Educator understanding of self-regulation and implications for classroom facilitation: A mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing concern about the mental health and resilience of today’s children and difficulties with self-regulation are implicated in educational outcomes, cognitive problems, internalizing problems such as depression and anxiety, externalizing problems such as aggression, and physical health problems. Self-regulation is a growing topic of interest in a variety of disciplines and there are 447 different interpretations of what self-regulation means in the literature, which makes it difficult for educators to interpret and apply it in their classrooms. Due to advances in neuroscience, the Ontario Ministry of Education shifted toward a neurophysiological framework for the Self-Regulation and Well-Being Frame of the Kindergarten Program. The current study examined which frameworks Ontario kindergarten educators were using by analyzing the ways they described and facilitated self-regulation in the classroom through surveys, interviews, report cards, and classroom observations. Findings revealed that educators: have little experience and training with resources aligned with the Kindergarten Program’s approach to self-regulation, describe self-regulation as self-control, and facilitate self-regulation using a learning strategies approach. Educators were observed using fewer than a third of ministry self-regulation recommendations in the classroom. Implications and recommendations for aligning educator practices with the Kindergarten Program’s framework are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".