, 30(2), 450-462. doi:
10.6018/analesps.30.2.167221

Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European
Psychologist, 20(3), 190-203. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000226

Panadero, E., Klug, J., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Third wave of measurement in the self-regulated
learning field: When measurement and intervention come hand in hand. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research. doi:10.1080/00313831.2015.1066436

Pardo, A. & Siemens, G. (2014). Ethical and privacy principles for Learning Analytics. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 438–450. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12152.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 72 / 78
Perels, F., Merget-Kullmann, M., Wende, M., Schmitz, B., & Buchbinder, C. (2009). Improving
self-regulated learning of preschool children: evaluation of training for kindergarten teachers. The
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 311–27. doi:10.1348/000709908X322875

Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning.

Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 87–102.

Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated

learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.

Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2003). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching:
principles for teacher preparation. Washington, DC.

Peeters, J. (2015). Teacher and school characteristics associated with self-regulated learning
practices in primary education: a multidimensional approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.

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.

Peeters, J., De Backer, F., Kindekens, A., Romero Reina, V., Buffel, T., & Lombaerts, K. (2013).
Primary teachers’ personal beliefs about teacher and school influences affecting the promotion of
self- regulated learning. Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the European Association of
Learning and Instruction, Munich.

Peeters, J., De Backer, F., Kindekens, A., Romero Reina, V., & Lombaerts, K. (2013). Primary
teachers’ beliefs about the promotion of self-regulated learning with at risk students. Paper
presented at the biannual meeting of the European Association for Learning and Instruction,
Munich.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 73 / 78
Peeters, J., De Backer, F., Romero Reina, V., Kindekens, A., Buffel, T., & Lombaerts, K. (2014).
The role of teachers’ self-regulatory capacities in the implementation of self-regulated learning
practices. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1963-1970.

Pegrum M. (2014): Mobile learning: Languages, literacies, and Cultures. Palgrave Macmillan:
London.

Perry, N. E., Hutchinson, L., & Thauberger, C. (2008). Talking about teaching self-regulated
learning: Scaffolding student teachers’ development and use of practices that promote self-
regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 97–108.

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. 452-502). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive
validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024

Prinsloo, P. & Slade, S. (2013). An evaluation of policy frameworks for addressing ethical
considerations in Learning Analytics. In Proceedings of the 3rd Learning Analytics and Knowledge
conference, Leuven, Belgium. DOI: 10.1145/2460296.2460344

Prinsloo, P. & Slade, S. (2015). Student privacy self-management: implications for Learning
Analytics. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on learning analytics and knowledge
Pooghkeepsie, New York, USA. DOI: 10.1145/2723576.2723585

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
doi:10.3102/0013189X029001004

Retalis, S., Papasalouros, A., Psaromiligkos, Y., Siscos, S., & Kargidis, T. (2006). Towards
networked learning analytics – A concept and a tool. In Proceedings of the fifth international
conference on networked learning.

Reynolds, D. (2007). School effectiveness and school improvement: Links with the
international standards/accountability agenda. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International Handbook of

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 74 / 78
School Effectiveness and Improvement: Review, Reflection and Reframing (pp. 471–484). Dordrecht:
Springer.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Storm, M. D., Sawyer, B. E., Pianta, R. C., & LaParo, K. M. (2006). The
Teacher Belief Q-Sort: A measure of teachers’ priorities in relation to disciplinary practices, teaching
practices, and beliefs about children. Journal of School Psychology, 44(2), 141–165.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.01.003

Schmidt D. A., Baran E., Thompson A. D., Mishra P., Koehler M. J., & Shin T. S. (2009):
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): The development and validation of an
assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
42(2), 27.

Schmitz, H. C., Wolpers, M., Kirschenmann, U., & Niemann, K. (2011). Contextualized
attention metadata. Human attention in digital environments, 186-209.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26,

113–125.

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (Sixth Edit.). Boston:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Sclater, N., & Bailey, P. (2015). Code of practice for learning analytics. Available at:
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/code-of-practice-for-learning-analytics

Sheiter K., & Gerjets P. (2007): Learner control in hypermedia environment. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, 285-307. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9046-3.

Shulman L. S., & Shulman J. H. (2004): How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(2), 257-271. doi: 10.1080/0022027032000148298.

Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education.
EDUCAUSE review, 46(5), 30.

