Supporting Self-Regulated Learning in Primary Education: Using Written Learning Guides in the Lessons

Abstract

Developing children’s self-regulation skills in the school environment is essential for the development of self-directed learners. It is important to note that self-regulation can be developed in the classroom. Teachers play a crucial role in supporting the development of self-regulated learners, including creating the necessary learning environment and designing the tasks used for instruction. The aim of this study is to describe the way teachers chose to structure written learning guides designed for primary school students and to analyse how their use in instruction creates opportunities to support self-regulated learning. We analysed 11 written learning guides, interviewed three primary education teachers who created and used them, and observed 985 min of classroom implementation. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis combining inductive and deductive methods. The results of this study revealed that the learning guides consist of three parts: an introduction, individual and collaborative tasks with self-assessment, and self-analysis. Our data show that the use of learning guides helped to create a learning environment in the classroom that was supportive of high self-regulated learning. Students were offered a range of options for organising their learning and opportunities to control their learning challenges, including choosing more interesting and difficult tasks, to assess their learning and to collaborate with peers. Teachers supported students through both instrumental instruction and evaluation practises, creating a classroom environment conducive to learning that focused on students’ personal development. We conclude that it is possible to use written learning guides for longer periods of independent or collaborative learning with primary education students. The results provide teachers with practical examples of how to use written learning guides to create conditions for self-regulated learning. For example, combining AI usage with teacher-designed learning guides could increase the benefits and reduce the risks associated with AI-based learning systems.

1. Introduction

An important goal of contemporary education is the development of generic competences for lifelong learning (Field, 2000). General competences are defined as a set of conceptual knowledge, procedures, and attitudes that enable individuals to perform effectively in various contexts. They encompass ethical behaviour, teamwork, responsibility, and communication skills (Fabregat Fillet et al., 2009). One of these competences is the learner’s self-directed learning skills, whereby the learner takes the initiative in his or her own learning activities: defining their own learning needs and formulating learning objectives, identifying the resources needed for learning, selecting and using the most appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating their learning outcomes (Knowles, 1975). Importantly, the cultivation of self-directed lifelong learning skills begins with the development of self-regulated learning (SRL) skills within the school environment (Jossberger et al., 2010; Ley, 2004).

Successful self-regulation is shaped by a combination of environmental influences, interactions with others, and child-related factors and predispositions. These child-related factors, such as temperament, biological influences, and neurological development, interact with the environment to affect self-regulation, encompassing innate reactivity, effortful control, and the regulation of responses to stimuli, all of which contribute to academic achievement (Morrison et al., 2010). At the same time, it is important to know that self-regulation can be developed (Blair & Raver, 2015; Diamond, 2013; Perry et al., 2020; Zimmerman, 2000, 2002). In Estonia, the country where this research was conducted, students achieved high results in the PISA tests in terms of their subject-specific knowledge and skills. For example, in recent PISA tests, Estonian youth achieved the best results in Europe in mathematics and scientific literacy, and they ranked second in functional reading skills (OECD, 2019, 2023). In addition to strong academic results, Estonian students also stand out for their growth mindset and SRL skills: based on self-reported data from 15-year-olds, Estonia is one of the countries where nearly seven out of ten students feel ready to self-regulate their learning (OECD, 2023). This is why it is important to understand, also in an international context, how students’ SRL skills are developed in Estonian schools.

To diversify teachers’ “toolbox” and provide them with practical information on how to create conditions to support students’ self-regulation, it is necessary to analyse how different teaching methods and tools support students’ SRL. While plenty of research has been conducted on how SRL interventions promote students’ learning (see Panadero, 2017, for a review), less research has focused on how specific teaching materials or tools contribute to fostering self-regulated learning. As far as the authors of this article are aware, written learning guides designed by teachers to help learners learn either independently or collaboratively over extended periods of time and their use in the classroom have not been analysed in terms of their support for SRL. Therefore, this research describes and analyses teacher-generated learning guides and their use in classroom practice according to the five high-SRL classroom features of Perry and colleagues (Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2002; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000) to illustrate how teachers can create conditions in the classroom that support self-regulated learning.

1.1. Supporting Self-Regulated Learning in the Classroom

Self-regulation skills form the foundation for the development of self-directed learners (Jossberger et al., 2010; Ley, 2004). Previous studies have shown that fostering self-regulation skills in early childhood is associated with several positive outcomes, such as successful school entry (Blair & Raver, 2015; McClelland et al., 2007; Morrison et al., 2010), higher academic achievements during adolescence, better labour market outcomes in adulthood, higher income, and improved health indicators (Duckworth et al., 2010, 2012).

Although the terms self-regulated and self-directed learning are not always clearly distinguished between one another in the literature (Saks & Leijen, 2014), there is a common understanding of their different emphases. Both terms describe learners who are in charge of their learning: they set goals, take action to achieve them, monitor their achievement, and evaluate their performance (Knowles, 1975; Panadero, 2017; Saks & Leijen, 2014; Zimmerman, 2000). Their main difference lies in the scale of freedom of designing the learning environment: while self-directed learning is a concept of adult life-long learning and includes designing the learning environment on a macro-scale, self-regulated learning is a narrower, micro-scale process which is mostly studied in the school environment, where the learner often follows the processes and tasks designed by the teacher (Saks & Leijen, 2014). It is important to develop the learner’s self-regulation skills in order for the learner to have the prerequisites to develop into an effective self-directed learner (Jossberger et al., 2010; Saks & Leijen, 2014).

Sins et al. (2024), drawing on several authors (e.g., Pintrich, Zimmerman, Panadero, Dignath, Perry et al.), pointed out that SRL strategies include cognitive, metacognitive, behavioural, and motivational approaches, all aimed at developing students’ self-regulation skills (Sins et al., 2024). Drawing on previous research and models, Sins et al. (2024) provided an overview of the components that support SRL, which they divide into four strategies:

• Cognitive (e.g., activating prior knowledge, summarising key information, making connections, self-assessment, organising materials and knowledge, problem solving);
• Metacognitive (e.g., planning, including goal setting, monitoring, including tracking progress and adjusting learning activities as needed, reflecting, i.e., analysing one’s learning process and evaluating strategies);
• Behavioural (resource management, e.g., utilising collaboration skills, seeking help from peers and teachers, organising the learning environment, selecting learning materials, feedback, e.g., obtaining and analysing information about one’s learning);
• Motivational strategies (self-motivation, e.g., belief in one’s abilities, enhancing self-efficacy, and fostering a positive attitude; and action control, e.g., avoiding distractions, focusing techniques, and steering clear of negative thoughts).

These four strategies create an overarching framework that informs and builds on the work of various authors, including those discussed in this article (e.g., Dignath & Veenman, 2021; Fiskerstrand & Gamlem, 2023; Zimmerman, 2000).

