SRL is comprised of “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 14). SRL is set in a socio-cognitive framework, as it requires internal beliefs, cognitions, and metacognitions as well as external influences including feedback and teacher support (Zimmerman, 1989). Zimmerman and Moylan’s (2009) cyclical model of SRL recognizes learning strategies that occur pre-performance, during performance, and post-performance of an academic task in a teaching context (see Figure 1). In the forethought phase, learners establish their objectives, evaluate their motivation and capabilities to accomplish the tasks, and devise plans to actively participate in the task at hand. During the performance phase, learners actively participate in the tasks, implementing strategies such as time management, help-seeking, and environmental structuring, monitoring their progress throughout. It is in the last phase, the self-reflection phase, wherein learners critically analyze their performance of a task through self-evaluation, fostering a deeper understanding of their own abilities and areas for improvement.

Kramarski and Heaysman (2021) created a pragmatic framework that aims to connect theory, practice, and research on teachers’ SRL. Refining already existing frameworks that distinguish between teacher personal SRL use and SRL instruction for learners, the “triple SRL–SRT processes” was designed, wherein three self-regulation categories are offered: “(1) teachers self-regulate their own learning as learners (SRL); (2) teachers self-regulate their practice as self-regulated teachers (teacher-focused SRT); (3) teachers activate students’ SRL as teachers of SRL (student-focused SRT)” (Kramarski and Heaysman, 2021, p. 298). Teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices seem intertwined and could affect all three categories of the Triple SRL-SRT framework.

Teacher beliefs and knowledge of SRL influence how teachers integrate SRL in their teaching (Calderhead, 1991; Hoy et al., 2006). Teacher beliefs and knowledge are closely related concepts, often difficult to isolate as they are interwoven (Hoy et al., 2006; Pajares, 1992). Teacher understanding of SRL can be categorized in the following ways: the beliefs and knowledge teachers carry about practicing SRL instruction and their beliefs and knowledge of how to construct an environment conducive to supporting SRL development (Dignath-van Ewijk and Van der Werf, 2012).

School climate is a strong indicator of the degree and quality of SRL promotion and application in the classroom (De Smul et al., 2019). Some facets of school climate differ between public and private school types (Lubienski et al., 2008). Private schools generally allow for greater teacher autonomy and flexibility in curriculum, for instance (Miron and Nelson, 2002). A study by Fidan and Öztürk (2015) concluded that attributes such as creativity and intrinsic motivation have been found to be more prevalent in private school teachers. They additionally discovered that private schools are more supportive of innovation and have greater access to resources that enhance innovation. As researchers consider SRL an “innovative practice” (Lombaerts et al., 2009), and given the curricular flexibility and autonomy experienced by private school teachers, it would be interesting to understand the differing ways in which SRL concepts are promoted in private versus public schools.

Overall, when a school’s educators share knowledge and perspectives of SRL and are guided by the same framework of SRL and its strategies, they are more likely to implement SRL in their practice (Vandevelde et al., 2012; Peeters et al., 2016). While no previous research has compared SRL development amongst public and private elementary schools, overall, studies have found that private schools receive more administrative support than public schools (Lubienski et al., 2008). When people in leadership positions such as district administrators and principals advocate for SRL use in teacher practice, a school climate is cultivated that supports the utilization of SRL strategies (James and McCormick, 2009). Given these findings, private school teachers are better positioned due to the autonomy and supports they receive to develop SRL skills and strategies. This research study addresses the ways in which SRL is implemented in public and private school environments.

Based on Kramarski and Heaysman’s (2021) typology of teacher SRL, we focused mostly on how teachers self-regulate their practice as self-regulated teachers. However, we regard the three types of teachers’ SRL as intertwined. That is, we would expect that teachers who self-regulate their own learning and instruction would be better equipped to promote SRL among their students. Although we emphasized teachers’ practice of SRL, we also explored their knowledge and familiarity as well as their self-efficacy for SRL. The most studied components of Zimmerman and Moylan’s (2009) SRL model and those most familiar to teachers were chosen for our study (Spruce and Bol, 2015). From the forethought phase, the variables of emphasis were goal setting and strategic planning, subcomponents of task analysis. From the performance phase, time management was a subcomponent of interest, as were metacognitive monitoring and self-recording, subcomponents of self-observation. The self-reflection phase was represented with causal attribution and adaptive reaction, subcomponents of self-judgment and self-reaction, respectively. Several components incorporated into the present research were further selected due to the explicit nature of these strategies, such as help-seeking, which could be recognized through social interactions, and time management, which may be more salient due to measuring tools such as clocks and timers. Metacognitive monitoring is another SRL strategy that teachers can understand via feedback, gradebooks, and other student progress evaluation techniques (Halpern, 1998). Teacher self-efficacy for promoting explicit and implicit SRL strategies in classrooms was an additional area of interest. It is important when considering teacher SRL perspectives to understand their confidence in teaching these skills and making connections with teacher knowledge and beliefs of SRL.

