SRL Practice Framework

IO2
SRL practice framework
The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an
endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot
be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

2 / 50
http://www.slideshowproject.eu
Document change control
The following is the document control for revisions to this document.
Version Number Date of Issue Author(s) Brief Description of Change
1 26/03/2018 Valérie Thomas First draft
2 20/04/2018 Valérie Thomas Final draft
3 20/06/2018 Valérie Thomas Added levels, further
elaboration of initial ideas
and references
4 27/06/2018 Valérie Thomas EQF and the integration of
SRL practice framework in
EQF
5 29/08/2018 Marika Koivuniemi
Hanna Jarvenoja
University of Oulu
Feedback, comments and
suggestions
6 17/09/2018 Valérie Thomas Final version

3 / 50
Authors
Valérie Thomas, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Koen Lombaerts, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Marika Koivuniemi, University of Oulu
Hanna Jarvenoja, University of Oulu

4 / 50
Project information
Project acronym: SLIDEshow
Project title: Showcasing Self-regulated Learning Implemented
through Data-driven Education
Agreement number: 2017-1-BE02-KA201-034791
Sub-programme or KA: Key Action 2 – Strategic Partnership for School Education
(supporting innovation)
Project website: http://www.slideshowproject.eu
Project e-mail address: slideshow.euproject@gmail.com
Twitter: @EU_SLIDEshow
Project period: From 01/11/2017 to 31/08/2020
Project manager: Prof. dr. Koen Lombaerts
Project coordinator organisation: Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)
Consortium partners: University of Oulu (UO)
GO! Education of the Flemish Community (GO!)
Doukas school
Padagogische Hochschule Wien (PHW)
Copyright: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

5 / 50
Table of contents
Introduction........................................................................................................................................6
Background ........................................................................................................................................8
Teacher competences and attributes.........................................................................................................8
Self-regulated learning (SRL)........................................................................................................................8
Promotion of SRL ...........................................................................................................................................................................10
1. SRL instructional competences..............................................................................................12
Teachers......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Beliefs and previous experiences............................................................................................................................................13
Responsibility and trust in students.......................................................................................................................................16
Teachers’ motivational aspects influencing SRL use........................................................................................................16
SRL knowledge................................................................................................................................................................................18
SRL skills.............................................................................................................................................................................................19
School............................................................................................................................................................. 20
SRL policy ..........................................................................................................................................................................................20
Leadership ........................................................................................................................................................................................20
Climate............................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Structural factors ...........................................................................................................................................................................21
Students......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Age.......................................................................................................................................................................................................22
Abilities ..............................................................................................................................................................................................22
Background ......................................................................................................................................................................................23
2. The European Qualifications Framework ..........................................................................24
Integration of SRL competences in EQF .................................................................................................. 26
Overview of SRL competences in EQF............................................................................................................................... 27
SRL competences by level........................................................................................................................................................29
Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................40
References.........................................................................................................................................42
List of tables and figures ..............................................................................................................50

6 / 50
Introduction
Scientific evidence reveals different effective ways to support student self-regulated learning
(SRL). In order to facilitate the transfer of these effective SRL classroom practices, a practice
framework entailing based on most recent evidence relating to effective SRL promotion
strategies is developed. This document consists of a practice framework (including teacher
competences and qualities) for teachers and teacher educators who wish to be successful in
supporting their students’ SRL. By linking the practice framework to the European
Qualification Framework (EQF), SLIDEshow integrates scientific and policy materials for the
benefit of practice. The EQF very strongly emphasises the attribute of independence in the
acquisition and execution of competences. The eight levels of competence described in the
EQF, starting at a completely dependent behaviour (i.e. dependencies on instruction and
supervision) to complete independence and being a driver or innovator in the domain, can be
a good fit for SRL, because of the self-management capacities that are intrinsic to it.
The SRL practice is innovative in the sense that it aims to support the integration of SRL by
clearly outlining what competences are crucial for supporting students’ SRL and how this
connects to existing frameworks (the EQF). By framing SRL instruction within a broader
context (EQF) familiar to many educational systems, we intend to support the integration of
SRL instruction in a ‘connected’, structural manner. Teachers and schools face a myriad of
challenges and proposed solutions/innovations, often quickly following each other and being
implemented in rather isolated ways. Next, the SRL practice framework will be applicable for
both teachers and teacher educators. The focus on teacher educators is considered
innovative, as most programs focus on teachers mainly.
Finally, the SRL practice framework will be used as a common framework for the SLIDEshow
project as a whole and will be used for evaluation purposes later on in the project. Also, the
framework will inform the design of the objectives, content, and approach of the teacher

7 / 50
educator training (IO4). Finally, the framework will be used to analyse and identify the good
practices concerning the integration of SRL in classroom practice (IO5).
This document is composed as following: first, a background for this document is given,
secondly, a list of SRL instructional competences is given based on an extensive literature
review. The competences are explored in depth. Thirdly, the SRL practice framework is
integrated in the EQF, a practical approach is used, explaining the competences at the
different levels of the EQF.

8 / 50
Background
Teacher competences and attributes
Describing, defining and assessing teachers’ professional knowledge and competence at any
career stage is not straightforward, but historically and culturally bound, subject to change
and contestation. Therefore, competence statements, so as to recognize the complex,
multifaceted nature of teaching, acknowledging the role of values, ought to be clear and not
over-elaborated (Conway, Murphy, Rath, & Hall, 2009).
The past years, the Education Councils of the EU defined some priorities for improving
Teacher Quality and Teacher Education. They stress the importance of the improvement of
teacher competencies, as well as to promote professional values and attitudes. As stated in
the report of the European Commission (2011) on teacher competences, a competence
should be viewed as a holistic concept, the dynamic combination of knowledge,
understanding and skills. Furthermore, a distinction between teaching competences and
teacher competences can be useful (OECD, 2009), however both competences often overlap
in the professional lives and experiences of teachers. Teaching competences is focused on
teaching and the action in the classroom (Hagger & McIntyre, 2006). Teacher competences
refers to competences on the levels of the individual, school, community, professional
networks. Generally, it implies a wider view of teacher professionalism.
Self-regulated learning (SRL)
Self-regulated learning (SRL) includes conscious consideration monitoring and adaptation of
cognitive, metacognitive, behavioural, motivational, and emotional/affective aspects of
learning. Self-regulated learners can be defined as learners who set themselves goals, plan
their actions to pursue these goals, monitor their learning, and finally evaluate their learning
process (Zimmerman, 2000). In other words, the self-regulated learners take responsibility of
their own learning process and possess the appropriate learning skills to do that accurately.

9 / 50
The process of SRL is cyclical, the result of the evaluation of the learning process impacts the
following learning process (Dignath-Van Ewijk, 2016). In other words, self-regulatory students
align their next learning assignments with previous experiences and thereby determine their
strategy for approach. SRL is an umbrella concept under which a considerable number of
variables that influence learning (e.g., self-efficacy, cognitive strategies) are studied within a
comprehensive and holistic approach. Several authors studied SRL and also developed a
model/theory of SRL (e.g., Zimmerman, 1989; 2000; 2013; Boekaerts, 1997; Pintrich, 2004;
Winne & Hadwin, 1998; 2008).
One of the most cited models of SRL and the model that is used in the SLIDEshow project, is
that of Zimmerman; A Socio-cognitive Perspective of SRL (e.g., Zimmerman, 1986; 1989; 2000;
2002). The model is structured in three phases: forethought, performance and self-reflection.
The forethought phase consists of task analysis, goal setting, planning to reach these goals,
and a number of motivational beliefs energies the process and influence the activation of
learning strategies. In the performance phase, the students execute the task, while
monitoring their progress, using certain learning and motivation strategies. In the self-
reflection phase, students reflect on how they have performed the task and attribute their
success or failure. These attributions impact self-reactions that in turn have an impact on how
students approach future tasks.
However, students do not become self-regulated by themselves. They need modelling and
support to become self-regulated learners (Zimmerman, 2002). Furthermore, research shows
that self-regulatory processes can be taught and practised and can lead to increases in
students' motivation and achievement (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). Bandura (1997) also
acknowledged the social environment in which the development of SRL takes place and
where meaningful interactions occur with more experienced partners (Bandura, 1997).
Similarly, Martinez-Pons (2002) adopted a social-cognitive perspective on SRL assuming that

