Supporting Teachers' SRL Beliefs and Practices with
Immersive Learning Environments: Evidence from a
Unique Simulations-Based Program
Orna Heaysman
Bar Ilan University
Ramat Gan, Israel
oheaysman@gmail.com
Abstract—Empirical evidence indicates that, as a result of
teachers' belief systems and the absence of self-regulated learning
(SRL) development for teaching practice, teachers are challenged
by the adoption of SRL in learning and teaching. This study
explored a support program for SRL through quasi-experimental
design to encourage aspects of SRL (planning, monitoring,
evaluation) stimulated in a unique immersive simulation learning
environment. Participants were 72 primary school teachers
assigned to experimental or control groups. Results show that the
teachers from the experimental group have shifted their beliefs
towards autonomous learning and used more SRL in lesson
planning and teaching reflections.
Index Terms—interactive-dynamic experience, simulations,
self-regulated learning, video-based learning, professional
development
I. INTRODUCTION
Contemporary learning and teaching theories stress the
significance of learners understanding how to efficiently
manage their learning as a crucial 21st-century ability [1], [2].
The increased speed of knowledge growth forces not only
students but teachers as well, to adapt by being life-long
learners – requiring that they constantly acquire and apply new
knowledge and skills, to support their students' learning and
self-regulation of learning (SRL). However, empirical studies
show that teachers are hindered in learning and practice of SRL,
due to their lack of SRL knowledge, skills, and beliefs [3]. This
is a challenge to the entire education system, especially teacher
training and professional development programs. Therefore,
programs that effectively address both beliefs and practical
skills in SRL are needed.
A. Self/Co-Regulated Learning - SRL
Self-regulated learning is a combination of cognition,
metacognition, and motivation that is rooted in a cyclical
process of three phases of actions taken by learners to achieve
their learning: the forethought phase precedes performance and
includes preparation actions such as setting goals, selecting
suitable strategies and arranging environmental conditions. The
performance phase involves task engagement, strategy
implementation, and monitoring. The evaluation phase includes
self-reflection and assessing the performance results [2].
SRL is facilitated by three key in-class practices: cognitive
strategies (like organizing information); metacognitive
strategies (like self-questioning and monitoring); and
knowledge construction (activities that promote autonomous
learning as a strategic selection in collaborative learning and
978-1-7348995-2-8/21/$31.00 ©2021 Immersive Learning Research Network
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitat de Barcelona. Downloaded on December 10,2023 at 16:34:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Bracha Kramarski
Bar Ilan University
Ramat Gan, Israel
bracha.kramarski@biu.ac.il
inquiry). The regulation is a cyclic process of planning,
monitoring, and evaluation/reflection. It is performed
independently – as self-regulation, or in a social context as Co-
regulation.
B. SRL Beliefs
Teachers' beliefs play a crucial part in their receptiveness to
SRL and their willingness to teach it. Positive beliefs about SRL
include inclination to student-centered teaching, belief in the
importance and relevance of SRL, and that it can and should be
taught; high self-efficacy beliefs indicate that the teacher
believes they can teach SRL effectively. Positive beliefs about
SRL are essential for teachers' motivation to teach SRL and can
determine their use of SRL practice [4], [5].
To support the self-regulated learning beliefs and practice
of teachers, we propose a holistic theoretical-practical model by
immersive learning environments based on interactive-dynamic
experiences with simulation practice and video analysis.
C. Immersive Learning Environments
Immersive learning environments are learning experiences
where learners dynamically interact with their surrounding
environment which intensifies the realistic actions. The
environment is socially rich and resembles the relevant reality,
and the interaction is two-way, which means the learners
receive immediate response and reacts to the dynamic changes
in the environment [6]. Although most immersive learning
environments are virtual, a unique and intensified example of
immersive environments is a real-life actor simulation. In this
case, the learners interact with live actors rather than virtual
characters; the physical surroundings imitate the surroundings
of the relevant field (classroom, hospital, etc.), and the
experience is similar to real-life in the actions and interactions
(e.g. speaking and moving rather than typing or moving a
mouse to control a virtual image; actors who portray human
emotion and reactions authentically). Here we use simulations
with real-live actors who can elicit a high emotional response.
