Exploring Teacher Behaviors that Support Student Self-regulated Learning in the Clinical Environment.

Exploring Teacher Behaviors that Support Student Self-regulated Learning in the Clinical Environment - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Med Sci Educ . 2025 Feb 11;35(3):1269–1275. doi: 10.1007/s40670-025-02300-3 Exploring Teacher Behaviors that Support Student Self-regulated Learning in the Clinical Environment Stephanie B Corliss 1, ✉ , Emily K Vinas 1 , Andrew D Bergemann 2 , Jonathan A MacClements 1 , Elizabeth A Nelson 1 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Medical Education, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX USA 2 Department of Education, Innovation and Technology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX USA ✉ Corresponding author. Accepted 2025 Jan 20; Collection date 2025 Jun. © The Author(s) under exclusive licence to International Association of Medical Science Educators 2025. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC12228876  PMID: 40625941 Abstract Introduction With rapidly evolving clinical practice and medical knowledge, future doctors must be independent lifelong learners. Self-regulated learning (SRL) represents a formalized approach to lifelong learning, involving cycles of planning, learning, assessment, and adjustment. Medical schools can create clinical environments where learners are instructed in SRL and encouraged to routinely practice using it. Clinical educators can provide guidance in SRL by co-regulating learning with students. The purpose of this study is to explore how clinical teachers co-regulate the learning process with students during clinical clerkships. Methods Data was analyzed from student evaluations of clinical teaching faculty and residents during clinical clerkships for two academic years. Based on Likert scale evaluation scores, the authors identified faculty and residents who supported student SRL. A constructivist qualitative approach was used to explore the open-ended comments ( n = 261 comments) written about these teachers to identify strategies for co-regulating learning in the clinical environment. Results Results revealed eight behaviors (e.g., supporting student goal-directed learning, offering constructive feedback) and one personal characteristic, being supportive and encouraging, that promote student SRL in the clinical environment. Teacher behaviors identified aligned with three SRL phases: planning, learning, and assessment. No teacher behaviors identified aligned with the adjustment phase of SRL. Conclusion The results of this study provide evidence of instructional practices that align with the planning, learning, and assessment SRL phases. As learners co-regulate with others in the clinical environment, additional research is needed to explore instructional interventions to improve the SRL process, particularly in the adjustment phase. Keywords: Medical education, Self-regulated learning, Lifelong learning, Qualitative methods, Clinical teaching, Co-regulated learning Introduction With clinical practice evolving, medical knowledge expanding exponentially, and access to factual knowledge becoming increasingly more accessible, future doctors must be lifelong learners who are willing and prepared to embrace, adjust to, and capitalize upon new circumstances, environments, and opportunities in a self-directed manner. We strive to educate leaders who exhibit adaptive expertise, who cultivate attitudes and aptitudes to recognize and act upon opportunities for invention, acknowledge strengths and limitations of one’s own knowledge and skills, and avoid strong emotional attachments to any particular set of beliefs to maintain optimal flexibility, and who respond to novel situations more effectively and creatively than those with routine expertise [ 1 , 2 ]. Self-regulated learning (SRL) represents a formalized approach to lifelong learning, involving cycles of planning, learning, assessment, and adjustment. Medical schools have the opportunity to create clinical environments in which learners are instructed in SRL and encouraged to routinely practice using it, helping them to develop adaptive expertise needed to tackle healthcare challenges and to remain nimble in the ever-changing healthcare environment [ 2 ]. In this study, we explored the characteristics and behaviors of clinical teachers that align with supporting medical student SRL in the clinical environment. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) acknowledges the importance of lifelong learning in their accreditation standards [ 3 ]. LCME specifically states that “self-directed learning involves medical students’ self-assessment of learning needs; independent identification, analysis, and synthesis of relevant information; appraisal of the credibility of information source; and feedback on these skills from faculty and staff” [ 3 ]. Nonetheless, there is a divergence of opinion around the precise definition of self-directed learning (SDL), how it relates to SRL, effective teaching methods to obtain these skills and behaviors, and best practices for assessment of these skills in medical learners. These differences have limited the adoption of learning experiences designed to result in the ongoing practice of SDL [ 4 , 5 ]. The concepts of SDL and SRL have been explored by educational psychologists over the last 40 years [ 6 – 11 ]. Both involve a plan, do, and check cycle where learners set goals, use strategies and resources to achieve the