10 / 50
teachers can be essential role models and sources of inspiration for their children’s use of
self-regulatory skills.
Promotion of SRL
When looking at how teachers can foster SRL in students, several authors (e.g., Paris & Paris,
2001, Kistner, Rakoczy, & Otto, 2010) describe two different ‘tracks’: direct and indirect SRL
promotion.
Teachers can promote self-regulated learning directly by teaching learning strategies and
provide them with the knowledge and skills on how to self-regulate (Brown, Campione, &
Day, 1981). Within the direct SRL promotion, teacher can provide students with implicit and
explicit SRL instruction. A teacher can implicitly induce his students to show certain behaviour,
for example by modelling the use of a strategy, without giving more information on the use
of the learning strategy and the significance (Collins, Brown, & Holum, 1991). On the other
hand, a teacher can explicitly tell his students to show a certain activity, for example by
explaining a learning strategy and why this is useful. The students are given some information
about the meaning and importance of that strategy.
Next, teachers can also promote SRL indirectly, by arranging the learning environment in a
constructivist way so that students can and have to self-regulate their learning (e.g., by
offering choices to students and providing them with situations in which they can take over
responsibility for their learning) (Pressley, Harris & Marks 1992).
Literature have shown SRL is beneficial for several outcomes (e.g., student wellbeing (Kaplan
& Maehr, 1999; Noble & Wyatt, 2008; Tavakolizadeh, Yadollahi & Poorshafeic, 2012),
academic performance (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004; Perry & Vandekamp, 2000; Zimmerman,
1990; 2002; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001) etc.). Additionally, Boekaerts (1999) stated the
importance of SRL support as an educational innovation that should play a central role in the
teaching practice. However, research have found the instruction of SRL occurs only to a

11 / 50
limited extent (e.g., Dignath-van Ewijk, 2016; Lombaerts, Engels, & van Braak, 2009b).
Correspondingly, similar to what Dignath-van Ewijk (2016) indicated, the question remains
why teachers do not invest more in fostering students’ SRL. Do they not believe in SRL, or do
they not know how to support it? This leads us to the fact that there is a need for clear and
usable SRL specific instructional competences for teachers.

12 / 50
1. SRL instructional competences
Scientific evidence reveals different effective ways to support students’ SRL. In order to
facilitate the transfer of these effective SRL classroom practices, a practice framework based
on most recent evidence relating to effective SRL promotion strategies is created.
Based on the research of Peeters (2016), several factors on multiple levels associated with
SRL promotion can be identified (Figure 1). Specifically, three levels are specified: (1) school,
(2) teacher, (3) student level, with on each level factors related to SRL promotion. In this
report, specific attention is paid to the teacher level, the school and student level is briefly
discussed given the purpose of this document.
•SRL policy
•Leadership
•Climate
•Structural factors
School
•Beliefs and experiences
•Responsibility and trust
•Motivational aspects
•SRL knowledge and skills
Teacher
•Age
•Abilities
•Background
Student
Figure 1: Overview of levels and related factors for SRL promotion.

13 / 50
Teachers
The following main teachers’ attributes and competences come forward in SRL literature and
play an important role in promoting SRL in the classroom.
Beliefs and previous experiences
The extent to which teachers believe in the suitability and desirability of SRL in primary
education is considered important to the integration of SRL support in daily classroom
practice (Errington, 2004; Ertmer, 2005; Sosu & Gray, 2012). Teachers expressing strong
beliefs in the value of SRL for primary education were found more motivated to support
students. This is in line with previous research that demonstrated how teacher epistemic
beliefs drive instructional preferences and behaviour (Errington, 2004; Ertmer, 2005; Sosu &
Gray, 2012) (see below). Beliefs are supposed to include value commitments, epistemological
beliefs, subjective theories about learning, and goals.
Furthermore, previous and personal experiences with SRL and SRL support appeared to be an
important indicator for increased levels of teacher attention to students’ SRL (Peeters, De
Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2013a; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Romero
Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013b). Teachers’ previous and current educational experiences
are considered critical in their facilitation of students’ self-regulatory skills. To a large extent,
teachers’ own educational trajectory, their professional classroom experiences, and
involvements in previous educational innovation projects guide teachers’ beliefs and are
likely to influence innovation processes (Ertmer, 2005; Fullan, 2007). These experiences, both
in and outside the classroom, feed teachers’ emotions, beliefs and priorities and subsequently
affect their instructional decisions (Frost, 2010).
Types of beliefs
The studies of Peeters and colleagues (Peeters et al., 2013a; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens,
Jacquet & Lombaerts, 2015) revealed that two types of beliefs were positively related with
teachers’ self-perceived SRL promotion: teachers’ more general constructivist beliefs about

14 / 50
primary education, and teachers’ task value beliefs, or specific SRL beliefs concerning the role
of SRL in primary education (Peeters et al., 2013a; 2015).
However, studies remain unclear on what type of beliefs are most important (Dignath-van
Ewijk & van der Werf, 2012; Peeters et al., 2013a). Peeters and colleagues (2013a; 2015)
found teachers’ constructivist beliefs were found most important. In contrast, Dignath-van
Ewijk and van der Werf (2012) found teachers’ SRL beliefs to be related with SRL promotion.
Having a strong acknowledgment (task value beliefs regarding SRL) of the relevance, utility,
and importance of SRL for students (Pintrich, 2000), motivates teachers to promote SRL.
Strong task value beliefs may stimulate teachers to change their SRL-promotion knowledge
and to engage in SRL promotion (Johnson & Sinatra, 2013; Wigfield, 1994). Moreover, some
teachers explicitly described feeling responsible for actively supporting SRL, rather than
merely believing in its usefulness. High responsibility feelings assist in enhancing teacher
efforts, and in addressing scholastic, motivational as well as developmental needs of students
(Lauermann, 2014). 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 et al.,
2013b). In sum, 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.
General beliefs
Beliefs on fostering SRL could be influenced by more general beliefs on the nature of learning
and knowing: epistemological beliefs. Epistemological beliefs refer to the assumptions an
individual has about the origin, nature and structure of knowledge and knowing (Schraw,
Crippen & Hartley, 2006). Hattie and Yates (2013) found a strong effect of teachers’
epistemological beliefs (e.g., beliefs concerning learning effort and process) related to their
conceptions of teaching and learning (e.g., constructivist conception; encouraging students

15 / 50
to think for answers themselves; learning means opportunities to explore, discuss and express
ideas) (Ekinci, 2017). Results are sometimes unclear and other studies found the impact of
epistemological beliefs on teaching competence to be mixed (e.g., Creemers et al., 2013;
Shraw & Olafson, 2003; Sosu & Gray, 2012). Several studies on the association of teachers’
epistemological beliefs and their instruction point into this direction as teachers’
epistemological beliefs affect their pedagogical decisions (for an overview, see Schraw et al.,
2006). Bell (2006) examined the effects of SRL and epistemological beliefs on academic
achievement while holding constant the effects of self-efficacy and prior college academic
achievement. He found students’ prior academic achievement and their expectancy to be the
only significant predictors for academic achievement. However, he argues that students’ self-
regulation, as well as their epistemological beliefs, probably influence students’ expectancy,
which in turn influences academic achievement.
Beliefs on SRL promotion
Studies of Lombaerts and colleagues (Lombaerts, Engels & Athanasou, 2007; Lombaerts,
Engels, van Braak, & Athanasou, 2009a) with Flemish primary school teachers indicated that
teacher beliefs about SRL in primary school is a significant predictor for teachers’ self-
reported recognition of SRL. These teacher beliefs were predicted significantly by beliefs
about teacher-level influence on SRL (like e.g., beliefs on instructional pedagogy, and on
innovations in teaching and learning), but not by beliefs about school context (e.g., beliefs on
the stimulation of SRL by the school as an organization, collaboration of teachers as part of
the school culture, or curriculum changes). Moreover, the study of Lombaerts and colleagues
(2007; 2009a) also found that teachers are more positive towards the realization of a
constructivist learning environment in general than towards the instruction of SRL strategies.
When looking at how teachers can foster SRL in students, Paris and Paris (2001) described
two different ways: directly and indirectly (a full explanation of these two tracks of SRL
promotion is given above, on p. 10 ‘promotion of SRL’. Especially, indirect SRL promotion
refers to arranging the learning environment in a constructivist way so that students can and
have to self-regulate their learning (e.g., by offering choices to students and providing them

