Leveraging opportunities for self-regulated learning in smart learning environments

Abstract

Smart learning environments provide students with opportunities to engage in self-regulated learning (SRL). However, little research has examined how teachers leverage these opportunities. We employed a multiple-case study methodology to examine the SRL supporting instructional practices of five third-grade teachers as they implemented a science unit embedded within a smart learning environment which enabled student engagement in SRL processes. The identified set of instructional practices was used to formulate the teachers’ SRL support profiles, which indicates the extent to which teachers provided students with opportunities to regulate the cognitive aspect of SRL. Our findings indicated that teachers’ interactions with the smart learning environment varied from teacher-focused use, restricting opportunities for SRL engagement, to student-focused use, leveraging opportunities for student engagement in SRL. These results demonstrate that, while smart learning environments potentially provide rich contexts for students’ engagement in SRL, how teachers use this environment through their SRL-supporting instructional practices determines students’ actual engagement in SRL.

Introduction

Integrating adaptive technologies to maximize personalized instruction and support learners’ needs is an emerging approach to online learning (Gambo & Shakir, 2021a; Kinshuk et al., 2016; Maulidiya et al., 2024; Singh & Miah, 2020; Spector, 2014). This can be achieved through smart learning environments (SLEs), which are student-centered educational settings that promote engagement, effectiveness, and efficiency by requiring students to be responsive, proactive, context-aware, and assume greater autonomy for their learning (Gambo & Shakir, 2021a; Kinshuk et al., 2016; Pérez-Álvarez et al., 2018; Rosmansyah et al., 2023; Spector, 2014). SLEs include meaningful, authentic activities adjusted to meet the needs of diverse learners and help them construct their understanding and develop skills required for problem solving (Zhang et al., 2023, 2024).

As in student-centered learning environments, the effectiveness of SLEs depends, among others, on students’ ability to engage in self-regulated learning (SRL) (Gambo & Shakir, 2021a). SRL is the proactive process learners use to systematically focus their thoughts, feelings, and actions on attaining their goals (Pintrich, 2000, 2004; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2012; Zimmerman, 2015). SRL has been identified as one of the critical factors affecting students' success in learning processes (Dent & Koenka, 2016; Xu et al., 2023; Zimmerman, 1990), specifically in student-centered learning environments (Azevedo et al., 2012). Research indicates that students' regulation of cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of learning within SLEs is critical to their learning process (Gambo & Shakir, 2021a). This is because SRL can support learners in overcoming the challenges associated with constructivist learning inherent to SLEs (Gambo & Shakir, 2021b; Kinshuk et al., 2016; Maulidiya et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2023).

Students’ engagement in SRL processes can be indirectly supported by student-centered learning environments that provide opportunities to practice and develop self-regulatory skills (Azevedo, 2008; Dignath & Veenman, 2021; Hannafin et al., 2014; Land & Hannafin, 2000). Indeed, several studies highlighted the potential of SLEs, including designated tools within these environments, to support students’ SRL process (Gambo & Shakir, 2021a, Gambo & Shakir, 2021b; Pérez-Álvarez et al., 2018; Rosmansyah et al., 2023; Singh & Miah, 2020). Students' engagement in SRL can also be directly supported by the teacher’s instructional practices and strategy instruction (Dignath-van Ewijk, Dickhauser, & Büttner, 2013; Kramarski, 2018; Moos & Ringdall, 2012). Pedagogy and instruction are essential to providing opportunities for students to engage, practice, and develop their abilities to regulate their learning (Mevarech et al., 2017). In line with these studies, Dignaths' and Veenmans' (2021) framework highlights the interaction between indirect and direct instruction to support students' engagement in SRL in authentic contexts.

Despite the extended research about SRL in online learning environments (Radovic & Seidel, 2024; Viberg et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2023) and the increasing interest in SRL in SLEs (Maulidiya et al., 2024), limited research examined how students’ SRL can be supported within SLEs. More specifically, the field knows little about how teachers leverage opportunities for student engagement in SRL during instruction in SLEs (Dignath & Mevarech, 2021; Dignath-van Ewijk & van der Werf, 2012; Gambo & Shakir, 2021a; Gambo & Shakir, 2021b; Greene, 2021; Mevarech et al., 2017). Furthermore, most evaluations of the self-regulated learning process in SLEs are mostly quantitative, offering limited insights into authentic in situ learning processes (Gambo & Shakir, 2021a). Therefore, the overarching goal of this study was to examine how teachers leverage opportunities for SRL within SLEs during authentic classroom instruction.

Several SRL models have been developed and documented in the research literature (Panadero, 2017). Our study is grounded in Pintrich's (2000, 2004) framework, which includes self-regulatory processes that students can be taught and encouraged to apply to their learning (Hoops et al., 2016; Kizilcec, 2017; Panadero, 2017) and has been frequently used to implement SRL processes in SLEs (Gambo & Shakir, 2021a). This framework highlights the multifaceted essence of SRL and includes the regulation of cognition, motivation, behavior, and context. In our study, and as an initial attempt to achieve our goal, we focus on the extent to which teachers support students' cognitive regulation within SLEs. Cognitive abilities refer to conscious mental activities and include thinking, reasoning, understanding, learning, and remembering, while metacognition refers to the ability to reflect upon, understand, and control one's learning (Flavell, 1987; Gambo & Shakir, 2021a; Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Metacognitive elements appear to have been supported most in SLE literature (Gambo & Shakir, 2021a). Due to the importance of cognitive and metacognition processes for students' learning in SLEs, examining how teacher instructional practices complement SLEs and leverage the cognitive aspects of SRL becomes crucial. Consequently, our research question was: How do teachers' instructional practices leverage opportunities for students' cognitive regulation in SLEs?

This paper first reviews the theoretical foundation of SRL, followed by the relevant literature on teachers' instructional practices to support SRL. We then describe the development of the Opp4SRL rubric for cognitive regulation. Next, findings from using the Opp4SRL rubric are used to provide a comprehensive account of the instructional practices of five teachers, including their generated SRL support profiles. Last, the implications of our findings for theory and practice are discussed.

Theoretical background

Self-regulated learning

Pintrich (2000, p. 453) defined self-regulated learning (SRL) as “an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment.” SRL supports cognitive and socio-emotional growth and improves students’ ability to become lifelong learners, enabling learners to live productive, meaningful, and healthy lives (EU Council, 2002; NRC, 2012). SRL includes the cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, motivational, and emotional/affective aspects of learning (Azevedo et al., 2012; Panadero, 2017). When engaged in SRL practice, learners apply both cognitive and metacognitive strategies: cognitive strategies serve to facilitate the execution of the task, whereas metacognitive strategies influence the choice of an adequate cognitive strategy and serve to control and monitor the application of this strategy (Dignath & Veenman, 2021).

According to Panadero (2017), the variety of models for SRL all share several assumptions: Students can potentially monitor and regulate their cognition, behavior, and motivation processes; students engage in a constructive learning process derived from both the learning context and their prior knowledge; learners' behavior is goal-directed, and the process of self-regulation includes modifying behavior to achieve goals; and self-regulatory behavior mediates the relationship between a student’s performance, contextual factors, and individual characteristics. For this study, we adopted Pintrich’s (2000) comprehensive framework since it includes self-regulatory processes that can be implemented in-class instruction and that students can be taught and encouraged to apply to their learning (Hoops et al., 2016; Kizilcec, 2017; Panadero, 2017). According to Pintrich (2000, 2004), self-regulated learning includes four dimensions: cognition, motivation, behavior, and context. In this study, we report only on the cognitive dimension of SRL, which includes the cognitive strategies to support task performance and the metacognitive strategies that may be used to control and regulate cognition, content knowledge, and strategic knowledge (Pintrich, 2000).

