Fostering self-regulated learning in higher education: Making self-regulation visible

Abstract

Research associates self-regulated learning with academic achievement and lifelong learning. Although there is consensus surrounding the need for students to develop self-regulated learning skills, there is a paucity of research exploring how educators can foster student self-regulated learning. This study examines the teaching practices, beliefs and experiences of educators that foster student self-regulated learning, across a range of disciplines. It explores the characteristics of teaching that foster self-regulated learning, and the influences on educator approaches. Questionnaire and semi-structured interview data were subjected to analysis. The findings identified four types of teaching strategies used to foster self-regulated learning. This study illuminates the conditions that support educators to foster student self-regulated learning, as well as the challenges they face. Educators’ own engagement in self-regulation, often made visible to students, played a key role in promoting students’ self-regulatory capacities.

Keywords

educator beliefs educator experiences environmental influences higher education self-regulated learning teaching strategies

Self-regulated learning

Self-regulated learning is an umbrella term used to describe the processes of learner autonomy and control of their learning approaches and outcomes. While precise definitions vary depending on theoretical perspectives, there is general agreement about key characteristics. Self-regulated learning is characterised by the systematic control of motivation, thought and behaviour in pursuit of learning goals (Zimmerman and Moylan, 2009). A self-regulating learner actively engages with their learning through goal-setting, planning, use of task strategies and time management, reflecting on the effectiveness of past learning strategies and adapting future learning as required (Nugent et al., 2019).

A social cognitive perspective of self-regulated learning is taken here (see Figure 1), which assumes a triadic reciprocal relationship between behavioural, personal and environmental determinants of self-regulated learning (Bandura, 2001), and acknowledges that self-regulated learning encompasses a range of sub-processes (Zimmerman, 1989; Zimmerman and Moylan, 2009).

Figure 1.

Phases and categories of self-regulated learning processes according to Zimmerman’s cyclical phases model – a social cognitive perspective of self-regulated learning [adapted from Zimmerman and Moylan (2009)].

Learners bring experiences, knowledge, conceptions, skills, habits and epistemological beliefs that may influence self-regulated learning behaviours (Butler and Cartier, 2018; Päuler-Kuppinger and Jucks, 2017). Environmental influences on self-regulated learning include teaching and assessment practices, learning activity design and support for self-regulated learning (Butler and Cartier, 2018). This complex interplay of personal and environmental determinants leads to great variation of self-regulated learning between individuals and also between tasks within individuals (Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2015).

It is well-documented that self-regulated learning is associated with academic achievement (Boekaerts and Corno, 2005; Schunk and Zimmerman, 2008; Warburton and Volet, 2012). For example, self-monitoring was shown to enhance cognitive achievement in a problem-based learning environment (Van Den Hurk, 2006) and a meta-analysis found self-efficacy to be a strong predictor of academic performance (Richardson et al., 2012). Of even greater significance, however, is the association of self-regulated learning with lifelong learning (Skinner et al., 2015). Self-regulated learning has been considered a proxy for lifelong learning in the context of the university classroom (Lord et al., 2012), and has been described as critical for lifelong learning beyond its value in formal education (Schunk, 2005). University graduate attributes statements highlight the expectation that students become self-regulating, lifelong learners.

Teaching self-regulated learning

Despite widespread agreement regarding the importance of self-regulated learning skills in and beyond higher education, it is often assumed that university students have already developed these skills (Bjork et al., 2013; Nugent et al., 2019). However, many are inadequately prepared for the challenges (Bjork et al., 2013; Colthorpe et al., 2018; Nugent et al., 2019), particularly the expectation of autonomy and independence (Christie et al., 2013; Noyens et al., 2017; Räisänen et al., 2016). Studies have shown that although learners can improve their self-regulated learning skills through natural maturation and lived experience, skill development can be further enhanced through learning and assessment design (Boekaerts and Corno, 2005; Nugent et al., 2019; Peeters et al., 2014; Schunk and Zimmerman, 1998).

Most students require some degree of educator co-regulation to learn effectively, and to learn to self-regulate their learning (Räisänen et al., 2016). Co-regulation is an externally initiated process of scaffolding that gradually shifts regulatory ownership to the learner (Hadwin et al., 2018). Educators can engage in co-regulation to support student self-regulation through the provision of quality formative feedback (Pokorny and Pickford, 2010), social interaction, provision of tools, task design, and other features of the learning environment (Hadwin et al., 2018). It has been suggested that intellectual candour by the educator invites reciprocal vulnerability and affords an environment of trust (Molloy and Bearman, 2019), which could also contribute to co-regulation. Recommendations indicate that educators should provide both instruction and opportunities for student self-regulated learning (Brydges and Butler, 2012; Nugent et al., 2019).

To instruct learners on how to self-regulate, Nugent et al. (2019) suggest explicit strategies to help students plan, monitor and evaluate their learning and to gain more metacognitive awareness about their learning. They recommend providing cues for learners to engage in self-regulation and highlight the importance of discussing with students their emotions around learning, how these can be useful or not useful, and how emotion can be regulated to achieve learning goals. It is also recommended that educators discuss methods of thinking and inquiry with learners, helping them judge the effectiveness of their learning strategies and showing them alternative strategies they could use (Nugent et al., 2019).