16 / 50
with situations in which they can take over responsibility for their learning) (Pressley, Harris,
& Marks ,1992).
Responsibility and trust in students
An essential attribute to support SRL in the classroom lies in the willingness of teachers to
give more responsibility to students and trust the students to use this autonomy and
responsibility properly. In order to support SRL, a new form of class management is necessary,
where the teachers are more of a facilitator instead of a knowledge conveyor (Lombaerts,
Engels & Vanderfaeillie, 2007).
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). The
study of Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel and Lombaerts (2013b)
revealed that teachers have a preoccupation with classroom management and loss of control
when introducing SRL classroom practices. According to Lewis (1999) this concern is especially
apparent with teachers wanting to share more responsibility for learning with students.
Teachers’ motivational aspects influencing SRL use
Both teachers’ affective and motivational states and how teachers attribute their behaviour
are important SRL promotion attributes.
Teachers’ motivation
Teachers that feel good are more likely to experiment with SRL in their classroom (Peeters,
De Backer, Kindekens, Romero Reina, Buffel & Lombaerts, 2013b). Teachers stress affective
states such as the need to feel good and secure in experimenting with SRL promotion.
Another aspect of teachers’ motivation is how they attribute their successes and failures, in
other words, teachers' attributional style. Adaptive attributions help people adjust their
approach by investing more effort or choosing more effective strategies. On the other hand,
attributing failure to external forces (such as students' abilities) undermines successful
adaptation, leads to procrastination, and increases feelings of helplessness and apathy

17 / 50
(Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2005). Similarly, teachers who voiced being impeded by
particular student characteristics were found to formulate excuses for potential failure even
before attempting to support their students' SRL development. Proactively arranging and
voicing circumstances that may explain failure is known as self-handicapping. This
motivational strategy is found to be ineffective and results in decreased levels of effort
(Higgins, Snyder & Berglas, 1990).
Teachers’ self-efficacy
Another attribute that is important in teachers’ stimulation of SRL is teachers’ feelings of
competence, in other words, their self-efficacy. When looking at motivational orientations,
self-efficacy plays an important role in determining teacher behaviour (see e.g., Baumert &
Kunter, 2006; Holzberger, Philipp, & Kunter, 2013). Self-efficacy beliefs represent a judgment
of one’s capabilities to reach a certain goal (Bandura, 1977). Dellinger, Bobbett, Olivier and
Ellett (2008, p. 751) define teachers' self-efficacy as “teachers’ individual beliefs about their
own abilities to successful perform specific teaching and learning tasks within the context of
their own classrooms”. Four factors are supposed to determine a person's self-efficacy: (1)
personal experience of success or failure whose interpretation is closely related to people’s
beliefs and values, (2) vicarious experience (also: modelling) which is influencing the
knowledge of what is “right” and “wrong”, (3) social persuasion in terms of encouragement
or discouragement, as well as (4) the perception of physiological reactions (Bandura, 1977).
These four factors also affect teachers’ beliefs and knowledge which will, in turn, act as
determinants for teachers’ self-efficacy. These sources of efficacy beliefs are considered to
provide the basis for one’s task analysis and appraisal of one’s personal competence.
Research has shown the relationship between self-efficacy and teacher behaviour (e.g., Guo,
Piasta, Justice & Kaderavek, 2010; Holzberger et al., 2013; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
Studies have found, for example, a significant relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and
teacher beliefs towards instructional innovation (e.g., Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Guskey, 1988),
instructional strategies (e.g., Tschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002;
Swars, 2005), and an association with teachers’ SRL promotion (Chatzistamatiou, Dermitzaki,

18 / 50
& Bagiatis, 2013, Peeters et al., 2015). Teachers’ self-efficacy is also found to impact teachers’
emotions, which is positively related to their satisfaction regarding their work (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik; 2007; 2010) and students’ learning (Dellinger et al., 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007;
Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 1998).
SRL knowledge
Teachers' SRL knowledge is often closely linked to their classroom practice (e.g., Dignath-van
Ewijk & van der Werf, 2012; Spruce & Bol, 2015). Awareness of both one's knowledge and
limitations is crucial in deliberately instructing SRL and learning from ones failures (Loibl &
Rummel, 2014; Zohar, 1999). Additionally, teachers need to know how to promote SRL and
how to adjust instructional strategies reflective of situational demands.
Several studies found 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, 2013b; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens,
Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2015). Teachers 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.
The study of Peeters and colleagues (2013) also revealed that teachers need to be able to
self-regulate their own learning and teaching practice in order to efficiently model it. Teachers
describe how they rely on their own self-regulatory capacities to effectively learn how to
promote their students’ SRL, especially in cases where school support is limited. Teachers
who are successful in self-regulation may also be better equipped to deal with distractions
and may find the necessary resources to succeed (Paris & Winograd, 2003). As personal goal

19 / 50
setting is considered an important pre-condition of SRL (Zimmerman, 2002), it is likely that
teachers first need to incorporate SRL promotion into their personal teaching objectives.
SRL skills
Teachers’ own self-regulated learning skills also have been found important in the
integration of SRL promotion (Leat & Lin, 2003). Peeters and colleagues (Peeters, De Backer,
Kindekens, Jacquet, & Lombaerts, 2013a; Peeters, De Backer, Kindekens, Jacquet, &
Lombaerts, 2015) emphasized the value of self-regulation strategies for the teaching
profession. The teaching profession was experienced as conducive to teacher self-regulation.
For example, the repetitive character of education and high levels of job autonomy require
or motivate teachers to self-regulate their teaching. Furthermore, due to the dynamic
educational landscape and changing challenges, teachers are required to continue and self-
regulate professional learning. Additionally, teachers also feel the need to self-regulate their
motivation during their professional career; for example, by choosing strategies to increase
their interest teachers try to self-direct their motivation (Wolters, Pintrich, & Karabenick,
2003).
Next to self-regulation of motivation (described above) during the professional career,
teachers’ own personal self-regulation when supporting their students’ SRL is of great value.
Firstly, personal self-regulation skills are necessary to model and verbally explain the use of
SRL strategies. As like students, teachers who are successful in self-regulation may also be
better equipped to deal with distractions and may find the necessary resources to succeed
(Paris & Winograd, 2003). Students 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 modelled (Paris &
Winograd, 2003).

20 / 50
School
SRL policy
The integration of students’ SRL stimulation within teaching practice cannot be seen as a
‘stand-alone phenomenon’ being restricted to the four walls of a classroom. If students are
to be empowered, the same must be argued for teachers (Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes,
2000). It is essential to provide broader support on school level to deliberately create
environments and structures in which teachers are encouraged to reflect on and take
responsibility for teaching and learning (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger, & Beckingham,
2004; Van Eekelen, Boshuizen, & Vermunt, 2005). A shared and clear school vision on SRL is
indispensable to SRL promotion. Developing a shared language and discourse can, for
example, enhance SRL promotion in everyday practice, and facilitate teacher collaboration
and mutual understanding (Fullan, 2007). Van Veen & Sleegers (2009) argued school visions
on SRL need to be broad, because strict procedures decrease teacher flexibility. 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.
Leadership
Teachers necessitate the involvement of the school principal as the main person responsible
for the introduction, monitoring and evaluation of SRL classroom practice. Furthermore, the
school principal is expected to create supportive school mechanisms such as flexible
schedules, teacher collaboration, professional development and a co-constructed school
policy. 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).
Climate
Teachers need to feel motivated, emotionally secure and supported in their efforts to
stimulate students’ self-regulation. Different types of support systems are mentioned,