Supporting self-regulated learning processes through direct and indirect instruction

Dignath and Veenman (2021) recently developed a framework for activating self-regulated learning in natural classroom contexts that can apply to SLEs. In their model, teachers indirectly develop their students’ SRL by creating a learning environment that enables students to regulate their learning or directly through strategy instruction (see also Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Dignath et al., 2008). Indirect SRL instruction implies that the learning environment is designed to activate prior knowledge, create cognitive conflict to drive a need for learning, consider the situatedness of learning, and include collaborative learning. These include constructivist environments such as inquiry or project-based learning (English & Kitsantas, 2013; Stefanou et al., 2013). Within these environments, students should be encouraged to participate in the planning, selecting, and accomplishing learning activities (De Corte et al., 2004; Dignath & Veenman, 2021; Perry & Rahim, 2011; Randi & Corno, 2000).

To directly support students’ SRL, teachers should be facilitators rather than transmitters of knowledge (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Whitebread & Coltman, 2010). They should employ instructional practices that balance student freedom and autonomy with guidance (Adler et al., 2018), allow students to control the challenge and engage in self-assessments, encourage a mastery-oriented approach, foster positive feelings towards challenges, and introduce learning strategies. It is also essential that teachers engage students in self-addressed metacognitive questions, provide scaffolds and prompts for students’ engagement in planning, monitoring, and self-reflection, and encourage positive perceptions of mistakes (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Kistner et al., 2010; Mevarech et al., 2017; Meyer & Turner, 2002; Moos, 2018; Nussbaumer et al., 2015; Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2002; Whitebread & Coltman, 2010). Studies by Dignath and Veenman (2021) and Mevarech et al. (2017) highlighted the importance of the interplay between direct instruction of strategies and the indirect learning opportunities provided by the context, as well as intensive practice, to enable students to improve their SRL practices.

Dignath and Veenman (2021) further differentiated between implicit and explicit direct strategy instruction. Implicit instruction implies that students are induced to use a strategy without being provided with information about the significance of this activity. By comparison, with explicit instruction, the teacher clearly explains how to execute a valuable strategy, the benefits of a strategy’s use, and supports students’ strategy application (Adler et al., 2016; Schraw, 1998). Veenman (2018) indicated that, although not frequently addressed by teachers, explicit strategy instruction best facilitates the transfer of strategy application to appropriate settings. Several studies indicated that there are differences in the way teachers provide their students with opportunities to engage in SRL processes (Dignath & Veenman, 2021; Dignath-van Ewijk & van der Werf, 2012; Moos & Ringdal, 2012; Perry, 1998). These differences are associated with various factors such as teachers’ self-regulated learning practices, personal beliefs, the importance of content knowledge, students’ capacity to learn in a student-centered environment, teacher self-efficacy, or their ability to notice and interpret class situations to support SRL (Dignath, 2021; Dignath-van Ewijk & van der Werf, 2012; Michalsky, 2021; Moos & Ringdal, 2012; Vosniadou et al., 2021).

Methods

To answer our research question, a multiple-case study methodology was employed, which focused on five third-grade teachers who employed the Roadmap Platform, an SLE that indirectly provides students with opportunities to engage in SRL¹. Teachers’ instructional practices were examined using The Opportunities for SRL (Opp4SRL) Rubric, a theory-driven and practice-grounded observation tool developed to enable in situ examination of the extent to which teachers directly support students' SRL.

Context: the Roadmap Platform smart learning environment

For this study, students engaged in the Multiple Literacies in Project-based Learning (ML-PBL), a science curriculum meant to engage elementary students in project-based learning (PBL) to develop their understanding of science by using language literacy and mathematical tools (Krajcik et al., 2015; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006; Krajcik & Shin, 2014). The ML-PBL curriculum is based on the New Scientific Framework for K-12 (NRC, 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States, 2013). This curriculum, employed in an SLE, engages students in three-dimensional learning by intertwining the core ideas of science, scientific practices, and crosscutting concepts (Krajcik et al., 2015; NRC, 2012). Tasks in the ML-PBL curriculum are open-ended, provide multiple representational formats, and provide opportunities for students to construct their understanding with their teacher’s guidance and support. Such constructivist learning environments support students' self-regulated learning (Dignath-van-Ewijk & van der Welf, 2012; English & Kitsantas, 2013).

The Roadmap Platform hosted the digital lessons to support different educational outcomes defined by teachers in accordance with their needs. The Roadmap Platform is an open SLE that brings learning personalization to meet students’ needs by providing different resources to teachers or students following differently constructed lessons and learning tasks. Depending on the lessons' instructional design, this platform enables students to engage in the lessons alone or in collaboration with other students. A unique feature of the Roadmap Platform is that the lessons are presented as a visual concept map (Fig. 1), where students can tap on a node to perform a learning activity inside that node.

Fig. 1

An Example of a Lesson from ML-PBL Curriculum within the Roadmap Platform

The most prominent feature of the Roadmaps to support SRL is the visualization feature, which is the most frequent design functionality used to influence learners’ engagement and motivation (Gambo & Shakir, 2021a; Perez-Alvarez et al., 2018; Radovic & Seidel, 2024). Visualizing the lessons as concept maps can promote students’ SRL by allowing them to navigate and control their learning to varying degrees (Radovic & Seidel, 2024; Stevenson et al., 2017). For example, students can set their learning goals and plan activities accordingly. They can also monitor their understanding and choose to return to specific tasks to improve their understanding. Learners can also monitor their learning process and choose tasks according to their progression in the lesson.

Participants

Five female third-grade teachers from four public elementary schools in a Midwest US state participated in this study. Each teacher had over a decade of teaching experience and classes ranging from 28 to 32 students with similar demographics. See Table 1 for descriptions of the teachers.

Table 1 Description of participating teachers

All participants were certified science teachers and homeroom teachers, indicating that they were assigned to a specific class throughout the school year and were responsible for the general well-being and learning of the students. Thus, besides teaching science, they also taught their students math, English, and social studies. The teachers participated in professional learning focused on implementing ML-PBL, a year-long, digital NGSS-aligned (NRC, 2012) project-based learning science curriculum, and technology training to support the use of the Roadmap Platform, provided by the research team before the enactment. They were also provided with technical support throughout it as needed. The teachers were chosen because they all taught 3rd grade science using the ML-PBL science curriculum and participated in the same pre-enactment professional learning. The teachers did not interact with each other except for Nelly and Vivian, who worked at the same school. Each student had a computer (i.e., Chromebook) in these classes.

Data collection

According to Butler and Cartier (2018), case study research is beneficial for addressing questions about how and why different pedagogical practices create opportunities and support for students’ engagement in SRL. Therefore, a multiple case study methodology was employed (Yin, 2003), which enabled us to search for similarities, differences, and patterns across our data and characterize the extent to which teachers leverage opportunities for SRL within SLEs.

For four months, beginning in the Fall of 2019 and until Winter 2019, a research assistant who is also a certified special education teacher entered the participating teachers' classrooms. During these visits, she observed, took pictures, and recorded video observations of the five teachers and their students as they engaged with ML-PBL science curricula and with the Roadmap Platform, writing comprehensive field notes that enabled an in-depth investigation into SRL teaching and learning practices (Yin, 2003). Periodically, the research assistant met with the other authors to discuss the occurrences in the classes and make sure she documented the necessary data. Table 1 details the number of observations from each participating teacher’s classes. Classroom observation data were contextualized through informal discussions with teachers and students about their experiences. The researcher paid meticulous attention to the participating teachers’ instructional practices and students’ engagement in the curriculum.

Data analysis

Developing the opportunities for self-regulation rubric

Despite previous efforts to identify and examine teachers’ in situ SRL supporting instructional practices, none occurred in SLEs. This opportunity was the goal of the Opportunities for Self-Regulation (Opp4SRL) Rubric. Thus, the development of the Opp4SRL rubric was motivated by the value of observational data to SRL research, as it enabled in situ examination of SRL processes less subjectively than through self-reported measures, thereby increasing the validity of the data (Perry et al., 2002; Winne & Perry, 2000), and the investigation of SRL as a dynamic, multi-componential, and situated process (Butler & Cartier, 2018).

