Abstract
Parents and teachers play a key role in developing students' self-regulated learning (SRL), which is closely linked to academic achievement and acts as a protective factor for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Research has shown that authoritative parenting style, parental responsiveness, emotional warmth, behavioural control, and autonomy support are associated with better academic performance. In addition, studies have shown that the quality of the teacher-student relationship plays an important role in the development of SRL. However, there is limited research on the relationship between school and home environmental factors, student characteristics, and SRL, especially in primary school. The present study examined the relationship between parenting styles, teaching styles, student characteristics, and SRL. The sample included 328 ninth-grade students in Slovenian primary schools. SRL, parenting styles, and teaching styles were assessed using student self-reports. Using latent profile analysis, three subtypes of parenting styles (discipline-oriented parenting, democratic parenting, and responsive parenting) and three subtypes of teaching styles (autonomy-supportive teaching, diverse teaching, and directive teaching) were identified. Results indicate that students who perceive autonomy-supportive teaching and responsive parenting styles exhibit higher levels of SRL. Autonomy-supportive teaching was positively associated with student achievement. This study highlights the importance of an authoritative parenting and teaching style for the development of SRL in primary school.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The ability of students to self-regulate is increasingly important nowadays, especially after the pandemic, which has profoundly changed the modern way of life. The pandemic has highlighted the importance of students gaining autonomy and taking control of their own learning (Trias et al., 2021), especially for students from vulnerable groups who need continuous attention and support to ensure equal access to education (Jeriček Klanšček et al., 2021). SRL is a fundamental process in learning and academic achievement (Dermitzaki & Kallia, 2021). It acts as an indirect factor between individual student characteristics and learning performance (Dent & Koenka, 2015). Interactions with parents and teachers provide an important interpersonal context for the development of SRL (Pino-Pasternak & Whitebread, 2010).
Self-regulated learning and educational inequality
SRL can be defined as the ability of learners to regulate their attention, emotions, and behaviour in order to respond optimally to external and internal demands of the environment (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Pintrich, 2005; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008). It is a complex and multifaceted construct that includes cognitive (e.g., memorization, elaboration, comprehension strategies), metacognitive (e.g., planning, goal setting, monitoring) and motivational (e.g., goal orientation, self-efficacy) aspects of learning (Zimmerman, 2013). The metacognitive aspect refers to the student’s planning, goal setting, organisation, monitoring and self-assessment of the learning process, while the cognitive component involves the use of various learning strategies and tactics to memorise material. The use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies is influenced by the motivational component, which includes beliefs about one’s effectiveness, interest in a task, attributions, and strategies to regulate motivation and emotions (Wolters, 2003). Panadero (2017) asserts that SRL is an umbrella construct within which all variables that influence learning are comprehensively examined (e.g., self-efficacy, metacognition, volition, cognitive learning strategies). It is a dynamic and circular process that involves feedback loops, meaning that students, who are self-regulated learners, set goals and metacognitively monitor their progress toward achieving those goals. Students are active and respond to their monitoring, as well as external feedback, in ways that they believe will help them achieve a goal, such as putting more effort into learning or changing their learning strategy (Schunk & Greene, 2018). In the present study, the theoretical framework of SRL is represented by Ziegler and Stoeger’s (2005) seven-stage cyclical model, which is very similar to Zimmerman’s cyclical model (Zimmerman, 2005). In this model, learning begins with the student’s self-assessment of his or her own learning, followed by goal setting, strategic selection of an effective learning strategy, and strategy implementation; then comes monitoring and possible adjustment of the strategy, and finally, outcome assessment (Ziegler et al., 2012).
Students’ use of SRL learning strategies is context-dependent and varies by subject area (Pintrich, 2005). Although empirical studies have not yet systematically examined the influence of individual subject areas on students’ use of cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational learning strategies, research indicates the domain specificity of SRL (Alexander et al., 2011). Vandevelde et al. (2015) showed that SRL is a dynamic process that differs for students within individual subject areas or tasks, and even between subject areas. Subjects differ in terms of content structure, typical tasks, and appropriateness of use of learning strategies, all of which impact SRL (Schunk & Greene, 2018).
The ability to self-regulate learning is one of the most important protective factors for low socio-economic status (SES) students who have learning difficulties (Azevedo et al., 2023). Research showed that students from low-SES backgrounds have less developed SRL strategies (Pappas et al., 2003; Trias et al., 2021; Vandevelde et al., 2017) and tend to have lower academic achievement than their peers (Boonk et al., 2018). In Slovenia, higher SES students with more books at home showed better reading achievement than their lower SES peers (Klemenčič & Mirazchiyski, 2023). In addition, an international report from PISA showed that the percentage of Slovenian students from the lowest quartile of SES who achieved at least Level 2 in reading was 21% lower than the percentage from the highest quartile, which is slightly lower than the OECD average of 29% (OECD, 2021). However, the paradigm of inclusive education in Slovenia enables different groups of students (with migrant backgrounds, with low-SES backgrounds, with special needs) to receive special individual support and targeted services (e.g., additional special support, assistive devices) in schools (Kavkler et al., 2015; Skubic Ermenc, 2020).
The social context of self-regulated learning
According to the social cognitive theory of SRL, parents and teachers provide an important model for students because they provide them with the support they need to imitate and apply self-regulation skills. At the same time, their presence serves as an external reinforcer for the student’s behaviour (Martinez-Pons, 2002; Zimmerman, 2013). The development of students’ SRL is not innate but the result of an interaction between students’ maturational processes and their education (de Ruig et al., 2023; Moos & Ringdal, 2012; Paris & Newman, 1990). In addition to school experiences, students’ learning experiences in the family context play a very important role in the development of their learning skills and strategies (Dermitzaki & Kallia, 2021). SRL is not a trait. Although individual differences in SRL have been reported (Cadima et al., 2016; Denton et al., 2015; Li et al., 2018; Peeters et al., 2016), research has shown that all students, regardless of intellectual and academic ability, can improve their SRL, which contributes to higher academic achievement (Dent & Koenka, 2015). Despite awareness of the importance of SRL, some students still struggle to effectively regulate their learning (Kron-Sperl et al., 2008; Trias et al., 2021). Therefore, researchers emphasise the need to systematically develop and promote SRL in the initial period of education (van der Stel & Veenman, 2010; Vandevelde et al., 2017).
Learning environments that promote SRL are influenced by several factors: teachers’ beliefs about the importance of SRL, their competence to promote and guide the process of SRL, and their predominant teaching style (Lombaerts et al., 2009). Teachers can promote students’ SRL in the following ways: by engaging students in more complex, open-ended activities in which they have the opportunity to select tasks and determine their level of difficulty; by providing students with appropriate instrumental support; and by encouraging peer support for learning; by creating situations in which students can observe the use of specific learning strategies (Paris & Paris, 2001); by encouraging students to consciously use cognitive, metacognitive and motivational learning strategies, and to reflect on their use; by providing appropriate feedback that encourages students to focus on their own learning progress (Askell-Williams et al., 2012); and by encouraging students to attribute success to the use of appropriate learning strategies rather than to ability or luck (Pintrich, 2005).
The development of SRL is influenced by parental characteristics (e.g., parental capacity for self-regulation, temperament, emotional expression, mental health), parenting (e.g., parental involvement, parenting styles, parental sensitivity), the parent–child relationship (attachment styles), family structure, and the family environment (Baker, 2018), and the frequency and quality of self-regulation that the family environment requires of the child (Dermitzaki & Kallia, 2021). The influence of the family context and the role of parents in the development of a child’s self-regulation varies depending on the age of the child. As children develop, they become more independent of their parents in regulating their own behaviour and emotions (Eisenberg et al., 2010). Co-regulation of learning between parents and children gradually transforms into self-regulation through internalisation processes (Erdmann & Hertel, 2019) .