By combining empirical studies conducted over more than a decade, Zimmerman (2000) introduced the Cyclical Phases Model of SRL, which explains the interactions that influence SRL—(1) preparation (the student analyses the task, sets goals, plans how to reach the goal, and is able to motivate themselves); (2) performance (the student completes the task, monitors how they are doing, and uses self-monitoring strategies to be engaged and motivated to complete the task); and (3) self-reflection (the student evaluates how they did, and assesses their own successes and failures)—and also includes the strategies described above that support SRL (Zimmerman, 2000).

Teachers can foster SRL in the classroom through both direct and indirect approaches. Direct promotion involves teaching specific learning strategies, while indirect promotion focuses on designing a learning environment that enables students to practice self-regulation (Kistner et al., 2010). This dual approach ensures that SRL development is supported through intentional instructional design and opportunities for active student engagement.

The various theories of SRL are summarised by Perry and colleagues (Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2002, 2020; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000), who have described classrooms with high (

Table 1. Summary overview of the characteristics of a high-SRL classroom (Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2002, 2020; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000).

Category	Description
Challenge control	Supporting self-regulation by allowing students to control learning difficulty, pace, and task choice
Choice option	Allowing choices in learning fosters motivation, engagement, and responsibility
Self- and peer assessment	Encouraging autonomy by helping students set realistic goals and self-assess progress
Instrumental support from teacher and peers	Teacher guidance in cognitive and metacognitive skills through strategic instruction
Teachers’ evaluation practises	Formative feedback focused on personal growth and learning from mistakes

) and low levels of SRL based on their long-term observations of primary education classrooms. Teachers in high-SRL classrooms, as described by Perry et al. (2002), provided instrumental support to help students develop these metacognitive skills. This includes teaching students how to make choices, solve increasingly complex tasks, and engage in collaborative learning, further reinforcing the role of constructivist principles. For example, providing students with timely and effective feedback creates opportunities for self-reflection and self-assessment. Fiskerstrand and Gamlem (2023) emphasise that feedback supporting SRL must include opportunities for reflection based on clear objectives and assessment criteria. Similarly, in the high-SRL classrooms observed by Perry et al. (2002), feedback practises focused on personal growth and encouraged students to interpret mistakes as learning opportunities.

Guided teaching approaches (Nevalainen et al., 2004), where the teacher guides the learner to plan, monitor, find patterns, evaluate the outcome, and act accordingly, integrate seamlessly with the prerequisites identified by Dignath and Veenman (2021), particularly in terms of planning and monitoring learning. Perry et al’.s (2002) descriptions of high-SRL classrooms emphasised open-ended tasks, student choice, and self-assessment, aligning closely with Dignath and Veenman’s (2021) principles of self-direction and collaborative learning. On the other hand, low-SRL classrooms relied on rigid, teacher-directed tasks with minimal opportunities for reflection or autonomy, highlighting the limitations of environments lacking constructivist and feedback-focused practises.

In summary, it is evident that fostering SRL requires an intentional combination of a supportive environment (Dignath & Veenman, 2021; Kistner et al., 2010), guided teaching (Nevalainen et al., 2004), structured feedback, and a supportive learning process (Fiskerstrand & Gamlem, 2023). Perry and colleagues’ (Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2002, 2020; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000) framework provides a practical lens for analysing how these components work together to create classrooms that promote SRL. This integrated approach underpins the foundation of this study, where the focus is on how written learning guides can operationalise these principles to support self-regulated learning.

Although the studies conducted by Perry (Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2002, 2020; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000) showed that children as young as 6–10 years old are capable of engaging in complex self-regulatory activities when supported with appropriate teaching practises, previous observational studies showed that the explicit teaching of SRL in primary school is rare (Dignath & Veenman, 2021; Kistner et al., 2010; Sins et al., 2024). The same was concluded for feedback that supports self-regulation (Fiskerstrand & Gamlem, 2023) and opportunities for choice and self-assessment (Zimmerman, 2002). Therefore, there is a critical need for studies that focus on understanding current practices in classrooms where SRL has been systematically supported, e.g., classrooms in those Estonian schools that have defined SRL as one of their key targets.

Time constraints, workload pressures, diverse student needs, and teachers’ limited willingness to adapt their practises have been identified as the primary barriers preventing teachers from guiding students toward SRL (Vandevelde et al., 2012). Several of these challenges can be addressed by supporting teachers with written learning guides for students. Therefore, we believe that analysis of the structure of the written learning guides as well as the details about applying the learning guides in the learning process is an important research goal.

Based on the high-SRL classroom features of Perry et al. (2002), and taking into account the work of Zimmerman (2002), Dignath and Veenman (2021), and Sins et al. (2024), it is possible to assess how learning guides support SRL. In this paper, we investigate the support of SRL in primary education through teacher-created written learning guides, building on the characteristics of a high-SRL classroom outlined by Perry and colleagues (Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2002, 2020; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000).

1.2. Learning Guide

A learning guide is defined as a verbal or written instruction linked to learning objectives (Käis, 1992; Timoštšuk et al., 2020; Unt, 1966). A good learning guide is clearly and concretely formulated and adapted to the age of the learners, providing the necessary factual information and tools to complete the tasks (Käis, 1992; Timoštšuk et al., 2020; Unt, 1966). Prior to the introduction of a learning guide, it is recommended that the teacher conducts an in-depth discussion with the students to clarify the instructions and learning objectives (Timoštšuk et al., 2020).

Maher et al. (2022) have identified six main areas in the structure of a learning guide: goal setting, planning and time management, learning strategies, self-monitoring, assessment strategies, and self-reflection. Learning guides should include tasks that are varied in both content and form, such as observation, measurement, reading, writing, calculating, and experimentation, with opportunities for individual, pair, or group work and creative tasks followed by discussion (Käis, 1992). It is also advisable to provide open-ended tasks that allow for a variety of answers or solutions (Paris & Turner, 1994; Perry et al., 2002).

It is important that, already in the first grade, the learning guide offers students the possibility to choose between tasks (Käis, 1992). There are five ways of providing choice in a learning guide: (1) supplementary tasks to choose from; (2) choice of the difficulty of the tasks; (3) observations and independent work outside the classroom; (4) choice of the order in which the tasks are to be solved; (5) completion of the tasks according to the student’s interests (Käis, 1992). In addition, supplementary tasks are useful for providing faster students extra work (Unt, 1966).

The use of learning guides should encourage collaboration among students, directing them toward group work to develop social skills or to engage in peer teaching, which benefits both the teacher and the learners (Käis, 1992; Unt, 1966). Additionally, it is recommended that opportunities be provided for students to review and correct their peers’ work, developing critical thinking and aiding in the identification of mistakes (Unt, 1966). These principles align with the characteristics of high-SRL classrooms described by Perry et al. (2002), where self- and peer assessments, as well as instrumental support from classmates, are emphasised.