goals while monitoring progress, and reflect on the outcome so that adjustments can be made in the future if needed. SDL is the broader term that refers to an approach to learning where SRL is the process a learner uses related to specific learning goals or tasks. One key difference is that in SDL the learner defines the goal or task, whereas in SRL the goal could be defined by either the learner or an instructor [ 11 ]. An effective self-directed learner is also a skilled self-regulated learner who uses the SRL process when working towards a self-identified goal [ 11 , 12 ]. White, Gruppen, and Fantone’s model of SRL in medical education model includes four phases (planning, learning, assessment, and adjustment) [ 13 ]. In the planning phase, learners set personal goals that guide decisions about strategies to use and how success will be measured. Self-efficacy, or the belief in one’s ability to achieve a specific goal, and motivation are critical to goal setting. A strong positive sense of self-efficacy leads to setting challenging yet attainable goals and motivation is required to sustain activities linked to goals [ 13 , 14 ]. During the learning phase, the learner chooses specific methods and strategies to achieve their goals. Individual insight into learning preferences can help learners choose specific strategies appropriate for the task and context. During the assessment phase, the learner monitors progress towards goal achievement. This involves both self-assessment and external feedback from others. The final phase of the SRL process is the adjustment phase where learners reflect on goal achievement and attribute causes to their success or failure. Reflection involves examining the new information gained from self-assessment and external feedback during the assessment phase, weighing its validity, and drawing conclusions about what worked well and what could be done differently. Recent scoping and systematic reviews reveal that SRL is a complex process involving interaction between the learner and the context, and it is associated with academic achievement, success in clinical skills, and mental health, and that various factors can support SRL [ 15 , 16 ]. Both the educational psychology and medical education literature suggest that SRL skills can be taught and learned by students [ 7 – 14 ]. The development of lifelong learning “requires the support and nurturing of key personal attributes by educators and the environment (institutional, clinical and classroom) in which they work and teach” [ 6 ]. Recent research highlights how educators can support learners’ SRL skills in the clinical environment, particularly in the goal setting and planning phase [ 17 ], but there is little to no research related to supporting students during the adjustment phase of SRL. When the regulation of learning is shared between the learner and others, such as educators, it is known as co-regulated learning (CRL) [ 18 ]. This co-regulation often occurs naturally in a clinical environment as learners work with other learners, residents, attendings, and other healthcare providers. Papanagnou, Corliss, Richards, Artino, and Schwartzstein [ 19 ] propose a conceptual model demonstrating the intersection of SDL, SRL, and CRL. In this double helix model, one helix represents the learner who engages in multiple cycles of SRL over time. The other helix represents educators who offer support to the learner; this co-regulation is represented by the linkages of the helices. This iterative process spirals over time, and as the learner becomes more proficient in SRL, the co-regulation linkages decrease in frequency and the learner becomes a more independent self-directed learner (see Fig. 1 ). Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Progression of self-directed learning in the health professions. From: Papanagnou D, Corliss S, Richards JB, Artino Jr AR, Schwartzstein R. Progression of Self-Directed Learning in Health Professions Education: Clarifying Terms and Processes. Academic Medicine . 2024 Feb 1;99(2):236 The purpose of this study is to explore how faculty and residents co-regulate the learning process with students in clinical clerkships by identifying educator characteristics and behaviors that align with student SRL. Results could inform future research and interventions to better support faculty and students in the development of these lifelong learning skills. Materials and Methods A constructivist qualitative approach was used to explore characteristics and behaviors of medical school teaching faculty and residents that promote SRL in medical students in the clinical environment. Ethical consideration for human subjects’ research was followed and approval was obtained from the institutional review board. Participants and Context Data was analyzed from student evaluations of clinical teaching faculty and residents during clinical clerkships for two academic years. The first cohort included 50 students and the second included 47 students. All students completed the required clerkship curriculum: (1) five 8-week core clerkships (Internal Medicine, Psychiatry/Neurology, Pediatrics, Surgery, and Women’s Health), (2) a 4-week core Emergency Medicine clerkship, and (3) a longitudinal Primary Care, Community, and Family Medicine clerkship during their MS2 year. Students received a teacher evaluation form for each resident or faculty member they encountered in each of these clerkships and were required to complete at least six evaluation forms for