Siemens, G., Gasevic, D., Haythornthwaite, C., Dawson, S., Shum, S. B., Ferguson, R., ... &
Baker, R. S. J. D. (2011). Open Learning Analytics: an integrated & modularized platform (Doctoral
dissertation, Open University Press). Available at http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/ProposalLearningAnalyticsModel_SoLAR.pdf

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 75 / 78
Siemens, G., & d Baker, R. S. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: towards
communication and collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning
analytics and knowledge (pp. 252-254). ACM.

Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related

training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological
Bulletin, 137(3), 421-442. doi:10.1037/a0022777.

Somekh B., & Devis N. (Eds.). (1997): Using information technology effectively in teaching
and learning: studies in pre-service and in-service teacher education. London: Routledge.

Sosu, E. M., & Gray, D. S. (2012). Investigating change in epistemic beliefs: An evaluation of
the impact of student teachers’ beliefs on instructional preference and teaching competence.
International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 80–92.

Spruce, R., & Bol, L. (2015). Teacher beliefs, knowledge, and practice of self-regulated
learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10(2), 245–277. doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9124-0

Steiner, C., Kickmeier-Rust, M.D., and Albert, D. (2015). LEA in Private: A Privacy and Data
Protection Framework for a Learning Analytics Toolbox, Journal of Learning Analytics, Special Issue
on Ethics and Privacy.

Traxler, J. (2007) ‘Current state of mobile learning’, International Review on Research in

Open and Distance learning, 8, (2), 1-10.

UNESCO (2013): Policy Guidelines for Mobile Learning. Paris: UNESCO.

van Harmelen, M., & Workman, D. (2012). Analytics for learning and teaching. CETIS
Analytics Series, 1(3), 1-40.

Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., & van de Ven, P.-H. (2005). One teacher’s identity, emotions, and
commitment to change: A case study into the cognitive–affective processes of a secondary school
teacher in the context of reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 917–934.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.004

Van Veen, K., & Sleegers, P. (2009). Teachers’ emotions in a context of reforms: To a deeper
understanding of teachers and reforms. In P. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in Teacher

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 76 / 78
Emotion Research: The Impact on Teachers’ Lives (pp. 233–252). Dordrecht: Springer
Science+Business Media LLC.

Verbert, K., Govaerts, S., Duval, E., Santos, J. L., Van Assche, F., Parra, G., & Klerkx, J. (2014).
Learning dashboards: an overview and future research opportunities. Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing, 18(6), 1499-1514.

Verpoorten, D. (2012). Reflection amplifiers in self-regulated learning (doctoral thesis).

Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, Open University of the Netherlands.

Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis of users' attitudes toward the use
of mobile devices in second and foreign language learning in higher education: A case from Sweden
and China. Computers & Education, 69, 169-180.

Vieluf, S., Kaplan, D., Klieme, E., & Bayer, S. (2012). Teaching practices and pedagogical
innovation: Evidence from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Vrieling, E. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Stijnen, S. (2010). Process-oriented design principles for
promoting self-regulated learning in primary teacher education. International Journal of Educational
Research, 49, 141-150.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C., & Palmer, D. R. (1987). Learning And Study Strategies
Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991) Voices of the mind: a socio-cultural approach to mediated action.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Wilson, N. S., & Bai, H. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers’ metacognitive
knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3),
269–288. doi:10.1007/s11409-010-9062-4

Wilson, S., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: an examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of
Research in Education, 24, 173–209.

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 77 / 78
Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F., & Perry, N. E. (2013). Metacognition and computer-supported
collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. M. O'Donnell (Eds.), The
international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 462-479): Routledge.

Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.

Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531-566). Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.

Wolf, G. (2009, July 17). Know thyself: Tracking every facet of life, from sleep to mood to
pain, 24/7/365. Wired Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2009/06/lbnp-
knowthyself/

Wolters, C. A., Pintrich, P. R., & Karabenick, S. A. (2003). Assessing academic self-regulated
learning. Paper prepared for the Conference on Indicators of Positive Development: Definitions,
Measures, and Prospective Validity.

Yadav A., & Koehler M. (2007): The role of epistemological beliefs in pre-service teachers’
interpretation of video cases of early-grade literacy instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 15(3), 335.

Yeo, L. S., Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., & Quek, C. L. (2008). Teacher Efficacy In the
Context of Teaching Low Achieving Students. Current Psychology, 27(3), 192–204.
doi:10.1007/s12144-008-9034-x

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology
innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329

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. 13-40). San Diego,
California: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into

Practice, 41(2), 64-70. Retrieved from
http://www.informaworld.com/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

http://www.tmailproject.eu
 78 / 78
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive
career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135-147. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.794676

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and

performance. New York: Routledge.

http://www.tmailproject.eu