Self-assessment is a key component of using learning guides. It allows students to independently review their work, guiding them to refer to rules or texts and fostering self-monitoring, which creates a calmer learning process and enhances the effective use of learning tools such as dictionaries and handbooks (Käis, 1992). Similar aspects were described by Perry et al. (2002, 2020), who view the opportunity for students to assess themselves as an essential element of SRL.

Although teachers have developed written learning guides for independent or collaborative learning, to the best of the researchers’ knowledge, learning guides and their use in teaching have not been analysed in terms of supporting SRL. Thus, the aim of this study is to describe the way teachers chose to structure written learning guides designed for primary school students and to analyse how their use in instruction creates opportunities to support SRL. Based on the aim of this study, we formulated two research questions:

• What are the key structural components of teacher-created learning guides, and how do these components create opportunities to support primary school students’ self-regulated learning?
• In what ways do high-SRL classroom characteristics manifest in lessons where learning guides are in use?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The study participants included three primary school teachers from two schools who developed and used written learning guides in their teaching, along with their respective student groups. Additionally, we analysed 11 written learning guides created by these teachers and used with students over the course of one instructional week.

The participants were selected using purposive sampling principles (Etikan et al., 2016). This study included schools that focus on the conscious development of students’ self-regulation skills. Both schools’ websites outlined their objective to foster students’ self-regulation skills. Initially, school principals were approached with a request to conduct this study at their schools. Upon receiving their consent, the principals provided the contact details of teachers who used learning guides in their instruction and were willing to participate in this study. The teachers were contacted via email, where the purpose and procedures of this study were explained. Participation in this study was voluntary, and all participating teachers signed an informed consent form. The purposive sampling method was chosen for this study because it allowed selecting participants with specific characteristics and experiences relevant to the research objectives. This approach is useful for collecting rich and detailed data, as participants are more likely to provide insightful responses and deeper understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.

Teachers who agreed to participate were asked to send invitations to the students involved, along with consent forms for both the children and their parents. Parental and student consent was requested for conducting this study. Background information about the participating teachers and their student groups is presented in

Table 2. Background information on survey participants.

School	Teacher Pseudonym	Years of Teaching Experience	Grade Under Observation	Number of Students per Class
I	Teacher A	7	2nd	21
I	Teacher B	4	2nd	20
II	Teacher C	7	1st	17

.

2.2. Data Collection

Data were collected between January and March 2024. Lesson observations and interviews with Teacher A and B of School I took place in January and February, while the interview and observations with Teacher C of School II took place in March. Since this study focused on 1st and 2nd-grade students, the second half of the academic year was chosen for data collection to ensure that the students were familiar with their teacher and had adjusted to the overall school routine.

2.2.1. Individual Interviews with Teachers

Interviews were conducted twice with Teachers A and C—before and after the classroom observations—while only a post-observation interview was conducted with Teacher B. The semi-structured pre-interviews focused on the teachers’ perspectives and experiences regarding the principles that underpin the support of students’ SRL skills (e.g., “What, in your opinion, supports the development of students’ self-regulation skills?” and “How do you, as a teacher, support students’ self-regulation?”). Additionally, the interviews delved deeper into the use of learning guides (e.g., “What principles guide you when creating learning guides?”). This study analyses the responses related to learning guides from these interviews.

The post-observation interviews were conducted as unstructured individual interviews. These follow-up interviews included clarifying questions about observations made during the lessons, guided by the characteristics of high-SRL classrooms described by Perry et al. (2002) and issues related to the use of learning guides that arose during the observations. For example, teachers were asked clarifying questions about classroom activities, such as, “I didn’t see those tasks—were they accompanied by instructions on how to complete them?” or “Were there additional aspects of self-assessment that I might have missed or not included as examples?”.

The interviews were held either in a separate room or in the teacher’s classroom. Pre-observation interviews took place one week before the start of observations. The shortest pre-interview lasted 47 min (Teacher A), and the longest lasted 51 min (Teacher C). Follow-up interviews were conducted in the teachers’ classrooms immediately following the final lesson of the observation period. Of the three post-interviews, the shortest lasted 16 min (Teacher B), while the interview with Teacher A lasted 42 min, and the longest, with Teacher C, lasted 1 h and 13 min. With the participants’ consent, all interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed. The names of the teachers and schools involved were replaced with pseudonyms for anonymity. The total length of the transcriptions amounted to 156,200 characters, including spaces.

2.2.2. Classroom Observation

This study employed the unstructured observation of school days, where predefined criteria were not explicitly established beforehand, allowing the researchers to observe and capture potentially significant aspects beyond predefined categories (Cohen et al., 2018; Vihalemm, 2014). Observations were conducted on three teachers’ student groups from two schools during lessons in which written learning guides were used. One teacher’s student group was observed over four days during a single school week, totalling 505 min. The other two teachers’ groups were each observed for one day, with observation times lasting 255 min for one and 225 min for the other. Altogether, 985 min of classroom activities involving written learning guides were observed.

Observers maintained detailed observation logs, noting the timing and specifics of activities in the classroom, including the actions of both teachers and students. For instance, an excerpt from an observation record reads, “At 9.11 the students agree on the order in which the tasks are to be carried out: ‘Let’s put this one as fourth, is that okay?’ one child asks another”. Photographs of learning situations and tasks taken during the observation were later added to the logs. The total volume of the observation logs amounted to 100,056 characters, including spaces.

Key features relevant to this study were identified after the observations during the data analysis phase (see Section 2.3 below). Observers’ presence in the classroom was overt, but researchers did not participate in the learning process, striving to remain as inconspicuous as possible, consistent with non-participant observation practises (Barner-Barry, 1986; Cohen et al., 2018). Two observers conducted observations of Teacher A’s and Teacher B’s groups, while one observer observed Teacher C’s group.

2.2.3. Analysis of Written Learning Guides

This study utilised written learning guides as part of the data set. A total of 11 learning guides were used during the observations. A summary of background information about these learning guides is presented in

Table 3. Background information on learning guides.

Teacher	Grade	Number of Days of Use of Learning Guides per School Week	Number of Learning Guides Used	Whole Day/ Subject-Based Learning Guide
A	2nd	4	4	1/3
B	2nd	1	1	1
C	1st	1	6	6

. Detailed descriptions of the learning guides used during the observation period can be found in Appendix A (

Table A1. Use of learning guides in teaching during the observation period.