Parenting styles
Parenting styles represent a relatively stable form of child rearing and include a range of parenting approaches, goals, and patterns of behaviour toward the child in various situations. Parenting styles include the quality of the interaction between the child and the parents, parental attitudes toward the child, and parental behaviour, as well as the emotional atmosphere in the family (Steinberg, 2001). Through emotional attachment to parents, children internalise their parents’ values and learn how to form optimal relationships with other adults (Gregory & Weinstein, 2004). A positive relationship with parents provides a form of social support that enhances students’ ability to self-regulate (Balaguer et al., 2021). Baumrind’s (1971, 2013) classification of parenting styles, which is the most widely used and researched, includes two basic dimensions: demandingness and responsiveness. Demandingness includes parenting behaviours in which parents exhibit control, maturity demands, and monitoring, whereas responsiveness (i.e., affection) includes parenting behaviours in which parents show emotional warmth, acceptance, and involvement. Authoritative parents are characterised by high levels of both demandingness and affection, authoritarian parents by high levels of demandingness and low levels of affection, and permissive parents by too high levels of affection and low levels of demandingness (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
Previous studies have shown that authoritative parenting is related to high student academic achievement and positive developmental outcomes such as independence, the ability to self-regulate, establishing appropriate social interaction with peers, the tendency to master the environment and learn new things, and flexibility in the school environment, both cross-sectionally (Baumrind, 1991; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Gagnon et al., 2013; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Steinberg, 2001) and longitudinally (Baumrind et al., 2010; Steinberg et al., 1992). In a meta-analytic study, Pinquart (2016) showed that authoritative parenting style, parental responsiveness, emotional warmth, behavioural control, and autonomy-promoting parenting behaviours were associated with better academic achievement in students. Contemporary research has demonstrated associations between parenting practises and various components of SRL (Pino-Pasternak & Whitebread, 2010; Spera, 2005; Thomas et al., 2019). Lee et al. (2012) found that SRL is an important mediator between students’ perceptions of parenting styles and their academic achievement. Similarly, Alnafea and Curtis (2017) reported that authoritative parenting style is positively associated with student self-efficacy, use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and effective time management. Similarly, Amani et al. (2020) showed that an authoritative parenting style was positively associated with adolescents’ academic achievement through increased SRL. In addition, emotional support from the father was found to foster students’ self-monitoring and metacognitive talk in the classroom (Stright et al., 2001). Kallia and Dermitzaki (2017) reported that mother’s autonomy-supportive behaviour was positively associated with children’s actual use of cognitive strategies, planning, and monitoring skills during a problem-solving task. Recently, Du et al. (2021) reported that emotional warmth and democratic discipline from parents promote SRL in adolescent students.
Teaching styles
Teachers play an important role in creating learning environments that support students’ basic needs for autonomy, competence, and connectedness (Deci & Ryan, 2008) and allow students to regulate their own learning. Teaching style influences students’ academic achievement, social behaviour, educational beliefs, and aspirations (Ansari et al., 2020; Kiuru et al., 2012; Walker, 2008). Researchers have argued that teaching style in elementary school is similar to parenting style (e.g., Pianta et al., 1997; Walker, 2008; Torff & Kimmons, 2021). Teaching style, like parenting style, consists of attitudes, behaviours, and nonverbal communication that characterise the teacher–child relationship (Kiuru et al., 2012). A considerable amount of research on teaching styles is based on Baumrind’s (1971, 2013) theoretical framework for parenting styles, which includes a mix of teachers’ responsiveness (i.e., warmth, caring) and demandingness (i.e., requirements, control) (e.g., Ertesvag, 2011; Torff & Kimmons, 2021).
Theory and research suggest that an authoritative teaching style, characterised by high levels of responsiveness and demandingness, is associated with higher student academic achievement (Dever & Karabenick, 2011; Walker, 2008). There is some evidence that an autonomy-supportive teaching style (Reeve, 2009; Reeve & Cheon, 2021), which incorporates certain instructional behaviours (e.g., providing explanatory rationales) and supports students’ motivational development and ability to self-regulate autonomously, positively impacts younger students’ self-regulation skills in biology (Whitebread & Grau Cardenas, 2012). Research suggests that teachers’ autonomy support and structure is positively related to students’ SRL learning strategies (de Ruig et al., 2023; Sierens et al., 2009; Vansteenkiste et al., 2012). Moreover, in a longitudinal study, Schuitema et al. (2016) reported that students’ perceptions of teacher autonomy support had positive effects on delay of gratification and the use of metacognitive strategies. Similarly, Zee and de Bree (2017) found that students’ perceptions of the quality of the student–teacher relationship and closeness were directly related to two areas of self-regulation (i.e., task orientation and metacognition). Theory and research suggest that there is a relationship between authoritative teaching and a number of positive outcomes, including academic achievement and student engagement (Kiuru et al., 2012; Vansteenkiste et al., 2012; Yin et al., 2009; Walker, 2008). Teachers who possess SRL skills and have warm and supportive relationships with their students are effective role models for elementary students to regulate their learning (de Ruig et al., 2023).
The present study
SRL is related to student learning competence, positive peer and teacher relationships, and student satisfaction with school (Lee et al., 2012). Students whose self-regulatory skills are less developed often have difficulty connecting with peers and building relationships with teachers and are less successful in school (Piotrowski et al., 2013; Vandevelde et al., 2017). Teachers and parents represent an important factor in the student’s social context (de Ruig et al., 2023; Dermitzaki & Kallia, 2021; Thomas et al., 2019); therefore, careful examination of family and school environmental factors that may contribute to the development of self-regulation is critical. The student characteristics that influence SRL (e.g., Cadima et al., 2016; Denton et al., 2015; Li et al., 2018; Peeters et al., 2016) have been relatively well researched, but much less is known about the influence of parents and teachers on the development of students’ SRL skills, particularly in primary school.
Consistent with the considerations outlined above, the present study had two aims. The first aim was to identify the latent profiles of parenting and teaching styles based on students’ perceived dimensions: emotional warmth, autonomy support, permissive, punitive, and democratic discipline. The second aim was to examine the differences between students’ demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, number of books at home, maternal education, GPA) and students’ SRL approach in the different profiles of parenting and teaching styles according to the results of the latent profile analysis.
Based on the research problem and previous studies (e.g., Amani et al., 2020; de Ruig et al., 2023; Kiuru et al., 2012; Reeve & Cheon, 2021), the following research question and hypotheses were formulated:
-
RQ: What are the differences between the identified parenting and teaching style profiles in terms of student demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, number of books at home, maternal education, GPA)?
-
H1: Parenting style profiles with high levels of emotional warmth, autonomy support, and democratic discipline are associated with higher levels of SRL.
-
H2: Teaching style profiles with high levels of emotional warmth, autonomy support, and democratic discipline are associated with higher levels of SRL.