D. Simulations
Simulation is a technique "to replace or amplify real
experiences with guided experiences that evoke or replicate
substantial aspects of the real world in a fully interactive
fashion" [7]. Simulations are a highly immersive environment
of interactive experiences, where actors are specialists in using
their bodies and voices to credibly convey human behavior and
to credibly direct the role-played scenario towards the targeted
situation of teaching. This interactive experience allows for
autonomous learning, as the teacher participating can choose
their teaching strategy. The actors bring reality to what may
otherwise be an artificial scenario stimulates genuine reactions
from the role-players as they are involved in the situation and
facilitate the involvement of teachers, which increases
motivation and leads to changes in beliefs and practice [9]. To
enhance their effectiveness, the simulations are followed by
debriefing processes and feedback on new experiences. The
support for teachers' SRL beliefs and practice with an
immersive environment of simulations as interactive
experiences is depicted in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Supporting teachers' srl with immersive environments.
E. Current Study Design and Objectives
The goal of the study is to offer support for the development
of teachers' SRL beliefs and practice, using immersive learning
environments of interactive experiences – simulations with live
actors.
The study focused on the SRL principle integrated into a
specific interactive learning experience using role-play
simulations of real-life actors and examined how teachers'
beliefs in autonomous learning, SRL practices in lesson
planning, and reflection about the lesson performance can be
empowered.
Two groups were compared in the study: experimental and
control. The experimental group was introduced to SRL theory,
practice, and training in the immersive learning environment of
simulations with real actors, accompanied by feedback and
debriefing. The control group was exposed to pedagogical
discussions and video analysis at seminars regarding effective
student-centered teaching practices.
Most SRL studies rely on questionnaires, however, this
might lead to insufficient information: therefore, it is
recommended to use authentic assessment [10], [11]. In this
study, we used three kinds of authentic measurements as
elaborated below. The study aims to compare the development
of the two groups in:
• Q1. SRL Beliefs in Autonomous Learning
• Q2. SRL in Lesson Planning (including goals, strategies,
metacognitive questioning)
• Q3. SRL in Lesson Reflection
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitat de Barcelona. Downloaded on December 10,2023 at 16:34:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
II. METHOD
A. Participants
A quasi-experimental study was conducted with 72 teachers
(grades 3-5; ages 8-10) randomly assigned to one of two groups:
experimental = 36 participants; control = 36 participants.
Schools were similar in their socio-economic status and
achievements as tested by the Ministry of Education. No
differences were found in teachers’ background variables:
gender, age, and seniority (see Table I).
TABLE I. THE TEACHER’S BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS BY
GROUP
Background Experiment Control
characteristics M (SD) M (SD) t p
Gender (n = 2 / 34 0 / 36 1.43 0.15
Males/Females)!
Age 38.89 (9.41) 36.00 1.57 0.12
(5.75)
Seniority 11.28 (7.29) 12.47 0.77 0.44
(5.77)
!
Chi-square analyses were conducted
Training structure and curriculum: Both groups had the
same course structure (30 h') for in-service teachers (see Table
II).
The Control group received pedagogical training
workshops for effective pedagogy referencing to student-
centered teaching and learning of primary school age. Similar
to the experimental group they were also exposed to video-
based learning, reflection, and discussion; the video-based
learning has the potential to enhance the professional lens of
teachers. Therefore, it can lead to a shift in teachers' beliefs and
practices towards student-centered learning, and implicitly
relate to SRL, thus contributing to SRL beliefs and practices.
However, unlike the experimental group, they were not exposed
to explicit SRL terminology and did not participate in the
simulations. Hence, they could be compared to the experimental
group who received additionally explicit SRL support.
The Experimental Group received the intervention
program as described below.