21 / 50
ranging from practical support such as Internet access, flexible classrooms and time
schedules, and teaching material to interpersonal support by peers, school principal, SEN-
teacher1
and/or experts to more.
Innovation
An innovative school climate may increase teachers’ willingness to change and experiment
with more student-centred teaching practices. Moreover, examination of schools’ innovation
histories may uncover resistance to innovation or otherwise. Negative experiences with
previous educational reform may have resulted in scepticism towards new implementation
efforts regardless of the content of the reform program (Fullan, 2007) and may therefore
impede the introduction of SRL promotion.
Teacher collaboration
Teacher collaboration is indicated as a powerful support system. Peers are considered
valuable sources of knowledge. Especially hesitant teachers express that peers could support
and assist them to promote SRL and 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 that enable teachers to apply the newly acquired information to their own
classroom practice.
Structural factors
Structural factors, such as time pressure, curriculum load, teaching material, assessment and
infrastructure, play a role in the actual support of SRL in the classroom. It is important to note,
however, that removal of infrastructural barriers does not automatically result in changes in
teachers’ pedagogical approach. For example, although smaller class groups may simplify
classroom management or student monitoring, teachers do not necessarily start planning and
teaching differently (Harfitt, 2012).
1
Special educational needs (SEN) teacher

22 / 50
Students
Age
In the study of Peeters and colleagues (2013) it is indicated that teachers 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. Consequently, many teachers report
that SRL in their school is promoted mostly in the final years of primary education. However,
research evidenced that SRL can already be promoted in kindergarten (Bryce & Whitebread,
2012; Perels, Merget-Kullmann, Wende, Schmitz, & Buchbinder,2009), some teachers doubt
their students’ SRL capacities and believed 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. The study of Kurki; Järvenoja, Järvelä & Mykkänen (2016) showed that the
development of self-regulation is built through teachers’ co-regulation already in early
education. The analysis of teacher’s co-regulation strategies showed that teachers combine
various co-regulation strategies in their education in order to regulate children’s emotions
and behaviour.
Abilities
In the research literature, teachers reported to provide different amounts of SRL
opportunities to students depending on their perceived cognitive and self-regulatory
abilities. Considering the effect of SRL strategies on academic performance and motivation
(Cleary & Platten, 2013; Dignath & Büttner, 2008), low achieving students are faced with a
double disadvantage. While experiencing difficulties due to lower cognitive and self-
regulatory abilities, teachers themselves also appear to offer them fewer opportunities to
develop effective SRL strategies. At the same time, teachers may be unaware of high
achieving students’ actual SRL capacities. Indeed, SRL and cognitive capacities are not one
and the same and even strong students can display ineffective strategy use (Housand & Reis,
2008). Hence, it is advised to closely consider and support the SRL skills of all students,
regardless of their initial cognitive and self-regulatory abilities.

23 / 50
Background
Students’ socio-economic and ethnic background is also found to interfere with teachers’
level of SRL promotion. There are to possible ways to cope with different backgrounds.
Children from low socio-economic backgrounds often lack the necessary parental support and
stimuli for their SRL development at home. Teachers consider children’s SRL development a
collaborative responsibility of teachers and parents. These teachers do not promote students’
SRL due the students’ home situation, that impeded or discouraged the teachers efforts, a
lack of initial self-regulatory skills and/or a shortage of parental support for SRL development.
On the other hand, teachers in the study of Peeters and colleagues (2013b) described how
the socio-economic background of their pupils encouraged them to engage even more in SRL
promotion activities. When they were confronted with their pupils’ everyday reality and
found the necessary parental support several teachers described how the socio-economic
background of their pupils encouraged them to engage even more in SRL promotion activities.

24 / 50
2. The European Qualifications Framework
The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) is a European reference framework to make
qualifications more readable and understandable across different countries and systems. The
concept of a European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (EQF) was developed
within the “Education and Training 2010” work programme of the European Commission. The
EQF can be considered as a meta-framework overarching the European countries national
qualifications frameworks that can serve as a reference for educational qualifications as
outcomes of lifelong learning. The EQF provides a comprehensive overview over
qualifications in the European countries. The EQF stimulates lifelong learning by enclosing all
levels of qualifications acquired in general, vocational as well as academic education and
training. Furthermore, the validation of non-formal and informal learning is facilitated.
The EQF is characterised by eight reference levels (descriptors), which are the core of this
framework, defined in terms of learning outcomes. These are defined in terms of knowledge
(theoretical or factual), skills (cognitive or practical), and wider competences – personal and
professional, such as: autonomy and responsibility, learning competences, communication
and social competences. The EQF very strongly emphasises the attribute of independence in
the acquisition and execution of competences. The outcomes are specified on an eight-level
scale reflecting stages in a lifelong learning process (ranging from completely dependent
behaviour (i.e. dependencies on instruction and supervision) to complete independence and
being a driver or innovator in the domain). We believe that this is a good fit for SRL, because
of the self-management capacities that are intrinsic to it.
In the table below the EQF is presented. For each type of learning outcome related to a certain
level a description is given.

25 / 50
Table 1: EQF
Knowledge Skills Responsibility and autonomy
Level 1 Basic general knowledge Basic skills required to carry out simple tasks Work or study under direct supervision in a structured context
Level 2 Basic factual knowledge of a field of work or study Basic cognitive and practical skills required to use relevant
information in order to carry out tasks and to solve routine
problems using simple rules and tools
Work or study under supervision with some autonomy
Level 3 Knowledge of facts, principles, processes and general concepts,
in a field of work or study
A range of cognitive and practical skills required to accomplish
tasks and solve problems by selecting and applying basic
methods, tools, materials and information
Take responsibility for completion of tasks in work or study;
adapt own behaviour to circumstances in solving problems
Level 4 Factual and theoretical knowledge in broad contexts within a
field of work or study
A range of cognitive and practical skills required to generate
solutions to specific problems in a field of work or study
Exercise self-management within the guidelines of work or study
contexts that are usually predictable, but are subject to change;
supervise the routine work of others, taking some responsibility
for the evaluation and improvement of work or study activities
Level 5 Comprehensive, specialised, factual and theoretical knowledge
within a field of work or study and an awareness of the
boundaries of that knowledge
A comprehensive range of cognitive and practical skills required
to develop creative solutions to abstract problems
Exercise management and supervision in contexts of work or
study activities where there is unpredictable change; review and
develop performance of self and others
Level 6 Advanced knowledge of a field of work or study, involving a
critical understanding of theories and principles
Advanced skills, demonstrating mastery and innovation,
required to solve complex and unpredictable problems in a
specialised field of work or study
Manage complex technical or professional activities or projects,
taking responsibility for decision-making in unpredictable work
or study contexts; take responsibility for managing professional
development of individuals and groups
Level 7 Highly specialised knowledge, some of which is at the forefront
of knowledge in a field of work or study, as the basis for original
thinking and/or research
Critical awareness of knowledge issues in a field and at the
interface between different fields
Specialised problem-solving skills required in research and/or
innovation in order to develop new knowledge and procedures
and to integrate knowledge from different fields
Manage and transform work or study contexts that are complex,
unpredictable and require new strategic approaches; take
responsibility for contributing to professional knowledge and
practice and/or for reviewing the strategic performance of
teams
Level 8 Knowledge at the most advanced frontier of a field of work or
study and at the interface between fields
The most advanced and specialised skills and techniques,
including synthesis and evaluation, required to solve critical
problems in research and/or innovation and to extend and
redefine existing knowledge or professional practice
Demonstrate substantial authority, innovation, autonomy,
scholarly and professional integrity and sustained commitment
to the development of new ideas or processes at the forefront
of work or study contexts including research
Source: European Parliament and Council (2008), Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the
establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, 7

26 / 50
Integration of SRL competences in EQF
In the following section, the above described competences and attributes will be linked to
and discussed with the EQF. The aim is to provide teachers, schools, and teacher educators
with a framework defining more clearly the teacher level factors enabling them to support
their students’ SRL. Moreover, the framework tries to provide policy with recommendations
to train teachers and teacher educators. Furthermore, in accordance with SLIDEshow’s
teacher educator training (O4), both outputs (O2 and O4) can offer policy and teacher
education institutions the practical materials and tools to implement the recommendations
into practice.
Firstly, an overview of the integration of the SRL practice framework in the EQF is given (see
table 2). The same structure is used as the EQF framework, noting each level with
corresponding skills, knowledge and context. Secondly, the competences and attributes are
explained in detail for each level.