Pre-service teachers are often the focus of studies on the effectiveness of SRL interventions (e.g., Glogger-Frey et al., 2018). Professional development at the pre-service level brings awareness of SRL strategies and demonstrates their relevance to instruction and student learning before a teacher enters the workforce, reinforcing the importance of these skills (Vosniadou, 2019). Some researchers specifically select pre-service teacher participants to understand the effectiveness of SRL professional development on novice educators at the beginning of their training (Panadero, 2017). However, pre-service teachers are selected largely because they are a more easily accessible population (Cebesoy, 2013). We address this gap in the literature by exploring the SRL-related teaching practices of in-service teachers. It may be the case that professional development and intervention studies be designed differently for pre-versus in-service teachers. Exploring the practices of in-service teachers via interviews may be an initial step in tailoring professional development.

Aligning with recommendations to enhance teachers’ SRL, self-efficacy for teaching, and instructional effectiveness (Spruce and Bol, 2015; Panadero et al., 2017), the present study investigates in-service teachers’ use of SRL strategies in K–5 contexts and how it is linked to teaching self-efficacy and instructional effectiveness. The study further seeks to make comparisons between SRL practices of public and private school teachers. Exploring teacher SRL practice and efficacy beliefs will help us construct a picture of how SRL is being utilized in varied educational settings. The following research questions guide this study:

Understanding teacher perceptions and SRL practices can be useful in finding ways to utilize effective SRL strategies in the classroom and promote self-efficacy around SRL instruction. The present study contributes to existing literature by targeting in-service teachers and making connections between their beliefs, knowledge, and self-efficacy regarding SRL to their own SRL practices. Additionally, this study is the first we know of to compare SRL practices between public and private school settings.

Participants included 12 in-service primary school teachers (K–5). Six participants were employed at a public charter school, and six participants taught at a private school, both located in Southern California. Of the sample, three teachers were male and nine were female. The number of participants in our sample seemed appropriate to achieve in-depth exploration of the phenomenon via a qualitative design (Moustakas, 1994; Clandinin, 2006).

Years of teaching experience amongst participants ranged from 3 years to 16 years. Our selection criteria required that participants are in-service teachers with at least 3 years of teaching experience at their current school. In the interest of addressing gaps in the research, in-service teachers were the study focus. Similarly, K–5 educators were our sample of interest as elementary level educators are infrequently the population utilized for research in this context (Xu et al., 2022). Participants were recruited in equal numbers from one private and one public school in southern California, resulting in a homogonous sample.

Purposive sampling was implemented to select participants based on our specific criteria. Purposive sampling is a nonprobability sampling technique commonly used when research does not aim to generalize results (Etikan et al., 2016). Qualitative research benefits from purposive sampling due to the rich information collected from individuals targeted based on their experience with the phenomenon of focus (Patton, 2002; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011).

A semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix A) was designed by a team of four educational psychology specialists to explore teacher perceptions and knowledge of SRL as it applied to their practice. This constituted expert review and enhanced the content validity of the interview instrument. The protocol design was informed by comprehensive systematic reviews of current literature on SRL that suggest all phases be incorporated into SRL study designs (Dunlosky and Rawson, 2019; Heikkinen et al., 2023). For the present study, components from the forethought, performance, and self-reflection phases of Zimmerman and Moylan’s (2009) model were selected so that each phase was represented in the interviews. A blueprint was designed to guide the development of the interview questions and to further strengthen content validity (see Table 1). Several rounds of revisions were made as a team and questions deleted to create a parsimonious protocol that featured SRL components relevant to the research questions and commonly understood by teachers. Response burden was also a consideration in drafting the final list of questions. From a total of 15 open-ended interview questions, three questions were associated with the forethought phase, four questions represented the performance phase, and five questions explored self-reflection. Two general questions were additionally included to understand teacher perspectives of SRL as a broader construct and were posed at the beginning of the interview before the description of the SRL model. The interview was piloted with two teachers prior to study commencement, as an additional method for strengthening the trustworthiness of findings. Few changes were incorporated based on responses to the pilot interviews and resulted in minor rewording and estimations of interview length.