B. Intervention Program
The intervention was based on immersive learning
environments of interactive–dynamic (autonomous learning and
self/co-regulation) experiences: simulations and videos
scenarios, supported by self-questioning and reflection:
• Role-played simulations with real live actors. Three
trained actors played the students in the scenario in each
simulation, and one of the participants played the teacher.
The teachers and actors evaluated the participant after the
simulation, including comprehensive debriefing of the
role-playing' teacher' using a videotape of the simulation.
The audiences also provided feedback for the
participating teacher.
• Collaborative learning. The teachers were exposed to
self/co-regulation theory and held group discussions in
content sessions. They were asked to work
collaboratively on a unit plan and video analysis.
 • Video analysis. the teachers watched teaching scenarios reasons, strategies, and metacognitive question prompts.
on video and used the professional vision lens to analyze Cohen’s Kappa: 0.83. See Table III for the indicator.
them. Professional vision is a practical approach
supportive of the SRL theory by enhancing teachers'
observation; it is set to increase awareness of precisely
what happens just-in-the-moment [12] and to give
meaning to it based on prior professional knowledge. It
consists of three knowledge lenses: noticing a class
occurrence (teacher/student behavior/skill; prompts such
as: "What good practice did you observe?"); reasoning
and understanding of its significance ("Why did the
teacher use this practice?"); and providing alternative for
teaching/learning activities ("What other practice could
have been used here?"). Question prompts using the PV
lens were given as scaffolds to analyzing the scenario and
to direct the debriefing /discussion/ feedback, thus
enabling the training process and discussion.

TABLE II. INTERVENTION PROGRAM IN TWO STUDY GROUPS:

EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL

Both groups

30 h' Professional Course

Exposure to written content, modeling about how to use student-centered
practices. Fig. 1. Illustrated metaphors for teachers’ SRL beliefs. The four levels
Independent task: planning a lesson plan for their own class, focusing on describe the continuum between teacher-directed and student-centered in
student-centered pedagogy, and discussing it with the group. teaching and learning; the captions were not shown to the teachers.
Fidelity of instruction: Research assistants attended and scored one session
per section monthly on a 4-point scale regarding the conceptual structure, TABLE III. INDICATOR FOR LESSON PLAN
series, and delivery of each task (scores ranged between 3-4). Instructors
were given reviews. Rating / Level Indication
A fully detailed explicit reference to SRL practice,
Experimental Control 3. High
including goals, activities, and reasoning
Metacognitive questions for self/co- Group discussion and
regulation: What, Why, When, How? feedback related to 2. Medium A partial reference to the practice without reasoning
Interactive-dynamic experiences including effective student-centered
teaching scenarios, 1. Low An implicit reference to the practice without reasoning
simulations of pedagogical teaching
scenarios with actors and participants as analysis on video-clips 0. Nil No reference to the practice
audiences. and in-class events.
Question prompts of PV lens by discussing Q3: SRL in Lesson Reflection
video clips and the simulations, aimed at
teaching strategies: noticing, reasoning, and
● Lesson Reflection using PV lens question prompts.
providing alternatives The teacher watched their performed lesson that was
Debriefing of simulations video-recorded, and filled out a 3 semi-structured, open
reflection questionnaire based on PV prompts: Noticing:
C. Ethics What practices did I see that were effective/ What needs
The intervention program and study design were approved to improve?; Reasoning: Why did I choose this practice?;
by the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education of Israel. The Providing an alternative: What else could I have done?.
teachers received information about the study and choose Cohen’s Kappa: 0.82. See table IV for the indicator.
whether to participate. The teachers could withdraw from the
study at any time. TABLE IV. INDICATOR FOR REFLECTION
Rating / Level Indication
D. Measures
Explicit, accurate, and detailed use of SRL
Q1: SRL Beliefs in Autonomous Learning 4. High
terminology and explanations.