Opportunities for self-regulated learning can be provided through considered design of learning activities that allow learners to practice, refine and automate these skills (Dignath-Van Ewijk et al., 2013). To promote self-regulated learning, learning activities can provide opportunities for social interaction, critical and creative thinking, and testing different strategies (Anyichie and Butler, 2017; Dignath-Van Ewijk et al., 2013; Nugent et al., 2019). Jones (2019) suggests designing tasks for learners to develop exam questions, prompting students to consider what they think is important for them to learn. Project-based learning environments that emphasise application or integration of knowledge (Stefanou et al., 2013) and technology-enhanced learning environments using ePortfolios (Nguyen and Ikeda, 2015) have been shown to be particularly rich in opportunities for self-regulated learning.

Teaching approaches are not always compatible with self-regulation, particularly when these skills vary between individual learners (Lindblom-Ylänne and Lonka, 1999; Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2003). High educator control over the regulation of learning may be helpful for those who struggle to self-regulate, but may result in ‘destructive friction’ for others (Vermunt and Verloop, 1999). Learners who are better able to self-regulate may decrease their learning and thinking when instructions are too prescriptive (Vermunt, 2006). On a more positive note, Räisänen et al. (2018) suggest there may be other benefits of teaching to foster self-regulated learning for more self-regulating students. For example, they found that peer learning may facilitate self-regulated learning for those less skilled in self-regulation, but suggest that it would also be beneficial for more self-regulated learners as it helps build their collaborative learning skills.

Just as self-regulated learning behaviours are influenced by personal and environmental factors, so too is the teaching of self-regulated learning (Paris and Winograd, 2003). For example, an educator’s own skills and engagement in self-regulation can play a role in their teaching of self-regulated learning (Butler and Schnellert, 2010, 2012; Filice et al., 2020; Harding et al., 2018; Kramarski, 2018; Peeters et al., 2014; Van Eekelen et al., 2005; Zimmerman and Moylan, 2009). Environmental influences on teaching practices may include disciplinary teaching traditions, departmental teaching cultures and educators’ own study experiences (Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2011). Schnellert and Butler (2014) propose structural, cultural, social/emotional and learning supports, and educator agency to support educator self-regulation and promote the same amongst their students.

Despite recommendations and widespread agreement about the importance of self-regulation for learning, not all educators embed support for self-regulated learning into their teaching (Van Eekelen et al., 2005). It is unclear how student self-regulated learning is fostered in higher education, and why educators do (or do not) design their teaching to promote self-regulated learning (Khaled et al., 2016; Zimmerman, 2002). There is a need to examine educator teaching practices, beliefs and experiences when it comes to fostering learner self-regulated learning. The aims of this study were twofold: first, to identify teaching strategies currently used to foster student self-regulated learning; and second, to explore, through educators’ self-reported experiences, the conditions that support and hinder their teaching to foster student self-regulated learning. Research questions were:

What teaching strategies do educators use to foster student self-regulated learning?

What factors influence educators’ approaches to fostering student self-regulated learning?

Methods

Study context

The study was conducted in 2018 at a large, research-intensive, metropolitan Australian university with over 50,000 enrolments and 8000 staff across 10 faculties. Ethical approval was granted by the university’s Medical Education Human Ethics Advisory Group.

Participants

Participants were educators identified by their academic peers or senior leaders in their faculties as being exemplary in their approach to fostering student self-regulated learning. Some participants were also identified based on their scholarly activities related to fostering self-regulated learning, specifically, publications and seminar presentations. When multiple educators from the same discipline were nominated, priority was given to those with repeated recommendations and clear documentary evidence of teaching to foster self-regulated learning. Ten of fifteen invited educators elected to participate in the full study. Participants taught across 8 of the university’s 10 faculties, in a broad range of disciplines. All taught at a graduate level (PG) with five also teaching undergraduate students (UG).

Educator 1 (Arts, PG); Educator 2 (Architecture, Building and Planning, PG); Educator 3 (Business and Economics, UG/PG); Educator 4 (Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, UG/PG); Educator 5 (Law, PG); Educator 6 (Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, UG/PG); Educator 7 (Law, PG); Educator 8 (Science, UG/PG); Educator 9 (Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, PG); Educator 10 (Engineering, UG/PG).

Data collection

A questionnaire and interviews were used. The questionnaire was designed based on Zimmerman’s cyclical phase model of self-regulation (Zimmerman and Moylan, 2009), which provided a framework and shared language to start the conversation with participants. The questionnaire included six 5-point Likert scale questions relating to the six key categories of self-regulated learning processes (Figure 1). It also included nine open-ended questions. Educators were asked to describe how they support student engagement and development of skills in each of the six process categories. To ensure participants and researchers had a similar understanding of the processes, participants were provided with a description of relevant terms and examples of what student engagement in these processes might look like (Figure 2). Participants were also asked about supports and hindrances to fostering self-regulated learning. Twelve pages (7303 words) of responses were collected.

Figure 2.

Example questionnaire question relating to the ‘task analysis’ category of self-regulated learning processes.