Building on Pintrich’s (2000, 2004) framework for SRL, the Opp4SRL rubric provided an in-depth, fine-grained analysis of teachers’ implementation of SRL-supporting instructional practices. It also enabled the creation of teachers’ SRL support profiles, which we define as the extent to which teachers provide their students with opportunities to engage in SRL processes through direct instruction within SLEs. Both theory and practice informed the development of the Opp4SRL, as we used an a priori theory of SRL informed by a synthesis of existing work (Iiskala et al., 2011, 2015; Kramarski, 2018; Perry, 1998; Pintrich, 2000, 2004; Schraw & Dennison, 1994), categories from existing observation instruments (Spruce & Bol, 2015; van Loon et al., 2021), and teachers’ observed instructional practices.

Following video-recorded classroom observations, the research team extensively discussed teachers’ instructional practices and their association with Pintrich’s (2000, 2004) framework. Through these discussions, we developed the Opp4SRL rubric for cognitive regulation, which addressed the four phases described by Pintrich (2000):

• Phase 1: Forethought, planning, and goal setting, as well as activation of perceptions and knowledge of the task and context and the self in relationship to the task,

• Phase 2: Monitoring processes that represent metacognitive awareness of different aspects of the self or task and context,

• Phase 3: Efforts to control and regulate different aspects of the self or task and context,

• Phase 4: Reactions and reflections on the self and the task or context.

These four phases served as the main categories for classifying data in the Opp4SRL rubric. Based on the SRL and metacognition literature, each primary category was further divided into sub-categories, with some being further divided (see Appendices 1, 2, 3, and 4 for details).

Based on the data, specifically observed differences and similarities within and across our participating teachers, we ascertained four levels of SRL-supporting instructional practices for each phase in the Opp4SRL rubric. Higher-level instructional practices imply they support SRL processes more by triggering more students’ proactiveness and responsibility for their learning and encouraging autonomous self-regulation (Butler, 2021; Reeve et al., 2008; Zimmerman, 2015). To discern between the levels, we built upon research about strategy instruction (Dignath-van Ewijk et al., 2013; Spruce & Bol, 2015; van Loon et al., 2021) and differences between implicit strategy instruction and explicit strategy instruction following Dignath and Veenman’s (2021) framework. This model’s differentiation between implicit and explicit strategy instruction was extended to include teachers’ implicit and explicit references to metacognitive learning processes. Hence, the Opp4SRL evaluated how teachers' direct instruction (Dignath & Veenman, 2021) supports students' cognitive regulation within the Roadmap SLE Platform, which provides indirect SRL instruction. The pedagogical control continuum ranged from mainly teacher-directed to primarily student-centered practices determined by the explicitness of addressing learning processes and strategy instruction according to the following levels:

• Level 1 entails implicit instructional practices. Instructional practices at this level are at the extreme end of teacher-directed instruction, as they assign students a reactive rather than a proactive role because it restricts their ability to engage in metacognitive processes. Using Level 1 instructional practices excludes students from regulating their learning.

• Level 2 shifts from teacher-directed to more student-centered instruction using instructional practices to raise students’ awareness of learning processes. Based on research emphasizing the importance of awareness of metacognitive and SRL processes (Kistner et al., 2010; Pintrich, 2002; Schraw, 1998), Level 2 instructional practices explicitly address self-regulation and metacognition. Thus, implementing Level 2 instructional practices raises students’ awareness of the rationale and importance of engagement in metacognitive and SRL processes and, in this way, enables students to assume more responsibility for their learning.

• Level 3 entails instructional practices that aim to raise students’ awareness of learning processes and allow them to engage in regulatory processes (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2012). By raising students’ awareness of the learning processes and engaging them in self-regulation while encouraging their autonomy (Mykkänen et al., 2015; Perry & Rahim, 2011; Perry et al., 2002; Reeve, 2009; Reeve et al., 2008), Level 3 instructional practices provide extended opportunities for students to proactively engage in SRL and assume greater responsibility for their learning.

• Level 4 entails instructional practices that aim to raise students’ awareness of learning processes, allow them to engage in regulatory processes, and explicitly teach metacognitive strategies to help students make informed decisions about their learning processes. In addition to the processes entailed by Levels 1–3, Level 4 instructional practices entail explicit teaching of metacognitive strategies, which have been shown to affect academic achievements positively (Effeney et al., 2013; Schunk, 1981; Schunk & Usher, 2013; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007; Verschaffel et al., 2019; Weinstein et al., 2000). Level 4 instructional practices achieve student-centered instruction, providing students with extended opportunities to proactively engage in SRL processes, assume vast responsibility for their learning, and be strategically engaged in metacognition.

To ascertain the dependability of the coding scheme (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Miles et al., 2020; Watts & Finkenstaedt-Quinn, 2021), the first author and a research assistant, with prolonged engagement in the field (Creswell & Miller, 2000), independently observed and analyzed one video-recorded classroom lesson for each of the five teachers. They engaged in an iterative process to interpret and operationalize the various levels of the Opp4SRL rubric, coding and analyzing the teachers’ instructional practices. The researchers engaged in reflexive dialogue to compare their interpretations, addressing discrepancies by reviewing the video recordings, photos, and descriptions from the field notes to achieve a consensus operationalization of the levels (Watts & Finkenstaedt-Quinn, 2021). This process emphasized credibility through the triangulation of multiple data sources and the collaborative refinement of interpretations (Miles et al., 2020). To enhance confirmability (Miles et al., 2020), the rubric was shared with the fourth author, who provided additional feedback. This iterative and collaborative process generated a final version of the Opp4SRL rubric. Figure 2 provides an overview of the development process of the Opp4SRL for cognitive regulation.

Fig. 2

The Development Process of the Opp4SRL Rubric for Cognitive Regulation in SLEs

Coding and data analysis

Once the Opp4SRL rubric reached its final form, the research team employed an iterative coding process to analyze and interpret teachers’ instructional practices concerning SRL in the videotaped lessons of all five teachers (Watts & Finkenstaedt-Quinn, 2021). The first author and the research assistant independently observed and coded a video-recorded classroom lesson for each teacher, generating detailed descriptions of teachers' instructional practices aligned with their corresponding scores on the Opp4SRL rubric (Creswell & Miller, 2000). They then engaged in collaborative discussions to compare and refine their analyses, ensuring alignment with the coding framework (Garrison et al., 2006; O'Connor & Joffe, 2020). Discrepancies were resolved through reflexive dialogue, consultation of relevant literature, joint observation of the lesson, and refinement of the operationalization of the Opp4SRL rubric to enhance clarity and consistency (Garrison et al., 2006; O'Connor & Joffe, 2020; Watts & Finkenstaedt-Quinn, 2021). For example, most disagreements centered around distinguishing between cognitive and metacognitive strategies. To address these, the coders reviewed the relevant literature (e.g., Dignath & Veenman, 2021; Schraw, 1998; Schraw et al., 1994) and engaged in interpretive discussions about teachers’ practices, refining the Opp4SRL rubric to better capture these nuances for future analyses. Additional disagreements arose concerning coding categories associated with forethought, planning, and activating, which occurred at various points within the lesson rather than at its onset. This prompted a review of SRL literature (Pintrich, 2000, 2004), concluding that SRL phases are not strictly linear. The coding scheme was adapted to account for this. Once all lessons were analyzed, the first author conducted a holistic review of the codes to ensure coding coherence and dependability (Miles et al., 2020). An example of the coding of a teacher's instructional practices across the observed lessons is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 An example of the coding of a teacher’s instructional practices

In addition to the detailed descriptions of the teachers’ instructional practices (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Miles et al., 2020), SRL support profiles were generated for all observations. For each lesson, this profile was created by calculating the average score for each phase of SRL based on the assigned scores for teachers’ instructional practices. This resulted in an average score of five components for forethought, planning, and activation, a score of one for monitoring, a score of one for control, and an average score of two components for reaction and reflection. The teacher’s SRL support profile for all lessons was generated by calculating the average score for each phase across all observed lessons. See Fig. 3 for a summary of the research methodology.

Fig. 3

Summary of the Research Methodology

Results

Case one: Kelly

Being a homeroom teacher, Kelly taught most of the subjects in her third-grade class and spent much of the day with her students. Nevertheless, her science lessons were short and scheduled for 25 min per lesson. In all observed lessons, Kelly first completed the learning tasks with her students as a class activity offline using pencil and paper, only to repeat the same activity individually using their computers.