27 / 50
Overview of SRL competences in EQF
Table 2: SRL practice framework integrated in EQF
Knowledge/Skills (declarative and procedural knowledge) Context/Autonomy/Responsibility (conditional knowledge)
Level 1 • Knows the concept of SRL and how it works
• Knows the basics of stimulating SRL in practice
• Can explain SRL to others (teachers, students, parents, school principal etc.)
• Does not feel competent enough to stimulate SRL with students
• Is not ready to give more responsibility to students
• Knows the basics to stimulate SRL in a stable, familiar, simple and well-structured
context
• The teaching practice does not reflect SRL practices
Level 2 • Knows the concept of SRL, how it works and procedures to support SRL
• Knows procedures and methods to support SRL in practice
• Apply SRL support to a very limited extent
o Applies prescribed strategies to support SRL
• Own SRL skills are very limited
• Supports SRL in a limited number of comparable, simple, familiar contexts
• Limited amount of responsibility for student
• Rather low beliefs in own self-efficacy for SRL
Level 3 • Knows SRL on a more abstract level
• Knows different SRL promoting techniques and methods
• Able to experiment with SRL promotion methods
• Able to choose, combine and apply techniques and methods to support SRL
• Own SRL skills are limited
• Able to support SRL in comparable contexts in which a number of factors change
• Students get more responsibility during learning and can be seen as active
participants
• Techers’ self-efficacy beliefs are higher which enables him/her to experiment with
or try new things
Level 4 • Knows SRL in broad contexts
• Knows a broad spectrum of SRL support methods and how to apply it with their
students
• Recognizes SRL in practice (students/other teachers…)
• Able to support SRL in broad contexts
o Can apply SRL skills to the own teaching practice(planning, self-
evaluation etc.)
• Evaluates and integrates different methods to support SRL with students
• Can support SRL in changing contexts
• Can support SRL autonomously with some initiative
• Gives responsibility for learning to students
• Feels competent to share SRL practices with others (teachers, school principal, etc.)
• Asks help from others – collaboration
Level 5 • Comprehensive, specialized, factual and theoretical (e.g., conceptual frameworks)
knowledge of SRL and SRL support
• Able to support SRL in a range of new, complex contexts (e.g., unknown students)
• Students can function autonomously

28 / 50
• Awareness of gaps in their knowledge
• Creative in supporting SRL
• Able to transfer knowledge and apply procedures flexibly and inventively
• Able to review own methods and those of others
• Teachers feel competent to support SRL
• Teachers take responsibility for personal outcomes
Level 6 • Advanced knowledge of SRL, involving critical understanding of theories, principles,
methods and techniques
• Able to critically evaluate and combine knowledge and insights of SRL
• Advanced SRL skills (highly self-regulating)
• Able to demonstrate mastery and innovation in promoting SRL in class
• Can promote SRL in complex, specialized contexts
• High beliefs of own efficacy for promoting SRL
• Students get full responsibility
• Takes responsibility for professional development of individuals and groups
regarding SRL promotion
Level 7 • Highly specialized knowledge, research critical awareness of knowledge issues in a
field and at the interface between different fields, (e.g., SRL, teaching, technology
use)
• Able to integrate and reformulate knowledge and insights from different areas
applicable to SRL (e.g. problem-based learning).
• Apply complex, new skills, linked to autonomous, standardized research
• Able to critically evaluate and apply complex, advanced and innovative SRL methods
and techniques
• Specialized SRL skills in order to develop new knowledge and methods to support
SRL and to integrate from different field in teaching (e.g., parental SRL support at
home)
• Able to support SRL in unpredictive, complex, specialized contexts which require
new strategic approaches
• Teachers give students full responsibility
• Take responsibility for contributing to professional knowledge and practice and for
reviewing the SRL support of a team
Level 8 • Knowledge at the most advanced frontier of SRL and the interface with between
related fields (e.g., problem-based learning etc.)
• Able to interpret and create new knowledge and skills through (practice-based)
research
• Design and execute projects which expand and redefine existing procedural
knowledge, aimed at the development of new skills, methods, techniques, practices
and materials.
• Advanced and specialized skills set:
o synthesis and evaluation, required to solve critical problems in research
and innovation
o extend and redefine existing knowledge of SRL and the teaching practice
• Able to support SRL in very complex contexts with far-reaching innovative
implications
• Responsibility for development of the teaching practice and scientific research with
a highly critical attitude and steering capacity
• Is self-confident and thoroughly evaluates him/herself
• Professional integrity, committed to develop new ideas, methods and techniques at
the forefront of SRL promotion (including research, e.g., practice-based research).

29 / 50
SRL competences by level
In the following section the specific knowledge, skills and context linked to teachers’ SRL
promotion competences is explained for each level.
Throughout all levels, teachers’ beliefs, previous experiences and their motivation for
teaching are a constant factor of influence on the attributes of SRL promotion. Furthermore,
also school and student factors are notable aspects influencing each level of the framework
(see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Factors of influence on the SRL practice framework
Level 1
The EQF mentions the basic knowledge of a person, in this case a teacher, achieving at level
1. Regarding the SRL practice framework, teachers at level 1 (see table 3) know the concept
of SRL, they know what it means, the different phases (forethought, performance and self-
reflection phase) and they can explain it to teachers, students and other school personnel.
They have a basic knowledge of how to support SRL with students, however, they do not
know to implement is in practice or only know how to support it in a stable, well-known,
simple environment. They do not have specific knowledge or skills to foster SRL with their
SRL
practice
framework
Teachers'
beliefs and
experiences
Teachers'
skills and
motivation
School factors
Student
factors

30 / 50
specific class. They do not pay (specific) attention to fostering SRL with their students and
their teaching practice does not reflect SRL stimulation.
Teachers also does not feel really competent to stimulate SRL. Their own self-efficacy beliefs
are still rather low. Additionally, also linked to teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and the above
competences, the teacher is not fully ready to give more responsibility to students and trust
them in taken up this responsibility and autonomy during learning.
Teachers at level 1 can be seen as laggards following Rogers (1971). Laggards are
traditionalists and the last to adopt an innovation. They are fixated on the past, and all
decisions must be made in terms of previous generations. Individual laggards mainly interact
with other traditionalists (Rogers, 1971).
Table 3: SRL competences for level 1
The level descriptors for level 1
Knowledge • Knows the concept of SRL and how it works
• Knows the basics of stimulating SRL in practice
Skills • Can explain SRL to others (teachers, students, parents, school
principal etc.)
Context • Does not feel competent enough to stimulate SRL with students
• Is not ready to give more responsibility to students
• Knows the basics to stimulate SRL in a stable, familiar, simple and
well-structured context
• The teaching practice does not reflect SRL practices
Level 2
In general, teachers at level 2 (see table 4), know what SRL is and how to support it.
Furthermore, they support it to a very limited extent.