Method
Participants
The sample obtained by quota sampling consisted of 328 ninth graders (aged 13–15 years) from 25 Slovenian primary schools. Girls (n = 171) and boys (n = 157) were almost equally represented in the sample. Schools were distributed across all 12 Slovenian regions and varied in size, with 15 schools located in rural areas and 10 in urban areas. In Slovenia, primary education comprises nine years of compulsory schooling attended by students aged 6 to 15. The Slovenian education system uses a five-point grading scale, with 1 being the lowest possible (negative grade) and all other grades being positive, with 5 the best possible grade (ZOsn, 1996). Students attend a particular school based on geographic criteria and are placed in classes without regard to their gender, ethnicity, achievement level, or SES. Table 1 provides a description of the sample by academic achievement in the previous school year and two SES variables – number of books and mother’s education – as these variables are most used in current research (see Bornstein & Bradley, 2012). Both SES indicators were measured on a six-point scale. In the present study, girls reported a significantly better GPA in the previous school year compared to boys (F(1,326) = 22.74, p < 0.001).
Instruments
Questionnaire for self-regulated learning – 7 (FSL-7)
Designed by Ziegler et al. (2010), FSL-7 measures SRL based on Ziegler and Stoeger’s (2005) seven-step cyclical model of SRL. The questionnaire consists of seven items for each of the three learning scenarios (studying for school, preparing for a knowledge test, missed learning material). For each item, the students choose the one that best describes their approach to learning: external, impulsive and SRL (Ziegler et al., 2012). Each item refers to one of the seven steps of SRL: self-assessment, goal setting, strategic planning, implementation of the planned strategy, monitoring of implementation, adaptation of selected learning strategies, and evaluation of results (Ziegler & Stoeger, 2005). An example of learning for school scenario items (step two: setting goals) is: My teacher or parents tell me what to learn. (external); I don’t set a specific goal when I study. I just start learning. (impulsive); I set a goal and define exactly what I want to learn. (SRL). The questionnaire was used in an adapted version to determine the SRL approach in learning biology. The overall score was calculated by counting the frequency with which the student chose an SRL learning approach and dividing it by the number of items answered. For example, a student who chose the SRL learning approach in 11 of the 28 items would be given a score of 0.52. Therefore, the minimum score was 0 and the maximum score was 1. Sontag and Stoeger (2015) report the following internal consistency coefficient: 0.83 (pre-test), 0.90 (post-test) and 0.94 (follow-up test). Preliminarily, we confirmed an acceptable fit of the model to the predicted factor structure (χ2(1887) = 11332.04; RMSEA = 0.08; SRMR = 0.09; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.92) and good reliability of the SRL approach (α = 0.87).
Parenting styles
The Parenting Behaviours and Dimensions Questionnaire (PBDQ, Reid et al., 2015) was used to measure parenting styles. For the purpose of the research, an adapted version of students’ perceptions about parenting behaviours was created. The scale consisted of 27 items on a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = always), distributed in five dimensions: emotional warmth (6 items, e.g., My parents tell me how proud they are of me.), punitive discipline (5 items, e.g., My parents lose their patience when I do something to upset them.), autonomy support (5 items, e.g., My parents encourage me to try things for myself before asking for help.), permissive discipline (5 items, e.g., My parents do things for me when I refuse to do them.), and democratic discipline (5 items, e.g., My parents give me reasons for why I am not allowed to do something.). Preliminarily, an adequate fit of the model to the predicted factor structure was confirmed (χ2(289) = 686.68; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.06; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.97). The reliability of the scales was adequate: αemotional warmth = 0.82, αautonomy support = 0.63, αpermissive discipline = 0.60, αpunitive discipline = 0.70, αdemocratic discipline = 0.75. Maternal and paternal parenting styles were measured together, taking into account the study by Balaguer et al. (2021), which indicated that parenting styles can be validly measured together based on students’ perceptions.
Teaching styles
The Teacher’s Interaction Styles scale (Žerak, 2019) was constructed based on a revised Slovenian version of the PBDQ (Reid et al., 2015) questionnaire by changing the context from home to school. The scale consisted of 27 items on a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = always), which are distributed into five dimensions: emotional warmth (6 items, e.g., My teacher tells me how proud he/she is of me.), punitive discipline (5 items, e.g., My teacher loses his/her patience when I do something to upset him/her.), autonomy support (5 items, e.g., My teacher encourages me to try things for myself before asking for help.), permissive discipline (5 items, e.g., My teacher does things for me when I refuse to do them.) and democratic discipline (5 items, e.g., My teacher gives me reasons for why I am not allowed to do something.). Participants assessed their respective biology teacher’s teaching style. Preliminarily, an adequate fit of the model to the predicted factor structure was confirmed (χ2(289) = 725.96; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.07; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.97). The reliability of the scales was adequate: αemotional warmth = 0.84, αautonomy support = 0.73, αpermissive discipline = 0.64, αpunitive discipline = 0.64, αdemocratic discipline = 0.77.
Research design and data analyses
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. Before the administration of the questionnaires, parent consent was obtained and only students whose parents provided signed informed consent participated in the study. The questionnaires were executed in paper–pencil form. Participants who did not complete all of the questionnaires were excluded from further analyses.
Statistical analyses were performed in R (R Core Team, 2019) and Mplus version 8.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2019). The Mplus software was used because it provides an easy-to-use interface and several output options that support the LPA analysis process (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2021), and the R software was used because of its adaptability, flexibility, and free availability. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in R with the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). Latent profile analysis (LPA) using the MLR estimator was applied to identify unobserved subgroups of participants according to their self-perception of parenting styles and teaching styles. The plausibility of one to four latent profile models was examined. The optimal model was selected based on the conceptual interpretability of the profiles, as well as on a review of several statistical indices: Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Sample-Size Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (SABIC), the Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test (aLMRT), and the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT). For AIC, BIC and SABIC, lower values indicate better model fit, while significant aLMRT and BLRT results indicate a higher number of subtypes. Additionally, entropy (values > 0.80 and marginal value ≥ 0.70) and average posterior probabilities values (values > 0.70) were also considered (Masyn, 2013). Finally, as a practical criterion, the percentage of individuals in the smallest class was considered (> 5%). The LPAs were carried out separately for parenting styles and teaching styles.
Once the optimal latent profile model was identified, the Bolck-Croon-Hagenaars approach (BCH) was performed to examine the differences in demographic variables (i.e., gender, average grade, number of books, maternal education) and SRL across the latent profiles. The BCH approach is recommended for continuous variables because it uses observation weights that reflect the measurement error of the latent class variable and accounts for individual uncertainty in profile classification (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2021).
Results
The descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables of the study are shown in Table 2. The correlations between SRL and the dimensions of teaching styles, and between SRL and the dimensions of parenting styles, are low to moderate. Table 2 shows that there are strong positive correlations between teacher’s autonomy support, emotional warmth and democratic discipline, and between parents’ autonomy support, emotional warmth and democratic discipline. All correlations are in the expected direction, indicating the validity of the constructs measured.
Parenting styles and teaching styles profile identification
Table 3 shows the fit indices of the models with increasing number of profiles. The fit indices of the LPAs for the parenting styles – considering the BLRT index, which was found to outperform other likelihood ratio tests (e.g., Nylund et al., 2007), would suggest a four-profile solution, but considering the theoretical interpretability and informativeness of the different profile solutions and the fact that the smallest class of four-profile solutions contains < 5% of the sample, we opted for the three-profile solution (Table 3). The average individual posterior probabilities for assignment to a particular latent class in the three-profile model were 0.90, 0.87, 0.90, indicating a sufficiently clear classification for class interpretation (Masyn, 2013). The patterns of parenting styles that characterise the three profiles are shown in Fig. 1. The most numerous profile comprises 50% of the participants and can be described as responsive parenting. It is characterised by high levels of parents’ emotional warmth, autonomy support, and democratic discipline, and low levels of punitive and permissive discipline. The second profile includes 42.4% of the participants and can be described as democratic parenting. Compared to responsive parenting, the scores for parents’ emotional warmth, autonomy support and democratic discipline are lower, but still in the upper range of the scale, with slightly higher scores for parents’ punitive discipline and the same score for parents’ permissive discipline. The third profile includes 7.6% of participants and was labelled discipline-oriented parenting. Compared to the other two profiles, it is characterised by higher levels of parents’ punitive discipline and lower levels of permissive discipline, as well as lower levels of democratic discipline, autonomy support, and emotional warmth by parents.