Kelly’s forethought and planning

Despite the visual representation of the lesson depicted by the Roadmap Platform, Kelly did not provide her students with an overview of the lesson or contextualize students’ learning within previous experiences. Instead, she instructed her students on a task-by-task orientation (Level 1). Kelly provided her students with focused, explicit lesson goals (Level 2), such as watching a video, reading a text, developing a model (Lesson 2), double-checking their paper models, and sharing them with her (Lesson 3), or creating a model using Flipbook app (a dynamic modeling tool) (Lesson 4). She addressed students’ prior knowledge in two observed lessons, employing Level 2 instructional practice. For example, in Lesson 1, she reminded her students how to use the Flipbook and prompted them to discuss the object they intended to add to their models and adequately label the different components as previously discussed. In Lesson 4, she reminded the students about their discussion from the previous lessons and verified that they remembered the essential concepts. However, Kelly did not explicitly address strategies for information management or debugging that could help her students complete the tasks independently and effectively.

Kelly’s monitoring, control, and evaluation

When students worked, Kelly monitored their learning primarily by walking around the class. She did not provide opportunities for them to engage in the monitoring process. We did not observe any lesson in which Kelly evaluated students' learning, possibly because of the short duration of each lesson.

Summary

Kelly’s instructional practices were primarily coded as Level 1 with some instances of Level 2. These levels imply that Kelly rarely used instructional practices that provided opportunities for her students to engage in self-regulated processes during learning, as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Kelly’s SRL Profile across the Observed Lessons

Kelly did not leverage the opportunities provided by the SLE. Instead, she used the Roadmap Platform mainly as a facilitating means for easy access to the various applications, mostly Flipbook , and as a classroom management-organizational tool that helps her coordinate the class: keep everyone performing only the assigned tasks, rather than as a conceptual tool to guide student learning and support their engagement in SRL processes. Moreover, she revised the Roadmaps provided by curriculum developers to exclusively provide access to Flipbook or other apps as separate activities, with no connecting arrows between them, thus further excluding students from their ability to regulate and control their learning and engage in SRL processes.

Case two: Bella

Bella had a strong technological orientation. She used the Roadmap Platform in a hybrid approach, using paper, pencil, and computers to complete the tasks. In the observed students, Bella’s students usually used their computers individually, combined whole class and individual learning, and shifted between class discussions and individual work for each task.

Bella’s forethought and planning

In all three observations, Bella projected the Roadmaps at the beginning of the lesson and contextualized students’ learning. However, her teaching can be characterized as task-oriented, and she did not leverage the opportunities provided by the SLE to provide an overview of the lesson or engage her students in lesson planning (Level 1). Bella explicitly addressed the lessons’ goal and triggered prior knowledge activation. In the second and third observed lessons, Bella applied a similar pedagogy: She reminded students of previous activities and experiments, recapped what they figured out, and echoed their thinking. The discussion drew upon students’ knowledge and experience (Level 3). Bella applied several information management strategies in her instruction in the second and third observed lessons (e.g., turn and talk to your elbow partner) and a debugging strategy in the third lesson (i.e., share your thinking). However, she used these strategies implicitly without raising students’ awareness of their goals or importance (Level 1). This approach contrasted with the first observed lesson, where she explicitly provided her students with two debugging strategies (i.e., re-reading and rephrasing questions in one’s own words) (Level 2).

Bella’s monitoring, control, and evaluation

Bella monitored students’ progress from a cognitive perspective as she circled the classroom while students were working. However, she did not provide them with opportunities to engage in self-monitoring or attend to students’ use of learning strategies. In all three lessons, Bella did not evaluate students’ learning or strategy use (Level 1). In the first lesson, she conducted an evaluating discussion at the end of the lesson about focused tech-associated procedural aspects of the lesson (e.g., using a mouse, typing) (Level 2).

Summary

In sum, Bella’s scores throughout the observed lessons indicate that most of her instructional practices were identified as Level 1 and 2, with the rare application of Level 3 instructional practices when attempting to activate students’ prior knowledge (see Fig. 5).

Fig. 5

Bella’s SRL Profile across the Observed Lessons

As presented in Fig. 5, Bella did not provide her students with many opportunities to engage in and practice SRL. Rather than using the opportunities for SRL provided indirectly by the SLE, she used the Roadmap Platform as a classroom management-organizational tool that helps her coordinate the class: keep everyone on the same prescribed track wherein students carry out the same task at the same time and pace. She did so by combining entire class discussions with individual work and using Roadmaps as a coordinating tool between the two types of activities: Bella projected the Roadmaps on the board, described the plan for that day, and carried out some aspects of the task with her students; then she sent the students to work individually on their computers and complete the task while keeping the Roadmaps projected throughout the lesson on the board; and at last, once they completed the task, the students returned to whole class discussions as she introduced the next task before continuing their work individually.

Case three: Vivian

Vivian was much less technology-oriented than the other teachers in this study. Therefore, she initially used technology much less than the other teachers and supplemented digital learning with paper and pencil activities rather than using the technology-based curriculum. As she gained more confidence with the curriculum and technology throughout the unit, she increasingly shifted to using the Roadmap Platform. However, even as Vivian gained confidence, she continued to teach in a hybrid manner, using both paper and pencil and technology-based activities instead of shifting to digital instruction.

Vivian’s forethought and planning

In two observed lessons, Vivian gave her students an overview of the curriculum. She contextualized the lesson within the unit while projecting the Roadmaps on the board (Level 2). She also explicitly addressed lesson goals, such as developing or revising models of scientific phenomena using paper and pencil or using the Flipbook. Vivian spent considerable time in each lesson encouraging her students to activate and share their prior knowledge with the class. She actively engaged students in thinking about what they had learned in previous lessons and encouraged them to share the sources of information with their peers (Level 3). Vivian implicitly addressed several information management strategies in her instruction to support students in completing their tasks, such as note-taking and using prompts for recalling information. However, she did not introduce any debugging strategy (Level 1). An exception occurred in Lesson 1. In this case, a student asked Vivian whether she could read articles they had previously read in search of information to include and revise her model. Vivian liked the idea and strategy, so she used the example to raise students’ awareness of its importance, described its rationale, and enabled her students to use the articles to revise their models.

Vivian’s monitoring, control, and evaluation

In two lessons, Vivian raised students’ awareness of the importance of monitoring and engaged them in monitoring their work (Level 3). In Lesson 1, Vivian used a unique strategy called Walk and Talk, which was implemented to support students in peer reviews and monitor each other’s progress. In this strategy, half of the students remain seated while the other half circles around the class and pairs up with the seated students to discuss their work and provide feedback. The students can either receive the feedback and write it on a sticky note or reject it and reply, “Thank you, but I’m good.” When introducing this strategy, Vivian explained its rationale: “Sometimes other people see aspects in your models that you were not aware of, but it is your choice whether to receive the feedback or not.” As students provided feedback to each other, Vivian walked around them, listened, and monitored their peer feedback. In Lesson 3, as students worked, Vivian circled the class, monitored their work, and helped if needed. As she examined students’ work, Vivian asked them to think about their models and self-assess their performance. For example, Vivian came across one group that did not label the components on their models, which triggered them to think about how they could help other people understand their models until the students came up with the idea of adding labels. Despite her awareness and use of strategies in her instruction, Vivian was not observed regulating students’ strategies. Vivian was also not observed evaluating students’ performance or their use of learning strategies.

Summary

Vivian’s scores throughout the observed lessons indicate that her instructional practices varied, ranging primarily from Level 1 to 2, with some Level 3 and 4 scores concerning planning and monitoring. She scored Level 1 in evaluation and monitoring (see Fig. 6).

Fig. 6

Vivian’s SRL Profile across the Observed Lessons

Vivian provided her students with some opportunities for SRL during the planning and even more during the monitoring phases of their work. However, these opportunities were unrelated to the characteristics of the Roadmap Platform (e.g., its visual representation), and Vivian could have also implemented these pedagogies without the technology. In this sense, she did not leverage opportunities provided by the SLE but instead created novel opportunities through direct instruction. Hence, Vivian used the Roadmap Platform as a supplementary tool that accompanied the paper and pencil activities and provided easy access to the online tasks as students worked.