each clerkship. A total of 604 faculty and residents were evaluated during the two academic years. To avoid outliers, we included only faculty who were evaluated by three or more learners in our analyses ( n = 415 faculty). Data Collection Evaluation data was collected using the One45 software platform. The teacher evaluation form contains eleven 5-point Likert scale items (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and three open-ended questions. For this study, we used the item “The faculty member/resident stimulated me to learn independently” to identify those who encourage student SRL. Sixty-one educators who were evaluated by three or more students received an average score of 5 on that item. For these 61 faculty and residents, we qualitatively coded the open-ended responses to the items “Please comment on the strengths of this faculty member or resident” and “Please provide any other comments” ( n = 261 individual comments). Data Analysis To address reflexivity and ensure multiple perspectives when analyzing and interpreting the data, we assembled a diverse qualitative research team with expertise in both theories of learning and clinical medical education. The team included a PhD education specialist (SC), an MD clinical educator focused on UME (EN), an EdD education specialist (EV), and an MD clinical educator focused on GME (JM). Using a qualitative data analysis framework by Miles et al. [ 20 ] and the constant comparative method [ 21 ], the four researchers jointly reviewed approximately 20% of the comments ( n = 60 comments) to identify themes that emerged and to iteratively create a codebook. This occurred over four coding sessions. Sessions 1 and 2 included ten comments each and sessions 3 and 4 included 20 comments each. Each researcher coded comments individually and then engaged in group discussion until consensus was reached. After each session, researchers reexamined the codebook and together narrowed definitions and added new codes with specific definitions to ensure consistent use of the codes. By the end of session 4, researchers reached consensus on the final codebook and inter-rater reliability was calculated to be 85%. Comments were divided among three researchers (SC, EV, and EN) for final coding. Results Faculty Behaviors Aligned with SRL Qualitative data analysis revealed behaviors that can be categorized in eight themes and one personal characteristic of clinical educators that promoted SRL. The most frequently indicated behaviors were the following: offering constructive feedback, making students feel a part of the team, and supporting student goal-directed learning. Once the clinical teacher behaviors were identified, we considered how each related to the four phases of SRL: planning, learning, assessment, adjustment [ 13 ] (see Fig. 2 ). See Table 1 for the complete list of behavior themes, definitions, and example student comments. Fig. 2. Open in a new tab Teacher behaviors aligned with medical student SRL in the clinical learning environment Table 1. Qualitative themes, definitions, and student comments Behaviors Self-regulated learning phase Behavior theme Definition Sample student comments Planning Belongingness Supported self-efficacy by making students feel useful and a valued part of the team She is very invested in the students on her team, and does a great job of making them feel as though they are valuable team members Student goal-directed learning Supported goal-directed learning; working towards student expressed interest/goal NOT teacher-directed learning points I particularly appreciated that she had us define our own individual learning goals at the beginning of the week Expectation setting Set clear expectations for students I appreciate how X gave us solid objectives every day during rounds Learning Autonomy Allowed student autonomy and direct involvement in patient care He really encourages students to take an active role in the care of patient Learning resources Provided learning resources and extension opportunities to the students X encouraged my learning by sharing evidence-based articles with me Role-modeling clinical curiosity Modeled clinical curiosity in asking and seeking answers to questions that emerge during patient care He was skilled at expanding even a simple clinical case into one rich with teaching points (e.g., etiology, pathophysiology, treatment, and clinical course) which encouraged my clinical curiosity as a learner Assessment Feedback Gave timely and constructive feedback on presentations, notes, patient interactions, etc She takes many moments to give constructive feedback Questioning Asked questions of the students to support learning She asked us questions relevant to the cases of that day General characteristic All phases Caring and supportive Interacted with the student in a caring, encouraging, and supportive way He gave a lot of words of encouragement and support Open in a new tab Planning Themes related to the planning phase include setting expectations for students, supporting student goal-directed learning, and promoting self-efficacy through creating a sense of belongingness (e.g., making students feel valued and a useful member of the team). One student commented, “He did a great job of laying out the expectations for the rotation at the start . ” Another student expressed appreciation for being able to set personal goals during a rotation and receive feedback from her attending, “She encouraged students to set goals for themselves and work