For teaching style, the LPA results (Table 3), considering the BLRT index, suggest the four-profiles solution, but further investigation of the fit indices and the theoretical interpretability and meaningfulness of the different profile solutions supported the decision to retain the three-profile solution, which also has an appropriate class membership and entropy value. The average individual posterior probabilities for assignment to a particular latent class in the three-profile model were 0.94, 0.91, 0.89, indicating a sufficiently clear classification for class interpretation (Masyn, 2013). The patterns of teaching styles are shown in Fig. 2. The most numerous profile includes 49% of the participants and can be described as diverse teaching. It is characterised by a medium rating of teacher autonomy support, emotional warmth, democratic and punitive discipline, and a slightly lower rating of teacher permissive discipline. The second profile includes 37% of the participants and can be described as autonomy-supportive teaching. It is characterised by high levels of autonomy support, democratic discipline, and emotional warmth. Compared to diverse teaching, the level of punitive and permissive discipline is lower. The last profile includes 14% of the participants and was described as directive teaching. It is characterised by low levels of permissive discipline and emotional warmth, and low levels of autonomy support and democratic discipline. The level of punitive discipline is highest in this profile, although still slightly lower compared to the diverse teaching profile and slightly higher compared to the autonomy-supportive teaching profile.
Parenting and teaching styles, student demographic characteristics and SRL
To examine the differences between the latent profiles of parenting and teaching styles, the BCH approach was used (Table 4). Regarding gender and parenting styles, the results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the profiles, although slightly more girls perceived their parents as responsive. On the other hand, for gender and teaching style profiles, the results showed that there were statistically significant differences between the profiles; there were more boys who perceived the biology teacher’s teaching style as diverse and more girls who perceived the biology teacher’s teaching style as autonomy supportive. In addition, results showed that there are statistically significant differences between parenting profiles and the number of books students have at home. Students who perceive their parents as responsive report having more books at home than students who perceive their parents as discipline-oriented. Moreover, there are statistically significant differences between teaching profiles and maternal education. Students who perceive their biology teacher as autonomy-supportive report higher levels of maternal education compared to students who perceive their biology teacher as directive. In addition, there are statistically significant differences between teaching profiles in terms of student GPA. Students who perceive their biology teacher as autonomy-supportive have a higher GPA than students who perceive their biology teacher’s teaching style as directive or diverse (Table 4).
Statistically significant differences were found when looking at differences between the SRL and parenting style profiles. Students with a responsive parenting profile reported the highest SRL level, followed by students with a democratic parenting profile and students with a discipline-oriented parenting style. The differences in SRL scores between students in the discipline-oriented parenting profile and those in the responsive parenting profile and between students in the democratic parenting profile and those in the responsive parenting profile were statistically significant (Table 4).
In addition, there were statistically significant differences between the teaching style profiles and the SRL. Students in the autonomy-supportive teaching profile had the highest SRL scores, followed by students in the diverse teaching profile and students in the directive teaching profile. The differences in SRL scores between students in the directive teaching profile and those in the autonomy-supportive teaching profile and between students in the diverse and autonomy-supportive teaching profiles were statistically significant (Table 4).
Discussion
The present study attempts to identify the latent profiles of parenting and teaching styles and to examine the differences in student characteristics and SRL between the different profiles. Using the LPA, three subtypes of parenting were identified: responsive parenting, democratic parenting, and discipline-oriented parenting. Results show that students who perceived their parents as responsive (half of the sample) reported about higher number of books at home than students in the discipline-oriented profile, which may indicate that parents of low-SES students are more likely to use discipline-oriented parenting practices. This is consistent with previous research (e.g., Areepattamannil, 2010) suggesting that parents from high-SES backgrounds are more likely to have an authoritative parenting style. In terms of SRL, students who perceived their parents as responsive, with the highest expression of emotional warmth, democratic discipline, and autonomy support, also scored highest on SRL. This is consistent with the findings of previous studies (Alnafea & Curtis, 2017; Amani et al., 2020; Du et al., 2021; Huang & Prochner, 2003; Kallia & Dermitzaki, 2017; Pinquart, 2016; Pino-Pasternak & Whitebread, 2010; Stright et al., 2001), suggesting that positive parenting characterised by democratic discipline, emotional warmth, autonomy-supportive behaviours and understanding of the child’s needs positively impacts students’ SRL and academic achievement. Supporting autonomy allows children to gradually take responsibility for schoolwork and is positively related to the metacognitive aspects of SRL (Pino-Pasternak & Whitebread, 2010). Responsive parents exhibit positive behaviours toward the child (e.g., warmth, responsiveness), consider their child’s perspective, provide contingent support and opportunities for the child to act within certain guidelines, and offer meaningful rationales for why the child needs to do a particular activity (Kallia & Dermitzaki, 2017; Sanders et al., 2019), allowing the child to develop SRL behaviours. On the other hand, students who perceived their parents as discipline-oriented and had the highest punitive discipline scores had the lowest SRL scores, reflecting Pinquart’s (2016) meta-analysis showing that an authoritarian parenting style and parental control are related to lower achievement. An authoritarian parenting style (i.e., verbal hostility, punishment, excessive parental control) negatively impacts students’ SRL (Huang & Prochner, 2003) and mental health (Baumrind et al., 2010).
In addition, LPAs suggest three subtypes of teaching styles: diverse teaching, autonomy-supportive teaching, and directive teaching. The results of this study are consistent with previous research (e.g., Filippello et al., 2020; Reeve & Cheon, 2021; Wang et al., 2016) and suggest that autonomy-supportive teaching is positively associated with student academic achievement. Regarding gender differences in perceived teaching style our findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that female students tend to perceive higher levels of teacher autonomy support than male students (Brandisauskiene et al., 2023; Filippello et al., 2020). It is worth noting that students who perceive autonomy-supportive teaching report the highest educational level of their mothers, which may suggest that teachers behave differently or have lower expectations for students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds (Auwarter & Arguete, 2008). In addition, students who perceive their teacher as autonomy-supportive have the highest SRL scores (37% of the students). Compared to the other two profiles, teachers in the autonomy-supportive profile have the highest levels of emotional warmth and democratic discipline, which are characteristics of authoritative teaching (Kiuru et al., 2012; Walker, 2008). The findings suggest that authoritative teaching with a particular focus on promoting student autonomy is the optimal context for developing students’ SRL. According to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008), the essential conditions for fostering student SRL, and thus high achievement, are relatedness, competence, and autonomy. As Reeve (2009) points out, autonomy-supportive teaching is characterised by teacher interaction with students that recognises, promotes, and develops students’ psychological needs and supports students’ ability to self-regulate. Our findings support the claim that autonomy-supportive teaching (Reeve & Cheon, 2021) is related to students’ ability to regulate their own learning. The results are consistent with previous studies (Brandisauskiene et al., 2023; Schuitema et al., 2016; Sierens et al., 2009; Vansteenkiste et al., 2012; Zee & de Bree, 2017) showing that an autonomy-supportive teaching style is positively associated with students’ SRL. Interestingly, students who perceived their teachers as directive reported the lowest levels of SRL and maternal education. This may be related in part to the teacher’s controlling interaction style (Reeve & Cheon, 2021), which is characterised by authoritarian behaviour with a high expression of controlling instructional behaviour. Therefore, teachers should pay more attention to students from low-SES backgrounds and consciously rethink their behaviour in an autonomy-promoting manner, which could help these students overcome factors that negatively affect their academic progress (Brandisauskiene et al., 2023; Vandevelde et al., 2017).