Case four: Nelly

Nelly and Vivian worked at the same school and coordinated their teaching. Unlike Vivian, Nelly was observed to be technologically oriented and reported feeling very comfortable using technology to support teaching. In the students’ first encounter with the Roadmap Platform, Nelly spent considerable time supporting students’ use of the technology and provided step-by-step operational instructions: getting to the different nodes, launching the activities, and completing the tasks. As she and her students gained confidence throughout the lessons, she reduced the time spent on technical explanations. Nelly alternately combined whole class instruction with individual group work in all the observed lessons. She first introduced the lesson using the Roadmap Platform and then enabled students to independently use the Roadmaps to navigate and complete the different tasks.

Nelly’s forethought and planning

Nelly provided a comprehensive overview of the lesson (Level 2) and explicitly raised students’ awareness of the lesson goals (Level 2). In the first observation, after a detailed explanation of the goals for the lesson, Nelly realized that the students took more time to complete the tasks than planned. Therefore, she enabled some students to choose whether to skip or complete the task. This deviation from the original lesson plan enabled students to engage in SRL (Level 3). She also dedicated much time to activating students’ prior knowledge, though she did not engage students in the process and provided the relevant information herself (Level 2).

Nelly was strategic and employed multiple information management strategies. For example, in Lessons 2 and 3, Nelly used several information management strategies in her instruction: (1) Categorizing questions: Nelly paired students’ questions according to their content into: “nice partnerships,” as she described. While categorizing questions is an essential strategy for learning, Nelly did not let the students try this strategy by themselves, nor did she explain how she performed the categorization (e.g., similar words, ideas, themes). Instead, she briefly showed students a set of questions in which the word “colors” appeared several times to demonstrate how she organized the questions. This lack of explicitness might challenge students to use this strategy independently; (2) Combining topics to formulate high-level questions: Nelly shared several student questions in which they connected multiple topics, resulting in complex, high-level questions. However, she did not explicitly introduce this as a strategy to ask high-level questions; (3) Using the Driving Question bard (DQB) (i.e., a pedagogical tool designed to encourage students to ask questions) to keep track of learning, document, and reflect on learning: Nelly used the DQB to document students’ thinking but did not explicitly explain how to use the DQB to keep track of and reflect upon their learning.

As is evident from these examples, while Nelly modeled and exemplified her thinking to the students, she did not explicitly introduce the strategies: their rationale, how to use them, or conditions under which the strategies are helpful, as advocated by Schraw (1998) (Level 1). We observed one instance where Nelly explicitly provided her students with an information management strategy—a rubric for developing models. As she reviewed with her students how to develop models, Nelly generated a rubric with them in the form of a list of the components that should be integrated into their model (Level 2). In all our observations, Nelly did not explicitly address debugging strategies in her instruction.

Nelly’s monitoring, control, and evaluation

In Lesson 1, Nelly monitored students’ progress as she walked around the class and supported students with tech issues and scientific content (Level 2). In Lessons 2 and 3, Nelly used the Driving Question Board (DQB) embedded within the Roadmap Platform as an effective and unique pedagogy for monitoring. In pairs, Nelly had the students discuss the questions on the DQB on their own. Once students decided, they shared it with Nelly: If correct – Nelly allowed them to move on to the next question; if incorrect – Nelly supported them to reach the correct answer. Using this pedagogy, Nelly allowed her students to monitor their learning (Level 3). Despite using this pedagogy in her instruction, Nelly did not regulate students’ use of learning strategies. Nelly used a similar pedagogy in the evaluation process. She used the DQB as a scaffold to support students in evaluating their learning process at the end of the unit (Level 3). Despite student engagement in the evaluation of learning, Nelly did not evaluate student use of their learning strategies.

Summary

Nelly blended SRL supporting instructional practices, including Levels 1, 2, and 3. These levels imply that Nelly enabled her students with multiple opportunities to engage in the SRL process, specifically during the planning, monitoring, and evaluation phases (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7

Nelly’s SRL Profile across the Observed Lessons

As implied by Fig. 7, Nelly leveraged opportunities for SRL provided by the SLE. Nelly used the Roadmap Platform as a conceptual tool to facilitate students’ learning, specifically the visual aspects of the curriculum and the different tasks embedded within the curriculum – specifically the DQB – to support students in monitoring and evaluating their learning.

Case five: Mellissa

Mellissa had a strong technological orientation and indicated she felt comfortable using technology in her class. The computers in her class were used extensively to support different types of learning: individually, in pairs, or during small team activities. Upon beginning to implement the Roadmap Platform in her science class, she provided her students with much technical support, which decreased as her students gained proficiency with this technological environment.

Mellissa’s forethought and planning

Mellissa’s lessons usually began with a whole class discussion, where she set the stage for the lesson by providing a comprehensive lesson overview. Although she used one lesson plan, Mellissa enabled her students to work asynchronously (i.e., allowed different tasks simultaneously) and progress at their own pace (Level 3). In two observed lessons, Mellissa explicitly addressed the lesson’s goals (Level 2), and in one lesson, she enabled students to choose their goals based on their own pace (Level 3).

In three lessons, Mellissa encouraged her students to activate their prior knowledge and provided them with strategies to recall information. For example, in Lesson 2, Mellissa first discussed relevant prior knowledge to support learning. She then reviewed a video with her students, discussed its content, and encouraged them to share their prior ideas and knowledge (Level 3). In Lesson 4, Mellissa activated students’ prior knowledge by reminding them what they had learned and encouraging them to share what they remembered. Following a student's remarks, Mellissa developed a class discussion about books as essential resources, suggesting students read the books in class to prepare for the lesson (Level 4).

Mellissa did not address information management strategies except in the first lesson. However, she explicitly addressed debugging strategies, encouraged her students to share their strategies with their peers, and chose the strategy that best aligned with their learning. For example, in Lesson 1, Mellissa raised students’ awareness of the importance of debugging strategies and then explained how to perform a peer review. To do so, she instructed her students to work together to identify errors, provide constructive feedback, and revise accordingly (Level 2). In Lesson 4, Mellissa explained the importance of reading and following instructions carefully to stay on track. As her students worked individually, she noticed one student erased the instructions after completing them. Mellissa shared the student’s strategy with the class, explained its importance, and encouraged them to independently develop effective strategies (Level 4).

Mellissa’s monitoring, control, and evaluation

After providing an overview of the lesson, Mellissa sent her students to work independently, individually, or with peers in all observed lessons. Mellissa’s lessons were structured as learning stations wherein students asynchronously completed different tasks and then moved to the next station according to the description in the Roadmaps and at their own pace. As students worked, Mellissa monitored their progress. She did not tell her students what they should do but instead provided them with suggestions and strategies. It was common to hear her saying, “You’re not always going to have a teacher that will do everything for you,” and “I’m counting on you,” indicating her confidence in students’ abilities. She also allowed students to engage in independent and collaborative monitoring processes. For example, in the third lesson, Mellissa identified several students who did not fully understand what they should do. In these cases, rather than telling them how to proceed, she sent them back to their Roadmaps and had them talk to their peers and figure it out themselves (Level 3).

In all observed lessons, Mellissa also monitored and regulated students’ use of strategies. In several instances, Mellissa provided explicit guidance on strategy monitoring and control. For example, in Lesson 2, Mellissa discussed the importance of following instructions with her students. She then asked them to read an instructional text or watch an instructional video according to their choice. As students worked, one group approached her several times, claiming they had a problem with the task. From their questions, Mellissa realized they had not watched the video but had read the instructional text and sent them to watch it again to understand better how to tackle the task. In another instance, Mellissa noticed that some groups were not working efficiently. She stopped the class and reminded them they “only have 32 min [and] should work seriously and ensure you are on time because whatever you finish and submit will be graded.” She instructed them to look at the time, look at the instructions, and work out how to complete the task on time (Level 3). In Lesson 3, Mellissa realized that one of her students was unsure about the task. She asked how he tried to figure out the task, and the student answered that he had asked a friend. Mellissa was unsatisfied with this strategy: “Well, why do they have to tell you? Do you have the information? Why don’t you go back to the Roadmap and discover what you are trying to know? Whose job is it – their job to tell you or your job to find out?”.