Questionnaire responses informed the questions in the follow-up interviews. One-to-one interviews (conducted by Russell) provided participants with an opportunity to elaborate on examples provided in their questionnaire responses. Interview questions (Table 1) addressed the teaching context, educator beliefs, motivations and experiences, and the influences on their teaching to promote student self-regulated learning. The aim was to better understand the teaching strategies participants use to foster student self-regulated learning, their beliefs about fostering student self-regulated learning and their experiences in doing so. A total of 380 minutes of interviews were transcribed and 156 pages of transcribed text were analysed.

Table 1.

Example questions for semi-structured interviews (iteratively adapted for each participant).

Example questions
Can you describe who and what you teach?
Do you believe you have a role to play in helping students develop effective learning skills?
Can you please tell me more about <teaching practice identified in survey>?
Can you tell me about your decision to engage in <teaching practice>?
What has influenced the way you foster student development of effective learning skills?
What support do educators need to better foster student development of effective learning skills?
What do you find most challenging about fostering student development of effective learning skills?

Data analysis

Open-ended questionnaire responses and interview transcripts for individual participants were merged to create ten individual cases and then imported and analysed using NVivo software (2018). Two approaches to analysing the qualitative data were employed.

First, a granular and comprehensive cross-case thematic analysis (Miles et al., 2014) was applied to identify patterns across the ten cases. Data was condensed and organised into a priori codes relating to teaching practices (self-regulated learning is valued, encouraged, taught and assessed) and influences on teaching to foster self-regulated learning (personal, behavioural and environmental factors). Inductive coding, using pattern-noting and clustering tactics, lead to the inclusion of additional codes and modification of a priori codes to better reflect the data. Second, to privilege the influence of context on self-regulated learning and educator self-regulation, data were re-analysed using a case study approach (Yin, 2018). We focused on each case individually, to ensure that codes accurately reflected the full context-bound set of experiences described by each educator. Following pattern-noting in one case we used a replication strategy for each case, with flexibility as new patterns emerged, noting whether patterns were also present in other cases.

All authors analysed the same two cases individually, then met to compare and discuss coding. We discussed emerging themes and different insights until consensus was reached. The coding approach was adjusted accordingly and one author (Russell) coded the remaining data. All authors reviewed coding of the full data set through a variety of data displays (matrix tables and tables showing coding frequencies across data and number of cases coded to each theme) and met again to discuss findings until consensus was reached regarding key themes.

Results

What teaching strategies do educators use to foster student self-regulated learning?

Participants reported a wide variety of teaching strategies (Table 2), some adopted with the specific intention to foster self-regulated learning, while others were adopted primarily to achieve other teaching goals but were recognised as having a secondary self-regulated learning benefit. There were four types of teaching strategies most commonly reported that educators believed to foster student self-regulated learning.

Table 2.

Teaching strategies represented across ten case studies that are believed to promote student self-regulated learning.

Strategy	Examples
Task design strategies:
Task design to promote social facilitation of student self-regulated learning	Group work activities, involving co-planning and collaboration, allowing calibration of performance against peers
	Multi-disciplinary learning activities, where student feedback from peers in different disciplines expanded opportunities for feedback from different perspectives
	Community-based learning activities, where feedback was provided by authentic workplace sources, widening pool of feedback sources and enhancing student task interest
	Think-pair-share for peer discussion of content, metacognitive monitoring, self-evaluation and to ‘calibrate against others’
	Online discussion board on strategies for learning
	Interactive room layout to enable social interaction
Task design to promote student ownership of their learning	Flipped classrooms, requiring independent preparation by learners prior to class
	Student choice in assignment topic to enhance task interest and sense of ownership of learning
	Learners as teachers, where learners are responsible for their own learning and the learning of other students in their group
	Weekly wrap up sessions focussed on students’ pre-generated questions
Task design to situate self-regulated learning as a learning goal	Self-regulated learning incorporated into course learning outcomes, learning activities and assessments
	Modest course goals to leave space for teaching learning skills
Task design to promote interest in task	Encouragement to build task interest and develop learning goal orientations through authentic excursion, interaction with real cases or feedback from authentic sources (e.g. members of the community)
Task design to promote self-reflection	Guided self-reflection activities prompting students to reflect on what they have learned, the effectiveness of their learning, what this might mean for their life and practice and what they might change about their learning approaches in the future
Instructional strategies:
Explicit teaching on self-regulated learning processes	Explicit class discussion around task strategies and help-seeking resources
	Provision of reading materials on self-regulated learning theory
	Co-teaching with a learning expert to instruct on use of self-regulated learning strategies
Instruction using accessible language	Instruction on learning presented using plain language such as ‘learning to learn’, avoiding ‘too much metacognitive discourse’
Cues or prompts for self-regulated learning	Explicit signposting and prompts during class to discuss learning strategies and seek help from peers
Cues or prompts for self-regulated learning	Cues to promote interest incentives through class discussion of potential student career paths
Assessment and feedback strategies:
Assessment of self-regulated learning	Assessment of planning for subsequent assignment as a preliminary assessment
	Assessment of self-reflection, both formative and summative
	Assessment of use of social resources for self-regulated learning through quality of discussion board participation and understanding of content taught by peers
Assessment for self-regulated learning	Assessment tasks that require student engagement in social interaction, planning, time management and/or self-reflection
Assessment for self-regulated learning	Assessment details and marking criteria provided early to allow time for planning and social discussion
Feedback for self-regulated learning	Timely feedback before subsequent assessment
	Feedback on quality of self-reflection and alignment of self-evaluation with educator evaluation of student performance
	Feedback on help-seeking, by directing learner to potentially useful resources
	Future-focused feedback directing learners to more effective strategies for subsequent tasks
	Feedback in the form of questions that avoids simply correcting mistakes, but requires the learner to reflect, plan and actively adapt their work or approaches responsively
Strategies to promote feedback literacy	Encouragement to reflect on feedback to inform planning for the subsequent task
Strategies to promote feedback literacy	Value of multiple sources of feedback highlighted
Modelling strategies:
Provide exemplars	Discussion board post exemplars to model how social interaction and feedback from peers can inform learning approaches
	Examples of effective approaches to specific tasks, as strategies the learner could use
	Learning exemplars in the form of successful recent graduates, to motivate and promote self-efficacy and positive outcome expectations
Set clear expectations	Clear expectations related to learning goals, outcomes and what success looks like
Set clear expectations	Alignment of instructions on what constitutes a good performance with marking of assessment task to support positive outcome expectations