Parents and teachers can support students’ autonomy by clearly articulating their expectations, providing appropriate supports based on their developmental characteristics and abilities, and providing feedback that promotes students’ perceived competence and SRL while actively involving them in decision making and respecting their opinions (Pino-Pasternak & Whitebread, 2010; Reeve, 2016). However, we must consider reciprocity and interactivity in the relationship between the student and parent, and between the student and teacher. It is possible that the student’s behaviour at home and in the classroom influences the behaviour of parents and teachers. Teachers adapt their behaviour and responses to the student’s behaviour and expression of SRL. They supervise students with less pronounced SRL skills more in the learning process, but when students show higher levels of SRL, teachers support them to a greater extent in terms of autonomy (Schuitema et al., 2016). In addition, students’ perceptions of the family environment affect their perceptions of the learning context, as confirmed by Paulson et al. (1998), who found that students’ perceptions of the teacher’s authoritativeness in the classroom were congruent with their perceptions of their parents’ authoritativeness. Therefore, it is important for educational institutions to build good relationships with students’ parents and actively involve them in their children’s education (Froiland & Davison, 2013; Thomas et al., 2019).
The strength of the present study lies in the examination of both parenting styles and teaching styles and their relationship to student characteristics and SRL. At the same time, we also noted several limitations. First, SRL, parenting styles and teaching styles were measured using student self-assessments. Self-assessment questionnaires assess certain aspects of SRL (e.g., learning strategies), and students’ responses are based on their level of self-awareness of SRL, so they are not entirely accurate, as it is possible that some students are not sufficiently aware of their learning process or use certain learning strategies unconsciously (Vandevelde et al., 2015). Moreover, while researchers (e.g., Kiuru et al., 2012; Paulson et al., 1998; Pinquart, 2016) emphasise the importance of students’ perceptions of the home and school learning environment, these perceptions are not necessarily characteristic of parents’ and teachers’ actual interactions with students. Second, because of the cross-sequential nature of the study, we cannot draw conclusions about the compensatory and cumulative effects of parent and teacher interactions on students’ SRL. Third, the study does not distinguish between parental and maternal parenting styles. Finally, the study was conducted in the Slovenian educational context, and to achieve better generalizability, the results would need to be replicated in other educational contexts. It would be useful to use multiple methods (e.g., classroom observations, questionnaires, interviews, thinking aloud protocols) and data sources (teachers, students, parents) to improve understanding of the relationship between SRL and students’ interactions with parents and teachers.
Conclusion
The results of the present study suggest that parents and teachers are an important aspect of the social context for the development of SRL. Regarding the role of parents and teachers in cultivating students’ SRL skills, emotionally supportive parents and teachers who encourage students’ independent learning and gradually grant them autonomy have been shown to be essential for the SRL development. The findings of the present study contribute to theory and practise in three ways. First, they expand our knowledge of the role of family and school environments in students’ SRL by highlighting autonomy-supportive behaviours (Kallia & Dermitzaki, 2017; Reeve & Cheon, 2021) as well as authoritative parenting (Baumrind, 2013) and authoritative teaching (Kiuru et al., 2012; Walker, 2008). Second, they emphasise the importance of coherence between the family and school environments and parent-teacher collaboration to provide appropriate incentives and meet students’ developmental and learning needs. Third, they suggest that effective interventions to promote SRL in primary school should be developed and targeted not only for the individual student, but also for his or her social environment, particularly for at-risk students and students from low-SES backgrounds (Trias et al., 2021; Vandevelde et al., 2017). Findings could be incorporated into teacher professional development programmes. Teachers can model SRL by teaching explicit instruction of SRL skills in their lessons and explaining the strategies they use to self-regulate their own learning and teaching (Kallia & Dermitzaki, 2017). Therefore, they should be advised on how to create a supportive learning environment that promotes SRL in students (de Ruig et al., 2023; Moos & Ringdal, 2012). On the other hand, special emphasis should be placed on parenting programmes to increase parents’ autonomy, flexibility, and confidence in dealing with difficult situations with their children. Programmes for parents should provide a supportive interpersonal context and empower parents to improve their self-regulation skills (Sanders et al., 2019). It is also important to inform parents about the importance of their active involvement in their children’s education (Boonk et al., 2018) and provide them with specific instructions on how to interact with their child in an authoritative manner that supports the development of SRL skills in the home environment.
Future research that considers the moderating role of student characteristics (e.g., interest, academic goal orientation, personality traits, self-concept) and examines the relative contributions of parental and school practises could deepen our understanding of the factors that influence SRL in students.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Change history
26 June 2024
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00872-z
References
Alexander, P. A., Dinsmore, D. L., Parkinson, M. M., & Winters, F. I. (2011). Self-regulated learning in academic domains. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 393–407). Routledge.
Alnafea, T., & Curtis, D. D. (2017). Influence of mothers’ parenting styles on self-regulated academic learning among Saudi elementary school students. Issues in Educational Research, 27(3), 399–416. https://www.iier.org.au/iier27/alnafea.html
Amani, M., Nazifi, M., & Sorkhabi, N. (2020). Parenting styles and academic achievement of early adolescent girls in Iran: Mediating roles of parent involvement and self-regulated learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00422-y
Ansari, A., Hofkens, T. L., & Pianta, R. C. (2020). Teacher-student relationships across the first seven years of education and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 71, 101–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101200
Areepattamannil, S. (2010). Parenting practices, parenting style, and children’s school achievement. Psychological Studies, 55(4), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-010-0043-0
Askell-Williams, H., Lawson, M. J., & Skrzypiec, G. (2012). Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction in regular class lessons. Instructional Science, 40, 413–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9182-5
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2021). Auxiliary variables in mixture modelling: Using the BCH method in Mplus to estimate a distal outcome model and an arbitrary secondary model. Mplus web notes, 21. version 11. https://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote21.pdf
Auwarter, A. E., & Arguete, M. S. (2008). Effects of student gender and socioeconomic status on teacher perceptions. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(4), 242–246. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.4.243-246
Azevedo, R., Rosário, P., Magalhães, P., Núñez, J. C., Pereira, B., & Pereira, A. (2023). A tool-kit to help students from low socioeconomic status background: A school-based self-regulated learning intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38, 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00607-y
Baker, S. (2018). The effects of parenting on emotion and self-regulation. In M. R. Sanders & A. Morawska (Eds.), Handbook of Parenting and Child Development Across the Lifespan (pp. 217–240). Springer.
Balaguer, A., Benitez, E., De la Fuente, J., & Osorio, A. (2021). Maternal and paternal parenting styles as a whole: Validation of the simple form of the Parenting Style Evaluation Scale. Annals of Psychology, 37(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.408171
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 1–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030372
Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P. A. Cowan & M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family Transitions (pp. 111–164). Erlbaum.
Baumrind, D. (2013). Authoritative parenting revisited: History and current status. In R. E. Larzelere, A. S. Morris, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.), Authoritative Parenting: Synthesizing Nurturance and Discipline for Optimal Child Development (pp. 11–34). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13948-002
Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Owens, E. B. (2010). Effects of preschool parents’ power assertive patterns and practices on adolescent development. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10, 157–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295190903290790
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x
Boonk, L., Gijselaers, H. J. M., Ritzen, H., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research Review, 24, 10–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.001
Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (Eds.). (2012). Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Routledge.