Moreover, Mellissa realized that the student did not use the strategy of asking a friend correctly because he could not articulate the issue he was facing. She discussed with him the strategy of asking a friend and the conditions under which it is ineffective compared to looking at his Roadmap. She then left him with the choice of how he would like to continue and advised him to work more effectively to avoid frustration (Level 4).

In one instance, Melissa facilitated a class evaluation discussion and discussed students’ performance (Lesson 3). She asked her students to reflect upon their performances and strategies by asking multiple triggering questions, such as: “What did you accomplish? Do you feel good about the pace of your work? Do you feel like you have always worked hard and did your best work?” She called on several students and asked them to share their experiences with the class. Mellissa enabled students to evaluate different aspects of their performance by themselves using a variety of measures and criteria (Level 3). In this discussion, Mellissa also prompted them to share the strategies they used during the lesson. Throughout the discussion, Mellissa provided a safe space for students to share their ideas. She welcomed all students’ opinions, echoed their thoughts, and discussed their strategies with the entire class (Level 4).

Summary

In sum, throughout her lessons, Mellissa used various SRL-supporting instructional practices. Most of her practices were upper-high SRL-supportive practices (Levels 2 and 3) and even Level 4 in several cases (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8

Mellissa’s SRL Profile across the Observed Lessons

Mellissa provided her students many opportunities to engage in, practice, and develop their SRL practices. She used the Roadmap Platform as a conceptual tool to facilitate students’ learning, guiding them throughout the tasks and supporting their abilities to engage in SRL. She leveraged the opportunities for SRL provided indirectly by the SLE, especially in the planning phase, and directly via strategies instruction and her just-in-time support for SRL, especially in the monitoring, control, and evaluation phases. At the beginning of the lesson, she used the Roadmaps for orientation purposes to show the lesson plan and set the goals for the lesson as she projected it on the board throughout the lesson. As students worked independently during the lesson, Mellissa used the Roadmaps to help them navigate the different tasks and stay on track with the goals. At the end of the lesson, Mellissa used the Roadmaps to reflect upon and summarize student learning. Interestingly, despite her focus on SRL processes in addition to her focus on the scientific content and practices as required by the curriculum, her progression through the units was rapid, and she was usually several lessons ahead of the other teachers in her cohort.

Discussion

This study examined how five third-grade teachers leveraged opportunities for SRL in an SLE through their instructional practices. The use of observational data analyzed with the Opp4SRL (Pintrich, 2000, 2004; Spruce & Bol, 2015; van Loon et al., 2021) allowed a fine-grained analysis of the teachers’ SRL supporting instructional practices and the generation of their SRL support profiles which indicates the extent to which the teachers enable or restrict students' cognitive regulation through direct instruction. The results indicate that the teachers implemented different SRL-supporting instructional practices, varied in their SRL support profiles, and differed in their interactions with the Roadmap SLE. These interactions ranged from a teacher-focused use, restricting students’ opportunities to engage in SRL processes, to a student-focused use, leveraging the potential of the SLE through direct instruction and providing their students with extensive opportunities for engagement in SRL. Figure 9 presents the participating teachers' interactions and positions across the continuum based on their SRL support profile.

Fig. 9

Teachers’ Interactions with the Roadmap Smart Learning Environment

Both Kelly and Bella implemented the Roadmap Platform as a classroom management tool to help them coordinate the class, keep all students on the same pace, and thus demonstrate teacher-focused use with limited opportunities for students' engagement in SRL. Kelly even revised the Roadmaps and omitted arrows between tasks that could have supported students in navigating the tasks and developing SRL competencies. By contrast, Nelly and Mellissa used the Roadmap Platform as a conceptual tool to facilitate students’ learning, guiding them throughout the tasks and supporting their abilities to engage in SRL and regulate the cognitive aspects of their learning. This approach allowed Nelly and Mellissa to leverage the opportunities provided by the SLE in their instruction to support students’ engagement in SRL and thus demonstrate a student-focused use. Vivian’s case was interesting because she used the Roadmap Platform as a supplementary tool to accompany paper and pencil assignments, as the digital tool provided easy access to online tasks. Vivian’s instructional practices indicate that rather than leveraging the opportunities for SRL provided by the SLE, she created new opportunities unrelated to the potential of the Roadmap Platform that could be implemented in non-technological environments.

SLEs such as the Roadmap Platform , which are based on constructivist learning accompanied by SRL-supporting tools, can provide a rich context with opportunities for students to build on prior knowledge, construct meaning about strategies, and learn how to use strategies flexibly and adaptively in different situations (Butler, 2021; Dignath, 2021). However, our study demonstrates differences in how the teachers interacted and used this environment through their SRL-supporting instructional practices, which impacted whether and how students had opportunities to engage in SRL and determined the extent to which students engaged in cognitive regulation. In line with the literature, our findings indicate that teachers who implemented a traditional, rigid teaching model limited the SLEs' potential to affect their students' learning and engagement in SRL (García-Tudela et al., 2021).

Our results imply that using innovative technology in the classrooms does not guarantee that its use to support learning and instruction will be innovative or effective (Spector, 2014). Thus, we should not assume that including SLEs in classroom learning fosters SRL strategies use or development (Broadbent & Poon, 2015). Instead, as Broadnent, Panadero, Lodge, and de Barba (2020, p. 50) argued, “Technologies can only ever open the door for students; they cannot do the self-regulation for them, even if we assume a strong distributed cognition position on the role of machines in all this.” These results echo previous studies in non-technological environments, which demonstrated that teachers’ instructional practices were a crucial factor in determining the extent of the opportunities for SRL experienced by the students (e.g., Dignath-van Ewijk, Dickhauser, & Büttner, 2013; Moos & Ringdall, 2012; Whitebread & Coltman, 2010; van Loon et al., 2021). Kinshuk et al. (2016) identified several critical shifts in pedagogies to support the requirements of learning within SLEs: analyzing micro-social interactions for possible knowledge nuggets and integrating them with the learners' previously gained knowledge; change in assessment to include knowledge generated from micro-social interactions; assessment in ubiquitous learning environments; and real-time intervention in learning. Our research suggests that shifts in pedagogies should also include shifting towards SRL-supporting instructional practices to fully exploit the educational potential of SLEs.

Several factors could explain the teachers' different interactions with the Roadmap Platform (Greene, 2021). A substantial body of research suggests that teacher beliefs play a significant role in understanding teacher practice (Lombaerts et al., 2009; Spruce & Bol, 2015; Vosniadou et al., 2021). Dignath (2021) demonstrated that teacher competence profiles, including professional knowledge, pedagogical beliefs, and motivational orientations, can explain teacher classroom practice variations. Ha and Lee (2019) identified teachers' student-centered beliefs and ICT-related knowledge as key factors in successfully implementing SLEs. Although the current study did not examine teachers’ beliefs, pedagogical or technological knowledge, and motivational orientations, it is plausible that these factors are at play when teachers use the Roadmap SLE, resulting in differences among teachers’ SRL-supporting instructional practices and SRL-support profiles.

Our findings suggest the development of teachers' capacity to foster students' SRL within SLEs requires intentional and explicit support and development (Kramarski & Heaysman, 2021). Numerous prior studies have underscored the critical role of teacher professional development in integrating innovative technologies to promote effective and transformative teaching and instruction (de Jong et al., 2014; Spector, 2014; Zhang et al., 2023). This point was further emphasized in the OECD report (2016, p. 3):

Despite the huge potential of digitalization for fostering and enhancing learning, digital technologies' impact on education has been shallow. Massive investments in ICT [Information and Communication Technology] in schools have not yet resulted in the hoped-for transformation of educational practices, probably because the overriding focus on hardware and connectivity has kept back equally powerful strategies for increasing teachers’ ICT skills, improving teachers’ professional development, reforming pedagogies, and producing appropriate software and courseware.