Upon receiving university IRB and school approval, teachers were informed of the study and asked to participate. Over the course of 8 weeks, 12 teachers were individually interviewed over one session either in person on their school campus or via video conference. Participants were informed that they would be recorded and provided their consent prior to interview commencement. The length of each interview session was approximately 30–40 min in duration. All interviews were recorded using Zoom video conference for future reference and to facilitate transcription.

Data was initially analyzed through a first-cycle a priori coding process that took a deductive approach by using pre-defined codes based on the subcomponent SRL targets (Saldaña and Omasta, 2016). Deductive coding uses an existing theory or framework, (in this case SRL theory), to determine the set of codes that will guide the data analysis (Bingham and Witkowsky, 2021) (See Appendix B, C for codebook samples). Following the first round of coding, we interpreted the data by adding new codes, utilizing an inductive coding approach to apply meaning to the data, and identifying broad emerging themes and categories (Saldana, 2013; Bingham and Witkowsky, 2021). An iterative process was used to switch between deductive and inductive coding to capture a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon. Iterative coding “involves moving back and forth between concrete bits of data and abstract concepts, between inductive and deductive reasoning, and between description and interpretation” (Merriam, 1998, p. 178). A second-cycle thematic coding process was conducted by grouping topics into categories and labeling a new code to each grouping that illustrated thematic patterns found in the data (Braun and Clarke, 2021). Thematic analysis of data highlights the salient themes present within a phenomenon (Daly et al., 1997). We further examined themes that emerged across categories that informed our interpretation of findings.

The unit of analysis was the topic or idea conveyed and not the number of teachers. For example, a teacher could have described two distinct ideas in response to one question and it would be coded into two categories. Two researchers coded the interview responses independently, using random selection with replacement to check reliability. During this process, two coded transcripts from each school (n = 4) were randomly chosen per interview question to confirm the accuracy of their themed codes throughout. The researchers addressed inconsistencies in their interrater agreement levels by consulting one another and offering clarification until a consensus was reached, followed by another round of recoding and another reliability check. Agreement on the number of topics or ideas were included in the calculations. The results of the reliability check were an overall inter-rater reliability score of 0.87 (Table 2). We calculated separate reliabilities by phase that ranged from 0.84 for Reflection to 0.90 for Forethought.

Our first research question investigated teacher SRL practices. As an SRL theoretical framework was used to guide the study and design the interview protocol, it seemed appropriate to present the findings as they relate to each of Zimmerman’s (2002) phases. We begin with forethought, or how teachers plan their instruction, especially as it relates to goal-setting (Zimmerman, 2012).

Our second research question explored teacher self-efficacy for SRL strategy use (Table 10). Teacher self-efficacy positively relates to effective instructional practices in the classroom (Klassen and Tze, 2014; Zee and Koomen, 2016). We use Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001) teacher self-efficacy model to organize the analysis for a richer understanding of the findings. Their Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) categorizes teacher self-efficacy into three area: efficacy for student engagement, efficacy for classroom management, and efficacy for instructional strategies. Regarding efficacy for instructional practices, teachers generally expressed high confidence for planning quality instruction that promotes student growth (43%). One teacher claimed it was one of her “strengths.” Overall, the teachers felt confident in their ability to improve their instruction as it was occurring during the performance phase (26%) (see Table 11). “Altering the ways in which you teach so that it does go successfully is a key component in this teaching world.” They largely attribute that confidence to successfully monitoring student progress (18%) and adapting their lessons during instruction (29%). Teachers expressed confidence in adapting instruction to better meet student needs (26%). They described ways they develop their confidence, which included expanding their knowledge on a topic, learning new teaching strategies, and recognizing areas in their practice that could be improved. As was the case with teacher efficacy in planning and performance phases, teachers were largely confident that their instruction improves due to reflection (33%) (see Table 12).

Regarding efficacy for student engagement as viewed through an SRL lens, teachers spoke on their efficacy for monitoring student response and interaction with the material (11%). One teacher said,

Another teacher spoke on their perceived ability to create engaging content and promote student self-efficacy. “My goals are being tracked in the form of the children, and how excited they are to learn, and how proud they are of themselves, and how confident they become.”