Brandisauskiene, A., Buksnyte-Marmiene, L., Cecsnaviciene, J., & Jarasiunaite-Fedosejeva, G. (2023). The relationship between teacher’s autonomy-supportive behavior and learning strategies applied by students: The role of teacher support and equity. SAGE Open, 13(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231181384
Cadima, J., Verschueren, K., Leal, T., & Guedes, C. (2016). Classroom interactions, dyadic teacher-child relationships, and self-regulation in socially disadvantaged young children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0060-5
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.865.7470&rep=rep1&type=pdf
de Ruig, N. J., de Jong, P. F., & Zee, M. (2023). Stimulating elementary school students’ self-regulated learning through high-quality interactions and relationships: A narrative review. Educational Psychology Review, 35(3), 71–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09795-5
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
Dent, A. L., & Koenka, A. C. (2015). The relation between self-regulated learning and academic achievement across childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 425–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9320-8
Denton, C. A., Wolters, C., York, M. J., Sanson, E., Kulesz, P. A., & Francis, D. J. (2015). Adolescents’ use of reading comprehension strategies: Differences related to reading proficiency, grade level and gender. Learning and Individual Differences, 37(2015), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.016
Dermitzaki, I., & Kallia, E. (2021). The role of parents and teachers in fostering children’s self-regulated learning skills. In D. Moraitou & P. Metallidou (Eds.), Trends and Prospects in Metacognition Research Across the Life Span (pp. 185–207). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51673-4_9
Dever, B. V., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Is authoritative teaching beneficial for all students? A multi-level model of the effects of teaching style on interest and achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(2), 131–144.
Du, W., Jian, M., Hua, F., & Qi, S. (2021). Influence of positive parenting styles on self-regulated learning in Chinese adolescents testing the mediating effects of self-esteem. Applied Research in Quality of Life. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-09985-9
Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Self-regulation and school readiness. Early Education and Development, 21(5), 681–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2010.497451
Erdmann, K. A., & Hertel, S. (2019). Self-regulation and co regulation in early childhood. Development, assessment and supporting factors. Metacognition and Learning, 14, 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09211-w
Ertesvag, S. K. (2011). Measuring authoritative teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.002
Filippello, P., Buzzai, C., Costa, S., Orecchio, S., & Sorrenti, L. (2020). Teaching style and academic achievement: The mediating role of learned helpnessness and mastery orientation. Psychology in the Schools, 57(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22315
Froiland, J. M., & Davison, M. L. (2013). Parental expectations and school relationships as contributors to adolescents’ positive outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9237-3
Gagnon, S. G., Huelsman, T. J., Reichard, A. E., Kidder-Ashley, P., Griggs, M. S., Struby, J., & Bollinger, J. (2013). Help me play! Parental behaviors, child temperament and preschool peer play. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9743-0
Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2004). Connection and regulation at home and in school: Predicting growth in achievement for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 405–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558403258859
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143
Huang, J., & Prochner, L. (2003). Chinese parenting styles and children’s self-regulated learning. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540409595037
Jeriček Klanšček, H., Roškar, M., Pucelj, V., Zupanič, T., Koprivnikar, H., Drev, A., Korošec, A., Žlavs, K., & Peternelj, V. (2021). Neenakosti v zdravju in z zdravjem povezanimi vedenji med mladostniki v času pandemije COVIDA-19, Izsledki raziskave HBSC, 2020 [Health inequalities and health-related behaviors among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic, HBSC Survey findings, 2020]. Nacionalni inštitut za javno zdravje. https://nijz.si/publikacije/neenakosti-v-zdravju-in-z-zdravjem-povezanimi-vedenji-med-mladostniki-v-casu-pandemije-covida-19/
Kallia, E., & Dermitzaki, I. (2017). Assessing maternal practices that support children’s self-regulated learning. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 14, 83–112.
Kavkler, M., Košak Babuder, M., & Magajna, L. (2015). Inclusive education for children with specific learning difficulties: Analysis of opportunities and barriers in inclusive education in Slovenia. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 5(1), 31–52. https://ojs.cepsj.si/index.php/cepsj/article/download/152/80
Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Torppa, M., Lerkkannen, M. K., Poikkeus, A. M., Niemi, P. …, & Nurmi, J. E. (2012). The role of parenting styles and teacher interactional styles in children’s reading and spelling development. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 799–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.07.001
Klemenčič, M. E., & Mirazchiyski, P. V. (2023). Mednarodna raziskava bralne pismenosti (IEA PIRLS 2021). Nacionalno poročilo – prvi rezultati [International reading literacy survey (IEA PIRLS 2021). National report - first results]. Pedagoški inštitut. https://www.pei.si/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/PIRLS21_NacionalnoPorocilo_Splet.pdf
Kron-Sperl, V., Schneider, W., & Hasselhorn, M. (2008). The development and effectiveness of memory strategies in kindergarten and elementary school: Findings from the Würzburg and Göttingen longitudinal memory studies. Cognitive Development, 23, 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.011
Lee, J., Yu, H., & Choi, S. (2012). The influences of parental acceptance and parental control on school adjustment and academic achievement for South Korean children: The mediation role of self-regulation. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 13, 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9186-5
Li, J., Ye, H., Tang, Y., Zhou, Z., & Hu, X. (2018). What are effects of self-regulation phases and strategies for Chinese students? A meta-analysis of two decades research of the association between self-regulation and academic performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(2434), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02434
Lombaerts, K., Engels, N., & van Braak, J. (2009). Determinants of teachers’ recognitions of self-regulated learning practices in elementary education. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(3), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.3.163-174
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 1–101). Wiley.
Martinez-Pons, M. (2002). Parental influences on children’s academic self-regulatory development. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_9
Masyn, K. E. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modelling. In T. D. Little (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods (Vol. 2, pp. 551–611). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199934898.013.0025
Moos, D. C., & Ringdal, A. (2012). Self-regulated learning in the classroom: A literature review on the teacher’s role. Education Research International, 2012(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/423284
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2019). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modelling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
OECD. (2021). Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e7ee86cb-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/e7ee86cb-en#chapter-d12020e18968
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Pappas, S., Ginsburg, H. P., & Jiang, M. (2003). SES differences in young children’s metacognition in the context of mathematical problem solving. Cognitive Development, 18(3), 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(03)00043-1
Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_7
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4
Paulson, S. E., Marchant, G. J., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (1998). Early adolescents’ perceptions of patterns of parenting, teaching, and school atmosphere. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431698018001001
Peeters, J., De Backer, F., Kindekens, A., Triquet, K., & Lombaerts, K. (2016). Teacher differences in promoting students’ self-regulated learning: Exploring the role of student characteristics. Learning and Individual Differences, 52(2016), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.01ung
Pianta, R. C., Nimetz, S. L., & in Bennett, E. (1997). Mother-child relationships, teacher-child relationships, and school outcomes in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90003-X
Pino-Pasternak, D., & Whitebread, D. (2010). The role of parenting in children’s self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 5(2010), 220–242.
Pinquart, M. (2016). Associations of parenting styles and dimensions with academic achievement in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9338-y
Pintrich, P. R. (2005). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 452–502). Academic Press.
Piotrowski, J. T., Lapierre, M. A., & Linebarger, D. L. (2013). Investigating correlates of self-regulation in early childhood with a representative sample of English-speaking American families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9595-z
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44, 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990
Reeve, J. (2016). Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. In W. C. Liu, J. C. K. Wang, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice using Self-Determination Theory (pp. 129–152). Springer.
Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologists, 56(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657
Reid, C. A. Y., Roberts, L. D., Roberts, C. M., & Piek, J. P. (2015). Towards a model of contemporary parenting: The parenting behaviours and dimensions questionnaire. PLoS ONE, 10(6), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114179
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://users.ugent.be/~yrosseel/lavaan/lavaanIntroduction.pdf
Sanders, M. R., Turner, K. M., & Metzler, C. W. (2019). Applying self-regulation principles in the delivery of parenting interventions. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 22, 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-019-00287-z
Schuitema, J., Peetsma, T., & van der Veen, I. (2016). Longitudinal relations between perceived autonomy and social support from teachers and students’ self-regulated learning and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 49(2016), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.006
Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (2018). Historical, contemporary, and future perspectives on self-regulated learning and performance. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (2nd ed., pp. 1–15). Routledge.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2009), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X304398
Skubic Ermenc, K. (2020). Approaches to inclusive education in Slovenia from a comparative angle. Educational Reforms Worldwide, BCES Conference Books (pp. 262–269). Bulgarian Comparative Education Society. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED608393.pdf
Sontag, C., & Stoeger, H. (2015). Can highly intelligent and high-achieving students benefit from training in self-regulated learning in a regular classroom context? Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.008
Spera, C. (2005). A review of relationships among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3950-1
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationship in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00001
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266–1281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01694.x
Stright, A. D., Neitzel, C., Sears, K. G., & Hoke Sinex, L. (2001). Instruction begins in the home: Relations between parental instruction and children’s self-regulation in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.456
Thomas, V., De Backer, F., Peeters, J., & Lombaerts, K. (2019). Parental involvement and adolescent school achievement: The mediational role of self-regulated learning. Learning Environments Research, 22(2019), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09278-x
Torff, B., & Kimmons, K. (2021). Learning to be a responsive, authoritative teacher: Effects of experience and age on teachers’ interactional styles. The Educational Forum, 85(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2019.1698685
Trias, D., Huertas, J. A., Mels, C., Castillejo, I., & Ronqui, V. (2021). Self-regulated learning, academic achievement and socioeconomic context at the end of primary school. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 55(2), e1509. https://doi.org/10.30849/ripijp.v55i2.1509
Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, V. J. M. (2010). Development of metacognitive skillfulness: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.005
Vandevelde, S., Van Keer, H., & Merchie, E. (2017). The challenge of promoting self-regulated learning among primary school children with a low socioeconomic and immigrant background. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(2), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.999363
Vandevelde, S., Van Keer, H., Schellings, G., & van Hout Wolters, B. (2015). Using think-aloud protocol analysis to gain in-depth insights into upper primary school children’s self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 43(2015), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.027
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis, A. …, & Beyers, W. (2012). Identifying configurations on perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem behaviour. Learning and Instruction, 22(2012), 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.04.002
Walker, J. M. T. (2008). Looking at teacher practices through the lens of parenting style. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 218–240. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.2.218-240
Wang, J. C. K., Ng, B. L. L., Liu, W. C., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Can Being Autonomy-Supportive in Teaching Improve Students’ Self-Regulation and Performance? In W. Liu, J. Wang, & R. Ryan (Eds.), Building Autonomous Learners (pp. 227–243). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-630-0_12
Whitebread, D., & Grau Cardenas, V. (2012). Self-regulated learning and conceptual development in young children: The development of biological understanding. In A. Zohar & J. D. Yehudit (Eds.), Metacognition in Science Education (pp. 101–132). Springer.
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_1
Yin, H., Lee, J. C. K., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Examining Hong Kong students’ motivational beliefs, strategy use and their relations with two relational factors in classrooms. Educational Psychology, 29(6), 685–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903218844
Zee, M., & de Bree, E. (2017). Students’ self-regulation and achievement in basic reading and math skills: The role of student-teacher relationships in middle childhood. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1196587
Žerak, U. (2019). Teacher’s interaction styles scale. Slovenian adaptation. Unpublished material, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts.
Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2005). Trainingshandbuch selbstreguliertes Lernen I: Lernökologische Strategien für Schüler der 4. Jahrgangsstufe Grundschule zur Verbesserung mathematischer Kompetenzen [Accompanying manual for training self-regulated learning I: Resource strategies for fourth-grade primary school students to improve math skills]. Pabst.
Ziegler, A., Stoeger, H., & Grassinger, R. (2010). Diagnostik selbsteregulierten Lerners mit dem FSL-7 [Assessing self-regulated learning with the FSL-7]. Journal für Begabtenförderung, 10(1), 24–33.
Ziegler, A., Stoeger, H., Vialle, W., & Wimmer, B. (2012). Diagnosis of self-regulated learning profiles. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 21(2), 62–69.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2005). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (2nd ed., pp. 13–39). Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676
ZOsn - Zakon o osnovni šoli ZOsn [Basic School Act]. (1996). http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO448
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Urška Žerak, PhD, Teaching Assistant of Educational Psychology, Department of Education Studies, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Ljubljana, Slovenia, corresponding author, urska.zerak@pef.uni-lj.si
Current themes of research
Self-regulated learning, learning strategies, gifted student, teacher education, educational psychology.
Relevant publications
Juriševič, M., & Žerak, U. (2019). Attitudes towards gifted students and their education in the Slovenian context. Psychology in Russia: state of the art, 12(4), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2019.0406
Juriševič, M., Lavrih, L. Lišić, A., Podlogar, N., & Žerak, U. (2021). Higher education students’ experience of emergency remote teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic in relation to self-regulation and positivity. CEPS journal: Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 11, 241–261. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1147
Loboda, M., Bedek, N., Žerak, U., Juriševič, M., & Vogrinc, J. (2020). Stališča študentov pedagoških smeri do nadarjenih in njihovega izobraževanja [Attitudes of pre-service teachers towards gifted pupils and their education]. Didactica Slovenica Pedagoška obzorja, 35(1), 3–20.
Podlogar, N., Žerak, U., & Juriševič, M. (2023). Evaluating the use of the EGIFT Program in pre-service teacher educatio[n]. In A. Lipovec, Tekavc, J. (Eds.), Perspectives on teacher education and development (pp. 353–366). University of Maribor, University Press. https://doi.org/10.18690/um.pef.1.2023.7
Žerak, U., Juriševič, M., & Pečjak, S. (2020). Differences in students’ self-regulated learning according to their age and gender. In J. Vogirnc, & I. Devetak (Eds.), Contemporary topics in education IV, Part I (pp. 149–164). University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education.
Žerak, U., & Masten, R. (2018). Developmental changes in intellectual ability in persons with intellectual disability [Razvojne spremembe v intelektualnem delovanju pri osebah z motnjo v duševnem razvoju]. Horizonts of Psychology, 27, 12–19. https://doi.org/10.20419/2018.27.480
Žerak, U., & Juriševič, M. (2020). Teachers’ attitudes towards evidence-based teaching: a comparative analysis between prospective teachers and expert teachers in primary education [Odnos učiteljev do empirično podprtega poučevanja: primerjalna analiza stališč med prihodnjimi učitelji in učitelji eksperti v zgodnjem osnovnošolskem izobraževanju]. Horizonts of Psychology, 29, 98–106. https://doi.org/10.20419/2020.29.517
Žerak, U., Podlogar, N., Lišić, A., Lavrih, L., Fricelj, N., & Juriševič, M. (2021). The characteristics of self-regulated learning of university students in distance education during the COVID-19 epidemic [Značilnosti učne samoregulacije študentov pri študiju na daljavo med epidemijo covida-19]. Sodobna pedagogika, 72, 234–251.
