Collaborative Lesson Planning Influences Teachers' Self‐Regulated Learning Instruction ( <scp>SRL</scp> ‐I): The Mediating Role of Perceived Benefits of <scp>SRL</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Collaborative lesson planning (CLP) is deemed a sustainable professional development for teachers that can improve pedagogy and instruction in the classroom. This study examined how CLP influences teachers' self‐regulated learning (SRL) instruction to students. Using data from 313 primary and secondary school teachers in Hong Kong, we conducted a structural equation model to test the link between teachers' CLP and SRL instruction, and whether such a link is mediated by teachers' perceived benefits of SRL (SRL‐PB) and beliefs about students' capacity for SRL (SRL‐SC). The findings suggest that higher teachers' CLP is correlated with increased perceived benefits of SRL, beliefs about students' capacity for SRL, and SRL instruction. The link between CLP and SRL instruction was partially mediated by teachers' perceived benefits of SRL, in that collaborative lesson planning influences teachers' perceptions of the benefits of SRL which, in turn, predicts their SRL instruction. Teachers' beliefs about the capacity of students for SRL did not mediate the link between CLP and SRL instruction. The study provides evidence to support the importance of collaborative lesson planning to teachers' implementation of SRL instruction in classrooms. The findings further suggest that while teachers might have varying beliefs about students' capacity to engage in SRL, what influences their use of SRL instruction is their perception of the benefits of SRL for students, which is fostered by collaborative lesson planning. Theoretical and practical implications 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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".