Task design strategies

Task design strategies were used to encourage self-regulated learning, for example, flipped classrooms to promote student autonomy and responsibility for learning, and authentic excursions out into the community to encourage task interest and a learning goal orientation. Educator 10 designed tasks to encourage peer learning as a way to cultivate learner responsibility for their own learning and sense-making: ‘I deliberately try to delegate some responsibility for others’ learning to students, whether through discussion board contributions or having students produce artefacts intended to help other students. [. . .] I think this indirectly encourages both reflection and autonomy in learning’.

Instructional strategies

Instructional strategies were employed to explain to students how to engage in self-regulated learning processes. For example, Educator 5 explicitly taught students when (e.g. ‘during class’), how (e.g. ‘try to answer and ask questions’) and from where (e.g. ‘conversations with educators and peers, self-generated feedback’) to seek feedback on their learning. Educator 7 invited a learning expert to run a session for law students on how to use specific task-related learning strategies. Participants also described explicit signposting of opportunities for self-regulation during class, for example, prompting students to discuss strategies they plan to use when first considering how to approach an assignment.

Assessment and feedback strategies

Most participants reported use of assessment and feedback strategies to promote self-regulated learning. Educator 5 provided feedback on student work in the form of questions with ‘a bit of explanation as to why the question arose for me’, to promote reflection and self-evaluation. Guided self-reflection was assessed by Educator 2, contributing to 60% of the final grade for the course. Educator 3 made planning for a large assessment an assessment task in itself, providing feedback on planned approaches to the large assessment task.

Modelling strategies

Some participants reported the use of modelling strategies to demonstrate self-regulated learning processes for students. For example, Educator 3 explained to students that ‘the way you go about critically reading [. . .] is related to what you are trying to get out of it, and there are different approaches for reading different types of articles’, modelling goal-setting, strategic planning and careful consideration of task-specific strategies for students. Educator 7 modelled for students their own self-reflection of learning through storytelling: ‘I tell my “stories” of sometimes laughing off weak performance, recognising that sometimes I really didn’t know what I was doing. But I always tried to work out why: poor time management, family issues, not really understanding the material?’.

Table 2 provides further examples of each of these four types of teaching strategies as described by participants.

In addition to identifying these four common types of teaching strategies, it was noted that teaching to foster student self-regulated learning was often implicit and that educators engaged in these strategies as part of their own self-regulation.

Implicit nature of teaching

Students were not usually explicitly informed of the educator’s intention to help students develop their learning skills. The implicit nature of many of the teaching strategies used to foster self-regulated learning was highlighted by Educator 10, who explained, ‘I try to use different tools that sort of force students to contribute in one way or other’.

Strategies as part of educator self-regulation

Although not necessarily described as such by participants, reported teaching approaches to foster student self-regulated learning resembled the very processes that these educators endeavoured to promote in their students (Table 3). In other words, they practiced what they preached, and this would often be visible to students. Most described self-motivation beliefs that align with self-regulation, such as positive outcome expectations and self-efficacy about fostering student self-regulated learning, even though they were aware of the challenges. All described setting their own teaching goals and making a strategic plan for achieving these. They actively sought inspiration and knowledge from their peers (e.g. Educator 3 said that ‘A good teacher is a bit like a – what’s the bird that sort of pinches things from everywhere? A bowerbird.’) and from the literature to inform their strategic teaching plans: ‘I spent my leave imagining what a new course could look like that demonstrated how we as people are starting to create projects that have social ecological benefit. [. . .] And so, in trying to find how to do that I came across the theory that I’ve used’ (Educator 2).

Table 3.

Visible educator self-regulation represented across ten case studies.