Teacher	Class/Study Group	Number of Learning Guides Used	Time Allocated to Students for Working According to the Learning Guide	Subjects Covered in the Learning Guide	Which Learning Guide Was Used	Number of Tasks/Number of Learning Guides
A	Grade 2 (20 students)	4	9 × 45 = 405 min	Estonian language Literature Mathematics Natural science	2 subject-specific 2 whole-school day	4 learning guides: 2 subject-specific (20–22 work steps) 2 whole-school day guides (longer one with 53 work steps)
B	Grade 2 (21 students)	1	120 + 45 = 165 min	Estonian language Literature Mathematics Natural science	1 whole-school day guide	1 learning guide with 6 “nests”, totalling 36 work steps
C	Grade 1 (17 students)	6	80 + 45 = 125 min	Estonian language Mathematics Natural science	1 whole-school day guide	6 “centres” learning guides, each with 2–4 work steps. A total of 20 work steps

and

Table A2. Overview of learning guides for the school day and their use.

	Teacher A	Teacher B	Teacher C
Structure of the learning guide	General instructions, learning objectives, 4 tasks + self-assessment, self-analysis	General instructions, learning objectives, 6 “nest” tasks + self-assessment, self-analysis	Recalling prior knowledge, task completion + self-assessment, self-analysis
Structure of the tasks	4 thematic tasks, varying lengths and detailed instructions, covering different subjects and activities, incorporation of integration	6 thematic “nest” tasks, with detailed instructions, covering different subjects and activities, utilisation of integration	6 “centres”, up to 4 instructions per centre, covering different subjects and activities, incorporation of integration
Use of learning materials	Textbooks, workbooks, iPads, QR codes, experimental tools	Textbooks, workbooks, iPads, QR codes, craft materials	Textbooks, workbooks, iPads, QR codes, craft materials
Self-assessment	Control sheets, discussions with the teacher	Control sheets, discussions with the teacher	Control sheets, discussions with the teacher
Self-evaluation	Self-evaluation in a diary, use of symbols, reflection on completed work with the teacher	Self-evaluation in a diary, description of strengths and areas for improvement, reflection on completed work with the teacher	Self-analysis by drawing faces with different emotions, reflection on completed work with the teacher
Freedom of choice	The learner was able to choose the order, time, and place for completing tasks	The learner was able to choose a partner from the assigned group and an additional task	The learner was able to choose the order and time for completing tasks, three out of six centres were optional
Classroom environment	Flexible seating options, opportunity to choose work location	The “nests” have designated workstations, structured rotation took place	The “centres” have designated workstations in the classroom, students complete a record of finished “centres”
Teacher’s role	Assigned learning partners, monitored classroom activities, intervened minimally, assisted with technical issues when needed, supported students in need with guiding questions, orally assessed students’ achievement of learning outcomes	Formed groups, determined the order of “nest” rotations, set the time for completing each “nest”, directed movement between “nests”, monitored classroom activities, assisted with technical issues when needed, supported students in need with guiding questions, orally assessed students’ achievement of learning outcomes	Assigned three mandatory centres, monitored students’ independent work, intervened minimally, assisted with technical issues when needed, supported students in need with guiding questions, orally assessed students’ achievement of learning outcomes

). An example of a learning guide used during the observation period is also provided in the Appendix A (Figure A1).

2.3. Data Analysis

The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis, combining inductive and deductive approaches. The analysis was conducted in the QCAmap environment (qcamap.org, accessed on 5 April 2024), following the guidelines outlined by Mayring (2014).

First, transcripts of the interviews with teachers were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis. This approach allowed for a systematic yet open-ended analysis process based on the data. Meaningful units were identified in the transcripts, based on the research questions, and assigned codes. For example, the semantic unit “At the end of the day, they should take a moment to reflect on what they did, what was important, what they gained from the day, or what they learned” was coded as “self-analysis”. In the next phase, codes with similar content were grouped into categories. For instance, the codes “self-analysis” and “self-monitoring” were grouped under the category “opportunities for self- and peer assessment”. Inductive qualitative content analysis was also used to analyse the structure of the learning guides to describe their components.

The analysis of learning guides and observation logs from the perspective of SRL followed a two-step process. First, deductive qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2014) was conducted using the characteristics of high-SRL classrooms described by Perry et al. (2002) (detailed in the subsection “Supporting self-regulated learning” above). This was followed by inductive qualitative content analysis within the deductively defined categories. The framework underlying the deductive analysis is presented in

Table 4. Coding framework based on Perry and colleagues (Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2002, 2020; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000).

Category/ID	Description of Activities
Choice option	What, where, when, and with whom to learn, but also the choice of the learning method and material, the final format of the work, and the sequence of activities.
Challenge control	The possibility to choose the difficulty of the task, the pace, and the volume of the task. Students can choose the resources that match their interests and skills to the learning objectives. Students can check their performance by solving open-ended tasks with multiple pathways and options. Examples of open-ended tasks are problem-solving tasks, essays, projects, and tasks with no single correct answer.
Self- and peer assessment	Assessing personal development, giving feedback to others, evaluating the feelings and actions of others, self-assessment both during and at the end of the learning process in order to make corrections if necessary, self-testing, and self-checking.
Instrumental support from teacher and peers	The teacher engages students in discussions about thinking and learning processes; guiding questions are asked to encourage learners to reflect on their own learning activities; and they are guided to find their own answers or solutions themselves. Support provided through modelling (e.g., the teacher demonstrates the sequence of actions needed to complete a task) gives students the opportunity to see successful actions and task performance. The teacher guides students to cooperate, support, and teach each other. Students ask each other for help and are prepared to spontaneously support their peers. Learners share ideas, teach each other, and discuss problem-solving strategies.
Teachers’ evaluation practises	Evaluation practises that create a safe learning environment and foster intrinsic learner motivation, e.g., by integrating assessment and feedback into ongoing activities, holding students accountable without punishment, and encouraging them to focus on personal development, set goals and treat mistakes as learning opportunities. Feedback is formative, descriptive, and task-specific; it focuses on the learning process so that students can identify and narrow the gap between current performance and targets. Teacher messages relate to effort and the use of effective learning strategies, emphasise progress, and challenge and express confidence in students’ abilities.

.

During the coding and categorisation process, a researcher diary was kept to document the research process, including decisions related to coding. To enhance the quality of data analysis, a co-author of this article re-coded a subset of the data two weeks after the initial coding was completed. The co-coder analysed one interview, one observation log of a lesson using a learning guide, and two learning guides. In the cases of discrepancies, the authors discussed coding and categorisation decisions with the research team until consensus was reached.

The results are presented by the research questions. Quotes from observation logs, interviews, and learning guides are provided in quotation marks.

3. Results

The analysis of learning guides, teacher interviews, and observation logs revealed two types of learning guides: subject-specific guides and full-day learning guides covering multiple subjects. During the observed week, Teacher A used learning guides both during subject-specific lessons and on two full school days. Under Teacher B’s guidance, learning guides were used one day per week for full-day learning on various topics. Teacher C followed a similar practice but less frequently, using learning guides 1–2 times per month (as reported in the interview). Thus, all observed student groups utilised learning guides, but the frequency varied. Below, we provide a more detailed description of the structure of both subject-specific and full-day learning guides.