31 / 50
More specifically, teachers at this level have a more extensive knowledge of SRL compared
to teachers at level 1. Furthermore, they know specific methods on how to support it. They
use this knowledge and apply it to a limited extent in their class. However, they only foster
SRL in a simple, familiar context. They do also not expect much from the student and offer
only restricted amount of responsibility to them.
Teachers at this level have only a limited amount of SRL skills. Nonetheless, these teachers
feel competent to support SRL, but more specific knowledge on SRL support would increase
these self-efficacy levels.
Additionally, these teachers can be seen as part of the late majority (Rogers, 1971). The late
majority are a sceptical group, adopting new ideas just after the average member of a social
system. Their adoption may be borne out of necessity and in response to increasing social
pressure. They are cautious about innovations and are reluctant to adopt until most others in
their social system do. An innovation must definitely have the weight of system norms behind
it to convince the late majority (Rogers, 1971).
Knowledge • Knows the concept of SRL and how it works in practice
• Knows methods to support SRL in practice
Skills • Apply SRL support to a very limited extent
o Applies prescribed strategies to support SRL
Context • Supports SRL in a limited number of comparable, simple, familiar
contexts
• Limited amount of responsibility for student
• Rather low beliefs in own self-efficacy for SRL

32 / 50
Level 3
At level 3 (see table 5), teachers know SRL and its specific characteristics and key factors and
various methods to support it in practice. They know different techniques/methods to
promote SRL and can apply it in diverse settings.
They are also able to experiment with SRL promotion techniques and are able to choose,
combine and apply methods and techniques to support SRL. However, their own SRL skills
are restricted.
Students in their class are active participants and receive a reasonable extent of responsibility
for their learning. Teachers’ self-efficacy to promote SRL is relatively high, in that sense, that
the teacher dares to experiment with new methods.
Teachers at level 3 can be seen as part of the early majority category of Rogers (1971).
Members of this early majority category will adopt new ideas just before the average member
of a social system. They interact frequently with peers, but do not take lead positions. Their
innovation-decision time is relatively longer than innovators and early adopters, since they
deliberate some time before completely adopting a new idea (Rogers, 1971).
Knowledge • Knows SRL on a more abstract level
• Knows different SRL promoting techniques and methods
Skills • Able to experiment with SRL promotion methods
• Able to choose, combine and apply techniques and methods to
support SRL
Context • Able to support SRL in comparable contexts in which a number of
factors change

33 / 50
• Students get more responsibility during learning and can be seen as
active participants
• Techers’ self-efficacy beliefs are higher which enables him/her to
experiment with or try new things
Level 4
Level 4 (see table 6) reflects a knowledge of SRL in broad contexts. Moreover, the teacher
knows a broad spectrum of SRL support methods and how to apply these with his/her
students.
The teacher is able to recognize SRL practices in e.g., students and other teachers, also due
to teachers’ knowledge of SRL that becomes broader. He/she is also able to evaluate and
integrate different methods to support SRL. The teacher also applies his/her own SRL skills
to their teaching (e.g., make a plan, evaluate lessons …).
Additionally, the teacher is able to support SRL in changing contexts and the teacher gives
students responsibility during learning. Furthermore, he/she feels competent of their SRL
support knowledge and practices and is capable to share it with others.
As from this level, the teacher is also able to help other teachers in developing SRL practices
and competences and can easily ask for help from others (e.g., teachers), which reflects a
collaborative approach in teaching SRL support.
Following Rogers (1971), at this level a teacher can be seen as an early adopter. The early
adopters are considered to be localists, versus the cosmopolite innovators. They provide
advice and information sought by other adopters about an innovation. The early adopter is
usually respected by his or her peers and has a reputation for successful and discrete use of
new ideas (Rogers, 1971).

34 / 50
Knowledge • Knows SRL in broad contexts
• Knows a broad spectrum of SRL support methods and how to apply
it with their students
Skills • Recognizes SRL in practice (students/other teachers…)
• Able to support SRL in broad contexts
o Can apply SRL skills to the own teaching practice(planning,
self-evaluation etc.)
• Evaluates and integrates different methods to support SRL with
students
Context • Can support SRL in changing contexts
• Can support SRL autonomously with some initiative
• Gives responsibility for learning to students
• Feels competent to share SRL practices with others (teachers,
school principal, etc.)
o Asks help from others – collaboration
Level 5
Teachers at level 5 (see table 7) have a comprehensive, specialised, factual and theoretical
knowledge base of SRL and are aware of what they don’t know, or where to refine their
knowledge and skills. They have concrete (e.g., SRL characterization), but also more abstract
knowledge (e.g., conceptual SRL frameworks) of SRL.
In promoting SRL these teachers come up with creative solutions, they are able to transfer
knowledge and apply techniques and methods flexibly and inventively.
Furthermore, linked to their own SRL skills, these teachers are able to review their own
methods and techniques and those of others (e.g., other teachers). These teachers feel
competent and take responsibility for their personal outcomes.

35 / 50
Additionally, there are able to support SRL in a range of new, complex contexts (e.g., with
students they do not know). The student in their class get full responsibility and can learn
autonomously.
The teachers at level 5 can also be seen as early adopters (Rogers, 1971; see above).
Knowledge • Comprehensive, specialized, factual and theoretical (e.g.,
conceptual frameworks) knowledge of SRL and SRL support
• Awareness of gaps in their knowledge
Skills • Creative in supporting SRL
• Able to transfer knowledge and apply procedures flexibly and
inventively
• Able to review own methods and those of others
Context • Able to support SRL in a range of new, complex contexts (e.g.,
unknown students)
• Students can function autonomously
• Teachers feel competent to support SRL
• Teachers take responsibility for personal outcomes
Level 6
Continuing with level 6 (see table 8), where teachers have advanced knowledge of SRL,
involving a critical understanding of theories, principals, methods and techniques. They are
able to evaluate and combine their knowledge and insights of SRL to take it to a higher level.
These teachers have an advanced set of skills, not only in being fully self-regulating teachers,
but also by being able to demonstrate mastery and innovation in promoting SRL in the
classroom.
Furthermore, these teachers are able to support SRL in complex, specialized contexts (e.g.,
different age groups). The students in their class aregiven trust and responsibility for learning.

36 / 50
In addition, the teacher takes responsibility for professional development of individuals and
groups of teachers. By guiding others, teachers at level 6 feel very competent to promote SRL
and able to help others.
Additionally, as from this level the teacher can be seen as an innovator (Rogers, 1971).
Innovators are eager to try new ideas. Innovators’ interest in new ideas leads them out of a
local circle of peers and into broader social relationships. Innovators have the ability to
understand and apply complex technical knowledge. The innovator is also willing to accept
the occasional setback when new ideas prove unsuccessful (Rogers, 1971).
Knowledge • Advanced knowledge of SRL, involving critical understanding of
theories, principles, methods and techniques
Skills • Able to critically evaluate and combine knowledge and insights of
SRL
• Advanced SRL skills (highly self-regulating)
• Able to demonstrate mastery and innovation in promoting SRL in
class
Context • Can promote SRL in complex, specialized contexts
• Students get full responsibility
• Takes responsibility for professional development of individuals and
groups regarding SRL promotion
Level 7
Teachers at level 7 (see table 9) have a highly, specialized, even research knowledge on SRL
and they show critical awareness of this knowledge in SRL and teaching in general.
These teachers are self-regulated teachers and able to integrate and reformulate knowledge
and insights from different areas applicable to SRL (e.g., socially shared regulation of learning

37 / 50
(SSRL), technology enhanced learning etc.). They are able to apply complex, new skills, linked
to autonomous research and are able to critically evaluate and apply complex and advanced
methods and techniques to promote SRL.
These teachers are able to promote SRL in unpredictable, complex, specialized settings, that
require new strategic approaches where they give their students full responsibility and
autonomy for learning. These teachers are highly self-efficacious and take responsibility for
contributing to professional knowledge and practice of teams and review SRL support
methods and techniques of a team.
The teachers at this level can also be seen as innovators (Rogers, 1971; see above).
Knowledge • Highly specialized knowledge, research critical awareness of
knowledge issues in a field and at the interface between different
fields, (e.g., SRL, teaching, technology use)
Skills • Able to integrate and reformulate knowledge and insights from
different areas applicable to SRL (e.g. problem-based learning).
• Apply complex, new skills, linked to autonomous, standardised
research
• Able to critically evaluate and apply complex, advanced and
innovative SRL methods and techniques
• Specialised SRL skills in order to develop new knowledge and
methods to support SRL and to integrate from different field in
teaching (e.g., parental SRL support at home)
Context • Able to support SRL in unpredictive, complex, specialised contexts
which require new strategic approaches
• Teachers give students full responsibility
• Take responsibility for contributing to professional knowledge and
practice and for reviewing the SRL support of a team