While efficacy for classroom management was less frequently spoken upon as it related to SRL practices, several teachers did address confidence in their management styles. One participant elaborated on goals they set for themselves, explaining, “my goal, especially last year, was finding better classroom management, and I felt like I got pretty good at that.” Overall, few connections were made between classroom management and our target SRL components.

Facets of teacher self-efficacy outside the scope of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale included confidence related to years of experience and use of a variety of active instructional strategies. “Like with a degree of experiential education, I want them to learn by doing in a variety of ways.” Two teachers admitted to periodic lack of confidence because they were learning as they went. “But I am trying to get more confident by learning a lot really fast.” One of these participants was relatively new to teaching and expected to gain more confidence with experience. Finally, one teacher described growing confidence each year concurrently with their flexibility and adaptation.

Our third research question assessed the differences in SRL use between public and private school type. Although several SRL components were universally used by public school participants and their private school counterparts, there were areas where their SRL teaching strategies differed notably (see Table 13). The latter group attributed their instructional success to the flexibility and autonomy they are granted to set and adjust goals. One teacher reflected on the fluidity of their daily school schedule, commenting,

Another teacher shared a similar autonomy-based strategy for planning their school year, stating,

One participant detailed a time when a learning game they planned was not engaging the students and how they had the flexibility to shift to an entirely different activity that was more effective in retaining the attention of the students. The private school participants largely spoke on the ease of adapting instruction without time restrictions to meet student needs. These results align with research finding that private school teachers have greater autonomy in their instruction than their public-school counterparts (e.g., Miron and Nelson, 2002). Conversely, the public-school teachers were more limited by structures set in place by their administration, district, and federal government. They expressed feeling restricted or constrained by schedules and goals that were set for them. One public school teacher outlined their rigid ELA program structure, lamenting that time constraints mean that they do not always have the latitude to adapt or strengthen a lesson. As a result, they relied on time management more to meet milestones.

Largely, the private school teacher participants more frequently regarded relationship-building as critical to student success. Given that private schools generally offer more autonomy in their schedules and curriculum (Miron and Nelson, 2002), it makes sense that they would have a greater opportunity for relationship-building without some of the external pressures that exist in public schools. As relationship-building between students and their teachers lead to positive goal outcomes, particularly due to the increased opportunity to understand and meet individualized needs of students (Nordengren, 2019), teachers may consider reflecting upon strategies for strengthening relatedness among their students.

An area of greater divergence between school types concerned student feedback. While public school participants tracked student progress in more summative ways, private school teachers were more likely to assess their students using formative assessment methods. Studies have found that while both assessment types are effective, formative assessments were more highly associated with motivation to learn and SRL skills (Ismail et al., 2022). When asked about how they monitor student progress, a private school participant detailed their formative assessment process:

Our first research question addressed how K–5 teachers implement SRL in their teaching. The present results offer some insight into how teachers plan their instruction. More specifically, we better understand the myriad goals they employ to plan their instruction. Tailoring and structuring goals were common, suggesting that goal setting may be somewhat formal and differentiated depending on student needs. This kind of goal setting has been recommended by other educators and researchers because they recognize individual differences and assessment in a more formative sense (Tomlinson and Moon, 2014).

Our results also inform how they improve their instruction. They largely turn to their fellow teachers, other colleagues, or text-based resources; however, a smaller number attempt to solve problems on their own. Some of these avenues are similar to student help-seeking behaviors, including a reluctance to ask others for help (Karabenick, 2012). The more adaptive help-seeking behaviors could be explicitly modeled by teachers for their students.

While we know a good deal about time management (Manso-Vázquez et al., 2016), we understand less about how teachers manage their time. Teachers in the present study were concerned about managing their time and even used physical timers. They carefully structured their schedules to cover different subjects at particular times during the day. Others were more flexible in their time management and were responsive to students’ needs when considering the pace and readiness for instruction.