3.1. Structure of the Learning Guides

Subject-specific learning guides, which students worked with for 45 min, fit on a single A4 sheet. The full-day learning guides created by Teachers A and B were double-sided A4 sheets. Teacher C’s full-day learning guides were shorter, fitting on half of an A4 sheet (see descriptions of the full-day learning guides in Table A2 in Appendix A). Students worked with full-day learning guides for an entire school day, lasting 125–180 min.

Both subject-specific and full-day learning guides included design elements such as colourful text, images, arrows, and thought bubbles to capture students’ attention. Based on the data analysis, the structure of the learning guides can be divided into three parts (Figure 1):

• Introduction: general instructions, activation of prior knowledge, and goal setting;
• Tasks: activities accompanied by opportunities for self-assessment;
• Self-Analysis: reflection on the learning process.

The learning guides began with an introduction, providing general instructions on how to use the guide. For instance, students were advised to colour or number the checkboxes in front of tasks to keep track of the task completion. The introduction also included activities to activate prior knowledge, such as recalling spring flowers using cards or solving thematic puzzles. Following the general instructions and activation of prior knowledge, the teacher and students together formulated the learning objective. Some objectives focused on the domain knowledge, while others targeted broader competences. In most guides, objectives were written, but, during Teacher C`s observed lessons, objectives were collaboratively set with students orally and written on the board for visibility, such as “I complete the tasks quietly” or “I solve tasks thoroughly”. In Teacher B’s full-day learning guide, students had to select a group objective and determine how to adhere to it. Teacher’s full-day guide included five predefined objectives, covering both subject-specific knowledge, such as “Compare numbers up to 1000”, and general competences, such as “I respect others while I work”. Similarly, in subject-specific guides, Teacher A defined 2–3 objectives per lesson, with three of five objectives targeting subject knowledge and two addressing general competences.

After defining objectives, the tasks followed. In subject-specific guides, these included group activities to recall prior knowledge and individual subject-based tasks. All three teachers’ full-day learning guides included 4–6 thematic tasks spanning multiple subjects, such as mathematics, Estonian language, literature, and science (see Table A1 and Table A2 for details). Like subject-specific guides, full-day guides featured diverse activities, including reading, writing, discussions with peers and teachers, crafting, and digital tasks with automated feedback (e.g., maths exercises in a digital learning environment).

Teacher A’s full-day guide divided tasks into four thematic sections, each with a title and detailed instructions (with the longest task consisting of 56 steps). These tasks were designed to be solved with a learning companion. Teacher B’s guide referred to tasks as “nests”, totalling six, each comprising 4–10 steps, combining group and individual work. Teacher C’s guide divided tasks into six thematic centres (e.g., “Arithmetic Centre” and “Spring Flowers Centre”), each containing 2–4 steps. Compared to the others, these descriptions were shorter and intended for individual completion. All three full-day guides and one subject-specific guide incorporated supplementary tasks. In two guides, these tasks were for students who completed the main tasks quickly, while, in the third guide, they catered to students more interested in the topic, such as writing a poem or solving equations with predetermined answers.

All the guides encouraged self-assessment, such as checking completed tasks using answer sheets placed in the classroom. Additionally, learning guides directed students to discuss their completed tasks with the teacher, enabling the teacher to guide and monitor the student’s learning process.

An essential component of all the guides was self-analysis, where students evaluated their learning process, expressed their feelings, and reflected on their work. For example, one subject-specific guide directed students to analyse their achievement of the initial objectives and share a summary with peers and the teacher on the board. Another guide instructed students to reflect in a diary using symbols, evaluating what they enjoyed, what made them laugh, where they put in the most effort, and what still needed improvement. The diary was then shared with the teacher. Teacher A and B’s full-day guides also incorporated self-analysis using various symbols.

3.2. The Reflection of High-SRL Classroom Characteristics in Learning Guides and Their Use in the Lessons

The support for self-regulated learning provided through the learning guides was analysed based on the characteristics of high-SRL classrooms described by Perry et al. (2002): choice options, challenge control, self- and peer assessment, instrumental support from teachers and peers, and teacher’s evaluation practises. In our study, 20 activities were identified that operationalise these five categories of high-SRL classroom characteristics (see

Table 5. The reflection of high-SRL classroom characteristics in the use of learning guides in the classroom.

Category	Observed Activities
Choice option	Task selection
	Task completion order
	Task completion pace
	Learning companion
	Learning location
Challenge control	Task difficulty level
	Supplementary task selection
	Interest-based tasks
	Open-ended tasks
Self- and peer assessment	Self-check with checklists
	Discussion with teacher
	Automatic digital feedback
	Diary reflection
	Peer assessment
Instrumental support from teacher and peers	Guidance in choice making
	Teacher and peer support
	Encouragement to take on more challenging tasks
Teachers’ evaluation practises	Verbal and group reflections
	Goal setting
	Ongoing guidance
	Learning from mistakes

).

3.2.1. Choice Option

The analysed learning guides and their use in lessons provided students with various opportunities for choice. The data analysis identified five subcategories under choice options: selecting tasks, determining the order of task completion, setting the pace of task completion, choosing a learning partner, and deciding on the learning location.

Teacher A’s subject-specific learning guide and Teacher C’s full-day learning guide allowed students to choose tasks. For example, Teacher A’s guide directed students to select three tasks from a maths workbook, while Teacher C’s arithmetic guide asked students to choose two tasks from four options. Teacher C also prepared six full-day guides, each centred on a specific theme. Three of these guides were mandatory, and three were optional, giving students the choice of whether or which optional tasks to complete. The guides also offered opportunities to take on supplementary tasks. For instance, Teacher B provided a wide range of supplementary tasks, but these were only available to students who finished the “nest” tasks within the allocated time. Observations indicated that students could also agree with the teacher on alternative supplementary activities, such as reading a book.

Teacher A’s and Teacher C’s groups were allowed to choose the order in which they completed tasks in their full-day guides. In Teacher A’s guide, which included four tasks completed as pair work, students had to agree at the start of the day on the order of tasks and indicate the order in the learning guide. Similarly, Teacher C’s students decided individually on the order of task completion.

Observations revealed that students who could choose their pace worked at different speeds. For example, in Teacher C’s group, some students completed a task in 10 min, while one student spent 35 min on the same task. Similarly, in Teacher A’s full-day guide, completed mostly as pair work, one partner often finished faster than the other. While waiting for their partner, faster students could complete supplementary tasks.