38 / 50
Level 8
Teachers at the highest level, level 8 (see table 10), have an advanced knowledge of SRL and
methods and techniques to support it in classrooms, they also have a broad knowledge of
other innovative teaching practices and can relate SRL techniques to one another.
Furthermore, they can apply several techniques and methods in synergy. These teachers are
able to interpret and create new skills, knowledge, methods, techniques, practices and
materials trough (practice-based) research and by designing and executing projects which
expand and redefines their existing procedural knowledge for SRL support.
Their combination of research and taking initiatives provides them with an advanced and
specialized skills set, able to synthesize and evaluate their methods and techniques, able to
critically solve problems and extend and redefine their knowledge of SRL and the teaching
practice as a whole.
Additionally, these teachers are able to support SRL in a series of very complex contexts with
far-reaching innovative implications. They are very self-confident and evaluates him/herself
and their used SRL promotion methods and techniques at all times. These teachers feel
responsible for development of the teaching practice and scientific research with a highly
critical attitude and steering capacity. In sum, these teachers are innovators at the highest
level (Rogers, 1971; see above).
Knowledge • Knowledge at the most advanced frontier of SRL and the interface
with between related fields (e.g., problem-based learning etc.)
Skills • Able to interpret and create new knowledge and skills through
(practice-based) research
• Design and execute projects which expand and redefine existing
procedural knowledge, aimed at the development of new skills,
methods, techniques, practices and materials.
• Advanced and specialized skills set:

39 / 50
o synthesis and evaluation, required to solve problems in
research and innovation
o extend and redefine existing knowledge of SRL and the
teaching practice
Context • Able to support SRL in very complex contexts with far-reaching
innovative implications
• Responsibility for development of the teaching practice and
scientific research with a highly critical attitude and steering
capacity
• Is self-confident and thoroughly evaluates him/herself
• Professional integrity, committed to develop new ideas, methods
and techniques at the forefront of SRL promotion (including
research, e.g., practice-based research).

40 / 50
Conclusions
To conclude, this document contains an SRL practice framework entailing the most recent
evidence relating to regarding effective ways to support student self-regulated learning (SRL).
The SRL practice framework is composed of competences, qualities and attributes. Three
main levels can be discerned: teacher, school and student level, all containing factors that
have a significant impact on SRL promotion. Specifically on teacher level, research showed
SRL promotion is affected by teachers’ beliefs and previous experiences regarding SRL
promotion and innovation in a broader sense, teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, their willingness
and capability to give students responsibility for learning and trust students in using this
autonomy, a good knowledge base of SRL and appropriate skills to for example model some
SRL skills, a sufficient level of motivation to foster SRL in the teaching practice and being self-
regulated learners themselves. However, the teacher does not work solo and is part of a
bigger picture, the school. The school’s policy on SRL and SRL promotion, the support of the
school principal, the school climate regarding innovation and collaboration and other
structural factors can affect teachers’ SRL support initiatives. Next, also students’
characteristics can have an influence, students’ age, their cognitive and self-regulatory
abilities and their background can play a part in teachers’ SRL support practices.
Additionally, SLIDEshow has the intention to integrate scientific and policy materials to
benefit practice, therefore, the SRL practice framework is linked to the EQF. The EQF is
characterised by eight reference levels defined in terms of learning outcomes, i.e.,
knowledge, skills and wider competences. The SRL practice framework was integrated in the
eight levels of competence described in the EQF. Conjoint the knowledge, skills and
competences at all levels, teachers’ beliefs, previous experiences and their motivation for
teaching and the school and student factors are a constant factor of influence on the
attributes of SRL promotion. The integration of the SRL practice framework in the EQF makes
it possible for researchers, policy stakeholders, teacher educators and teachers themselves

41 / 50
to locate themselves within the framework. Additionally, it helps to evaluate what is going
well and what aspects can be better.
At level 1, the teachers know the concept of SRL, but does not use it in their teaching practice.
At level 2, the teacher knows what SRL entails and tries to support it in their class to a very
limited extent. Teachers at level 3, knows what SRL entails on a more abstract level and they
are able to foster SRL it in a limited way, for certain lessons and with familiar groups. At level
4, teachers know SRL in broad contexts and apply it for the majority of their teaching practice,
however it mostly remains with the same method or technique, only some a little amount of
imitative. Teachers at level 5 have a more specialised knowledge of SRL and SRL support and
apply it in broad contexts, they also search (actively) for tips and methods for improvement.
As from level 6, teachers have an advanced knowledge of SRL and can critically evaluate and
combine their knowledge, they also have advanced SRL skills and can support it in complex,
specialized contexts which require new strategic approaches. Teachers at level 7, similar with
teachers at level 6, have a highly specialized knowledge and are able to integrate and
reformulate knowledge and insights from different areas applicable to SRL (e.g. problem-
based learning). They have also specialized SRL skills in order to develop new knowledge and
methods to support SRL. And finally, teachers at level 8, the real innovators, are able to create
own SRL techniques and methods, through a combination of research and initiative, promote
SRL in a very broad range of (complex) settings and thoroughly evaluates the methods and
techniques used.

42 / 50
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–
215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006) Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften [Teachers’ professional
competence]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9, 469–520. doi:10.1007/ s11618-006-0165-2
Bell, P. D. (2006). Can factors related to self-regulated learning and epistemological beliefs predict learning
achievement in undergraduate asynchronous Web-based courses? Perspectives in health information
management, 3,7.
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self‐regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers,
educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 11–186.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational
Research, 31(6), 445–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2005). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from text.
Educational Researcher, 10, 14 21. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X010002014
Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in
teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 435–455.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.003
Chatzistamatiou, M., Dermitzaki, I., & Bagiatis, V. (2013). Self-regulatory teaching in mathematics: Relations to
teachers’ motivation, affect and professional commitment. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 29, 295-310. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0199-9
Cleary, T. J., & Platten, P. (2013). Examining the correspondence between self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: A case study analysis. Education Research International, 2013, 1–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/272560
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based program to
enhance self-regulated and self- motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5),
537-550.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American
Educator, 15(3), 6-11.
Conway, P.F., Murphy, R., Rath, A. & Hall, K. (2009). Learning to Teach and its Implications for the Continuum of
Teacher Education: A Nine-Country Cross-National Study. Report Commissioned by the Teaching
Council. University College Cork and Teaching Council of Ireland.

43 / 50
Creemers, B., L. Kyriakides, A. Panayioutou, W. Bos, H. Holtappels, M. Pfeifer, M. Venneman et al. (2013).
Establishing a Knowledge Base for Quality in Education: Testing a Dynamic Theory for Education.
Handbook on designing evidence-based strategies and actions to promote quality in education.
Münster: Waxmann.
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.
Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs:
Development and Use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 751-766.
Dignath-van Ewijk, C. (2016). What determines whether teachers enhance self-regulated learning? Predicting
teachers’ self-reported promotion of self-regulated learning by teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and self-
efficacy. Frontline Learning Research, 4(5), 83-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.14786/flr.v4i5.247
Dignath-van Ewijk, C. & Van der Werf, G. (2012). What teachers think about self-regulated learning: An
investigation of teacher beliefs about enhancing students' self-regulation and how they predict teacher
behavior. Education Research International, http://doi.org/10.1155/2012/741713
Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-
analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning,
3(3), 231–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x
Eekelen, I. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Self-regulation in Higher Education Teacher Learning.
Higher Education, 50(3), 447–471. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6362-0
Ekinci, N. (2017). Examining the Relationships between Epistemological Beliefs and Teaching and Learning
Conceptions of Lower-Secondary Education Teachers. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of
Education, 18(1), 344-358. http://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.307065
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1470329032000172702
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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
European Commission (2011). Policy approaches to defining and describing teacher competences. Education and
Training 2020 programme Thematic Working Group 'Teacher Professional Development'. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/experts-groups/2011-2013/teacher/defining-
teacher-competences_en.pdf