There were some patterns detected across phases and components, sometimes blurring the lines between phases. The first was self-regulation interpreted as regulation of emotion or affect. One teacher participant explained that her understanding of SRL is that it is “tied to social emotional learning, to develop self-regulation skills in terms of coping with big emotions.” When initially asked about SRL, some teachers thought we meant self-regulation more generally as it pertained to socioemotional as well as academic characteristics. Again, this could be due the primary grade levels taught by these teachers (K–5). They mentioned this aspect of regulation in the context of goal setting, tracking goal accomplishment, and reflection phases. They wanted their students to be excited and confident in their learning, viewing it as more or equally important as academic goals. “Success comes in a child feeling a sense of pride and finding a love of learning. So even if they do not master the skill I’m hoping they master, if they came out excited to learn more or proud of themselves, I consider that a win all day every day.” Other patterns noted across phases pertained to monitoring and adjusting instruction to meet the needs of students collectively and individually. Teachers would informally or formally assess their students to set goals and to determine whether instructional goals were realized. Monitoring with adaptations were commonly described for the performance and reflection phases of instruction as well. In the reflection phase, adjustments for improving lessons could occur in collaborative ways with students and peers. Monitoring and adjusting instruction based on formative assessment is a critical metacognitive strategy that could be transferred to students during their own learning (Andrade, 2010; Panadero et al., 2018).

Our second research question examined teacher self-efficacy as it related to SRL strategy use. Teachers were confident in their ability to plan for, implement, and reflect on their instruction, and largely attribute that confidence to their cumulative teaching experiences. Salient experiences include adopting an array of effective teaching strategies, monitoring and adapting their instruction, managing their time efficiently, getting feedback from students and colleagues, and reflecting on how their instruction may be improved. This confidence may be both positive and negative. Confidence suggests high self-efficacy in teaching, and teacher perceptions of SRL influence their self-efficacy and quality of SRL instruction (Hoy et al., 2006). However, confidence or self-efficacy does not always equate with competence.

There is a large literature on over-confidence in meta-analytic judgments. Calibration is one such judgment and represents the correspondence between individuals’ perceptions of their task performance and actual performance. We have repeatedly found that lower-achieving students are grossly inaccurate and overconfident; whereas higher achieving students are much more accurate and even a bit underconfident (Bol et al., 2016; Foster et al., 2017; Hacker et al., 2000). It may be these teachers are a bit overconfident in their ability to self-regulate their teaching. There has not been much research on teachers’ competence, confidence, and SRL, but Dignath (2021) found an interaction between teachers’ competence and the success of SRL professional development. Those teachers who had more competent instructional profiles profited more from the professional development than did their less competent counterparts. Whether their confidence also systematically varied awaits empirical confirmation.

While teacher self-efficacy for practicing SRL was high among our participants, explicit instruction of these components embedded within the SRL framework was rather low. One explanation could be that teachers generally are not familiar with SRL concepts, but naturally incorporate aspects of them into their implicit teaching. Some teacher participants were candid in admitting they had not heard of the term SRL but considered aspects of the framework as part of effective instruction. These results point to more implicit rather than explicit use of SRL and how it is communicated to students. Other researchers have observed a similar trend (Michalsky, 2020; Quackenbush and Bol, 2020; Spruce and Bol, 2015). Even though explicit instruction is shown to be more effective in promoting students’ SRL (Kistner et al., 2010), implicit instruction is more common. As noted earlier, teacher efficacy beliefs about SRL may influence to what extent they explicitly implement SRL in their instruction. Because these teachers taught at primary grade levels, they may not think their students capable of understanding SRL explicitly and opted for what they believed was a more developmentally appropriate way to implicitly convey these concepts. However, the literature supports early development of SRL (Dignath et al., 2008; Roebers et al., 2009; van Loon et al., 2021) and students may be more capable of understanding and using these strategies than teachers believe.

Our third research question compared teacher SRL practices in differing school types. As in similar studies exploring differences between public and private schools, we also discovered a few themes that distinguished responses between teachers from each school type (Lubienski et al., 2008). Private school teachers had more of their autonomy or flexibility in goal setting. These findings support previous research that private schools generally have greater autonomy in shaping their curriculum (Miron and Nelson, 2002). Additionally, private school teachers were able to adjust their instruction to better meet student needs and used more formative assessment as well as student feedback in measuring progress. In contrast, public school teachers were held to administrative or federal standards in goal setting, were more formal in their time management strategies, and relied heavily on summative assessments of their students. These differences could be not only linked to administrative demands but perhaps the kinds of students enrolled in these courses. Another possible explanation for these differences may be school climate as an indicator of the degree and quality of SRL instructional practices (De Smul et al., 2019). In private schools, teachers also have more flexibility to incorporate SRL in their practice without the pressure of pacing and high-stakes testing (Madaus et al., 2009; Miron and Nelson, 2002).

