Teachers typically provide only little explicit support for SRL in their classrooms¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · checked against its sources 2026-10-22 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2026: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Teachers typically provide only little explicit support for SRL, indicating a gap between SRL research and classroom practice. → Charlotte Dignath 2021

Evidence¶

Charlotte Dignath 2021¶

Charlotte Dignath, Zemira Mevarech. (2021). Introduction to special issue mind the gap between research and practice in the area of teachers' support of metacognition and SRL. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09285-5

q2 · i? · review · r2

The editorial reports, citing Dignath & Veenman (2021), that teachers "typically provide only little explicit support for SRL"; this is a second-hand summary of classroom observation research, not a new empirical analysis in this article.

"We have learned from research that teachers ● typically provide only little explicit support for SRL (Dignath & Veenman, 2021)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Child-centered instruction is associated with students' SRL monitoring accuracy — related
• Teachers perceive SRL as desirable for students but not feasible to implement in their classrooms — related
• Direct SRL promotion in observed classrooms was dominated by implicit strategy instruction, metacognitive support, and metacognitive reflection, with explicit strategy instruction rare — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Teachers in the SRL-AIDE program showed greater pre-to-post gains than a comparison group in both the explicitness and duration of their in-class SRL practices — related
• Teachers overestimate their SRL practice compared to classroom observations and student ratings, motivating complementing observation research with self-report data — related