44 / 50
European Parliament and Council (2008). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
April 2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, 7p.
Frost, J. H. (2010). Looking through the lens of a teacher’s life: The power of prototypical stories in understanding
teachers' instructional decisions in mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 225–233.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Ghaith, G. & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the
implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451-458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00045-5
Guo, Y., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Relations among preschool teachers’ self-efficacy,
classroom quality, and children’s language and literacy gains. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26,
1094-1103. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.005
Guskey, T.R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional
innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0742-
051X(88)90025-X
Hagger, H., & McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning teaching from teachers: Realizing the potential of school-based
teacher education. Maidenhead, England: 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.001
Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. R. (2013). Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. Milton Park, Abingdon,
Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge.
Higgins, R., Snyder, C.R., & Berglas, S. (1990). Self-handicapping: The paradox that isn't. New York: Plenum.
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774-786.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032198
Housand, A., & Reis, S. (2008). Self-regulated learning in reading: Gifted pedagogy and instructional settings.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 108–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-865
Johnson, M.L., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Use of task-value instrucational inductions for facilitating engagement
and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 51-63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.09.003
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement Goals and Student Well-Being. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 24, 330–358. http://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.0993

45 / 50
Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., & Otto, B. (2010). Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: Investigating
frequency, quality, and consequences for student performance. Metacognition and Learning, 5 (2),
157-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9055-3
Kurki, K., Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Mykkänen, A. (2016). How teachers co-regulate children’s emotions and
behaviour in socio-emotionally challenging situations in day-care settings. International Journal of
Educational Research, 76, 76–88. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.02.002
Lauermann, J (2014). Competition through inter-urban policymaking: Bidding to host megaevents as
entrepreneurial networking. Environment and Planning, 46, 2638–
2653. http://doi.org/10.1068/a130112p
Leat, D., & Lin, M. (2003). Developing a pedagogy of metacognition and transfer: Some signposts for the
generation and use of knowledge and the creation of research partnerships. British Educational
Research Journal, 29(3), 383-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411920301853
Loibl, K, & Rummel, N. (2014). The Impact of Guidance during Problem-Solving Prior to Instruction on Students'
Inventions and Learning Outcomes. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning
Sciences. 42(3), 305-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9282-5
Lombaerts, K., De Backer, F., Engels, N., van Braak, J., & Athanasou, J. (2009a). Development of the Self-
Regulated Learning Teacher Belief Scale. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXIV(1), 79–96.
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173476
Lombaerts, K., Engels, N., & Athanasou, J. (2007). The development of the self-regulated learning inventory for
teachers. Perspectives in Education, 25(4), 29-47.
Lombaerts, K., Engels, N., & van Braak, J. (2009b). Determinants of Teachers’ Recognitions of Self-Regulated
Learning Practices in Elementary Education. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(3), 163–174.
http://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.3.163-174
Lombaerts, K., Engels, N., & Vanderfaeillie, J. (2007). Exploring Teachers’ Actions to Promote Self-Regulated
Learning Practices in Primary School. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 24(2), 4-24.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0816512200029187
Martinez-Pons, M. (2002). Parental Influences on Children’s Academic Self-Regulatory Development. Theory Into
Practice, 41(2), 126–131. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_
Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships
between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623–670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10378689
Noble, T., & Wyatt, T. (2008). Scoping study into approaches to student wellbeing; Literature review. Sydney:
Australian Catholic University and Erebus International.
OECD (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from Talis. Paris: OECD.

46 / 50
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
educational research, 62(3), 307-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom Applications of Research on Self-Regulated Learning. Educational
Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2003). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: Principles for
teacher preparation. A Commissioned Paper for the U.S. Department of Education project, "Preparing
Teachers to Use Contextual Teaching and Learning Strategies to Improve Student Success in and beyond
School.", Washington, DC.
Peeters, J. (2016). Teacher and school characteristics associated with self-regulated learning practices in primary
education: a multidimensional approach (Doctoral dissertation). Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels,
Belgium.
Peeters, J., De Backer, F., Kindekens, A., Jacquet, W., & Lombaerts, K. (2015). Mechanisms underlying elementary
school teachers’ promotion of self-regulated learning. In Public Scholarship to Educate Diverse
Democracies: The Importance of Self-Regulation in Challenging Learning Environments AERA.
Peeters, J., De Backer, F., Kindekens, A., Jacquet, W., & Lombaerts, K. (2013a). 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., Romero Reina, V., Buffel, T., & Lombaerts, K. (2013b). Primary teachers’
personal beliefs about teacher and school influences affecting the promotion of selfregulated learning.
Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the European Association of Learning and Instruction,
Munich.
Perry, N. E., & Vandekamp, K. J. O. (2000). Creating classroom contexts that support young children ’ s
development of self-regulated learning . International Journal of Educational Research, 33(7-8), 821–
843. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00052-5
Perry, N. E., Hutchinson, L., & Thauberger, C. (2008). Talking about teaching self-regulated learning: scaffolding
student teachers’ development and use of practices that promote selfregulated learning. International
Journal of Educational Research, 47, 97-108. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.11.010
Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Rainer, B. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext.
Metacognition and Learning. 3. 17-37. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9008-7.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544-555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.92.3.544

47 / 50
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college
students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-
0006-x
Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., Marks, M. B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists. Educational
Psychology Review, 4(1), 3–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01322393
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971) Communication of Innovation: A Cross-Cultural Approach. 2nd Edition,
The Free Press, New York.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition
as Part of a Broader Perspective on Learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1), 111–139.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (Sixth Edit.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice.
New York: Guilford Press.
Shraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2003). Teachers' Epistemological World Views and Educational Practices. Journal of
Cognitive Education and Psychology, 3(2), 178-235. https://doi.org/10.1891/194589503787383109
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teacher Burnout: A Study of Relations. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 26, 1059-1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of Teacher Self-Efficacy and Relations With Strain Factors,
Perceived Collective Teacher Efficacy, and Teacher Burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology. 99. 611-
625. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611.
Sosu, E., & Gray, D. (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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.02.002.
Spruce, R., & Bol, L. (2015). Teacher beliefs, knowledge, and practice of self-regulated learning. Metacognition
and Learning. http://doi.org/10. 10.1007/s11409-014-9124-0.
Swars, S.L. (2005). Examining perceptions of mathematics teaching effectiveness among elementary preservice
teachers with differing levels of mathematics teacher efficacy. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32
(2), 139-147.
Tavakolizadeh, J., Yadollahi, H., & Poorshafei, H. (2012). The Role of Self Regulated Learning Strategies in
Psychological well being Condition of Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 807–815.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.002
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Potential sources
at play. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 751-761. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.005

48 / 50
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.. (2001). Teacher Efficacy: Capturing an Elusive Construct. Teaching and Teacher
Education. 17, 783-805. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1.
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 Emotion Research: The
Impact on Teachers’ Lives (pp. 233–252). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media LLC.
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.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.004
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey of teachers’ promotion of self-determination
and student-directed learning. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 58–68.
Wertheim, C. & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy Beliefs, Background Variables, and Differentiated Instruction of Israeli
Prospective Teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 54-63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670209598791
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective.
Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02209024
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.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9062-4
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. (2008).Theweaveof motivationandself-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk, & B.
J.Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research and applications (pp.
297–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C.
Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
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.
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich,
& M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Development of self-regulated learning: Which are the key subprocesses?
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 307-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5

49 / 50
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D.
H. Schunk (Eds. ), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice
(pp. 1 -25). New York: Springer.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.
http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From Cognitive Modeling to Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Career Path.
Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. http://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676
Zimmermann, B.J., & Schunk, D.H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical
perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zohar, N. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 15(4), 413-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00063-8

50 / 50
List of tables and figures
Table 1: EQF .............................................................................................................................25
Table 2: SRL practice framework integrated in EQF ................................................................27
Table 3: SRL competences for level 1 ......................................................................................30
Table 10: SRL competences for level 8 ....................................................................................38
Figure 1: Overview of levels and related factors for SRL promotion.......................................12
Figure 2: Factors of influence on the SRL practice framework................................................29

SRL Practice Framework

More Related Content

Similar to SRL Practice Framework (20)

More from slideshowproject (13)

Recently uploaded (20)

SRL Practice Framework