● SRL in Metaphor perceptions. A pre/post four
metaphor instrument illustrated the teacher/student 3. Med.-high Explicit, accurate use of SRL terminology
centrum of teaching/learning process [11], scaled 1 2. Med.-low Implicit or inaccurate use of SRL terminology
(teacher-centered) to 4 (student-centered); α = .89. See 1. Low No use of any SRL, whether explicit or implicit
Fig.1 for the metaphors.
0. Nil No answer
Q2: SRL in Lesson Planning
● Lesson Plan. The teachers were requested to plan a III. FINDINGS
lesson for their class. The lesson plans were assessed T-tests were performed on the pre-test measures (SRL
using an indicator for SRL including attention to goals, Beliefs, SRL in lesson planning, and reflections), indicated no

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitat de Barcelona. Downloaded on December 10,2023 at 16:34:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
significant differences between the groups on the pre-tests. Two- IV. CONCLUSION
way ANOVAs with repeated measures (Group and Time) were Results showed that the interactive-dynamic experiences
conducted to examine differences between the groups for each program focusing on SRL promotion in the immersive
measure, see Table V. environment pertaining to unique simulations with real-life
A. Q1: SRL Beliefs actors was highly effective in enhancing the beliefs of teachers
about SRL and increasing practice-oriented SRL in the lesson
The main effect for time was found (T2 > T1; p < .0001), and planning and reflection on the lesson, as emerged in the pattern:
a significant two-way interaction of Group and Time was Experimental > Control, in the metaphors, lesson planning, and
revealed: the experimental group's beliefs shifted toward student reflections. Lesson planning indicated that teachers from the
centrum (SRL) more than the control group, which didn't change experimental group has planned to use cognitive strategies,
their beliefs (see Table V). metacognitive strategies, and knowledge construction
B. Q2: SRL in Lesson Plan significantly more than the control group. The findings reinforce
the assertion that implicit exposure to SRL and student-centered
The main effects for group and time were found for all three teaching are not enough: the environment should be explicit and
measures: cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and supported with heightened awareness, as in this case with self-
knowledge construction (T2>T1, p < .001; Experiment > question and PV prompts that direct the teachers' thinking and
Control; p < .001). Significant two-way interactions of Group focus it on SRL.
and Time were revealed for all three measures: The experimental
group has increased their use of cognitive strategies, The study has a theoretical contribution by using all three
metacognitive strategies, and knowledge construction aspects of SRL and emphasizing beliefs. It has methodological
significantly more than the control group (see Table V). and practical implications for bridging the gap between theory
and practice of learning/teaching among primary school in-
C. Q3: SRL in Lesson Reflection service teachers who have been less researched on SRL
The main effects of time were found for the three measures: compared to preservice teachers [3]. Although the majority of
noticing, reasoning, and providing alternatives (T2>T1, p < .01). SRL studies among teachers focus predominantly on
The main effect of the group was found for the noticing and metacognitive or affective aspects, the current research includes
reasoning measures (Experiment > Control, p < .001) but not for entire aspects of SRL that relate to autonomous learning beliefs
providing alternatives. Significant two-way interactions of in particular.
Group and Time were revealed for all three measures revealing The model that integrates the SRL with immersive
that the experimental group has increased their SRL noticing, environments enhances SRL beliefs in autonomous learning and
reasoning, and providing alternatives in their lesson reflections SRL practice. However, we examined the intervention as a
significantly more than the control group (see Table V). whole: to be able to measure the additional contribution of the
immersive simulation environment to the explicit SRL support,
TABLE V. MEANS, SD, EFFECT SIZE, AND F VALUES OF THE SRL future studies could compare two groups of SRL intervention –
BELIEFS, SRL PRACTICE IN LESSON PLAN, AND REFLECTION BY TIME AND
STUDY GROUPS with or without simulations.
Measure Groups Pre Post The study supports findings that school teachers benefit from
d F immersive learning opportunities to enhance their SRL belief
M SD M SD
SRL Beliefs system and increase the transfer of that ability in the classroom
SRL Beliefs in Experimental 3.14 0.90 3.72 0.61 0.75 [3], [12]. The holistic program findings on parallel teacher-
autonomous 4.09* student effects linked to SRL and accomplishments from various
Control 3.22 0.76 3.42 0.60 0.29
learning teaching fields should be explored in future studies.