Taken together with previous research, our results suggest that it is important to support teachers in developing themselves as agents of SRL within SLEs through professional development such as by addressing teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and self-efficacy judgments about their ability to support their students’ SRL as well as their professional vision (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Butler, 2021; Dignath & Veenman, 2021; Karlen et al., 2020; Kramarski, 2018).

Conclusions and implications

This study highlights the crucial role of teachers' direct instructional practices in leveraging opportunities for students' cognitive regulation in SLEs. Our study demonstrates that to engage students within SLEs effectively, teachers must shift from a traditional rigid teaching model and a teacher-focused use of SLE towards a student-focused use of SLEs by applying high-level SRL-supporting instructional practices. Our study suggests that appropriate professional development is needed to support teachers in transforming their practice. For this purpose, teachers’ SRL support profiles can be regarded as a dynamic goal that teachers can alter by enriching their repertoire of SRL-supporting instructional practices. As this study explored the practices of a small group of teachers, future research should delve into a broader range of contexts and participants to deepen understanding and further refine these findings.

Limitations and future studies

While this study focused on the teachers and their instructional practices depicted in the findings, it is important to note that the classroom environment cannot be fully understood because the students' SRL behaviors are missing. To overcome this limitation, future studies should attempt to concurrently document and analyze both teaching and learning with SLEs from an SRL perspective and examine the interactions between teachers’ instructional practices and students’ engagement in SRL processes in SLEs (e.g., van Loon et al., 2021). Second, while this study examined the cognitive dimension of SRL, SLEs offer students opportunities to regulate additional aspects of SRL, including motivational, behavioral, and contextual. Therefore, a complete analysis of teachers' support of students' SRL within SLEs should consider these additional dimensions of SRL (Pintrich, 2000, 2004). Third, the teachers in this study did not receive training focused on implementing SRL-supporting instructional practices within SLEs. An important future area of research is to examine models for professional development to enrich teachers’ practices and enable them to provide their students with extended opportunities for engagement in SRL in SLEs (Butler, 2021; Dignath & Veenman, 2021). Fourth, past research indicated that teachers’ self-regulated learning practices and personal beliefs about teaching and learning, or their ability to notice and interpret class situations to support SRL, could explain differences in their SRL-supporting instructional practices (Dignath, 2021; Dignath-van Ewijk & van der Werf, 2012; Michalsky, 2021; Moos & Ringdal, 2012; Spruce & Bol, 2015; Vosniadou et al., 2021). Future research could also examine the role of personal beliefs about teaching and learning in developing SRL profiles in SLEs and the interplay of teachers’ beliefs and SRL support profiles over time. Studies could examine how professional development courses targeting these variables help teachers alter their SRL support profiles within SLEs. Last, teachers' promotion of SRL processes within SLEs may also be related to their experience with these settings. Future studies may also examine the relationship between teachers' experience with SLEs and their use of SRL-supporting instructional practices. The current study is a starting point, not an ending point, for our ongoing research, and we encourage researchers in the field to join these efforts.

Appendices

Appendix 1

The Opportunities for Self-Regulated Learning Rubric (Opp4SRL): Forethought, planning and activation

Regulation of cognition (Pintrich, 2000)
Phase 1 (Pintrich, 2000, 2004): Forethought, planning, and activation – involves task planning, goal setting, and activation of perceptions and knowledge of the task and context There are three general types of planning or activation: (1) target goal setting, (2) activation of relevant prior content knowledge, and (3) activation of metacognitive knowledge
Planning
(1) Does not address issues related to the planning processes	(2) Raises awareness of the planning processes	(3) Engages students in the planning process	(4) Engages students in the planning processes and provides metacognitive strategies for effective planning
Examples from teachers using RoadMap
Provides no overview of the lesson: Does not provide the students with an overview of the lesson, but instead manages the lesson task-by-task	Provides an overview of the lesson: Provides students with an overview of the lesson and situates the lesson in the flow of learning. Sets up a single vision of the lesson and enables one possible path to achieve its goals	Provides a flexible and negotiable overview of the lesson: Provides students with an overview of the lesson and situates the lesson in the flow of learning. Provides choice within the lesson plan: e.g., multiple visions for the lessons, several optional paths to achieve the goals, different pacing, OR exhibits willingness to negotiate the paths to achieving the goals	Provides a flexible and negotiable overview of the lesson and provides students with strategies to choose between options: Provides students with an overview of the lesson and situates the lesson in the flow of learning. Provides choice within the lesson plan: Multiple visions for the lessons and several optional paths to achieve the goals, OR exhibits willingness to negotiate the paths to achieving the goals. Explains the differences between the different paths and provides the students with strategies to make informed decisions about which path to follow
Target goal setting: Target goal setting involves the setting of task-specific goals
(1) Does not address issues related to goal setting	(2) Raises awareness of goal setting	(3) Engages students in the process of goal setting	(4) Engages students in the process of goal setting and provides metacognitive strategies for effective goal setting
Examples from teachers using RoadMap:
Provides no explicit goals (conceptual/procedural) for the lesson: While there might be implicit goals for the lesson, the teacher does not address the goals explicitly	Provides explicit goals (conceptual/procedural) for the lesson: Explicitly addresses the goals for the lesson	Provides multiple optional, explicit goals (conceptual/procedural) for students and enables choice. Explicitly addresses multiple goals for students and enables students to choose their goals	Provides multiple optional, explicit goals (conceptual/procedural) for students, enables choice and strategies for goal setting: Explicitly addresses multiple goals for students and enables students to choose their goals. The teacher provides strategies for informed decision-making
Prior content knowledge activation: The second aspect of forethought and planning involves activating relevant prior knowledge Activating prior knowledge before learning: Addressing and invoking relevant prior knowledge to support learning
(1) Does not address students’ prior knowledge	(2) Addresses students’ prior knowledge	(3) Engages students in activating their prior knowledge and might provide the reasoning for activating prior knowledge	(4) Engages students in activating their prior knowledge and provides metacognitive strategies for effective activation of their prior knowledge
Examples from teachers using RoadMap:
Activates no relevant prior knowledge (content/procedural): Does not address relevant prior knowledge in instruction	Addresses students’ prior knowledge (content/procedural): Addresses relevant prior knowledge in instruction to support learning	Encourages students to activate relevant prior knowledge (content/procedural) and might also explain the importance of prior knowledge activation: Encourages and allocates time for students to activate, think, and discuss prior and relevant knowledge OR search and investigate resources to support learning	Encourages students to activate relevant prior knowledge (content/procedural) and provides strategies to carry out knowledge activation: Encourages and allocates time for students to activate, think, and discuss prior and relevant knowledge OR search and investigate resources to support learning, explains the reasoning behind prior knowledge activation and provides and explains about the use of strategies to select and use relevant prior knowledge effectively
Metacognitive knowledge activation: The activation of metacognitive knowledge includes activating knowledge about cognitive tasks and strategies Strategies for information management: Skills and strategy sequence used online to process information more efficiently (Schraw & Dennison, 1994)
(1) Does not provide explicit information management strategies	(2) Provides explicit information management strategies	(3) Provides explicit information management strategies and engages students in the process of strategy choosing, adapting, or developing	(4) Provides explicit information management strategies and engages students in the process of strategy choosing, adapting, or developing; and provides explanations for effective choice of strategies (aligns metacognitive knowledge about strategies and about self)
Examples from teachers using RoadMap:
Provides no explicit information management strategies: While there might be implicit use of strategies, the teacher does not explicitly address strategies for information management (e.g., note-taking, text skimming, flowcharts, tables)	Provides explicit information management strategies: Explicitly addresses strategies for information management and raises students’ awareness of their importance, rationale, and use	Provides explicit information management strategies and enables choice AND encourages the development of personal strategies: Explicitly addresses strategies for information management; raises students’ awareness of their importance, rationale, and use; and enables and encourages students to choose between the strategies AND encourages students to develop their own	Provides explicit information management strategies, enables choice AND encourages the development of personal strategies; AND provides explanations for effective strategy choice: Explicitly addresses strategies for information management; raises students’ awareness of their importance, rationale, and use; and enables and encourages students to choose between the strategies AND encourages students to develop their own; AND explains how to choose a strategy effectively
Debugging Strategies: Strategies to correct comprehension and performance errors (Schraw & Dennison, 1994)
(1) Does not provide explicit debugging strategies	(2) Provides explicit debugging strategies	(3) Provides explicit debugging strategies and engages students in the process of strategy choosing, adapting, or developing	(4) Provides explicit debugging strategies and engages students in the process of strategy choosing, adapting, or developing; and provides explanations for effective choice of strategies (aligns metacognitive knowledge about strategies and about self)
Examples from teachers using RoadMap:
Provides no explicit debugging strategies: While there might be implicit use of strategies, the teacher does not explicitly address debugging strategies (e.g., re-read, read aloud, self-questioning)	Provides explicit debugging strategies: Explicitly addresses debugging strategies and raises students’ awareness of their importance, rationale, and use	Provides explicit debugging strategies and enables choice AND encourages the development of personal strategies: Explicitly addresses debugging strategies; raises students’ awareness of their importance, rationale, and use; and enables and encourages students to choose between the strategies AND encourages students to develop their own	Provides explicit information management strategies, enables choice AND encourages the development of personal strategies; AND provides explanations for effective choice of strategies: Explicitly addresses strategies for information management; raises students’ awareness of their importance, rationale, and use; and enables and encourages students to choose between the strategies AND encourages students to develop their own; AND explains how to choose a strategy effectively

