MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416540383 · doi:10.1177/21582440251367830

Developing and Implementing a Culturally Responsive Self-Regulated Learning Framework: Exploring How Teachers Could Empower Culturally Diverse Learners in Inclusive Classroom Environments

2025· article· en· W4416540383 on OpenAlexaff
Aloysius C. Anyichie

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociocultural evolutionFaculty developmentQualitative researchProfessional developmentCultural diversityTeacher educationTeaching methodSemi-structured interviewCultural competence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the development, and integration, of a “Culturally Responsive Self-Regulated Learning (CR-SRL) Framework” to guide teachers in creating supportive classroom environments for culturally diverse learners. Literatures on culturally responsive teaching and self-regulated learning both suggest principles and practices for designing inclusive classrooms; however, from different perspectives. To pull those frameworks together, and building on sociocultural and situative perspectives, I conducted a theoretical analysis to conceptualize an integrated CR-SRL Framework. Using a multiple case study design, I field-tested how the framework might be useful by building practices collaboratively with three elementary classroom teachers. Data included classroom observations, document reviews (i.e., teachers’ lesson plans and assignment instructions), and teacher interviews. The findings from a qualitative analysis suggest that the CR-SRL framework helped the teachers in integrating CR-SRL practices. However, there were variations in the ways the teachers designed and implemented the framework based on their prior practices and learning experiences. Nevertheless, the teachers experienced both benefits and challenges as they were working to design and implement the framework. This paper concludes by discussing how educators might be supported to take up a CR-SRL framework to meet the needs of culturally diverse learners. Implications for theory and research, teacher education, and professional development 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE OpenSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207