Visible educator self-regulation
Visible self-regulation of learning	Modelled self-regulated learning by sharing personal learning ‘stories’ about educators’ own use and experienced value of self-regulated learning for their learning
Visible self-regulation of teaching	Planning for teaching:
	Positive outcome expectations related to teaching
	Set teaching goals (including fostering student self-regulated learning)
	Made strategic plans to achieve teaching goals
	Sought knowledge from published literature and peer exemplars
	Exhibited agency in planning and goal-setting for teaching
	Teaching:
	Used teaching strategies
	Managed time and effort
	Made use of available supports, resources and social facilitation (e.g. co-teaching)
	Monitored teaching performance via feedback and responded reflexively to feedback
	Exhibited agency in teaching
	Self-reflection on teaching:
	Evaluated teaching performance against goals
	Sought feedback on teaching from peers and students
	Attributed cause to positive and negative teaching outcomes
	Used learnings from one teaching experience to innovate, adapt and improve subsequent teaching
	Exhibited agency in adapting teaching

Participants modelled self-regulation for students, explicitly describing how learning activities and assessments (teaching strategies) align with learning outcomes (teaching goals). Some shared their own self-control strategies with students, for example, Educator 7 made time management visible during lectures by writing a list of topics to be covered on the whiteboard and crossing them off as they progressed. Many also described monitoring the effect of their teaching on students’ learning during the semester, particularly through seeking feedback from students and colleagues on their teaching practice. For example, Educator 4 reported: ‘I’ve got [colleague] to come in and give us feedback [. . .] “What do you think’s happening?” And he was fabulous. [. . .] So, we see this conversation with mentors as information that is actually feedback’.

They commonly reported engaging in self-reflection to evaluate their teaching, and attributed cause to positive and negative outcomes, allowing them to adapt and improve their teaching practice. For example, upon reflection, Educator 3 realised that the poor quality of a group assignment related to a lack of student planning. In response, the next cohort of students were first required to submit and receive feedback on a plan for the group assignment, which contributed to their final grade and ultimately improved the quality of their final work.

Educators took risks and explored creative ways of managing the challenges of fostering student self-regulated learning. For example, participants identified and engaged with university-wide supports when local structural and learning supports were lacking. Some were defiant in the face of local culture, challenging peers in their departments to reflect on their own epistemic stances and teaching approaches. Table 3 further describes educators’ engagement in self-regulation processes that may be visible to their students.

In summary, this exploration of the teaching practices used to foster student self-regulated learning identified a variety of often implicit strategies relating to task design, instruction, assessment, feedback and modelling. The bigger picture, however, situates these strategies as a component of the educators’ broad self-regulation of teaching practice and professional learning, which was often made visible to their students.

What factors influence educators’ approaches to fostering student self-regulated learning?

Participants described multiple influences on their teaching approaches to fostering student self-regulated learning, which either supported or hindered their efforts, such as opportunities for growth, institutional culture and local culture. Also evident was the influence of educator beliefs, educator agency and student engagement on teaching approaches.

Opportunities for growth

Opportunities for professional development, including pedagogical discussion and sharing of practical examples of teaching strategies, enabled participants to learn more about teaching and develop their skills in fostering student self-regulated learning. Although some felt that these opportunities were lacking, all described the value of such opportunities (e.g. ‘My favourite conferences are the lessons in a box, where the faculty member says, “This is how I teach”’ Educator 5). Discipline-specific opportunities were particularly appreciated, as Educator 5 explained: ‘I think faculty specific professional development is really helpful. Because the unique circumstances of what it is to foster self-regulated learning can differ depending on the constraints of a particular programme’. Participants also described learning much about students, from students, as Educator 9 described: ‘My teaching has completely evolved from hearing their stories because I see that actually these students aren’t like me at all’.

Institutional and local culture

Although there was concern over cultural expectations that students should already be able to self-regulate their learning, participants commonly reported a local culture that valued a spirit of inquiry, pedagogical discussion and educator collaboration. This environment of trust and safety around discussing teaching practice with peers was considered an important support in fostering student self-regulated learning. In contrast, Educator 1 described the lack of pedagogical discussion in their department as a considerable barrier: ‘My department hardly ever discusses pedagogy out loud. It’s considered private. They can talk about research until they’re blue in the face, but they almost never mention their pedagogical philosophy or teaching styles. [. . .] It’s a hidden conversation’. Some felt this was a cultural barrier within the wider university that they had to navigate: ‘The priority of the university isn’t in our teaching. The only way you do well is through research and the time we spend on this stuff takes us away from our research. But I don’t care about that. I care more about the teaching’ (Educator 2).

Educator beliefs

Shared amongst all was a strong theme of apparent and espoused beliefs that align with self-regulated learning theory. For example, participants described learning as a lifelong journey and reported on the importance of social facilitation (as Educator 1 described: ‘Learning is in fact collaboration, cooperation, exchange of ideas’) and self-reflection for learning (as Educator 5 explained: ‘The whole idea of self-reflection and how that can empower us as people never mind as learners is fundamental to how I think about teaching’). They described a sense of responsibility in helping students develop self-regulated learning skills, even though they believed many colleagues did not feel the same. One explained that this sense of responsibility stemmed more from personal beliefs than an institutional or cultural expectation. Many also believed that different year levels require different teaching strategies to foster self-regulated learning, such as Educator 2: ‘So, for undergraduates it’s much more scaffolded. It’s much more hand holding. For postgraduates it’s a lot more reflection’.