Appendix 2

The opportunities for self-regulated learning rubric (Opp4SRL): monitoring

Regulation of cognition (Pintrich, 2000)
Phase 2 (Pintrich, 2000, 2004): Monitoring – Cognitive monitoring involves the awareness and monitoring of various aspects of cognition and is an essential component of what is classically labeled as metacognition. In contrast to metacognitive knowledge, which is more static and “statable,” metacognitive judgments and monitoring are more dynamic and process-oriented and reflect metacognitive awareness and ongoing metacognitive activities individuals may engage in as they perform a task Metacognitive awareness and monitoring of cognition: One type of metacognitive judgment or monitoring activity involves judgments of learning and comprehension monitoring
(1) Does not monitor students’ performance	(2) Monitors students’ performance	(3) Raises awareness of the importance of monitoring and engages students in monitoring their performance	(4) Raises awareness of the importance of monitoring, engages students in monitoring their performance, and provides metacognitive strategies for effective monitoring of performance
Examples from teachers using RoadMap:
Does not monitor students’ performance: The teachers do not monitor students’ performance	Monitors students’ performance: The teacher examines students’ performance, keeps them on track, and corrects them when necessary	Monitors students’ performance and provides opportunities for students to monitor their learning: The teacher examines students’ performance, keeps them on track, provides feedback and corrects them when necessary, raises their awareness of the importance of monitoring their performance during learning, and provides opportunities in class for self- or peer-monitoring. The teacher enables students to choose how to monitor their learning	Monitors students’ performance, provides opportunities for students to monitor their learning, enables choice, and provides strategies: The teacher examines students’ performance, keeps them on track, and corrects them when necessary; the teacher also raises students’ awareness of the importance of monitoring their performance during learning and provides opportunities in class for self- or peer-monitoring. The teacher enables students to choose how to monitor their learning The teacher provides monitoring strategies OR encourages them to develop their own

Appendix 3

The opportunities for self-regulated learning rubric (Opp4SRL): control

Phase 3 (Pintrich, 2000, 2004): Control involves controlling and regulating different aspects of the self, task, and context. These efforts include individuals’ cognitive and metacognitive activities to adapt and change their cognition Selection and adaptation of cognitive strategies for memory, learning, reasoning, problem solving, and thinking: One of the central aspects of the control and regulation of cognition is the actual selection and use of various cognitive strategies for memory, learning, reasoning, problem solving, and thinking
(1) Does not regulate students’ use of cognitive strategies	(2) Regulates students’ use of cognitive strategies	(3) Raises awareness of the importance of regulating students’ cognitive strategies and engages students in the regulation of cognitive strategies	(4) Raises awareness of the importance of regulating students’ cognitive strategies, engages students in the regulation of cognitive strategies, and provides instruction for effective regulation of cognitive strategies
Examples from teachers using RoadMap:
No regulation of students’ cognitive strategies: The teacher does not monitor whether and how students use strategies during their learning	Regulates students’ use of cognitive strategies: The teacher regulates students’ use of cognitive strategies and instructs students to change strategy upon need	Regulates students’ use of cognitive strategies and provides opportunities for students to regulate their use of strategies: The teacher regulates students’ use of cognitive strategies and instructs students to change strategy upon need. Additionally, the teacher raises students’ awareness of the importance of effective use of cognitive strategies and encourages them to regulate their use. The teacher provides opportunities in class for self- or peer-regulation of cognitive strategies	Regulates students’ use of cognitive strategies, provides opportunities for students to regulate their use of strategies, and provides explicit guidance on strategy regulation: The teacher regulates students’ use of cognitive strategies and instructs students to change strategy upon need. Additionally, the teacher raises students’ awareness of the importance of effective use of cognitive strategies and encourages them to regulate their use. The teacher provides opportunities in class for self- or peer-regulation of cognitive strategies and explicit guidance on effective strategy regulation

Appendix 4

The opportunities for self-regulated learning rubric (Opp4SRL): reaction and reflection

Phase 4 (Pintrich, 2000, 2004): Reaction and reflection – The processes of reaction and reflection involve learners’ judgments and evaluations of their performance on the task and their attributions for performance Cognitive judgments: Good self-regulators evaluate their performance Attributions: Good self-regulators are likelier to make adaptive attributions for their performance
Evaluating performance
(1) Does not evaluate students’ performance	(2) Evaluates students’ performance	(3) Raises awareness of the importance of evaluation and engages students in evaluating their performance	(4) Raises awareness of the importance of evaluation, engages students in evaluating their progress, and provides metacognitive strategies for effective evaluation of performance
Examples from teachers using RoadMap:
Does not evaluate students’ performance: The teacher does not evaluate students’ performance	Evaluate students’ performance: The teacher evaluates students’ performance	Evaluates students’ performance and provides opportunities for students to evaluate their performance: The teacher evaluates students’ performance, raises their awareness of the importance of evaluating their performance after learning, and provides opportunities in class for self- or peer-evaluation of learning. The teacher enables students to choose how to evaluate their learning	Evaluates students’ performance, provides opportunities for students to evaluate their learning, enables choice, and provides strategies for effective evaluation of their performance: The teacher evaluates students’ performance, raises their awareness of the importance of evaluating their performance after learning, and provides opportunities in class for self- or peer-evaluation of learning. The teacher enables students to choose how to evaluate their learning The teacher provides evaluation strategies OR encourages them to develop their own
Evaluating the use of strategies
(1) Does not evaluate students’ use of strategies	(2) Evaluates students’ use of strategies	(3) Raises awareness of the importance of evaluation and engages students in evaluating their use of strategies	(4) Raises awareness of the importance of evaluation, engages students in evaluating their use of strategies, and provides instruction for practical evaluation of the use of strategies
Examples from teachers using RoadMap:
No evaluation of students’ strategies: The teacher does not evaluate whether and how students use them during their learning	Evaluates students’ use of strategies: The teacher evaluates students’ use of strategies	Evaluates students’ use of strategies and provides opportunities for students to evaluate their use of strategies: The teacher evaluates students’ use of strategies, raises their awareness of the importance of effective use of strategies, encourages them to evaluate their use, and provides opportunities in class for self- or peer-evaluation of strategies The teacher enables students to choose how to evaluate their use of strategies	Evaluates students’ use of strategies, provides opportunities for students to evaluate their use of strategies, enables choice, and provides explicit guidance on strategy evaluation: The teacher evaluates students’ use of strategies, raises their awareness of the importance of effective use of strategies, encourages them to evaluate their use and provides opportunities in class for self- or peer-evaluation of strategies. The teacher enables students to choose how to evaluate their use of strategies The teacher provides instruction on strategy evaluation OR encourages them to develop their own