The current study is not without limitations. The first is the rather narrow focus of our interview questions both in terms of SRL components and the type of teachers SRL examined. As described by Kramarski and Heaysman (2021), there are three types of teacher SRL: (1) teachers self-regulate their own learning as learners, (2) teachers self-regulate their practice as self-regulated teachers, and (3) teachers activate students’ SRL as teachers of SRL. We primarily focused on the second type-how SRL influenced their teaching practices. However, we also had items about teachers’ familiarity with SRL and their confidence or self-efficacy in its effectiveness. The three types of SRL are interwoven. A second limitation is related to social desirability inherent in any self-report measure. Because the interviews were confidential, teachers may have been more candid. Based on our own observations during the interviews, the teachers seemed comfortable and willing to admit what they did and did not know. They also bolstered their responses with examples that would be difficult to fabricate. A third limitation was our reliance on self-selected volunteers, and that their responses may not be generalizable to other teachers. We did purposefully select from a group of volunteers, but nonetheless, they were self-selected into the sampling frame. Another limitation is that we relied on one data collection method, in-depth interviews. There is precedence for using one data collection technique like qualitative interviews (e.g., Muljana and Luo, 2023; Brady et al., 2024), yet it would be informative to conduct a more ethnographic type of design where we collected data from several sources longitudinally. This was not possible in the schools recruited due to resources and permissions. Although the purpose of qualitative studies typically is not to generalize (e.g., Polit and Beck, 2010; Niaz, 2007), external validity was constrained by having only twelve teachers, six from each type of school in primary grade levels. Even for a qualitative study, it may have been informative to have more teachers from each type of school.

Our findings have implications for theory, research, and practice. In terms of theoretical and practical implications, different components of Zimmerman and Moylan’s (2009) model may be more important given the context for instruction. For example, teachers who have more flexibility may find it more useful to focus on particular types of goals like those that rely on formative assessment results (Traga and MacArthur, 2023). Teachers constrained by district and state guidelines may rely on more summative types of assessments to develop goals. Time management may be more essential when meeting scope and sequence objectives in public schools. There may be more options for help-seeking in larger public schools. Moreover, the theory may emphasize different components within phases depending on the type of teacher self-regulated learning addressed. For example, if the goal is to develop the teachers’ own sense of SRL as a learner, the motivational components like self-efficacy and attribution theory may be more important. If the goal is to instill SRL among students, more tangible aspects of the model like goal setting, help-seeking, monitoring and time management might be more readily and obviously applied to teaching practices as a place to begin. Some researchers (Quackenbush and Bol, 2020; Spruce and Bol, 2015) have shown that teachers do tend to use more components in the performance phase of Zimmerman and Moylan’s (2009) model.

Implications for practice include professional development on SRL for in-service teachers (Perels et al., 2009; Gillies and Khan, 2009). Much of the literature relies on understanding and providing professional development for pre-service and not in-service teachers (e.g., Kramarski, 2017; Michalsky, 2014; Perry et al., 2008). We assert that professional development in SRL be on-going and not restricted to preservice teachers. The likelihood of teachers applying SRL in their teaching increases as administrators encourage this practice and reward teachers in their evaluations. The focus of professional development might be on how to explicitly incorporate SRL in teaching practices. One form of explicit instruction could be teachers modeling for the students how to engage in SRL strategies (Bandura, 1972). Another might be teachers developing goals with their students, reflecting on whether these goals were realized, and adjusting goals as they return to the planning phase. The later example reinforces the cyclical nature of the model for teachers and students alike.

There are myriad directions for future research. One direction would be to include data such as classroom observations and artifacts from teachers and students to understand how teacher beliefs and knowledge of SRL align with their classroom practices and their skills of activating SRL among their students. As the present study compares teacher SRL in schools serving communities of two distinct populations, professional development may be tailored depending on school type (public versus private). Exploring the effectiveness of classroom coaching of SRL would be informative, and explicit versus implicit teacher training practices may be another fruitful direction for study. A comparison of teachers’ understanding, beliefs, and practices by SRL type would also be informative. Examining these three strands of SRL may enable us to link them to their implicit and explicit SRL practices and hopefully illuminate avenues for making SRL more explicit. While research has been conducted on teacher knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding student SRL, the present study contributes to the literature on teacher perceptions of SRL as it relates to their own practices in primary grades levels.