Educator agency

Underpinning stories of their capacity to foster self-regulated learning was a sense of agency, where educators reported they could enact what they believed to be good teaching and adapt the curriculum to achieve their teaching goals. Educator 3 explained: ‘You know on me personally being able to do what I want to do. I don’t feel there’s any constraints’. However, a considerable barrier to educator agency in teaching for self-regulated learning related to the amount of content participants were expected to teach, as described by Educator 7: ‘We’ve got governing rules to what you have to teach. [. . .] It’s hard to give away content for the sake of developing [. . .] skills - everyone finds that really challenging’.

Student engagement

While a lack of student engagement was particularly disheartening, when present, it was often described as a source of motivation for participants: ‘I guess that’s the main buzz, isn’t it? When you feel like the students are really getting a lot out of a course, that it’s a great learning experience [. . .] they’re really getting involved, that gives a lot of positive feedback too about the value’ (Educator 3).

Discussion and conclusion

This study examines the teaching practices, beliefs and experiences of educators in their teaching to foster learner self-regulated learning. The results reveal teaching strategies used to foster student self-regulated learning and provide more nuanced insights into the conditions that support or hinder efforts to foster student self-regulated learning. Three key areas of interest are highlighted to extend the conversation on how to best support student self-regulated learning.

Fostering, not imposing, student self-regulated learning

In agreement with the literature (Hadwin et al., 2018; Räisänen et al., 2016), participants recognised the need for educator co-regulation to support student self-regulated learning. Participants described task design, instruction, assessment, feedback and modelling strategies, which are consistent with recommendations (Nugent et al., 2019). Participants often placed students in the role of the educator of both themselves and their peers, encouraging students to consider what is important to be learned (Jones, 2019).

Educators described explicit approaches, such as instructional strategies, but did not simply impose self-regulated learning upon students. It was promoted through implicit strategies, where fostering self-regulated learning was often an adjunct benefit to their primary aim (such as assessment tasks requiring aspects of self-regulated learning). Participants spoke of the value of listening to and understanding their students. Although it cannot be assumed that all students at the same year level have the same skill in self-regulated learning (Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2015), the use of more implicit strategies may reflect participant understanding of their students (predominantly graduates), making them less inclined to use explicit instruction with more advanced learners. Example strategies (Table 2) extend recommendations in the literature and provide helpful suggestions for other educators.

Visible educator self-regulation fosters student self-regulated learning

The most striking pattern to emerge regarding participants’ teaching practices was their alignment with the same processes they aimed to foster in students. Although more commonly applied to student learning, a model of self-regulation is useful for describing any adaptive, goal-directed activity, including teaching (Butler and Schnellert, 2010). Educator self-regulation was made visible to students by engaging in and talking about their self-regulation processes, but also by embodying the characteristics of the self-regulating individual, such as humility and preparedness to take risks.

Although it was apparent that all participants engaged in self-regulation, educators differ in their abilities to self-regulate (Van Eekelen et al., 2005). The strength of evidence highlighting self-regulation amongst these participants suggests that educator self-regulation plays an important role in the way these educators foster student self-regulated learning. This is not the first report of such a phenomenon in the literature, which suggests that effective educators self-regulate their learning and their teaching (Filice et al., 2020; Harding et al., 2018) and that educators becoming more self-regulated is the first step in helping students achieve self-regulated learning (Kramarski, 2018).

Considering the strategies reported in Table 2 as potential strategies for achieving their own teaching goals may help expand individual educators’ approaches to promoting student self-regulated learning, as well as promote other aspects of educator self-regulation. Table 3 provides food for thought for educators considering further developing their own self-regulation and how it might empower them to creatively adapt these strategies to their own teaching contexts. University educators often juggle heavy teaching loads and lack time to research, plan and implement new teaching approaches. Help-seeking, learning from peers, and utilising available evidence and resources may better equip educators to manage the challenges of fostering student self-regulated learning. As further incentive to self-regulate, our findings suggest that simply making educator self-regulation more visible to students is likely to promote student self-regulated learning. Modelling is perhaps the most obvious argument for the role of educator self-regulation in the promotion of student self-regulated learning (Peeters et al., 2014).

Supporting educators to foster student self-regulated learning

Teaching to foster student self-regulated learning is influenced by both personal and environmental factors. Perhaps unsurprisingly, factors that supported teaching to foster student self-regulated learning also appear to promote educator self-regulation. Participants were motivated to design their teaching to foster student self-regulated learning because their personal pedagogical beliefs aligned with self-regulated learning theory and they valued lifelong learning for students. However, as previously reported (Bjork et al., 2013; Nugent et al., 2019), participants described a widespread expectation amongst peers that students should already be able to self-regulate their learning.

Environmental supports included professional development opportunities, a culture that valued teaching and pedagogical discussion, and student willingness to engage in tasks designed for self-regulated learning. Of particular value to some were the learning opportunities that were discipline-specific, highlighting the context-dependent nature of fostering student self-regulated learning. A supportive teaching culture promoted educator agency. It also provided a safe space and opportunities for educators to self-regulate, allowing them to seek help and extend their learning, particularly with and from their peers.

Our findings challenge educators to consider their own self-regulation. Educators may benefit from reflecting on the supports available in their teaching context and may need to creatively seek or advocate for these when they are lacking. An implication at the institutional level might be the value in considering how educators can be better supported to engage in and foster student self-regulation. For example, this could be promoted through discipline-specific professional development, more opportunities for pedagogical discussion and protected reflection time.