SRL practice in lesson planning
Cognitive Strategies Experimental 1.67 0.86 2.83 0.70 1.48 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Control 1.58 0.97 1.69 0.75 0.12 35.20*** This research was supported by Israel Science Foundation
Metacognitive Experimental 1.00 0.83 3.11 0.85 2.51 [grant No. 841/17].
Strategies 55.13***
Control 1.14 0.90 1.47 0.65 0.42 REFERENCES
Knowledge Experimental 1.06 1.04 2.5 1.02 1.40 [1] B. Kramarski, "Teachers as agents in promoting students' SRL and
construction 50.43***
Control 1.11 0.85 1.36 0.80 0.30 performance: Applications for teachers' dual-role training program". In
Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, D. H. Schunk
Reflection on Lesson implementation using PV lens
and J. A. Greene, Eds. New York: Springer Publisher, 2018, pp. 223-239.
Noticing Experimental 1.11 0.95 2.42 0.87 1.44
15.66*** [2] B. Zimmerman, "Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective".
Control 1.16 0.85 1.58 0.73 0.53 In Handbook of self-regulation, M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner,
Reasoning Experimental 1.08 0.94 2.31 0.86 1.37 Eds. San Diego: Academic Press, 2000, pp. 13-39.
25.09*** [3] C. Dignath and G. Buttner, "Teachers’ direct and indirect promotion of self-
Control 1.00 0.93 1.03 0.65 0.04
regulated learning in primary and secondary school mathematics classes–
Predicting Experimental 0.81 0.95 1.89 1.06 1.07 insights from video-based classroom observations and teacher
17.27*** interviews", Metacognition & Learning, 2008, Available:
Control 1.28 1.00 1.39 0.90 0.11
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9181.
Note. df (1, 70); Scales: Beliefs: 1-4; Lesson plan: 0-4; Reflections: 0-3;
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 [4] S. Vosniadou, M. J. Lawson, M. Wyra, P. Van Deur, D. Jeffries, and D. I.
G. Ngurah, "Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching and

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitat de Barcelona. Downloaded on December 10,2023 at 16:34:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 about the self-regulation of learning: a conceptual change
perspective", International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 99,
2020.
[5] M. J. Lawson, S. Vosniadou, P. Van Deur, M. Wyra, and J. David,
"Teachers’ and students’ belief systems about the self-regulation of
learning", Educational Psychology Review, 2018, Available:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9453-7
[6] S. De Freitas, G. Rebolledo-Mendez, F. Liarokapis, G. Magoulas, and A.
Poulovassilis, "Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-
dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning
experiences in a virtual world". British Journal of Educational
Technology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 69–85, 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.01024.x
[7] D. M. Gaba, "The future vision of simulation in health care", Quality and
Safety in Health Care, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. i2-i10, 2004.
[8] O. Heaysman and B. Kramarski, "New experiences in teachers' training:
Professional vision of self-regulated learning in authentic learning
environments", Presented at the ISEP conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 15th
October, 2019.
[9] D. L. Dinsmore, P. A. Alexander, and S. M. Loughlin, "Focusing the
conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated
learning," Educational Psychology Review, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 391–409,
2008.
[10] P. H. Winne and N. E. Perry, "Measuring self-regulated learning", In
Handbook of self-regulation, M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner,
Eds. Orlando, Fla, USA: Academic Press, pp. 532–568, 2000.
[11] M. G. Sherin, "The development of teachers’ professional vision in video
clubs", In Video research in the learning sciences, R. Goldman, R. Pea, B.
Barron, and S. J. Derry, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004, pp. 383-395.
[12] B. Kramarski and T. Michalsky, "Investigating pre-service teachers'
professional growth in self-regulated learning environments", Journal of
Educational Psychology, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 161-175, 2009.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitat de Barcelona. Downloaded on December 10,2023 at 16:34:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.