Žerak, U., Podlogar, N., Magajna, Z., Juriševič, M. (2023). INSHIP: towards quality in teaching practice of pre-service teachers. In A. Lipovec, & J. Tekavc (Eds.), Perspectives on teacher education and development (pp. 113–135). University of Maribor, University Press. https://doi.org/10.18690/um.pef.1.2023.7
Mojca Juriševič, PhD, Professor of Educational Psychology, Department of Education Studies, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Ljubljana, Slovenia, mojca.jurisevic@pef.uni-lj.si
Current themes of research
Motivation for learning, psychological aspects of gifted education, creativity, teacher professional development, self-concept, psychosocial functioning.
Relevant publications
Cvetković-Lay, J., & Juriševič, M. (2020). Preschool teachersʼ assessments in early identification of creative-productive giftedness. In J. Vogrinc & I. Devetak (Eds.), Contemporary topics in education IV: part I (pp. 11–33). Faculty of Education University of Ljubljana. http://www.pef.uni-lj.si/fileadmin/Datoteke/CRSN/PhD/Education-IV_Part-I.pdf
Černe, T., & Juriševič, M. (2018). The self-regulated learning of younger adolescents with and without learning difficulties – A comparative multiple case study. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.42
Juriševič, M., & Devetak, I. (2018). Learning science through PROFILES: are there any benefits for gifted students in elementary school? In K. Taber, S. Manadu & L. McClure (Eds.), Teaching gifted learners in STEM subjects: developing talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (pp. 125–144). Routledge.
Juriševič, M., & Černe, T. (2021). The interplay of motivation and cognition: challenges for science education research and practice. In I. Devetak & S. A. Glažar (Eds.), Applying bio-measurements methodologies in science education research (pp. 33–54). Springer Nature.
Juriševič, M., Vogrinc, J., & Krek, J. (2018). Optimistic about personal future, politically disilusioned. In B. Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, A. M. Zalewska & K. J. Kennedy (Eds.). Young people and active citizenship in post-Soviet times: A challenge for citizenship education (pp. 173–188). Routledge.
Juriševič, M., Worrell, F. C., & Mello, Z. R. (2017). Measuring time attitudes in Slovenia: Psychometric proprieties of the Adolescent and Adult Time Attitude Scale (AATI-TA) [Merjenje stališč do časa v Sloveniji : psihometrične značilnosti Inventarja o času za mladostnike in odrasle - Lestvica stališč do časa (AATI-TA)]. Horizons of Psychology, 26, 89–97. http://psiholoska-obzorja.si/arhiv_clanki/2017/jurisevic_et_al.pdf
Juriševič, M., & Žerak, U. (2019). Attitudes towards gifted students and their education in the Slovenian context. Psychology in Russia, 12(4), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2019.0406
Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, B., Zalewska, A. M., Koiv, K., Szabod, E., Karakatsani, D., Juriševič, M., Costa, J. J. M., Gonçalves, S., Kovalcíková, I., Vidnere, M., & Zuzevičiuté, V. (2020). Relationship between young peopleʼs citizenship behaviors and personality traits - an international perspective [Aktywność obywatelska młodzieży i jej relacje z cechami osobowości - perspektywa międzynarodowa]. Przegląd Psychologiczny: kwartalnik, 63(1), 15–31, 33–47. https://www.kul.pl/files/714/przeglad_psychologiczny_20201_na_strone_internetowa.pdf
Licul, N., & Juriševič, M. (2022). The perception of creative classroom climate in elementary school students: comparison between regular and enriched visual art classes. High Ability Studies, 33(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1855124
Podlogar, N., & Juriševič, M. (2022). A comparative study of university students’ responses in the first and second COVID-19 pandemic waves. Horizons of Psychology, 31, 472–481. https://doi.org/10.20419/2022.31.555
Torkar, G., Avsec, S., Čepič, M., Savec, V. F., & Juriševič, M. (2018). Science and Technology Education in Slovenian Compulsory Basic School: Possibilities for Gifted education. Roeper Review, 40(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1434710
Zalewska, A. M., Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, B., Juriševič, M., Karakatsani, D., Costa, J. J. M., Gonçalves, S., & Metsärinne, M. (2018). Young people citizenship activity in post-soviet independent states - comparison across countries. In B. Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, A. M. Zalewska & K. J. Kennedy (Eds.). Young people and active citizenship in post-Soviet times: A challenge for citizenship education (pp. 161–172). Routledge.
Sonja Pečjak, PhD, Professor of Educational Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia, sonja.pecjak@ff.uni-lj.si
Current themes of research
Psychology of reading literacy, the processes of self-regulated and e-learning, students with learning disabilities, process by career decision making in school guidance and emotional intelligence in educational settings.
Relevant publications
Gradišek, P., Pečjak, S., RIjacev, M., Jurčec, L. (2020). Teaching as a calling and well-being of Slovenian and Croatian teachers. Psihologijske teme, 29(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.29.2.3
Komidar, L., Podlesek, A., Pirc, T., Pečjak, S., Depolli Steiner, K., Puklek Levpušček, M., Gril, A., Boh Podgornik, B., Hladnik, A., Kavčič, A., Bohak, C., Lesar, Ž., Marolt, M., Pesek, M., & Peklaj, C. (2022). Slovenian validation of the children’s perceived use of self-regulated learning inventory. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.730386
Pečjak, S., & Pirc, T. (2018). Developing summarizing skills in 4th grade students: intervention programme effects. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(5), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2018541306
Pečjak, S., & Pirc, T. (2020). Parental involvement in children’s career decision-making process in Slovenia: parents’ and children’s perspective. Journal of Psychological and Educational Research, 28(2), 31–54.
Pečjak, S., & Pirc, T. (2021). Hazers’ personality characteristics and the perception of school climate in Slovenia. Violence and victims, 36(4), 531–547. https://doi.org/10.1891/VV-D-19-00125
Pečjak, S., & Pirc, T. (2022). Teachers’ perceived competence in meeting students’ emotional needs during COVID-19. Psihologijske teme, 31(2), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.31.2.5
Pečjak, S., Pirc, T., Podlesek, A., Peklaj, C. (2021). Some predictors of perceived support and proximity in students curing COVID-19 distance learning. International electronic journal of elementary education, 14(1), 51–62. https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/1627
Pečjak, S, Podlesek, A., Pirc, T. (2019). Decision-making styles as predictors of career decision difficulties in secondary school students with regard to gender. Psihologijske teme, 28(3), 601–620. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.3.8
Pečjak, S., Pirc, T. (2019). Unofficial hazing in secondary schools: prevalence, activities, and attitudes. Psychology in the schools, 56(2), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22211
Pečjak, S., Pirc, T. (2018). Developing summarizing skills in 4th grade students: intervention programme effects. International electronic journal of elementary education, 10(5), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2018541306
Pirc, T., Pečjak, S., Polesek, A., Štirn, M. (2023). Perceived parenting styles and emotional control as predictors of peer bullying involvement. International electronic journal of elementary education, 15(4), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2023.304
Pirc, T., Pečjak, S. (2023). Moral (dis)engagement among higher education student-bystanders in cyberbullying. Didactica Slovenica Pedagoška obzorja, 38(2), 100–115.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Žerak, U., Juriševič, M. & Pečjak, S. Parenting and teaching styles in relation to student characteristics and self-regulated learning. Eur J Psychol Educ 39, 1327–1351 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00742-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00742-0