There are limitations to this study. The teaching strategies reported here are not exhaustive, as the study was conducted with a small number of participants, at only one university, within one particular country. The influence of disciplinary context was also not explored. Studies are needed in specific disciplines, other universities and other countries, as the fostering of self-regulated learning may vary according to these contextual factors. The theoretical model used divides learning processes into neat phases, which may simplify the complex reality of self-regulated learning. The survey design, based on this model, may have confined participant responses to a narrow set of skills that may not fully encompass participant perspectives on fostering effective learning. This study also relied on self-report data, which may not accurately reflect teaching as enacted. Future research should focus on observations and analysis of teaching materials to gain further understanding of enactment, and the relationship it bears to perception.

This study sheds light on what it means to foster student self-regulated learning. Practical examples of teaching strategies address a gap in the literature regarding how these skills can be fostered in higher education. Illumination of the supports and hindrances reported by participants may explain why some educators do (or do not) design their teaching to promote student self-regulated learning. We propose vulnerability and transparency when it comes to educators’ own self-regulated learning, to create a climate that encourages students to take similar risks. Our findings suggest that educator embodiment of self-regulation and articulation of these strategies to students are key practices in fostering student self-regulated learning. Supporting student development of these vital learning skills is likely to enhance academic success, and better prepare students for lifelong learning, which may be the most compelling rationale of all.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Learning and Teaching Initiative grant from The University of Melbourne [Application 00032]. Russell is also supported by a PhD scholarship, administered by The University of Melbourne, as part of the Australian Government's Research Training Program scheme.

ORCID iD

Joanne M Russell

Author biographies

Joanne M Russell is a PhD candidate in the Department of Medical Education, The University of Melbourne. With a background in teaching undergraduate pathology to science and biomedicine students, Joanne’s research interests include preparing students for lifelong learning and fostering student self-regulated learning.

Chi Baik is Associate Professor of Higher Education and Deputy Director of the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. Her research examines the quality of the student experience and factors affecting the educational experiences and outcomes of students from diverse backgrounds.

Anna T Ryan is Associate Professor and Director of Assessment in the Department of Medical Education, The University of Melbourne. Anna’s overarching interest is in the use of assessments to guide learning while still supporting the traditional role assessments play in certifying competence and (in medicine) promoting patient safety. Twitter: .

Elizabeth Molloy is Professor of Work Integrated Learning in the Department of Medical Education, The University of Melbourne. Elizabeth is Director of Interprofessional Education and Practice in the Faculty, and research areas include workplace learning, interprofessional learning, feedback and assessment. Twitter: .

References

Anyichie

Butler

(2017) A culturally responsive self-regulated learning framework. In: (Chen P (Session Organizer)), Examining synergistic relationships among self-regulated learning and motivational variables. Presented during the annual meeting of the America Educational Research Association, San Antonio, Texas, April 2017. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/repository.

Bandura

(2001) Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology 3(3): 265–299.

Bjork

Dunlosky

Kornell

(2013) Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology 64(2013): 417–444.

Boekaerts

Corno

(2005) Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology 54(2): 199–231.

Brydges

Butler

(2012) A reflective analysis of medical education research on self-regulation in learning and practice. Medical Education 46(1): 71–79.

Butler

Cartier

(2018) Advancing research and practice about self-regulated learning: The promise of in-depth case study methodologies. In: Schunk

Greene

(eds) Educational Psychology Handbook Series. Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp.352–369.

Butler

Schnellert

(2010) Bridging the research-to-practice divide: Improving outcomes for students. Education Canada 48(5): 36–40.

Butler

Schnellert

(2012) Collaborative inquiry in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education 28(8): 1206–1220.

Christie

Barron

D’Annunzio-Green

(2013) Direct entrants in transition: Becoming independent learners. Studies in Higher Education 38(4): 623–637.

10.

Colthorpe

Sharifirad

Ainscough

, et al. (2018) Prompting undergraduate students’ metacognition of learning: Implementing ‘meta-learning’ assessment tasks in the biomedical sciences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43(2): 272–285.

11.

Dignath-Van Ewijk

Dickhauser

Buttner

(2013) Assessing how teachers enhance self-regulated learning: A multiperspective approach. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 12(3): 338-–358.

12.

Filice

Tregunno

Edge

, et al. (2020) Re-imaging clinical education: The interdependence of the self-regulated clinical teacher and nursing student. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 17(1): article 20190056.

13.

Hadwin

Järvelä

Miller

(2018) Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In: Schunk

Greene

(eds) Educational Psychology Handbook Series. Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp.83–106.

14.

Harding

Nibali

English

, et al. (2018) Self-regulated learning in the classroom: Realising the potential for Australia’s high capacity students. Assessment Research Centre, Melbourne Graduate School of Education. Available at: https://bit.ly/3dfmAyC (accessed 12 August 2018).

15.

Jones

(2019) Scaffolding self-regulated learning through student-generated quizzes. Active Learning in Higher Education 20(2): 115–126.

16.

Khaled

Gulikers

Biemans

, et al. (2016) Occurrences and quality of teacher and student strategies for self-regulated learning in hands-on simulations. Studies in Continuing Education 38(1): 101–121.