All the analysed learning guides allowed students to choose learning companions. Teachers had designated tasks in the learning guides to be completed individually, in pairs, or as group work. Observations showed that even individually assigned tasks (e.g., those in Teacher C’s guides) were often completed collaboratively, as students formed groups in which it was comfortable to study together. Teacher B, who assigned students to groups, allowed them to split into pairs or trios within the group to continue working collaboratively. Even when teachers assigned pairs, they encouraged students to collaborate with other classmates.

Teacher A’s students, while completing both full-day and subject-specific learning guides, had the option to choose their learning location. Students could decide to work in the classroom or the corridor (also with tables and cushions for sitting). Teacher B assigned specific tables to the “nests, “and Teacher C did the same for the centres, but students were allowed to work elsewhere if they preferred to.

3.2.2. Challenge Control

Four subcategories emerged under the opportunities for controlling challenges: supplementary tasks, the ability to focus on more interesting and/or difficult tasks, and open-ended tasks.

The learning guides offered faster students the opportunity to complete supplementary tasks. For example, in Teacher B’s full-day learning guide, five out of six “nests” included supplementary tasks for faster students. In two of Teacher C’s six guides, supplementary tasks were also included, such as one that asked students to create as many equations as possible with the answer being 63. Observations showed that students who took on this task created equations of varying complexity and spent different amounts of time on the activity, all resulting in the target sum. In an interview, Teacher C noted: “As expected, one-third of the students complete the main tasks and manage to work on the supplementary tasks, while another third fail to complete some of the main tasks”.

The learning guides created by Teacher A and Teacher C allowed students to better manage their performance, as they were not required to complete tasks within a fixed time frame. This flexibility enabled students to focus on tasks that they found more interesting and/or challenging. In Teacher C’s guides, three centres were mandatory, while the other three were optional, giving students the opportunity to focus on the more interesting task for longer and in greater depth. Teacher C noted in an interview: “They can decide how much effort or focus to dedicate to something, and how deeply they engage with a task”.

The digital tasks in the learning guides offered students the opportunity to select progressively more challenging tasks. Teacher A confirmed in an interview: “Digital tasks allow students to choose the level of difficulty”. The learning guides also included open-ended tasks, which gave students the chance to manage their performance independently. For instance, one task in Teacher C’s guide asked students to write and decorate a poem. Teacher A’s full-day guide included various open-ended tasks, such as writing and talking about a book they had read, creating a concept map of what constitutes “home”, describing the nature visible through a window, or conducting an experiment. Additionally, the guide allowed students to characterise different water bodies, offering the freedom to decide how to describe them. Open-ended tasks also included discussion prompts where students were encouraged to talk about topics, such as why the sea can be dangerous.

3.2.3. Self- and Peer Assessment

All the analysed learning guides provided students with opportunities for self-assessment. Five subcategories emerged from the data analysis: self-monitoring using checklists, self-monitoring through discussions with the teacher, automatic feedback from digital tasks, peer assessment, and writing self-reflection in the diary.

All the guides directed students to use checklists (e.g., sheets of paper or workbooks filled with the correct answers by the teacher) to verify their solutions. The checklists were placed in the classroom, such as near the blackboard, on the teacher’s desk, or on corridor walls. Teacher A used checklists in both subject-specific and full-day learning guides, while four out of six “nest” tasks in Teacher B’s full-day guide instructed students to verify their work using checklists. In Teacher C’s guides, students were directed to use checklists placed in the corridor in two out of six centres.

Students could also verify their understanding by showing teachers their completed work and discussing their understanding and mistakes with the teacher. All observed teachers used this method. For instance, in Teacher A’s guide, students were invited to discuss concepts such as longing and homesickness with the teacher. If the discussion revealed misunderstandings, the student would revisit the materials to deepen their understanding and later return to the teacher to share their improved comprehension.

Digital tasks offered quick self-assessment opportunities, providing students with automatic feedback on their completed tasks. All teachers incorporated digital tasks into their full-day learning guides.

The learning guides also included examples of peer assessment. For instance, one guide directed students working on supplementary tasks to assess each other’s work. An observation noted the following: “At 11:25, boys working on supplementary tasks are correcting each other’s work carefully and in a rather cheerful mood”. Similarly, teachers guided students to assess their peers, as seen in another observation protocol: “At 10:30, a boy who completed his task was directed by the teacher to review another student’s work”.

All the guides also provided opportunities for self-analysis, often using various symbols (e.g., a sun, an exclamation mark, a heart, or faces with different emotions) and performance assessment scales ranging from “confident” to “needs more practice”. Students wrote their names on sticky notes and placed them on a scale drawn on the blackboard to indicate how they felt about their performance. In an interview, Teacher A explained that this gave valuable insights into how students assessed their knowledge and skills in the topic they had studied.

Teacher B guided students to analyse their areas for improvement and evaluate their goal achievement after completing each “nest” and at the end of the school day. The process concluded with a group discussion on what went well and what could be improved next time. Teacher C encouraged students to engage in self-analysis at the end of the day through a group reflection circle. In this activity, students assessed which centres were the most challenging, interesting, or necessary and evaluated how well they achieved their goals. The teacher asked students to analyse their actions both verbally and through voting, such as raising their hands to agree with the teacher’s statement or using thumbs-up/thumbs-down gestures. Observations showed that students were willing to be self-critical, identifying areas for growth.

3.2.4. Instrumental Support from Teacher and Peers

Observations indicated that all teachers provided instrumental support to students while working with learning guides and encouraged them to support one another. Four subcategories emerged from the data analysis: teachers helping students make appropriate learning choices, guiding students to support and teach each other, peer-initiated support and teaching, and encouraging students to tackle more challenging tasks.

All observed teachers provided instrumental support to their students by helping them make appropriate learning choices. For example, teachers guided students to recall prior knowledge using practice cards. In Teacher C’s “poetry centre” guide, the instructions stated: “If you are satisfied with your performance, call the teacher and read it aloud”. Observations showed that, when students approached the teacher to read their poems hesitantly, the teacher would ask if they were satisfied with their performance. If not, the teacher inquired, “What should you do to be happy with your reading?” One student responded that they needed to practise reading twice more. Teachers supported students by encouraging them to reflect on their actions, asking questions like what could be done to help group members work effectively or how to assist peers in their learning.

Teachers also directed students to support and learn from one another. Teacher A’s guides included collaborative discussion tasks, such as “Discuss the questions at the end of the text”, as well as prompts for recalling prior knowledge together, such as “Recall and give examples of…” or “Reflect with your study buddy on the different types of water bodies you know”. The guides also encouraged study buddies to read aloud to one another. In three out of six “nests” in Teacher B’s guide, students were instructed to establish agreements on how to collaborate, whether working in pairs or groups. Additionally, teachers encouraged students to solve various tasks together using the learning guide. Observations revealed that all teachers systematically directed students needing help to first ask their peers for assistance. Teachers also encouraged students who had completed tasks to teach their classmates.