towards them throughout the rotation.” Another student commended on a sense of belongingness, “Dr. X did a great job making med students feel useful and a part of the team.” Each of these teacher behaviors promoted students to take responsibility for their own learning. Setting expectations, prompting learners to articulate their individual goals, and defining meaningful goal-oriented tasks that support usefulness and value to the patient and the team can increase self-efficacy and motivation to set challenging goals for learning [ 13 , 14 ]. Learning Themes related to the learning phase include allowing learner autonomy, role-modeling clinical curiosity, and providing learning opportunities and resources. One student commented, “X provided opportunities for me to stretch my clinical reasoning, encouraged me to take ownership of my patients and their care, and created an environment where I felt like a functional and useful member of the team.” which demonstrates supporting learner autonomy . Another commented, “He is ever curious and taught me a lot about the value of a good neurological exam and the ways we can use our physical exam to validate and/or question what our other tests are telling us.” Another student explained how an attending provided learning resources, “X always found learning topics in each patient and tied them to my level of expertise, and gave great additional learning hand outs and mini lectures.” These teacher behaviors allow learners to practice, observe, or learn about clinical knowledge and skills as they take care of patients. Assessment Themes that support assessment include offering timely and constructive feedback and questioning by the teacher. One student commented on the helpfulness of feedback, “He was also amazingly generous with walking me through three of my write ups and provided quick and thorough feedback on my work identifying the areas that I could improve on in future assessments and write ups and changes I could make to my current ones.” Another student shared, “Dr. X always asked questions about the cases and procedures we did, and helped me work through to the answer myself. If it was something I didn’t know or couldn’t come to with prompting, he was patient and did an excellent job of teaching in a way that was easy to understand and apply.” These teacher behaviors allow learners to monitor their learning and get feedback on their progress. Adjustment No behaviors identified in our findings relate to the adjustment phase of the SRL process. We found no examples of our clinical instructors prompting students to reflect on their learning, to assign attribution for their successes and/or failures, or to make plans for future learning. Teacher Characteristic Aligned with SRL We identified one affective characteristic of instructors, interacting with students in a caring and supportive way, that appeared to encourage student self-regulated learning in all phases. One student commented, “I really appreciated X’s combination of having high expectations of us as medical students while at the same time being very encouraging. I always felt like I was being pushed to learn more and improve, but always in a very positive way.” Another student commented, “X was a wonderful teacher and mentor. She was a great example of how to talk to all kinds of patients, regardless of personal situations. I really appreciated her willingness to take time to teach and discuss topics between patients, even when things were busy in the clinic. This teaching time made me feel respected and supported.” Expressing care and offering support can create a psychologically safe environment that allows learners to feel comfortable in expressing their goals, to take initiative during patient care, to ask questions, and to ask for feedback, all of which improve their learning and performance and build confidence. Discussion Our study identified teaching behaviors aligned with three phases of student SRL, but none aligned with the final SRL phase, adjustment. These findings support research that acknowledges social and environmental factors can interact to influence medical students’ SRL during clinical learning [ 22 , 23 ]. Clinical learning occurs in workplace settings as medical students interact with other members of the clinical team (e.g., other medical students, residents, attendings, other healthcare providers, and patients) [ 24 ]; this co-regulation process is shared by the learner and others [ 18 , 19 ]. Researchers have found the relationship between SRL and CRL to be reciprocal; social interactions support learners’ development of SRL skills as they work with supervisors to set realistic goals, implement learning strategies, and reflect on development, and as learners become more skilled at SRL, they are more willing and able to expand their networks and engage others to enhance their learning activities [ 24 – 26 ]. We learned that our educators can create environments that promote self-efficacy through belongingness, prompt goal setting, offer autonomy and choice to support students’ intrinsic motivation, role-model active learning strategies and clinical curiosity during patient care, and provide constructive feedback related to goals. However, we found no examples of clinical instructors supporting the adjustment phase of SRL, such as prompting students to reflect on their learning to assign attribution for their successes and/or failures to make the necessary adjustments for continued learning. Research on self-monitoring