17.

Kramarski

(2018) Teachers as agents in promoting students’ SRL and performance. In: Schunk

Greene

(eds) Educational Psychology Handbook Series. Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp.223–239.

18.

Lindblom-Ylänne

Lonka

(1999) Individual ways of interacting with the learning environment – Are they related to study success? Learning and Instruction 9(1): 1–18.

19.

Lindblom-Ylänne

Nevgi

Trigwell

(2011) Regulation of university teaching. Instructional Science 39(4): 483–495.

20.

Lindblom-Ylänne

Pihlajamäki

Kotkas

(2003) What makes a student group successful? Student-student and student-teacher interaction in a problem-based learning environment. Learning Environments Research 6(1): 59–76.

21.

Lindblom-Ylänne

Saariaho

Inkinen

, et al. (2015) Academic procrastinators, strategic delayers and something betwixt and between: An interview study. Frontline Learning Research 3(2): 47–62.

22.

Lord

Prince

Stefanou

, et al (2012) The effect of different active learning environments on students outcomes related to lifelong learning. International Journal of Engineering Education 28(3): 606–620.

23.

Miles

Huberman

Saldaña

(2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. USA: SAGE Publications.

24.

Molloy

Bearman

(2019) Embracing the tension between vulnerability and credibility: ‘Intellectual candour’ in health professions education. Medical Education 53(1): 32–41.

25.

Nguyen

Ikeda

(2015) The effects of ePortfolio-based learning model on student self-regulated learning. Active Learning in Higher Education 16(3): 197–209.

26.

Noyens

Donche

Coertjens

, et al. (2017) Transitions to higher education: Moving beyond quantity. In: Kyndt

Donche

Trigwell

, et al. (eds) Higher Education Transitions: Theory and Research. London: Routledge, pp.3–12.

27.

Nugent

Lodge

Carroll

, et al. (2019) Higher education learning framework: An evidence informed model for university learning. Report, Science of Learning Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Australia.

28.

NVivo Software (2018) NVivo qualitative data analysis software. QSR International Pty Ltd., Version 12.

29.

Paris

Winograd

(2003) The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: Principles and practices for teacher preparation. Report commissioned for the US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC, USA.

30.

Päuler-Kuppinger

Jucks

(2017) Perspectives on teaching: Conceptions of teaching and epistemological beliefs of university academics and students in different domains. Active Learning in Higher Education 18(1): 63–76.

31.

Peeters

De Backer

Reina

, et al. (2014) The role of teachers’ self-regulatory capacities in the implementation of self-regulated learning practices. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116(2014): 1963–1970.

32.

Pokorny

Pickford

(2010) Complexity, cues and relationships: Students perceptions of feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education 11(1): 21–30.

33.

Räisänen

Postareff

Lindblom-Ylänne

(2016) University students’ self-and co-regulation of learning and processes of understanding: A person-oriented approach. Learning and Individual Differences 47(April 2016): 281–288.

34.

Räisänen

Postareff

Mattsson

, et al. (2018) Study-related exhaustion: First-year students’ use of self-regulation of learning and peer learning and perceived value of peer support. Active Learning in Higher Education. Epub ahead of print 12 September 2018. DOI: 10.1177/1469787418798517.

35.

Richardson

Abraham

Bond

(2012) Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 138(2): 353–87.

36.

Schnellert

Butler

(2014) Collaborative inquiry: Empowering teachers in their professional development. Education Canada 54(3): 42–44.

37.

Schunk

(2005) Commentary on self-regulation in school contexts. Learning and Instruction 15(2): 173–177.

38.

Schunk

Zimmerman

(1998) Self-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-reflective Practice. New York: Guilford Press.

39.

Schunk

Zimmerman

(eds) (2008) Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research and Applications. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

40.

Skinner

Saylors

Boone

, et al. (2015) Becoming lifelong learners: A study in self-regulated learning. Journal of Allied Health 44(3): 177–182.

41.

Stefanou

Stolk

Prince

, et al. (2013) Self-regulation and autonomy in problem- and project-based learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education 14(2): 109–122.

42.

Van Den Hurk

(2006) The regulation between self-regulated strategies and individual study time, prepared participation and achievement in a problem-based curriculum. Active Learning in Higher Education 7(2): 155–169.

43.

Van Eekelen

Boshuizen

HPA

Vermunt

(2005) Self-regulation in higher education teacher learning. Higher Education 50(3): 447–471.

44.

Vermunt

(2006) Balancing support for student learning. In: Elen

Clark

(eds) Handling Complexity in Learning Environments: Theory and Research. Oxford: Elsevier, pp.167–184.

45.

Vermunt

Verloop

(1999) Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Construction 9(3): 257–280.

46.

Warburton

Volet

(2012) Enhancing self-directed learning through a content quiz group learning assignment. Active Learning in Higher Education 14(1): 9–22.

47.

Yin

(2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.

48.

Zimmerman

(1989) A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 81(3): 329–339.

49.

Zimmerman

(2002) Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice 41(2): 64–70.

50.

Zimmerman

Moylan

(2009) Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In: Hacker

Dunlosky

Graesser

(eds) Handbook of Metacognition in Education. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp.299–316.