Teacher C’s learning guides were designed for individual work; however, observations showed that students working in the same centre frequently discussed tasks and supported one another on their own initiative. Peer-initiated teaching and support were evident in all the observed groups. Examples include the following: “At 10:12, a girl returns from self-assessment and shares her knowledge with a boy she had previously helped. She also shows him where the checklists are located. They head to the corridor together”, and “While conducting an experiment, a student instructs their companion on how to pour salt onto a spoon: ‘Tilt it a bit, you’ll get a better grip’. They count the spoons filled with salt together”.

Teachers encouraged students to attempt increasingly challenging tasks and did not accept superficial or underperforming attempts if they believed the students were capable of more. For example, an excerpt from Teacher C’s observation log reads, “The teacher says, ‘Come on, you’re capable of solving more complex problems!’”

3.2.5. Evaluation Practises

This study identified four subcategories within the teachers’ evaluation practises: reflection on learning, goal setting, formative assessment through guiding questions, and learning from mistakes.

Before beginning to work with the learning guides, the observed teachers guided students in setting learning goals (see more on goal setting in the section on the Structure of Learning Guides). At the end of the learning process, teachers facilitated students’ reflections on their learning. Teacher C asked students to evaluate how well they achieved their goals using thumbs-up gestures. For example, the teacher said, “We had three goals. Think about how well you worked quietly and rate yourself with a thumbs-up”. Students assessed themselves, and the teacher added, “Thank you for being honest because only then can we learn”. Students could also provide verbal justifications for their ratings. If a student rated their performance poorly, the teacher praised their honesty and discussed what could be done differently next time.

At the beginning of the week, Teacher A set four weekly goals with the students, one of which they could set themselves. At the end of the week, the teacher held individual discussions with each student to review their progress on the weekly goals and explore how they could improve in the future.

Teacher B also guided students in reflecting on their learning at the end of the school day, asking them to evaluate what went well, what still needed practice, and their areas for growth. Teachers ensured that all students had a chance to speak. The following is an example of an observation record: “The teacher asks a student what they learned today and how it helped them. The student responds, ‘I learned that if I work slower, I get more accurate answers’. The teacher praises the student’s insight and discusses how to apply it to future tasks”.

All observed teachers moved around the classroom while students worked with the learning guides, monitoring their progress in real-time. If students were working well, the teachers did not intervene. However, when students sought help, teachers supported them through guiding questions. An observation recorded the following: “A student shows their workbook to the teacher and says, ‘I don’t know if this is correct’. The teacher asks how the student thinks it looks and directs them to review their answer. The student identifies a mistake and says, ‘Now I see where I went wrong!’” Teacher C explained in an interview that the purpose of guiding questions was to help students independently arrive at answers and solutions: “The goal is for them to figure out the answer themselves and understand what they need to do”.

All the learning guides directed students to share their completed tasks, engage in discussions with peers, or present their thoughts to the teacher. For instance, Teacher A’s full-day guide instructed students to independently explore a given topic at first and later discuss their findings with the teacher (e.g., “Come and tell A what is…”). Teacher B’s guide encouraged students to discuss what supports pair or group work and then share their thoughts with the teacher. Teacher C’s guide included a task to practise expressive poetry reading, with instructions for students to approach the teacher for feedback once they felt adequately prepared. When speaking with students, teachers listened to what they had learned and used guiding questions to help them select appropriate learning strategies and reflect on their progress.

Observations also highlighted that the teachers emphasised learning from mistakes as a key part of their evaluation practises. Mistakes were not criticised but normalised as an integral part of the learning process. This approach was also reflected in students’ self-analyses, where they felt comfortable acknowledging their mistakes and learning from them. For example, a student in Teacher B’s group reflected, “The task went very wrong because I only read the instructions once and forgot the beginning”, to which the teacher asked what the student had learned from the experience. The student replied, “I need to read it twice”.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study is to describe the way teachers chose to structure written learning guides designed for primary school students and to analyse how their use in instruction creates opportunities to support self-regulated learning. Data collected through classroom observations, interviews, and the analysis of learning guides revealed that the characteristics of high-SRL classrooms (Perry et al., 2002) were present in the guides and their use. These characteristics are also associated with cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and behavioural SRL strategies (Sins et al., 2024). Metacognitive strategies were the most prominent in the use of learning guides, as children were able to set goals for their learning, monitor their progress, make adjustments when necessary, and analyse their learning both individually and with their teacher. While Zimmerman (2002) noted that students are rarely asked to assess their own work, the learning guides analysed in this study and their implementation in instruction offered learners extensive opportunities for self-assessment. Self-assessment was encouraged in the observed lessons through checklists, various symbols, and reflective discussions with the teacher.

However, as Perry et al. (2020) pointed out, self-assessment using checklists may limit students’ self-regulated learning. Although self-monitoring using checklists makes students calmer (Käis, 1992) by alleviating the fear of external evaluation, it may not necessarily prompt students to reflect deeply on their learning—an essential component of SRL. Both Unt (1966) and Käis (1992) suggested guiding learners towards self-assessment by providing access to the rules or additional materials needed to complete tasks. This approach demands more effort from learners to verify their work, which supports SRL by encouraging students to deeply process their work and arrive at correct answers independently. Such self-assessment requires giving students sufficient time to reach their own conclusions.

Perry et al. (2002) emphasised the importance of peer assessment in addition to self-assessment in SRL, as it teaches students to analyse learning processes. Observations in this study showed how teachers intentionally guided students to teach and support one another, while students also did so independently. The format of the learning guide itself could be used more extensively to encourage peer assessment, though it is essential to tailor this to the age and abilities of the learners. Based on this study, it is recommended that more peer assessment tasks should be included in learning guides, supported by age-appropriate assessment models, to further enhance SRL skills.

All teachers in this study directed students to discuss their learning with them, which, in the data analysis, was categorised under both self-assessment and teacher’s evaluation practises. In the evaluation practises category, this was referred to as an assessment with the teacher, while, in the self- and peer assessment category, it was termed verbal and group reflection. When describing the structure of the learning guides, this teacher-directed discussion was considered one way of supporting self-assessment. Observations in all three classrooms showed that, during these discussions, students had opportunities for both self-control and self-assessment, guided by the teacher.

We propose that distinguishing between self-assessment and evaluation practises may not be necessary, as both categories reflect the deliberate assessment strategies chosen by the teacher. Future research might consider combining the self-assessment and evaluation practises categories to provide a more integrated understanding of these categories.