reveals that learners are not always accurate in their assessments and that external feedback is needed from others [ 27 – 29 ]. Additionally, learners often make attributions for their successes and failures subconsciously, but these attributions can strongly influence future behavior [ 30 ]. Learners are most successful at achieving learning goals and outcomes when they attribute successes and failures to internal, unstable, and controllable factors, such as the amount of effort put in and the type of learning strategies used [ 13 ]. As learners co-regulate with others in the clinical environment, future medical education research could focus on interventions to support students in self-monitoring and reflection, particularly in the adjustment phase of SRL. Limitations This study was limited to a single institution. Additionally, students are not required to evaluate all faculty and residents they work with, but rather choose at least six to evaluate for each clerkship rotation. Finally, the item on the evaluation form used to identify faculty who may have encouraged SRL is not directly linked to the SRL process, but instead asks if they were “supported to learn independently.” Including more than one item related to SRL on the evaluation form could better identify teachers who support this process. Regardless, the behaviors identified through the evaluation comments revealed teaching strategies aligned with SRL, suggesting ways teachers can co-regulate learning in the clinical environment. Implications The results of this study have already led to changes at our institution. The faculty evaluation form has been revised to include three additional items directly related to SRL: (1) supported setting specific and challenging goals (planning phase), (2) provided feedback focused on improvement (assessment phase), and (3) prompted reflection on performance to identify strengths and areas for improvement (adjustment phase). This form also serves as a professional development tool for faculty because it highlights expectations of a clinical teacher that align with the mission of the institution. Additional research is needed to explore instructional interventions to improve the SRL process especially in the adjustment phase of SRL. Integrating personalized learning plans into the curriculum either within or across clerkships could allow students to express explicit goals, work towards these goals with feedback from the faculty and residents, and then reflect on their progress to adjust or set new goals for the future. Another strategy could include the development of descriptive evaluation or other teaching tools, accompanied by professional development on their use, to prompt faculty and residents to support the SRL process with a particular focus on reflection and attribution in the adjustment phase. Conclusion The results of this study revealed instructional strategies aligned with three of the four phases of SRL: planning, learning, and assessment. We did not identify explicit examples of faculty and resident behaviors that prompted medical students to engage in the adjustment phase, which includes individual reflection and appropriate attribution for successes and failures. To become effective self-regulated learners and adaptive experts, medical students must be able to reflect upon their performance, weigh the validity of feedback, and draw conclusions about what worked well and what could be done differently. In addition, attribution is a crucial component of the SRL process. When performed poorly, attribution errors can derail a learner’s ability to appropriately set new goals or properly course correct. Future work could focus on designing and studying clinical learning activities that teach students how to reflect on their performance and attribute causes to their successes and failures. Ideally, as learners progress along the medical education continuum, the SRL process becomes automatic, and they independently pursue lifelong learning. Data Availability The qualitative data underlying this study are not publicly available due to ethical considerations regarding participant confidentiality. Declarations Ethics Approval This study was approved by the University of Texas at Austin Institutional Review Board. Ethical consideration for human subjects’ research was followed and approval was obtained from the institutional review board. Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Hatano G, Inagaki K. Two courses of expertise. In: Stevenson H, Azuma H, Hakuta K, editors. Child development and education in Japan. NY: Freeman; 1986. p. 262–72. [ Google Scholar ] 2. Lajoie SP, Gube M. Adaptive expertise in medical education: accelerating learning trajectories by fostering self-regulated learning. Med Teach. 2018;40(8):809–12. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Liaison Committee for Medical Education. 2024–2025 Functions and Structure of a Medical School: Standards for Accreditation of Medical Education Programs Leading to the MD Degree. Retrieved from http://lcme.org/publications/ . Accessed April 12, 2024. 4. Murad MH, Coto-Yglesias F, Varkey P, Prokop LJ, Murad AL. The effectiveness of self-directed learning in health professions education: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2010;44(11):1057–68. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Horsley T, O'Neill J, McGowan J, Perrier L, Kane G, Campbell C. Interventions to improve question formulation in professional practice and self-directed learning. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(5):CD007335. 10.1002/14651858.CD007335.pub2. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 6. Ricotta DN, Richards JB, Atkins KM, Hayes MM, McOwen K, Soffler MI, Tibbles CD, Whelan AJ, Schwartzstein RM. Millennium Conference 2019 writing group. Self-directed learning in medical education: training for a lifetime of discovery. Teach Learn Med. 2022;34(5):530–40. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Knowles MS. Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York: Association Press; 1975. 8. Zimmerman BJ. A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. J Educ Psychol. 1989;81(3):329. [ Google Scholar ] 9. Pintrich PR. Understanding self-regulated learning. New Dir Teach Learn. 1995;63:3–12. [ Google Scholar ] 10. Butler DL, Winne PH. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Rev Educ Res. 1995;65(3):245–81. [ Google Scholar ] 11. Loyens SM, Magda J, Rikers RM. Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol Rev. 2008;20:411–27. [ Google Scholar ] 12. Gandomkar R, Sandars J. Clearing the confusion about self-directed learning and self-regulated learning. Med Teach. 2018;40(8):862–3. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. White CB, Gruppen LD, Fantone JC. Self-regulated learning in medical education. In: Swanwick T, editor. Understanding medical education: evidence, theory and practice. 2nd Edition. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell; 2014. 14. Pintrich, PR, Schunk, DH. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2002. 15. van Houten-Schat MA, Berkhout JJ, Van Dijk N, Endedijk MD, Jaarsma AD, Diemers AD. Self-regulated learning in the clinical context: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2018;52(10):1008–15. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Cho KK, Marjadi B, Langendyk V, Hu W. The self-regulated learning of medical students in the clinical environment–a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17:1–3. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Smith M, Buckley S, Davison I. Enhancing trainee clinical scientists’ self-regulated learning in the workplace. Clin Teach. 2022;19(5):e13513. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Hadwin AF, Järvelä S, Miller M. Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. 2011;30:65-84. 19. Papanagnou D, Corliss S, Richards JB, Artino AR Jr, Schwartzstein R. Progression of self-directed learning in health professions education: Clarifying terms and processes. Acad Med. 2024;99(2):236. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 3rd. 21. Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications; 2017. 22. Berkhout JJ, Helmich E, Teunissen PW, van den Berg JW, van der Vleuten CP, Jaarsma AD. Exploring the factors influencing clinical students’ self-regulated learning. Med Educ. 2015;49(6):589–600. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Berkhout JJ, Helmich E, Teunissen PW, van der Vleuten CP, Jaarsma AD. Context matters when striving to promote active and lifelong learning in medical education. Med Educ. 2018;52(1):34–44. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Bransen D, Govaerts MJ, Panadero E, Sluijsmans DM, Driessen EW. Putting self-regulated learning in context: integrating self-, co-, and socially shared regulation of learning. Med Educ. 2022;56(1):29–36. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Bransen D, Govaerts MJ, Sluijsmans DM, Driessen EW. Beyond the self: The role of co-regulation in medical students’ self-regulated learning. Med Educ. 2020;54(3):234–41. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Bransen D, Govaerts MJ. How to conceptualise self-regulated learning: Implications for measurement. Med Educ. 2020;54(8):684. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Rezler AG. Self-assessment in problem-based groups. Med Teach. 1989;11(2):151–6. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Das M, Mpofu, Lanphear. Self and tutor evaluations in problem-based learning tutorials: is there a relationship? Med Education. 1998;32(4):411–8. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Tousignant M, DesMarchais JE. Accuracy of student self-assessment ability compared to their own performance in a problem-based learning medical program: a correlation study. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2002;7:19–27. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Cook DA, Artino AR Jr. Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories. Med Educ. 2016;50(10):997–1014. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement The qualitative data underlying this study are not publicly available due to ethical considerations regarding participant confidentiality. Articles from Medical Science Educator are provided here courtesy of Springer ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.1 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Development and Validity Evidence of the Motivational Regulation Strategies Inventory (MRSI)#1054917
• The effects of training in self-regulated learning and achievement orientations in lower socioeconomic elementary students#957899
• The interaction of goal orientation and interest on students' use of self-regulated learning strategies#1020488
• Influence of Teachers Self-Efficacy and Classroom Conditions on Learner Engagement#364021
• Regulation in Real Time: A Mixed-Methods Study of PharmD Student Learning at a Live Board of Pharmacy Meeting#328049