The learning guides and their use in instruction directed students to collaborate at various levels, support one another, and engage in peer teaching, which Perry et al. (2002) identified as a key aspect of instrumental peer support. As a result, the findings also highlighted behavioural strategies for supporting self-regulated learning (Sins et al., 2024). Teachers also consciously guided students toward collaborative learning, which has been emphasised as vital for self-regulated learning by Dignath and Veenman (2021), Unt (1966), and Käis (1992). However, it is important to note, as Slavin (2018) also pointed out, that, while collaboration is essential, learning guides should also provide students with opportunities to progress at their own pace. Therefore, careful consideration is needed when designing learning guides and structuring learning activities to ensure that students have sufficient time for individual reflection and focused work. A potential solution could involve teachers discussing with students where they can engage in individual learning, either within the classroom or in designated areas outside of it, should they prefer to work independently. Another approach could involve using an agreed-upon system of signals to indicate when a student is focused on individual work.

Well-designed written learning guides are clearly understandable for students, thereby creating conditions that support the development of their self-regulated learning. Among the analysed learning guides, some included explicitly stated objectives formulated by teachers. Additionally, general goals related to learning and behaviour were collaboratively set in the classroom at the start of lessons involving the learning guides and at the beginning of the week, as revealed through teacher interviews. According to Zimmerman’s (2000) Model of Cyclical Phases of self-regulation, goal setting and planning how to achieve these goals are crucial steps before beginning a task. Moreover, goal setting is essential in the third phase of the cycle—self-reflection—where students evaluate how successfully they achieved their goals. As authors, we recommend that special attention be given to goals formulated by students themselves, as these are more likely to be internalised. One potential approach could involve including a task at the beginning of the learning guide that helps students arrive at their goals through guiding questions or prompts. Additionally, a reflection task related to goal setting could be included at the end of the guide. Although discussions with the teacher throughout the day provided students with feedback on their conceptual understanding of the subject matter, the self-analysis section of the learning guides did not direct students to reflect on the achievement of their goals.

Previous research has shown that teachers rarely provide students with choices in task completion, such as deciding how to approach a task or choosing whom to work with (Zimmerman, 2002), despite these choices supporting SRL (e.g., Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2002; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000). The results of our study indicate that learning guides and their implementation can offer students multiple opportunities for choice. The analysed guides encouraged students to choose between tasks, decide the order in which to complete them, work at their own pace, and select their learning location and partner. These findings align well with Perry et al’.s (2002) list of choice options, with the exception of choosing the format for presenting the final work and selecting learning materials, which were not options in the learning guides analysed for this study. We recommend that future learning guides offer students broader choices regarding learning materials and the format of their final work to further support SRL. The importance of providing choices to foster SRL has also been emphasised by Dignath and Veenman (2021). Furthermore, offering choices supports learning motivation through autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2020) and encourages students to put in greater effort (Poom-Valickis et al., 2016).

The results of this study confirmed that the use of learning guides allows students to monitor their performance through completing supplementary tasks, focusing on more interesting or challenging tasks, and solving open-ended tasks. In the analysed learning guides, students could choose the level of task difficulty only when working on digital tasks. The authors suggest that the format of learning guides offers broader opportunities to provide students with a wider range of tasks at varying difficulty levels to support SRL. For example, tasks of different difficulty levels on the same topic could be created, clearly marked for students, allowing them to choose based on their assessment of their knowledge and skills. In this case, it is important to ensure that students have the option to move between more difficult and simpler tasks as needed. Additionally, this approach requires that students be able to decide the pace at which they work on a given task.

The need for developing SRL skills is becoming more important and urgent with the advent of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) tools, such as ChatGPT (Wang et al., 2024). It has been argued that the effective use of genAI requires students to have certain cognitive and metacognitive skills (Laak et al., 2024). However, these skills are not developed by the default use of these genAI tools and could even introduce new metacognitive difficulties (Prather et al., 2024). An increasing amount of evidence shows that low metacognitive sensitivity may lead to an illusion of learning and overconfidence in predicting one’s own performance and learning gains (Bastani et al., 2024; Darvishi et al., 2024; Fernandes et al., 2024). Without proper SRL skills, genAI tools may promote dependence and trigger “metacognitive laziness” (Fan et al., 2024). The structure and use of learning guides could, in principle, be applied to genAI-based learning systems and activities to foster the development of SRL skills.

The example from our study of how learning guides could support SRL in classroom settings and the work carried out with e-learning and AI-driven tutoring systems direct practitioners and researchers toward a hybrid model of learning (Molenaar, 2022). As Azevedo et al. (2022) point out, learning and transfer takes time and needs to be assisted by human agents. In addition, it has been argued that the proportion of AI versus human interactions in formal education should be a function of student SRL skills (Laak & Aru, 2024). In conclusion, the developmentally appropriate integration of AI-based learning systems and opportunities with the teacher-designed learning guides could be a way to reduce the potential negative effect on learning of these systems.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This article investigates the key structural components of teacher-created learning guides and how these components create opportunities to support self-regulated learning among primary school students. Additionally, it explores the ways in which high-SRL classroom characteristics manifest in lessons where learning guides are used. Although the results of this study are valuable, offering teachers insights into how learning guides can be used to support SRL already in primary education, this study has certain limitations. One limitation is the small number of analysed learning guides. It is possible that the structure of learning guides varies depending on the topics or students’ experience with using them (e.g., guides used at the beginning versus the end of the school year might differ). In addition to the aforementioned limitations, we also acknowledge that only a post-observation interview was conducted with Teacher B, as a pre-observation interview was not possible due to scheduling challenges. However, the post-observation interview indeed provided all critical information essential for this study.

Further research is needed to explore whether learning guides support the setting of long-term goals for students, especially given findings that long-term goal setting is often not prioritised in teachers’ own work (see Biesta et al., 2015). Long-term goals are particularly important in developing SRL, as these skills (e.g., the effective use of learning strategies) require prolonged practice. While teacher interviews in this study included broader questions about the use of learning guides, future research could involve larger samples to validate the overview of guide structures and elements that support SRL skills, as identified in this study. Further studies could also focus on students’ perspectives and experiences with learning guides, examining the impact of guide-supported learning on the development of skills such as independent learning, SRL, and academic outcomes.

5. Conclusions

A fundamental goal of contemporary education is the development of student self-regulated learning skills. In this study, we collected and analysed a diverse set of data to explore the use of written learning guides as a method to develop SRL skills in primary school. Our results provide educators with practical recommendations for designing and implementing learning guides in classroom settings.

We show that written learning guides can effectively support extended independent and collaborative learning. By incorporating cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and behavioural strategies, learning guides engage students with goal setting, progress monitoring, and self-assessment, which are essential components of SRL. This study highlights the importance of integrating self-assessment and peer assessment within learning guides. We suggest that the components of learning guides could be integrated into AI-based learning systems to mitigate the potential negative effects on student agency and to promote the development of SRL skills.